General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

The Armourer's Bench
comments

Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "The Armourer's Bench" channel.

Yes, Kraken is unit name and main target of both Russian / DPR / LPR / everyone else attacks.
9
Its not to be used vs. tanks but as mobile artillery. Ukraine is running very low on Soviet ammo - but not on 100mm rounds. Yet.
4
The best use so far is MTLB with a Russian Lancet-4 tube drones - new version of a drone 3x bigger. Each MTLB would pack 2x 4 drones. That would be almost idea use of the vehicle.
2
@danielvilliers612 Manpads are useless against modern airforce. And yes, Ukraine has lots of them. Main use is against helicopters and against aircraft using old school ground support - like older stuff, such as Su-25 or A-10.
2
How on earth this is a "tank destroyer" if it can only be fired with a long line from the main gun. They must be firing at stationary tank. Also, this is a gun similar to what T-55 has. This is not a tank destroyer. Its simply a primitive mobile artillery.
2
@RomanHistoryFan476AD Russia would quickly disable all command and control via both electronic and missile attacks creating a total chaos in the command structure. Then they would go full SEAD and destroy any remaining Ukrainian air force + hunt of any AA systems. Then they would use artillery to cut, with precision any defensive lines. Finally tanks, mostly unopposed, would roll in. More or less like this. Modern war, with heavy use of electronic war.
2
Wait, you mean Ukrainians made it clear they do not care about Geneva convention - there are multiple videos of Ukrainians executing POWs. Multiple.
2
@robertstenn1350 Wait, they also capture video of Ukrainians violating Minsk. Heck Ukrainians even post videos on Twitter showing their violations! All Kosovo needs to have peace with Serbia is give up its new flag and come back into the republic. So easy. Why don't they do it???!!! Why Taiwan refuses to go to mother China???? Why? Don't they want peace?
1
@roboticrebel4092 Most of Russian army is professional soldiers. Most of Ukraine army is either national guard, conscripts or nationalists. The last one are "elite". The non-contract soldiers in Russian army are around 1/3 and very few, if any, would be used for such operation.
1
@Drew Peacock I am sure Germans feel generous and would just donate these.
1
@Drew Peacock For a lease they also need $. Finally Germany is not interested in a conflict that would endanger their relations with Russia. Buy? With what exactly? Ukraine is about to go bankrupt. Geo politically Germany and Russia are allies against US. US wants to control EU & Germany is doing all it can to prevent it. NATO is to keep Germany down and Russia out.
1
@Drew Peacock in 1935 they were also all about stopping Russia (Soviets) and look how well it worked out for everyone. Maybe you should read up on some history? Once again, US role in Europe is to keep Germany down, Russia out. Keeping US out is common goal of both Russia and Germany. Every country is selfish - that is how countries are, let me know of any country above 1m that is not "selfish" or acting in their interest or at least perceived interest.
1
@Drew Peacock My history level = 100, yours level 5. I am talking about stuff you have no idea about. Before about 1938 Poland was all about having the next war with Soviets, NOT Germany. Heck, even Polish navy was organized 100% towards fighting Soviet Navy. The actual fight with Germany was not envisioned.
1
@RomanHistoryFan476AD T-64 and T-62 are totally different tanks. T-62 is an upgrade of T-55 line, minor. T-64 tank is daddy of T-80, in its time T-64 was the most modern MBT, outperforming any NATO tank by a decade (!)
1
@RomanHistoryFan476AD Sure, no problem. Russia does have some old tanks facing east. They are not "export" models but very close. For example, if I remember correctly, T-72A is almost identical to T-72M1. Not sure what upgrades some of these tanks may have. Even the T-72BM3 should have like a dozen sub versions. Ukraine still has some nice tanks, but these are in very small numbers and upgrades of T-64. T-64 is not a bad base to upgrade but not super or anything. Ukraine has a lot of issues making "quality" - most of their stuff is ... well... crap. They had a lot of customer "rejections" for poor quality. Long time ago, like almost 20, my dad still worked in Poland and they got some cheap still to make some mining machines for Australia from Ukraine. It was cheap but really poor quality. I mean they had to come at night when Australian inspector was sleeping to patch things up ;)
1
Notice the date stamp on the box is 1977 and inside of it are three like new Maxim guns. But Maxim production ended with WWII - i.e. no more made after 1945. Were these refurbished in 1977?
