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

So what, Russians simply captured at least 150 Ukrainian tanks (as per videos I seen) and Oryx simply forgot to mention that. This is why you have so many killed "Russian" T-64BVs. Maybe its Ukrainian tactics - give Russians poor tanks and then shoot them?
1
@REgamesplayer But that will not lead you too far - you end up with a force similar to that Soviets had in 1941. I.e. you will luck unit coordination. This means the tanks, as per Binkov, will be frequently abused and easy to destroy. It is certainly better then say nothing but of little value on modern battlefield with at peer that adversary. Also your year thing is not that simple, maybe you can finish somehow limited number of training at platoon and company level but you will luck larger unit training. Also how many instructors you have etc. - as you state is not "unlimited". Also of note is Korean conflict - NK tankers had "quick" training and their T-34s were easily destroyed. Their essential training was good enough for dealing with SK but was a disaster vs. US. One can also add ME conflicts, especially against Israel - here again "essential" training proven to be a disaster. Syrian tanks were certainly driven, their guns fired in the general direction of the enemy but was it.
1
@runi5413 They do have strategic reserves, if not for having simply replacement tanks for their losses. They have like 4x as many in storage as in front line deployment. The question is whatever they need 10x and the answer is no - as it simply would cost too much $$$ to have so many tanks & probably crews would not make it alive by tank #10. And we are talking about catastrophic tank destruction.
1
@ÖmerPirbudak-n3d ... But that could take 20 years!
1
@ÖmerPirbudak-n3d But England does not have the tech either and even if they did its unlikely they would have sold it to Turkey. I am unsure youtube will still be a thing when these engines are ready.
1
@navidbutt17 Correct - and to get that any engine you either need to design it, or buy it. I doubt Turkey can buy from US - so that leaves Putin or Xi or 20 year design time. Also your Mach 1.6 is better than F-22 - so the engines would have to be better than what US got. 1.6 would be best in the world. I doubt Turkey can pass everyone on earth in engine design when its their ... first engine ;)
1
@samedaltun First 5th generation engine. TEI-TF10000 are not engines for fighter aircraft but for drones ;) I did research objectively. Producing 1980s fighter engines and new engines for drones is light ways away from 5th gen engine. Literally 20+ years. So what that Kaan will fly this month? Who cares - it has no engines.... and none are even in semi advanced development phase AFAIK. Again, either Xi or Putin - or 20 years. And 20 years is optimistic.
1
@noraarelee3863 What drone? Now like 30 year old tech? Turkey purchased some original US drones and had access to that tech. Not too complex tech. Turkey now has zero access to F-35 & even if it did, it is not simple tech. Better than China? Really? This is why China makes like 80% of world's drones?
1
@ErsanYolcu One has to quote "9 women cannot give birth in 1 month". Also $$$ invested by US or $$$ by Russia or China is huge. Same as number of people.
1
@oghuzkhan5117 No one currently has such engines ;) This would be significantly more powerful than F135 engine on F35. So if Turkey has such advanced engines why US did not buy from Turkey - or Russia? Or China? I mean this is better then even engines that US has in early stages of planning ;) Or wait, do you mean actual fighter engines or engines for civilian airliners? Boeing 777 engines produce up to 510kn! 170kn here would be more for regional aircraft. So yeah, I mean it - Turkey has old junk engines.... for its fighters. No tech.
1
@oghuzkhan5117 From 2020 or so "Turkish factories currently make more than 900 parts for the F-35's center fuselage, cockpit display systems and other components," - maybe its under "other" but certainly not seen in the west as "major" part. As for 3D printing in Ti "With metal 3D printing, the most commonly-used grade of titanium is the alloy, Ti6Al4V (Ti64). In addition to Ti64, it's also possible to 3D print with pure titanium.Jun 18, 2019" and "titanium costs about $363 per kilogram". Its commercial tech. You give me plans and I can print it out.
1
I put Russia as a winner. They gain new lands, they stop NATO. Prestige through the roof. Etc.
