Comments by "Stephen47 22" (@Stephen-bq4nq) on "Multiple Ukrainian Tank Columns ANNIHILATED" video.

  1.  @virgil1981  what garbage the Iraqi were a professional army they weren't farmers. The Russians aren't better than western military the Ukrainian are fighting with a lot of limitations and have given the Russians hell. The US military with it's far greater firepower than the Ukrainian have would have devasted the Russians even worse. The Russians couldn't even defeat an air force they out numbered 10-1. The US has a far bigger more effective airforce far greater supplies of presision artillery and MLRS and far superior deep strike capability than the Ukrainian military and they would be combining it all when they conducted operations.
    15
  2.  @gracejones8387  no cold hard reality the US military has firepower and capability the Ukrainian military could only dream of having. If Ukraine had the same firepower the war would already be over
    8
  3.  @Rspsand07  bullshit in 1991 the Iraqi army was still one of the biggest in the world and had plenty of modern Russian equipment from that day and they got wiped out. Yes the Iraqi army in 2003 wasn't in the same shape as in 1991 but they still had hundreds of thousands of men and still had all their conventional equipment. They weren't farmers
    5
  4.  @Funtarez  kind of like the Russians did with the T90 and the hypersonic missile that couldn't be shot down but ended up getting shot down
    4
  5. ​ @ozwiz935 no one ever claimed the tanks are invincible there has never been a armoured vehicle in history that couldn't be knocked out
    3
  6. They run into a minefield and some vehicles got immobilized then the commander sent more to help them and they run into the same problems in the killzone.
    3
  7. Yes how dare they try to liberate their country🤡
    2
  8.  @staceycolangelo8940  they did shoot it down and had photographic evidence 🤣🤣
    2
  9.  @Funtarez  the Patriot wasn't even destroyed and was repaired and put back into service. The Russian missile that couldn't be shot down got shot down that's the reality
    2
  10.  @ayrnovem9028  the US have far greater precision munitions for their artillery to hit targets they don't need to expend as much ammunition that's the cold hard reality
    2
  11.  @ayrnovem9028  the Syrian war is irrelevant to what is happening in Ukraine. The US faces Russian artillery they would use a combination of guided and unguided artillery that's why ammunition production had been ramped up. They have the Excalibur precision munitions then they also have kits that they can put on dumb shells to make them precision rounds and they're cheaper than a Excalibur round. And some targets aren't valuable enough to use a precision round. The Russians struggled to deal with 20 HIMARS units the US has close to 400 then you add all the M777 and Paladin that can fire precision munitions which will be backed up with airpower and other long rang fire capabilities plus superior surveillance the Ukrainian firepower pales in comparison to what the US military could unleash.
    2
  12.  @ayrnovem9028  The US military has far greater logistics than Ukraine and the Russians haven't been able to stop the west supplying Ukraine. As for the explosions being spectacular yeah explosions tend to be spectacular and we have seen plenty of spectacular explosions when Russian ammunition got hit. HIMARS didn't play a minor role they were destroying Russian command and control centres with it and ammunition dumps and the Russians were crying about HIMARS so you know it was having a good effect. The Russians have struggled with a Ukrainian military that has no where near the firepower or situational awareness of the US military it's obvious what would happen if they had to face the full force of the US. The Russians would have been pushed out of Ukraine already they would have had to use nukes which ultimately would have resulted in the destruction of everyone
    2
  13.  @Funtarez  the Russians aren't laughing
    1
  14. ​ @off6848 bullshit they would fight just like their ancestors did they would be shocked by the intensity just like all soldiers are then they would adapt
    1
  15. ​ @alberthenriette8976 the mujadeen didn't become the Taliban The Taliban were created in Pakistan by the ISI which is like the Pakistan CIA
    1
  16.  @off6848  funny that every generation is supposed to be the generation that won't cut it on a battle field but they always do
    1
  17.  @stephenvz7852  yes it was impressive show of combined arms warfare
    1
  18.  @off6848  Russia attacks NATO countries they will find out NATO is no paper tiger
    1
  19. What garbage the NATO instructors teach them how to use the vehicles they don't formulate the battle plan that is decided by the Ukrainian senior military leadership
    1
  20.  @ayrnovem9028  they've been going around getting shells from their allies to supply Ukrainian forces they're not going to give all their ammunition to Ukraine leaving themselves defenseless. Funny you must not have noticed the Ukrainian have been using the precision shells they have been given to good effect against Russian forces in Ukraine
    1
  21.  @Rspsand07  the Iraqi soldiers were professional soldiers they weren't farmers and they still had all their conventional equipment.