1
@trevortrevortsr2 Finland lost the war & that was some time ago. Afghans have more respect to Soviets then US, as per Taliban commanders.
1
@leeviriihela507 T-90M turret is said to be well protected against top attack. Probably would stop NLAW if hit onto a plate. Of course coverage is not 100%. T-14 has unmanned turret so even without active protection crew is 100% safe.
1
@trevortrevortsr2 Yes, in Ukraine will probably loose 80% of their tank force. I expect Russia may loose 200-300 tanks as well. By loss I mean total loss. Kursk through was far bigger battle. The whole operation lasted 6 weeks and included millions of soldiers and 1000s of tanks. Far more tanks then Ukraine + Russia possess in total (!!!). Heck, losses were higher then what both have in operation (!!!). Heck, losses were more then what Russia, Ukraine and all of Europe have in operation (!!!!!!!)
1
@leeviriihela507 Yes, Russia has few T-90M and its unlikely too many, if any would take part in operations. I think total number is less then 200, most of which are not new but upgrades. Maybe 100 would be issued to some elite unit. Not sure. Russians have tendency to save their best stuff for most dangerous opponent & use their "legacy" stuff on less dangerous enemy. They may also keep them in reserve should Ukraine not disintegrate fast enough. I expect NLAWS to score some hits, maybe even destroy a tank or two (I.e. total kill). Overall they are only tiny percentage of missiles in inventory. Main problem for Ukraine is the lack of modern tech. Same as Armenia, they will be targeted without knowing they were and death will come as a well placed round. It is no longer a war where you can "Hide" - see AZ - AM conflict. Even mountains did not save AM anymore. Almost anything can see anyone. Hiding with a missile in the forest becomes next to impossible today & even if possible any mobility is immediately spotted (as in 4x4 vehicle etc.). Only salvation for out NLAW soldier is a city. But city can be cut off and besieged. Then, slowly defenses are broken down with artillery (of which Russia is master) and air power.
1
@trevortrevortsr2 the actual missile kill probability is 2 percent. So 2000 missiles if all goes well and Russians are not too smart would result in about 40 knocked out tanka and maybe 8 of these destroyed.
1
@trevortrevortsr2 Well, I am quoting major sources for info on whole operation around Kursk, not just few engagements. 2000 missiles of this type will account for maybe a dozen tanks. Usual kill (as in knocked out not destroyed) ratio for mixed, mostly guided ATGMs is around 2% vs. a bit careless enemy. NLAW are short range non guided missiles - so we are talking minimal losses. Maybe another dozen or two of trucks, maybe another dozen or so APCS. Best case scenario. And most tanks and APCS can be fixed, even at unit level. This is why countries stockpile 20k of these missiles in addition to 10s of thousands of other missiles. We have places like Poland with more then 100k (well over) of missiles). I will not even talk about places that expect lots of tank combat & infantry combat - Pakistan vs. India - we are talking about millions (!)
1
@trevortrevortsr2 No surprise there - it would had to be rather mighty engine block to survive any HEAT AT weapon from the last... 68 years.
1
@trevortrevortsr2 Even with best skilled operators it is still a cheap dumb infantry support weapon. Its not a tank, AA system such as Patriot or a fighter jet such as F-35.
1
It could be just something to fool the west. Standard stuff Russians do. Only actual help could be vs. very small stuff fired from the drones. Others have bag ERA on top - these could be a big issue for both NLAW and Javelin. Through I still think this is more to make fun out of the west then real thing - tanks would be far more visible & Ukraine main sensor suite is eyes.
