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

  1. I think its logical that Ukraine lost at least twice as many tanks as Russia. Also at least twice as many people (even including Donbass militia) There is simply no other logical explanation.
    1
  2. Soviets mostly took a large hit as they went after insurgents into the hills while NATO just fortified itself in their bases. I still remember a Taliban commander saying on TV 10 years ago "We defeated Soviets and they were far better soldiers the Americans, so we will defeat US as well" - flanked by 2 former US soldiers ;)
    1
  3. Was not an issue during WWII.
    1
  4.  @1202burton  Combat fatality was few percent - not sure who said 55% - that is even higher than submarine duty. KIA was few percent. Around 50m plus died in WWII - this includes civilians. Combat KIA now are fraction of a percent. What are you smoking?
    1
  5.  @patrickweaver1105  b/c Russians aimed a bit too high, the article 30 engine is even more efficient (on paper) then then one in F-35. That is a giant leap to make.
    1
  6. Without nukes it is an easy win for Warsaw pact. No one would start war in 1989 - unrealistic. A real start could be 1975 or 1980. Germans estimate in the 1980s it would take max 4 weeks to take Germany. There was a strong push for last stand in Spain - which would be impossible to take. Also question of French neutrality. Finally NATO planned to just blow up Germany with nuclear mines. Using WWII to estimate casualties is a joke - why WWII - why not 30 year war ;) If non nuclear by day 60 we would have Soviets in control of France and Germany and taking most of other NATO other then Spain. If Spain NOT in NATO yet more or less total Soviet victory except UK - which cannot be taken. Nukes made Soviet victory not attainable. Note 100s of nukes were to be used in the first days of any war.
    1
  7. Soviet tanks love wet stuff. All of their armored vehicles can swim. Russia is a wet land. Market Garden failed b/c of idiots in British command. Heck the Polish brigade commander said the plan is idiotic but was overruled and vengeful Brits even blocked his military pension. So much for being right.
    1
  8.  @nicopohl2060  Every country in the world is becoming more and more socialist, even the US. All of Europe embraced socialism and they are fine, some even very fine. Switzerland is quite socialist, with wealth tax, yet it is consistently either at the #1 or #2 spot as far as total wealth per capita is considered.
    1
  9.  @nicopohl2060  No I am not. In market socialism people co-own means of production. As the government expands its ownership of services it expands the economy based on co-owned production. I.e. the bigger the public sector the bigger the socialist based economy. Swiss are close to what is called a Social Democracy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy there is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model As you can see we have plenty of socialist countries and they actually score better in say press freedom then US - they certainly are seen as far less tyrannical then US.
    1
  10.  @nicopohl2060  I was born under socialist regime in Poland. I now live in Canada. I can assure you when you compare apples to apples Canada is more socialist today then early 1980s Poland.
    1
  11. "victory is on the side of the rightous" and hence Russia will prevail!
    1
  12.  @grandayatollah5655  I estimated total war losses at 200 before start of this and was told that is way too high (and at least half of these to be repaired). I guess I may have been wrong. We see by the end of this - maybe.
    1
  13. Main problem for Egypt - luck of will to fight. I told once an Egyptian, that if they all picked rocks they would stone Israel - no guns needed. Without this will to fight hard Egypt is a paper tiger. That is the problem - every simulation on earth since WWII has Arabs winning - but they just cannot pull it off.
    1
  14. Same for Ukraine - lots of evidence of war crimes but only Ukraine has shown us 3 videos of POW execution - so for Ukraine we have clear and undeniable war crimes.
    1
  15. LOL. You have cool imagination. If there is a fight between Russia and US tactical nukes will quickly get involved.
    1
  16. For Ukrainians.
    1
  17.  @CHMichael  You can have a backup as current missiles - most likely radio command. I suspect this is against targets that cannot exactly defend themselves too well, such as freighters. Or smaller naval ships.
    1
  18. Maybe India comes to its senses with its money pit development of a 4th gen fighter and simply invests into this - I would bet this will fly sooner as well. Turkey may want to join in as partner - they have their own project but may want to glean some stuff from this.
