Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. Ummm, basic T-64 in late 1960s had 115mm and in 1980 we had them all with 125mm and T-72s with 125mm. Both of these easily out ranged 105 - hence why M1 got its main gun replaced to 120mm.
    1
  2.  @w0mblemania  They did not take Kiev b/c it seems they were as shocked to go as were Ukrainians. Notice how well things went down south vs. North. Morale was good. This is a total BS. Same as training. We can see that they resisted being kicked out by UA troops even when out numbered at least 4:1 sometimes 5:1. I think one person is to blame for poor decision making, and that is Putin whom make "snap" decision to invade. Down south they just opened envelopes. Up north they had lots of issues - even with air force - ground setup.
    1
  3.  @benc9802  Well, some towns were non mountain forts - every house is connected to every other house underground. Lots of concrete used. They are heavily fortified. Like ... super heavy.
    1
  4.  @Draconisrex1  Use so called pigeon hole principle. Basic math. You have 200k Russians and for them you have 400k Ukrainians. By that principle, there has to be situation where there are more Ukrainians then Russians. About half of Ukrainian army is in Donbass. Most of troops form republics are in Donbass (95%) Russia had to use like what, 50k in the south given territory they are holding? They had 30k in Belarus. They need at least 10k+ in Donbass just for support role. But that leaves only 10k in Kharkiv front. So the whole northern front is maybe 30k, Kharkiv 20k and Crimea 40k. You seriously are telling me, Ukraine had just 30k of troops in Kiev area, Chernihiev and whole north east???? They given away like how many rifles in Kiev????
    1
  5.  @celebrim1  Russia could not send 74 vs. Kiev as its total forces are 100k. I think I calculated above 30-40k for whole northern front - i.e. the whole thing that retreated was just 30-40k. Probably 30k. We know the 60km convoy or whatever you want to call it later on was 12k. So maybe when they moved some troops from Kharkiv front later on they had maybe 45k-50k with some chechens. Your math is impossible. Reason is that Ukraine outnumbered Russians and still does in this war - currently roughly 2 to 1. So it would mean, if you are correct, that on some other front Ukrainians out numbered Russians 10:1. Which I find hard to believe. I mean there is only so much you can do with total force of 100k. Plus around 10k Chechens and later on 5k wagner / others. If Russian forces and chechens (all 10k) accounted for 74k, then it would mean whole kharkiv, support of Donbass and whole Crimea was just 36k troops! If we remove say 15k for Kharkiv at the very least, and even tiny number like 5k for Donbass we are left with impossible number of just 16k for Crimea - they probably need at least 10k now to even hold the territory. Please be reasonable.
    1
  6.  @Luredreier  You can go and see its combat record in DCS. Standard F-16 like plane. I trust a simulator far more then exercises such as "red flag" or similar.
    1
  7.  @LazyBastard675  If that was true we would see sales to neutrals. But we do not. Also Sweden does not have high tech.
    1
  8.  @LazyBastard675  If that was true for everyone - hence I said Neutral - small countries would not sell arms - including lots that Sweden sells. Really? Grippen sales are public. I do not see big sales - it is not even close to anyone from France - supposedly superior aircraft cannot sell even through its cheaper. Its marketing hype only. Once it goes head to head in evaluations it falls short. It is only bought as a budget aircraft. Main strength of grippen is that it is cheap and there is full tech transfer. Look at what they are doing to Canada - I mean they practically offer it for free compared to F-35. No airforce that expects to fight has bought grippen - major customers such as India - which needs a light fighter - avoided it. Even when they were desperate and very low on $$$. India went with French. Supposedly inferior and far more expensive. Again Saab is offering it for next to nothing, sending unsolicitated bids with not just full tech transfer, but also huge offsets and investments. So why Grippen cannot win anything given that it is so good, so cheap, offers huge offsets unmatched by anyone? Even their good buddies Finds chose, inferior, according to you F-18. Now Fins are again aiming to replace F-18 and we have Grippen x2 - would not be shocked if it lost again. Even if you family does not want it, must be not that great. I only look at grippen as a mid capability low cost fighter whose main strength is its price to what you get ratio. For about 1/2 intial price of F-35 you get aircraft that can do 85% of what F-35 can, plus 25 year ownership is like 1/3. So billions saved. It is based on same principle as say MiG-29M - very cheap, mid performance, cheap maintenance.
    1
  9.  @LazyBastard675  Grippen was an alternative to F-35 as per Saab marketing. So sure I can. You have a point with Fins but not with India, as Indian one was few years ago. They are re-running it again as 2.0.