1
@antspunning6797 Ukraine has very few UAVs compared to Russia. So far deception works excellent for Russia - so I guess Ukraine is stupid. Russian army is indeed much better then Soviet army, they have better equipment, they proven themselves in minor conflicts, they did excellent in 2014 / 2015 - there was one battle that is almost certain Russian regulars participated in and they literally wiped Ukrainians of the map. In Georgia, 14 years ago, Russians shown huge improvements already & had no issues, even outnumbered finish Georgians off in days.
1
@J0xxe But NLAW has no sensors that track the tank. The missile uses simple math for predicted movement line of attack. Thus other then a hard kill system the only way to not get hit is to move the tank either faster or slower or at all if it was standing still. This may be difficult since the missile is to be fired from almost point blank range. I.e. you would have like a second or two to react. BUT in practice its not so bad for the tank. There is real life video of two tanks attacking dug in infantry in AM - AZ war. Under fire its not easy to aim at a tank say 300m away and fire. NLAW says to track the tank for 2 seconds for predicted attack. AM troops looked out for like 0.5 seconds out of the trench, just long enough to squeeze the trigger and buried AT round well in front of AZ tank, not even close. Also AZ tanks were constantly on the move varying their speed, stopping, going the other way etc. Its easy to do stuff in exercise, its much harder to do it in real combat when enemy is suppressing your position with MG fire & you are suppose to peak out, locate the tank, turn towards it with the missile and track for a whole whopping 2 seconds.
1
@eduwino151 Why anyone would get close enough to a truck or supply convoy - this is only partisan ambush possibility & means main army was defeated.
1
@jensdanbolt6953 So far trophy in Israel has 100% success rate. Maybe in the future it will drop to 99%. Good enough.
1
@TheArmourersBench Why is it ridiculous? Look at the map. US has almost 200 bases. They are all over the place and seeking more. Also all over around China. How many bases does Russia and China have combined? Like 10? Relation decline is responsibility of both. Take for example visa for diplomats row between Russia and US. Who started the issue? US. Remember its two "companies" trying to get clients. They are not "friendly", its a game. US started lots and lots of wars to expand its influence in the last 20 years. Finland did not join NATO nor did Sweden during Soviet times, the logic of joining now, when Russia is half the size and 1/4 the influence is only based on US pressure. And US has been doing a lot of that - especially with cascading sanctions. It is unlikely Russia will invade Ukraine as there simply is no plan as to what one would do next. So far current strategy is working great for Putin as Zielinski has either the choice of restarting Minsk or going bankrupt. Zielinski said they are looking at restarting Minsk. If they do there will be no NATO for Ukraine as Minsk implementation implies no NATO joining. Main difference between US and Russia use of force is that US enacts cascading sanctions while Russia turns on the tanks. This means Russia is only a threat to its neighbors while US is more of a global problem.
1
@TheArmourersBench But who is exactly threatening? Russians say they will not invade.... so where exactly is this "threat" coming from? Who invented it? Who started the paranoia? Certainly not Putin or Zielinski. Even the 100k troops is a big stretch as the distance from the border is up to 300km. Poland also has around 100k on Russia's border by that count !!!! So is Poland a threat to Russia?
1
@eduwino151 Ummm, what insurgents? Do you see any insurgents in Crimea? Over 80% of the armed forces joined Russia. Do you see any insurgents, other then Russian, in Donbass? Watch a video where insurgent snipers in Ukraine are picking Ukrainians off. Watch some WWII movies, historical, and you will see why there will not be 1000s killed by insurgents. Poland had the biggest underground army in WWII. They blew up 1000s of trains etc. And there was no bloodbath. Ukraine had during Soviet times some "insurgents" - mostly terrorists that killed Jews, KGB dealt with them with ease. US held Iraq for years - no bloodbath. US held Afghanistan for years, no bloodbath. And yes, in both places ATGM were common, way more common then in Ukraine. Again watch some videos.