    1
  19. Maybe. But having light infantry weapons like Javelin is no match for a tank.
    1
  20. Yep, Soviets had at least two spare bridges for each existing one on Odra river.
    1
  21.  @peterb9038  Holodomor is not a genocide as it does not fit the definition of one. Genocide is a targeted attack against one ethnic group, which Holodomor was not, as the Ukrainians amounted to at most 50% of the victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question
    1
  22. Germany gave them a year.
    1
  23. Actually Soviets were (as well as satellites) overflowing with spare parts and spare bridges and spare everything. Ammo was kept at least 2x NATO reserves. The joke was that NATO countries did not have a lot of ammo stored as they knew they will be overrun before they get to use it all. On Oder river each bridge had at least 2 spare locations - the concrete stumps are still there today.
    1
  24. LOL, West is running out of weapons. Not much will be sent now as there is nothing to send. Worse Ukraine is running out of people thanks to poor decision making.
    1
  25. Initial plan called for 100s of nukes used mostly by NATO. France would be a minor player in this war - a bit bigger then say Poland. There was no win scenario for NATO without Nukes. Hence crazy idea of nuclear mine field - blowing up all of Germany. NATO was not about to just nuke in Germany but also in Poland and all over Warsaw pact. I think not nuking France b/c French have nukes would go out the window in the first 24h. Any work with neutral France was to simply limit NATO response - it is hard to believe that Soviets would manage to take Spain - even if it took few weeks to take out Germany and few more weeks for France uber extended nuked lines and mountains of Spain would prove 99% too hard. So why go there - make France neutral - an obstacle to NATO as much as to Soviets and consolidate Germany / Italy etc. I think it becomes clear that any war was simply not worth it for anyone. Tiny limited mini wars were of little payout and of high risk. Soviets just limited themselves to liberating different nations through proxy wars. This mostly had negative effect for colonial powers, which US was not.
    1
  26.  @jpc7118  Myth of France or UK as major players died with WWII - especially France. France is by far not the strongest army in Europe today. I venture Russia is. I mean seriously, France has just 400 tanks total ;) Out of which just over 200 are in service (rest in storage). Also France only has wheeled APCS numbering less then 1000 unless you count armored cars as well. Army size is just around 115k. Air force has 200 jets but only half are modern. This is roughly similar land fire power as Poland. Poland has a bit more pp 144k, far more tanks & more modern (especially with 250 Abrams added) and just touch less modern fighters (F16 plus F-35) (80 vs 100). So much so for "French power". If not for Adolf Poland today would be roughly the same size country France is. In 1939 France had just few million pp more then Poland.
    1
  27.  @jpc7118  So what - its Frances business whatever it wants to waste French tax payers money on such adventures.
    1
  28.  @jpc7118  The official number of tanks in France is over 400. Where do you have data there is more tanks? Russia has about a 1000 modern tanks, same as US. Given weak armor on French tanks I doubt they will have issues destroying them - after all their main opponent is Abrams which has lots of armor and is very heavy. I would bet 100 USD Su-35 can easily defeat any junk over French skies. Not to mention latest Su. France is now behind China in aircraft development and has no 5th gen fighters active or in end development. Mirage 2000 is old - same old as oldest stuff Russia has in active service. Year of design is 78. This is what like 3 years younger then the oldest Russian? This is what you are proud of? Seriously? Maybe you should compare yourself to Germany not Russia ;)
    1
  29.  @jpc7118  If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 you can clearly see that comparable aircraft to it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale so Russians have Su-35 to oppose it. Both are very similar through Su-35 has better by far maneuverability. F-22? Seriously? That is 5th gen, French fighter is 4.5 it is not stealth aircraft and is not even a full match for Russian Su-35! What do you mean French did not surrender in 1940? Ehm, the railcar? Hello! French do not know what harsh occupation means - you need to go to central Europe for that.
    1
  30. Poland in 2023 is much weaker than Poland in this video from 2020. About half strength. Poland in 2023 has far and wide fewer tanks than in 2020 as well as fewer aircraft and much weaker air defenses. Not to mention weaker artillery. Try Poland in 2030 when it is stronger.
    1
  31.  @patryknajbor7990  LOL WHAT. Poland in 2020 had more tanks, more artillery, more aircraft than today. As per official data from Polish ministry of defense. I mean come on, Poland given Ukraine over 300 tanks. 100s of IFVs. 100s of artillery systems. Multiple aircraft and helicopters. Lots and Lots of ammo. 10s of 1000s of anti armor systems (total RPG is around 100k units (!!!)). Also multiple anti air systems. It will take years to rebuild Polish army to pre Ukraine war status.