    1
  22.  @Rspsand07  Iraqi wasn't a concentration camp you 🤡
    1
  23.  @Shagrat613  can't understand a word of your comment
    1
  24.  @ayrnovem9028  no one said bakmut would never fall even the Ukrainian admitted that. The US aren't using all their assets in theater providing situational awareness for Ukraine if it was the US military on the ground you would see a whole lot more of that capability in theater. The US and Europe are providing the financial support the Ukrainian are providing the soldiers. They're not cannon fodder when they're fighting an invading force that wants to reduce them to a puppet state of Russia. The Ukrainian are calling the shots when it comes to planning battles the US advised the Ukrainian to abandon bakmut months ago and Ukraine didn't. Using the Taliban as an example is pathetic and shows how naive you are seriously are you 5 years old. The Taliban fought an insurgency avoiding major battle so they couldn't be destroyed hiding in the civilian population and also basing forces in Pakistan. They couldn't be touched there and they recruited in Pakistan as well as got the fertilizer for their bombs and to get medical care. They used time as a weapon avoiding major battles and dragging out the war knowing at some point the US forces would have to leave and they did the same against the Russians.
    1
  25.  @anceldesingano8687  they also had t72 tanks along with Russian artillery, MLRS and SAM systems. The fact they were bankrupt didn't stop their army going into Kuwait
    1
  26.  @anceldesingano8687  I am well aware of what happened in 1991 I was 18 when all that went down and followed it all closely
    1
  27.  @anceldesingano8687  clown I'm 50 I'm no kid. The Iraqi army didn't have a lack of supplies they got pinned down by airpower and out manourved by the allied ground forces. The way the US destroyed them shocked the Russians and the Chinese. The Russians knew they wouldn't have been able to do the same thing
    1
  28.  @anceldesingano8687  No you show yourself to be a child with your petty attitude towards someone who doesn't agree with you. It didn't matter how many SAMS the Iraqi had the US were destroying them with HARM missiles. The Russians and Chinese were shocked because they both knew they couldn't have done the same Russia's generals are morons they've shown that in Ukraine
    1
  29.  @kammandoskg102  I can't understand a word you're saying
    1
  30.  @firasajoury7813  no that's only for Russian military fanboys
    1
  31.  @ОлегПугач-п8щ  🤡🤡🤡
    1
  32.  @TheSMR1969  yes you are delusional 👍
    1
  33.  @TheSMR1969  Iraq had one of the biggest military in the world in 1991 and was armed with the latest Russia equipment at that time. The Vietnamese military which was a combination of the Viet Cong insurgents and the North Vietnamese conventional military was more than a match for the Ukrainian military in terms of size equipment and ability. They were well supplied with equipment from russia including tanks, artillery and AAA and the latest SAM systems they had far stronger air defences than the Ukrainian military and their terrain posed a lot more difficulty to fight through for the Americans than the terrain in Ukraine. It's you that has no argument
    1
  34.  @TheSMR1969  you're clueless about the Vietnam war the US allocated a lot of resources but they did so in a holding action US ground forces were never allowed to fight in North Vietnam so how could they ever hope to win the war. The only way the US could have won was to invade North Vietnam and go to Hanoi taking out the regime but US politicians wouldn't allow it. They wouldn't even put in ground forces to cut of the Ho che min trail. I read an interview with a North Vietnamese general about 20 years ago and he said after the Tet offensive the Viet Cong virtually ceased to exist it took them a couple of years to get over the losses and if the US had stepped up the pressure in 1969 they would have struggled to answer but in 1969 the US started pulling troops out of Vietnam because the public were turning against the war. The Vietnamese general also said if the US had committed ground forces to cut off the Ho che Min trail the North could never have won the war but US politicians again wouldn't allow the military to do it. The Korean war ended in a draw the original goal of the operation to secure South Korea was achieved. The US military at the end of world war 2 was cut back dramatically when the war broke out in Korea they weren't the army of world war 2 and weren't ready for a war of that magnitude the anti tank weapons US troops had couldn't even penetrate the armour of the russian tanks that North Korea was using. The US army had to learn a lot of lessons and things started to turn around when General Ridgeway took control. When the Chinese entered the war they used numbers of men as a weapon throwing masses at an objective which the US countered with artillery. Air power was limited in its effectiveness in the ground attack role because the Chinese infantry couldn't be spotted easily from the air they could blend into the terrain. The commonwealth forces offered some support but the bulk of the effort still came from the Americans. As far as the Ukraine war goes Russia has performed poorly Russians try to make themselves look good by hyping up NATO involvement but the reality only a tiny portion of equipment has been provided to Ukraine and a lot of it was old equipment nearing the end of it's life. Ukraine has shown themselves to be tough committed soldiers but they are fighting with some big limitations they have a small airforce and have limited numbers of SAM systems they don't have enough to protect their civilian infrastructure and their forward military units. They also have limited amphibious capability and mine clearing ability. The russian military has every advantage and is fighting a conventional war where they can see their enemy and they still can't achieve a decisive outcome.