    1
  10.  @LazyBastard675  Sweden uses mostly US tech that is not secret for non NATO country to use in Grippen. It is simply not financially possible for Sweden to develop a lot of stuff on its own. They don't have billions and billions to do so. Thus they use off the shelf stuff. The ones that use marketing a LOT are Swedes which made every troll out there believe that Grippen is great yet it for some reason is hated by people that acutally buy it. Even I am for a grippen - on price alone. For Canada I advocate Grippen - as a less capable but cheaper alternative to latest F-16. Sure its less capable but so what, marginally only and for bombing terrorists its great. Canada will not fight a defensive war on its territory at least not without US support - so Grippen would be escorted by F-35s for bombing runs - which it is great at. US will have F-16s for a long time - so its not like Grippen will be junk in next 20 years. Yet at 1/2 price of F-35 and 1/3 operational cost and tech transfer and offset its real project cost is 1/4 of F-35. Same deal for Poland, except Poland actually believes it will fight Russia - so Grippen is not seen as capable in the air vs. latest Flankers or new Su-57 or upcoming stealthy light fighter. BUT only 32 F-35s without any offset would mean program that can get Poland for same cost 20 years down the line of around 80 grippens. That would give a large sortie ratio for Grippens vs. so few F-35s. No matter how good F-35 is it cannot clone itself. Besides poor air capability of grippen can be somehow managed with sensor synergy on local territory - i.e. Grippens would quickly die over Russia - but for defense only they may be OK. For Poland, more so then India, political factors can be said to play major role. For Canada, there is little pressure as compared to Poland - so one can expect a fair evaluation. If Grippen looses despite 4 times price advantage its not a good opinion.
    1
  11.  @LazyBastard675  If you believe that Grippen is so good you are easily manipulated by marketing. It cannot be that good as it has basic off the shelf stuff. It badly looses to Eurofighter and to F-35. It also looses to latest F-16V in almost all aspects except for maybe dog fighting (which F-16 looses to MiG-29). There are plenty of others - i.e. Grippen is not that great. Its strengths are not its performance, but its price to performance. Same as T-90 MBT, it may not be great but for the price is the best selling tank in the world right now.
    1
  12.  @LazyBastard675  Oh for sure it will be less - Canada has a lot of non US equipment and is totally fine with it. If it was so political Canada would have had F-35s by now. Also there was a lot of sanctions in air industry - this is the reason Canada did not buy anything US made. I know both countries very well, both from military and political side.
    1
  13.  @LazyBastard675  Dude, red flag is a joke and marketing ploy. In it Su-30MKI owned F-22. I take DCS simulation over red flag any day. The off the shelf components are indeed from some of the fighters I am talking about BUT not the very best. Certainly it has no F-35 quality radar or same latest pods as Eurofighter has. Reason is they cannot be shipped easily to anyone. Even what it has was vetoed by UK so no sales to Argentina. No one will easily give you latest tech - you could not buy F-22 engines even if you were US friend and F-35 program is well vetted. Go back to you red flag where today one fighter wins 100 to 1 and tomorrow it looses 200:1. F-16 has better networking then Grippen NG as the system existed for some time now and has elements from F-35 and F-22 - it is better tested & far more $$$ was spent on it. All modern NATO fighters can use smart weapons. Certainly its RCS is no better then other 4.5 gen fighters and kind of lags behind full on 5th gen.
    1
  14.  @LazyBastard675  feeling is mutual.
    1
  15.  @jooger69  If they get to the number of 72 - they are in no hurry. Why? Su-35 does the role and does it cheaper & they do not need so many long range strike aircraft. Heck US has now less then 200 with no plans to have more & they are replacing them soon with 6th gen (already announced) and I bet total will be around 100 planes. So 72 for Russia is a huge number. What Russia will have is the equivalent to the F-35 - same as everyone else in large numbers. Only country that will have large number of Su-57 / F-22s is China - mostly b/c their capability dwarfs everyone else & I also bet they will soon get their F-35 equivalent. Notice a pattern yet?
    1
  16.  @Hejhå-h2f  LOL, the G limits are official data for many planes. We know actual G limits posted by actual manufacturer. And we know we don't have materials to go much above that anyways. We also know actual speeds of said aircraft. We know exact engine thrust etc.
    1
  17. Same as Zielinski and his Nazi army.
    1
  18. Also 95% of Russians, including all opposition support Crimea takeover. Even pro western opposition. Even pro pro pro western.