1
@eduwino151 You mean like these Abrams tanks picked off in Iraq? Sure US lost some over the years. Not exactly a lot. If Iraqis also had plenty of ATGMs why did they not blow up US trucks daily? Why? I mean they had 1000s of systems!
1
@jrd33 Trace all my comments. Almost all aged very well indeed. I predicted quick fall of Kiev regime and no NLAW or anything else helped them. Mostly due to extreme luck of a will to fight.
1
@TheArmourersBench Sure it does! Ukraine pushed in one spot in Donbass 6 brigades. At full strength that is 6 x 8k troops. At one spot in Donbass. As per UA map i.e. pro Ukraine. All infantry. So yes, man power does make up for capability gap. It will take weeks for Russians to kill so many people and move.
1
@baneofbanes Ukrainians.... outnumbered? Where!!!! They usually out number Russians 3:1. Standstill? Despite heavy numerical superiority and fortification of every square meter the Russians are pushing forward every day. Despite super heavy losses Ukrainians keep resisting a war they have clearly lost. Note "Russians" are mostly DPR / LPR / Chechens / Wagner group / all sort of volunteers. About half of pp fighting on Russian side are former citizens of Ukraine.
1
Not really, I do not expect more then few tanks destroyed, and maybe a dozen or so damaged by the system. That is best case scenario. Remember Israeli war in Lebanon - 1000s of missiles to knock out 60+ tanks - and most of these were actual guided stuff, not upgraded short range RPG.
1
@TheArmourersBench I say equally bad choices - UK cannot build even half decent armor and Ukraine already lost the war.
1
@baneofbanes Lots of possible targets - Chinese, Germans, French. Yet another ME war?
1
You probably do not know that majority of "Russian troops" are not Russians - its like Pakistan using proxy in Kashmir to attack Indians. These proxies are not exactly up to Pakistani standard. Russian regular troops did not perform badly at all - they are fighting badly outnumbered and still advancing against huge fortifications. Russia does not have 200k troops, they do not have even 100k in right now. Logistics is quite good - they do fire 10x as much artillery as Ukrainians - it must be getting to the front somehow. Training is not bad - I watched Russian troops clear trenches in face to face combat and I do not see anything "bad". Russians are not gone b/c they are by far better army - and this is why the already won the war.
1
@nigeljohnson9820 If it even hits the tank - remember this thing is not exactly "accurate" in current configuration (shakes a lot) and I bet it only has optical coincidental sights (like WWII tanks up to 1960s).
1
By the time Russia finally decides to invade all these will be expired anyways. Any that are not will be trophies for Russians if they actually move in, or simply buy them on black market.
1
They would cross into Poland and probably fly out later on.
1
@antspunning6797 I expect air superiority within first 24h. Most Ukrainian jets not hiding would be destroyed in that time. Ukraine old AA systems would be fully suppressed - which does not mean Russia could suffer, during whole campaign 50-60 losses. Could be more if Russia uses Su-25 and similar aggressively.
1
@antspunning6797 What missiles? Ukraine is certainly not getting patriot system. Its not difficult to destroy 500k with air strikes - US had no issues doing it in Iraq.
1
@antspunning6797 we have financial data, no one given any heavy weapons to Ukraine. Each US army brigade, even light one is 1000s of tons of equipment. Numbers are known up to +-10t
1
After the war you will probably be able to buy this stuff on some market in Russia for 500 USD.
1
Why not? You are in a tank. These are just AT infantry weapons. Present all over the place since 1960s. Heck the number of such weapons as per Soviet doctrine was so great you expected every other infantryman to carry one. Indeed during Russian rush to Grozny for the first time tanks were engaged (many without installed ERA) from 6, 7 RPGs multiple ones fired from elevated positions against the roof and many fired from the bottom - basement level. Some tanks survived 6-7 direct hits - probably with ERA packages on. Even if tank is knocked out it is mostly easy repair. Maybe 10% are actually destroyed - i.e. non operable.