    1
  32. He means non upgraded ones - old avionics. So on par with old F-16s / F-15s etc. But Grippens (new ) all have better avionics.
    1
  33. I been to both countries few years ago. Their military (both) is terrible by western or Eastern standards. The war would be similar to Iran-Iraq war - where Iraq === Chile and Iran === Argentina. After a lot of fighting and killing nothing would change.
    1
  34. Yeah, send Germans first - they have previous experience!
    1
  35. Wait, did US ... lost to Vietnam? You know, people that never seen ... a toilet seat? People that lived in ... shacks. Was it really US that lost? Shame on US.
    1
  36.  @patewing5808  Relax, most pp know this - he was just baiting you into writing all of this. Most people know that the only thing that would have stopped Soviets is nukes, and a lot of them. Maybe not stop but make any advance a bit without meaning. I mean why fight for some still glowing German or French town.
    1
  37. As a kid in the 80s most Germans optimistically though it will take 4 weeks to be conquered by Soviets. Pessimists 3 weeks.
    1
  38. Imagine US budget cut in half - that would be 100s of billions of USD a year - they may even compete against China!
    1
  39. They are also arming kids - on day 2 Zielniski removed age restriction of 18.
    1
  40. Not much of any affect at all. Most production is from domestic stuff. Anything else they can get elsewhere. Sanctions are only 14% of the planet. Not much.
    1
  41. Turkey is not in EU. The big guy in EU is Poland. With recent purchase it has about the same number of tanks as Germany + France + UK.
    1
  42. They started with roughly same equipment. Both over 1000 tanks. Russia controls the skies. Been controlling them since about 1st week of war. They cannot be decimated, they are out numbered 2 to 1 at least. How can they loose more people when they have so few people in? They would lost the war long time ago.
    1
  43. Allies could not even crush weak Germany with 80% of their forces in the east in 6 months. How do you propose finishing off Soviets that had far more forces then Germany in less time?
    1
  44.  @Schdcdd  They explained in detail how they do it. Nothing magical. You fly low, use terrain masking etc. Even F-16s can sneak next to S-400. Does not mean S-400 is bad or anything. Also Syrians do not have S-400. They have S-300. And given their record of using AA systems as well as Israeli ideas of how to fly I doubt they down too many planes. Nothing here is "special" and does not prove anything. No other system in the world would perform any better. Also why would Israel fly close to SAM sites to test them? That would be epic stupid. They would never fly in a way that they knew could even have slight chance of getting shot at.
    1
  45.  @Schdcdd  They are deployed to the Russian base. The S-300 are Syrian operated and cannot protect a huge area which includes mountains. When needing to attack where S-300 are you fire from Lebanese airspace something called "cruise missile". Once missile is off you dive back low. There is little need for F-35 here, F-16s do well. The one F-16 shot down was due to pilots being confused and not diving. If you plan your missions well and know where SAM sites are you don't have to worry too much - it does not matter SAM is S-300, S-400 etc. or anything else in the world.
    1
  46. They own over 3000 tanks. Out of these maybe 2000 plus can be used. They received over 200 tanks. They currently permanently lost at least 800, maybe 900. So they are still in OK shape. Yeah, and remember that US lost against Vietnam (!) and then lost even in Afghanistan. So loosing to Russia is no brainer.
    1
  47. Russia is clear winner in equipment replacement category.
    1
  48. Poland also thought so... wait Poland did actually invade Rus and won. The surrender of Polish garrison in Kremlin is now a day commemorated by a national holiday in Russia.
    1
  49.  @eduwino151  It is unlikely they "hold" anything. They liberate Russian speaking areas, they may create puppet regime of East Ukraine and that will be it. No insurgency - their own pp will not fire on them. Notice that the best fighters are from Crimea - the same army that just few years back was ... Ukrainian.
    1
  50. South will win due to simply having more pp. After the war unified Korea would be a hole no one would want to live in as everything north and south would be just ash. There are lots of inaccuracies as far as NK is concerned. NK has a lot of small drones for recon and a lot of artillery that can reach further out. There are war games that the west does and it does not look pretty. With nuke use at 60 or more there is enough to destroy every major city in SK as well as multiple military formations. Add to it chemical weapons and millions will be dead. After the war population of united Korea would be around 40m starving poor people. Also of note that SK population realize this and would be far less willing to fight an offensive war. No one wants to die for next to nothing in NK if you know your family will die as well.
    1