    1
  19. Holodomor was not a gendercide like holocaust was b/c Holodomor was not targeted at just Ukrainian people - it was a stupid communist move, later on copied in China. About half of the victims were pp on territory of present day Ukraine. As to the Jews in Israel they are descendants of Jews that lived on territory of old Polish state, whose big part is present day Ukraine. I.e. there were never too many Russian Jews or German Jews etc. almost all Jews in present day Europe are from old Polish state (80%+). Hence why almost all Jews that are 70+ today speak Polish - at least I never met single one that did not speak some Polish.
    1
  20. Why would Russia want problems, at least for itself - it only wants problems for US.
    1
  21. Nah, this is "current talk" - there were no issues deploying troops during the crisis of 1980s in Poland. My uncle was in the army. Poland's task was taking out rather minor NATO - like doing some amphibious attacks (hence so many ships of the class) and also taking out Austria. No one would switch sides if all of their loved ones were just vaporized by NATO. Would you join your enemy if they just killed your mom?
    1
  22. Given Polish current leadership I expect Poland to threaten Russia with invasion by 2025 ;) By 2025 Poland's forces set for WWII style combat would be by far and wide strongest in EU. Close to combined strength of France + Germany. Baltics would offer only token resistance I do not expect it to take more then few days to make a narrow corridor. Other than strong Polish reaction I fear Baltics would be gone. Maybe not forever but for a month or two till "agreement" on Russian withdrawal would be reached. I doubt Finland would be stupid enough to go for continuation war - they know how last one ended. Once peace was secured in the Baltics Russia may be left to "deal" with Finland. More likely is Ukraine. Realistically it would be up to US. This is the most realistic scenario of war in EU - Baltic leaders in Estonia and Latvia going full Hitler on Russian population and forcing Putin to respond (as EU is too stupid to do so). In such case outside of Poland do not expect much EU involvement.
    1
  23. One should not use Arab nations to see how things would have gone. Remember many of these Arab states now have US equipment and things do not exactly look great for them.
    1
  24. Actually Finland with some exceptions is not that cold. It is warmer by far then Canada and Russia. At least where people live. Norway is down right tropical.
    1
  25.  @reisen1932  Well, they did help 20 years ago with tanks and aircraft but since then not much help - at least the Leo2PL is not subsidized by Germany in any way. I admit a lot has to do with Polish government that is not exactly "nice".
    1
  26.  @huntingrunner  What do you mean PL has to become true democracy - it is true democracy - it is the world's 2nd democracy after US and before France. PL government mistake is they are not playing soft with EU and not making alliances in EU. They are like elephant in china shop.
    1
  27.  @nervsouly  But is PIS doing that? They are standing up to EU for their totally out of line requests regarding EU law supremacy. Only "big guys" in EU don't seem to regard EU law supremacy - something little guys should take for granted... so how exactly is Poland not standing up for freedom? Or maybe it is standing up more then others?
    1
  28.  @nervsouly  well I am not in Poland. My rights are removed quickly in Canada. But I was born under communism. So I know when bondage is applied. You were born in the west. So you have no clue when strings are pulled. So you don't know you are a puppet.
    1
  29.  @kapitanbumm344  US, Poland, France, order of democracy on Earth via constitutional reforms.
    1
  30.  @kapitanbumm344  Why? There is no hard and fast rule here. The changes are count are these to constitution and are "modern". Anyone can make some rules and start making some claims - I mean the British point out to a deal they signed with a king. Greeks can point out they started the concept - at least written it down. What I count are constitutional changes that give set of some modern guarantees - these were not present anywhere in such complete form as in say US declaration. Of course neither of the three I mentioned are perfect, but at least they are a modern attempt - one has to point out that slavery was still a thing in the US as an example. But at least there was an aim. Perhaps one create a point system, and if something scores X on freedom index, it can be considered.
    1
  31. This one would be very interesting - France + Greece vs. Turkey. Greece would loose a lot of small islands for sure but would Turkey loose Northern Cyprus? I doubt French have even close to the required back bone.
    1
  32.  @swisscheese1629  If they had million soldiers, and Russia has per CNN only 80,000 plus 70,000 allies why Ukraine not winning? And winning big?
    1
  33. Same way you guys fought to the end against Germans?
    1
  34. Turkey made - maybe - a 4.5 gen aircraft that is yet to actually fly. France makes 4.5 aircraft that fly now for like what, a decade?
    1
  35. Nukes, not being part of the war. Stuff like that.
    1
  36. LOL! With 1980s engines ;) TB-2 known as the flame of Ukraine ;) Again copy of first US combat drone ;) Do you think people in the west are stupid or something?