1
@pgr3290 rpg7 has similar penetrstion values and were fired from the top. Many Russian tanks now have top Era. Besides this is last resort weapon. Tankers are used to 1000s of them around. RPG 21 is even tandem and will penetrate sides and rear of most tanks. Main purpose is for infantry not to run away when they see enemy tanks.
1
@pgr3290 javelin is an expensive missile system that is guided. Nlaw is modernised version of rpg7 type weapon. Nlaw is not guided at all, it just has a build in lead compensation. Sights on rpg7 can be the same ones as on Nlaw. Sights are removable as tube is one use only. Both have similar range, but to hit anything you need to be closer. Rpg7 penetration is similar to Nlaw or even better depending on what exact warhead you have mounted on it. You even have tandems for rpg7, for a long time. When engaging from the top with rpg7 you essentially have top attack weapon. Main difference is in modernization, but it's not earth shattering. Rpg21 is yet another such weapon. Hence why such low price for disposable weapon system. Finally major powers are fielding hard kill systems, Nlaw and javelin are already of little use against Israeli tanks in front line. You would need to simultaneously engage from multiple angles at the same time to overwhelm the system, or make it run out. Given automatic main gun adjustment to threat this seems like not a good idea for at least one AT team. Others, including Russia have these systems, by 2025 i am sure at least 500 tanks will be upgraded. Finally, as Israel has shown most of penetrations are not a big deal, if the even happen. We also know this from WWII.
1
@pgr3290 You do not know RPG tech too well. There are dozen of warhead types so saying NLAW has more penetrating power is crazy. Did you compare every warhead RPG-7 has? NLWA is same class as RPG, period. NLAW is modernized RPG. Lada and Rolls Royce are in the same class - they are passenger vehicles. I am sure you missed that one. You fail to understand modern warfare. Tanks do not worry too much about infantry weapons for a long time now as these have been plentiful for at least 50 years. Soviets were the first ones to field guided atgm BTW. While Germans popularized non guided stuff. For example, by 1970s Poland had stockpiled around 70k basic AT weapons, of just one type. All good to take out enemy tank. Thus tankers know what they are dealing with. NLAW is certainly better, due to modernization, then RPG but not much more effective. Its still a dumb, low yeld weapon system held by soft infantryman. As for Russia stock piling T-72s its mostly b/c they probably just want to use their old stuff on Ukraine, if needed. Why use more modern tanks - these are expensive. Get rid of the cheap old stuff. Its good enough.
1
Sometimes even multiple hits (penetrations) are needed to disable the tank. Few tanks in reality actually are total loss, but it does happen.
1
@MRrealmadridRaul Well, this as well as just claiming more How many tanks did Armenia actually loose in war with AZ? How many did AZ loose? Claims are all over the map - we only know lower number of AM losses, like 42. And I believe these are "total" losses. Claims were for over 200 (!). I assume captured equipment is extra over 42. Same from the other side - claims for ATGM kills were over 200. Only initially we got videos of tanks getting hit - when they faced deep defensive line in the mountains. Later on kills became rare - once AZ got over the mountains to foothill terrain AM success dried up. Without Russian help they were toast. Also they had terrible leadership that they... re-elected (!!!)
1
Lets hope not, if they have to be used it means Putin decided to take a big chunk of Ukraine.
1
Acts of desperation when you do not have artillery. The question is of effectiveness of such weapon. The warhead is now heavier - not designed for such extra weight. The actual sleeve fragmentation capability seems very low - something out of WWII. Self detonation was never meant as a mechanism that is precise - not even close - it is a safety mechanism that is designed not to leave live ammo after conflict ends on the battlefield.
1