Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "CaspianReport" channel.

  1. Polish military in 1939 was one of the most powerful ones in Europe. Look how well other countries did - France had to fight on a small front line, it fought 99% against just Germany and it had a lot of help from UK. Yet it did not do better then Poland. The look at similar sized country of Yugoslavia - they were a push over. Or relatively big Netherlands - also an after thought.
    17
  2. Well if Belarus and Ukraine came back to Poland together with Baltics to re-form the commonwealth I am sure the possible takeover of Russia would be far more likely and not seen as a joke.
    4
  3.  @Nostalgiagate6392  Relax, he does not understand that the S-300 has sub versions and does not get the idea that indeed F-16A/B is far and wide inferior to F-16V. He just sees F-16.
    3
  4. Exactly - it just dilutes modernization of the army. But the main idea is Poland has no clear geo political goal of its army - i.e. it does not have a vision of what war it wants to fight. Its purchases all go towards WWII conflict where everyone in Europe thinks otherwise, including Russia. I fully agree large numbers in almost all scenarios are crazy idea - it costs billions to create WOT and their value in almost all scenarios is zero. There are of no use. Imagine instead of WOT buying 50 modern attack helicopters! At least it would be of use in WWII style and few others.
    2
  5. Yeah especially crossing 750km in one to two days ;)
    2
  6. @hippo killer Except Soviet Army in 1941 was very, very well equipped. It had 1000s of tanks and huge artillery, it had modern tanks such as T-34. It had 1000s of aircraft. It was not ill equipped at all!
    2
  7. @William Bergamo Given that China has greatly decreased it numbers and I have a feeling even NK does they do not feel the need to have large armies that are of poor value. Also China has well over 1B people - one can look at soldiers per citizen and China has far less right now then US.... so is US army a large standing army but largely incompetent losers?
    2
  8. Mercenaries dead === no pad PR in your country. This is huge. US is the biggest user, but both Russia and Turkey as well. Main issue is use of terrorists as mercenaries - this is Turkish ISIS army - these guys may be paid by Turkey today but they can turn and attack the west tomorrow.
    1
  9. What is this BS? Finland and Sweden have had NATO exercises at home since the end of the cold war. They stopped buying Soviet stuff as soon as Soviet Union collapsed. They were practically in NATO since 1994. Thus in all Russian calculations they have been seen as possible enemy. NATO joining is just formality ensuing that if nukes fly they hit both countries.
    1
  10. What? Cross 750km in a day or two? Is someone here high? Even US in Iraq vs. dysfunctional army moved around 50km per day. Kiev is buy what strategic weapons? With what money? I hope you did not just call some hand held stuff "strategic"! 1:20 ratio? Well, we can just look at Iraq / Afghanistan to actual numbers needed. Turning Ukraine into federation similar to Canada would be terrible.... sure Canada is terrible. Yep. Look at Quebec ;)
    1
  11. Yes Poland prepares for last war, not the next war. Also PL has no grand strategy or policy of use or strategic ideas of the use of military force. Hence equipment purchases are "what is on sale right now". Everyone decreases military size and relies not on mass armies but on use of tech - except Poland. While regular army has old equipment PL created National Guard that is rifle only armed & now has plans for 100 - 150k more troops... what will be these armed with? What will be the mission? This is just a waste of $. Overall ability to defend the nation to $ spent will be greatly decreased.
    1
  12.  @thelordofcringe  Poland actually invented far more then a rifle. It used to have aircraft industry that produced record setting aircraft etc. Problem is money - in military you have to be wise with money as there is never enough of it. Spending billions on numbers that are very poorly armed overall does not increase ability to resist WWII style invasions. It easily costs around 10k to equip single soldier with just basic personal kit. Add to it training such soldier needs, pay, basic facilities and suddenly riflemen or riflewoman is expensive for almost no value.
    1
  13.  @thelordofcringe  What? In all these conflicts it was shown infantry by itself without any heavy equipment is useless. You see trench lines of WWI but these are not just few guys with rifles. They are not showing the artillery, drones, AT weapons etc. And we are talking here about not even a close at peer encounter. At peer encounter was Armenia vs. Azerbaijan. Here I am sure you could see that rifle armed infantry even in heavily defensible position of hilly terrain was of little use - they were only of use in extreme mountains where no tank or APC could get. Poland is mostly forest and plains with some marshes. On these plains as per AM - AZ conflict any infantry would be creamed up in matter of hours. They have no AT weapons, no AA weapons and poor transport. They are not even effective as insurgents. By WWI standards (end) rifleman was already obsolete in classical sense - Germans had to upgraded them to special assault units - but these were not just rifle armed men. By WWII large rifle armed formations without strong heavy weapon support were run over - see September 1939 - one reason PL had such hard time was that German infantry division had about 2x the firepower in artillery. Same as AM-AZ conflict pp talk about few drones but they ignore huge advantage in artillery and tanks & similar heavy weapons.
    1
  14. More stupidity from PiS. Poland does not have even a solid military use policy or political strategy. All they do is buy expensive US weapons that happen to be for sale. While most countries, even Russia and China, decrease military size Poland is to increase it. What will these soldiers be armed with??? I guess rifles only. This wasteful spending will decrease overall military strength and capability... on the other hand capability is a moving target since no one knows what that should exactly be as mission statement is very vague and there is no grand strategy.
    1
  15. LOL, 2nd is Russia at about 2x that of France. We should not count Russia during its war in Ukraine, clearly their exports would go down during war time. If you use 2023 "SIPRI" values... 2nd is .... Germany. I would not really deeply look at these values - they are all over the place.
    1
  16.  @alioshax7797  "1 United States 11,287 2 Germany 3,287 3 China 2,432 4 France 2,012 5 Italy 1,437 6 Russia 1,269 7 United Kingdom 1,204 8 Israel 1,159 9 Spain 940 10 South Korea 621" 2023. Source : SIPRI / Wiki Arms Industry By above Russia can be seen as a joke yet we know Russia can take EU if US dropped out. So data is a joke.
    1
  17.  @barryosullivan6225  That is not entirely true - there is not even close to enough money to equip properly with modern systems regular army. National Guard is armed with... rifles... and they got few hundred trucks. They don't even have basic light infantry weapons. And at that it cost already few billion USD.
    1
  18. If not for the US, Europeans should learn Russian. Their "military-industrial complex" or such ideas are a joke.
    1
  19. They have break even price of just around 40 USD. Which means they are doing better then pretty much anyone. Putin is a very good leader. One of the best on the planet. BTW Golden Horde is from Crimea - they are the Tatars. They are one of historical enemies of Poland but also of Russia.
    1
  20. Wait Finland has a huge border with Russia, its democratic and yet Russia tolerates them. For a long time now - since 1945. Heck they are not even member of NATO! They are small. So it feels its a counter example to the Russian - democracy allergy. Also Finland is in EU! But so far Finland resisted any offensive missile placement in their country - as long as they do so, they are safe.
    1