    1
  37. Russian support for war is at 70%. No one is overthrowing Putin and if they did, its to pick someone better in war fighting.
    1
  38. Overall Taiwan should drag its feet on reunification. Any stomping its ground means PRC will take them over by force if not today then in 10 or 20 years. That is inevitable. But feet dragging could make it 50 years or more. Or maybe even never (!)
    1
  39.  @darkprofile  Umm, that was, 100 years ago. In WWI both were on the same side. Of note is that the main friction between Greeks and Russians is due to the later selling arms to Turkey. Greece is very friendly with Armenia and is also a Russian customer. With Greece being in EU Russia gains influential friend.
    1
  40. Oh, bullets were plentiful - at least 2x (more like 3x) as many as NATO had.
    1
  41. It is quite possible that Iraq would be a walk through it has no military capability to speak of. Local militia would favor Iran. So more likely scenario is full on passage of military from Iran to Syria and most of Iraq on Syrian side.
    1
  42.  @salamyaya162  It is certainly more on Iranian side then on US side, at least when no force was used against it and it had free will. What does buying Turkish drones have to do with it? Does Iran sell drones? Even if Iran were to sell drones Iraq cannot buy them as any such purchase would make US very, very, very angry.
    1
  43. And because he "thought" these things for 8 long years he: 1. Sanction proofed the economy. 2. Invested heavily in the military - industrial complex to support long war. Putin did all these preparations ... and now is clearly winning the war.... so I fail to see how Russia lost everything. Did US loose everything in WWII as well? How about WWI?
    1
  44.  @eckhardt76  And you do know that Nazi Germany managed to build that huge army in less than a decade due to US investment, do you?
    1
  45.  @HyperNova48  Ukraine has shown that with their S-300 they can down a lot of missiles. And that is with 1980s (late) tech. China certainly has better system, maybe not S-400 level but certainly that of a patriot. US has very few anti-missile systems or anti Air. US does not even have any mid range systems at all. US has precious few mobile short range systems. US is an attacker, defense is not really US thing. I am unsure what "coast" has to do with it. It does not matter where things are. They are all well within missile range of both parties. China can easily out produce US and has easily far better defense capability. China also easily has more missiles as wars have shown US stocks are low. Compare US stocks to Russia is a joke as Russia has proven they have way more in its current war in Ukraine. I think you are way over estimating missile damage. Through they are precise they are single warhead which can be solid or cluster. Factories are immense. It took 1000s of hits to soften up industrial areas of Mariupol. Factories in China are just as vast - you would need at least few dozen missiles to disrupt a factory making say steel & at least 100+ to demolish it. No country on earth has that capability. No country has caring capacity for missile. Also as far as missiles go most would be low flying cruise missiles for which you need point defense systems... you know, these that US has ... zero of. Chinese, as Russians today, as Americans, are not willing to die for CCP, Putin and Biden. They are fighting for their nation states. In industrial war US has same chances against China as Germany had vs. US in WWII. Numbers are similar. I.e. none.
    1
  46.  @HyperNova48  Chinese output in production is about 2x that of US. And in heavy industries more close to 3x or 4x. I.e. Chinese could make 3 to 4x as many tanks as US easily. Chinese car manufacturing is easily 2x that of US. Chinese electronics manufacturing is easily 10x that of US. The only temporary parity US could have is in aircraft manufacturing, but not for long. Main US cities are coastal as well. China is as insulated from foreign trade as US - its one of the most resistant to trade attack nations on the planet. Also Chinese trade is mostly through land. Most drones are made in China. Turkish drones have proven (no surprise) not effective against Russian Anti Air systems. Crippling sanctions? US could not even cripple Russia ;) Face it. The era of US dominance is over. Its the time of China. China is not alone vs. the west. She has the might of Asia. Its the west vs. about 4x its size.
    1
  47.  @HyperNova48  US was sole global superpower for a brief period. Now we can clearly see US is in 2nd place and balance of world power shifted to Beijing. China 1:1 without nukes would win the war against US since it can out produce it multiple times over. Chinese also have far more experience making things then US and have capability to easily make more. Accept the truth. The age of US is over. The age of China has started. You can believe it or not. That is up to you. You clearly never been to China, never seen its power and its factories etc. You never seen its industrial might that dwarfs US.
    1
  48. Nah, last time Russia was close to collapse China sent a life line. They cannot loose Russia.
    1
  49. Ukraine has higher corruption then Russia, so I doubt it.
    1
  50. More likely Egypt would join Greek - French union.
    1