Comments by "Stephen47 22" (@Stephen-bq4nq) on "Военное телевидение" channel.

  1. As a kiwi you certainly don't speak for me
    25
  2. Their an armoured transport providing a level of protection it's better than riding in a standard truck
    24
  3. The Americans lost Abrams in Iraq the reality is Iraq was 20 years ago and there weren't drones. All tanks are struggling with the drone threat.
    12
  4. No they're not they've shown good crew survivability
    9
  5.  @eaglesnest1960  if you end up fighting China remember not to ask for help
    8
  6. Yeah like the T90 that Putin said was the best in the world
    8
  7. Yes the soldiers have a better chance of survival which is the whole point
    8
  8. Tell that to putin
    8
  9.  @TomasFunes-rt8rd  yes I'm for real they're an infantry transport that provides better protection than a standard truck with the infantry in the back completely exposed
    7
  10. It has plenty of history 🤡
    6
  11. No crew survival rates are very good
    6
  12. Standing up against a tyrant
    6
  13. What rubbish there has never been a vehicle in the history of warfare that couldn't be destroyed
    5
  14.  @Ulises-Gonzalez-3131  the T90 is no better than any other MBT
    5
  15.  @ozzyolof9209  No their own history and most of it is being persecuted by Russia
    5
  16. The V shaped hull gives the people in the vehicle a good chance of survival it's shown good protection against mines and IED so as a troop transport it's doing it's job
    5
  17.  @mirandela777  yeah and the point is it doesn't have to be anything special it does the job it was designed for
    4
  18.  @tonyp2865  No they're not they have a V shaped hull for mine IED protection and they offer protection from small arms fire, shrapnel and are mobile. Like any vehicle they will need some kind of drone defense once they have that they will be fine.
    4
  19.  @eaglesnest1960  they don't own them yet they sanctioned Australia for not behaving and Australia didn't bow down to them
    4
  20. The bushmaster offers a good level of protection and mobility when transporting infantry. It offers protection against IED, mines,small arms fire and shrapnel and is much better than a standard truck with the infantry exposed in the back. No vehicle is impervious to enemy fire it's war..
    4
  21. Yeah so did Russia it's their first real opponent since world war two
    3
  22. No that's all the russian IFV😂
    3
  23. @AlexLaw-y9j  No the bombs in Afghanistan were far bigger than that they had IED that were sending Humvees flying into the air. The bushmasters were hit with IED with 23Kg of explosives and the soldiers in the vehicles survived
    3
  24. The Abrams, Bradley and Stryker had been knocked out in conflicts before the Ukraine war and so had the leopard so it was already obvious they weren't invincible. There has never been an armoured vehicle in the history of warfare that couldn't be knocked out.
    3
  25.  @Ha36ykBbI  No one said western systems were invincible that's absurd
    3
  26. 🤡🤡🤡🤡
    3
  27.  @tonyp2865  No they're not
    2
  28. It provides good protection against mines and IED which is important when transporting infantry
    2
  29.  @mirandela777  there is nothing wrong with it's mobility it dealt with the terrain in Afghanistan very well. Every model of russian transport has been smashed in Ukraine so their not a good comparison
    2
  30. Yeah russian tanks and IFV are meeting the same fate
    2
  31.  @Ha36ykBbI  those drones are destroying the best Russian armoured vehicles and SAM systems
    2
  32. No it's got very good mine resistance
    2
  33. Anything that moves is a drone magnet
    2
  34. Yeah kind of like the russian hypersonic missiles that haven't changed anything
    2
  35. Yeah if Australia finds itself fighting China don't ask any other countries for help
    2
  36.  @TheBikeOnTheMoon  China wants hedgemoney in the Asia Pacific and that includes positioning the Solomon islands as a military base
    2
  37. It will obviously be used against low risk targets like a convoy of freighters after the escort ships have been taken out by longer range anti ship missiles.
    2
  38. Why?
    2
  39. It will be used against freighters after their escort ships have been taken out by longer range anti ship missiles
    1
  40. They lead the world in stealth technology and lasers
    1
  41. As a kiwi I'm appalled what a ignorant fool you are
    1
  42.  @stuartneary3067  No Russia are the Nazi
    1
  43. ​ @JohnJones-k9d No all modern MBT can destroy each other it just comes down to who gets in the first hit. The US fought well in world war 2 and they certainly didn't run away in Korea the communists were pushed out of South Korea. Vietnam was never a winnable war the US weren't prepared to put ground forces into North Vietnam so all they were doing was holding the line and they were only going to do that fight a limited amount of time at some point they were going to go home. The Chinese invaded Vietnam in 1979 and they didn't last long and what do you think would have happened to Russia if they went into Vietnam they would have lost
    1
  44.  @tonyp2865  No they're not they've taken heavy casualties in men and vehicles plus the black sea fleet has been smashed and their economy is struggling. I laugh when you Putler fanboys try to say Russia is fighting 51 countries when organisations like NATO have only used a small portion of their firepower. Theirs a good reason Putler hasn't attacked a NATO country he knows what will happen.
    1
  45. The Bradley has performed very well in Ukraine it's been the best IFV on either side. The Abrams has struggled the same as every other tank including the russian T90 because they weren't designed to withstand drone attack.
    1
  46. ​ @ronanrogers4127 the IED were big in Afghanistan
    1
  47. You could always just bend over and hold into your ankles the Chinese and Russians would love that
    1
  48. I dont know why people obsess over a vehicle getting destroyed it's war. Look at world war two the best vehicles got knocked out nothing is impervious to enemy fire. The bush master provides a good level of protection for transporting infantry and isn't too expensive. It's shown good crew survivability when hit with IED and mines but its also light enough to be mobile..
    1
  49.  @clown-hr7ic  🤡 I'm not getting paid anything the bushmaster was designed as a troop carrier which would provide more protection than a standard truck and it does that..
    1
  50.  @TomasFunes-rt8rd  they're an infantry transport they provide good protection against IED,mines,small arms fire and shrapnel. They provide a combination of protection and mobility and are much better than infantry traveling in the back of trucks completely exposed. Anti tank missiles can penetrate the armour of main battle tanks so it doesn't matter what you transport your infantry in there is risk.
    1