1
Most pp do not. Use logic. How can so few Russians kick in the ass such a huge UA army? And how can Russians take heavier losses? Someone is lying big time.
1
@vladizt5943 But I can remove some BS out using logic. Like for example large Russian casualties. Simply b/c there is not enough Russians ;)
1
@vladizt5943 Well, you can tell some tank types apart. You can also see some camouflage. But generally you can get a feel for the losses by simply looking at troop performance.
1
If you are right why Ukraine, having all these weapons, having all these troops not push Russians out and is loosing villages? How can this be? Russian no soldiers, no tanks, yet ... moving forward?
1
But we do not have WWII - we have modern war.
1
Today Germany has rather small army - so not a big deal. If they each had few years to arm its a different deal. Turkey today has big army but no match for Russia at all. If each had few years to arm Russia would also easily run them over - far easier then Germany (wide margin). All of EU today plus Russia would easily defend themselves against US. Defeating US through would be very hard as it involves rather long range invasion. Potential of EU plus Russia is about 2x that of US and with excellent defensive position of US it would be impossible to win. Through if say China joined on EU+Russia side things would become nasty for US as it would be now close to 6 to 1. This is in scenario where aliens control humans for fun as no one would fight a war as a joke.
1
Ukraine started the war with around 2000 towed pieces alone. Yep. 20 x more then they got from US. 20.
1
EU pays less for gas then China does. Putin selling to China at EU prices == total win for China, and OK for Russia. Better, Putin selling more to China, less to EU at current prices, total win for Russia, total loss for EU and OK for China. Remember there is limited gas on earth, if Russia does not sell to EU, someone else pulls stuff from China & does not sell there - that stuff goes to EU. Current big winner is EU - That is why Germany is on such huge defense - they want to keep the current deal!
1
@MrKeyframes US would follow its interests. If it was not in US interest to do so they would not. NATO does not force any obligations on its members. Its quite open. If it is in US business to act, it can act, if its not, it does not. Simple.
1
@iljasidlun1952 NATO stands for No Action Talk Only. US action would be limited to demand immediate withdrawal of forces. Given that Russia had say a mission of eliminating hostile government it would comply. Certainly sanctions would be used. Certainly US would start to deploy army to EU. But that would be mostly it. So US would not "ignore" they would simply deal with it. Of course Baltics would be fully pacified.
1
Easy win for India - why - UK has what is known as "white elephant" i.e. single super important target - zero redundancy. No resilient network. Just one single base. With one airport. It is a very weak hand. Only way UK could win if they could pull it off as if the island is not even there and is a bonus. But that would require massively larger fleet. New task - could China control Indian ocean?!
1
Wait, US has its own Meteor missile coming into operation this year with 200km range. Why would US buy something it has? See Aim-260. China has even better - PL-21 coming in. And Russia has their AESA based (so indeed they can make these) missiles.
1
Even Nazi members of Ukraine army realize that in the best scenario they will loose lot of land. If your crack Nazi troops admit that there is no path to pushing Russia out... I tend to agree. But only on that. I do not like Nazi.
1
@nattygsbord So they have better weapons by say 2024. By that time Russia will probably have parity in numbers and will be entrenched behind rivers in frozen conflict holding to 1/3 of Ukraine. Good luck to any attack. And what about the western role in the war? Even CNN expert admitted that US should not push for expansion of NATO at any cost. Why did US push for expansion? US never cared about 250m starving or a billion.
1
@matthew1882 Certainly better then it did under occupation.
1
 @stigandersen3783 look at history legends video or any WWI or WWII history book.
1
F-22 was created ahead of its time for huge cost and is suffering as a consequence. It was developed to give edge in a fight against possible Soviet replacement for Su-27. Since Soviets collapsed no such 5th gen was ever developed and F-22 found itself as a very expensive toy that had no adversary. At astronomical cost per unit it was quickly put on hold then cancelled. Even "economical" F-35 is too expensive. Russia today cannot afford too many Su-50 as they have much cheaper Su-35 - similar to F-15EX that can do almost all missions Su-50 can. World is simply not counting on a peer conflict that is hot and long.
1