    1
  35.  @TheSMR1969  Iraq military was was equipped with the latest russian equipment at that time and had one of the biggest militaries in the world. Put the Russian military against the Iraqi in 1991 it would have taken the Russians far longer to win that fight. The Ukrainian military isn't stronger than the Vietnamese in 60's facing the US and the terrain in Vietnam was harder to fight on than in Ukraine
    1
  36.  @TheSMR1969  The Iraqi military in 1991 wasn't operating equipment from world war two through to the 60's except some t55 and t62 Tanks. They had T72 tanks and were operating russian artillery and MLRS like the Grad systems. They were also using Russian SAMS systems and AAA. Put the Russian military up against the Iraqi in 1991 it would have taken them way longer to win the russian efforts at combined arms warfare have been pathetic in Ukraine. If you think the US military is all hype ask yourself why countries always resort to insurgencies when they face the US it's because they know if they stand in front of the US military in a pitched battle they will be devastated. The Ukrainian military has no where near the firepower the US military can deploy and they put huge losses on Russian attacking forces. Do you seriously think the russian meat wave attacks would work against integrated American defences. The Russians attritional tactics wouldn't work no matter how many waves they sent in they would be slaughtered for no gain. As for America getting support from other countries in war so often the other countries only offer piecemeal support it's still the US carrying the bulk of the fight.
    1
  37.  @TheSMR1969  yo'ur pathetic I've refuted everything you've said you just don't want to hear it. You provide statistics but ignore the political decisions that were made that had a major outcome on the wars. The Vietnam war is a perfect example the day US politicians decided no US ground forces could enter North Vietnam the war was lost because at that point all they were doing was holding the line and they could only do that for a limited period of time before the US public said enough. How can you win a war without putting ground forces into the opposing sides territory it's impossible no matter how many bombs you drop. The Russian military has been pathetic in Ukraine they have every advantage and still can't achieve anything decisive against an enemy that is fighting with severe limitations. If the Russians were facing an insurgency where they couldn't see their enemy I would understand if they were having difficulties but they're in a conventional war where they can see there enemy and have every advantage.
    1
  38.  @TheSMR1969  The black sea fleet was literally defeated by a country that doesn't even have a Navy.🤦😂😂 In 1991 the Iraqi had SAM systems and even AAA fire is effective against low flying ground attack aircraft. The preliminary bombardment in the 1991 Iraq war wasn't just about getting air supremely it was also about softening up the enemy ground forces before the ground advance started and when it did start the results were decisive. Anyone who has studied world war two knows the bulk of German losses were on the russian front but the reality is Russia didn't beat Germany by themselves and they couldn't have. The allied bombing campaign tied down thousands of 88mm guns with millions of rounds of ammunition that could have been on the Russian front destroying thousands more russian tanks every year severely depleting russian armoured forces. The west also supplied Russia with 500,000 trucks while the Germans were walking or using horses. The Germans didn't just surrender or runaway in any of the western theatres of operations North Africa, Italy,France. Russia didn't fight alone in world war 2 and they're not fighting alone in Ukraine they have North Korea,Iran and China helping them. The reality russian fanboy is the war in Ukraine has been a disaster for Russia you fools actually thought you were going to drive into Kiev and install a puppet government and it was going to be easy.🤦😂😂 You fools capture a small city like Bakmut and it's considered a great victory by that's how bad things have got. You will never control Ukraine because the people don't want it you get a significant advantage in a conventional war the Ukrainian can transition to an insurgency and you will be chasing ghosts the years will drag on and Russians will keep dying. Putin might even call you up tough guy
    1
  39.  @TheSMR1969  coalition forces in Afghanistan suffered 3600 dead the bulk of the casualties suffered on the allied side was Afgan national army and police. The communist goal in Korea was to overrun the country and impose communism and they failed so you can stop coping about Korea. In the Pacific war the majority of commonwealth forces were in Burma and the Australians fought in New Guinea. The Americans did the bulk of the fighting in the island hopping campaign and they destroyed the Japanese navy, airforce and their merchant marine. On the western front the Germans still had seasoned soldiers in their parachute divisions and SS divisions. You keep repeating the same garbage that Ukraine is better equipped than the NVA yet the reality is that the NVA had far stronger air defences than the Ukrainian have. The US lost 10000 aircraft and around 5500 of that was helicopters because the only way to get around was by helicopter because of the nature of the terrain and those helicopters needed other air assets to provide them with protection and those assets were also flying low which left them vulnerable. The US were flying at a very high tempo so losses were going to mount up but they still only averaged 0.4 losses per thousand sorties. You keep saying Ukraine has received more funding than the NVA but the western equipment Ukraine has received is a lot more expensive to produce than the tech that was available in the 60's. Russia hasn't lost as many aircraft because they're not flying them within range of Ukrainian air defences very often and they not having to rely on helicopters to transport their soldiers leaving them vulnerable to anti aircraft weapon systems. Your the one that's ignorant you probably believed all the garbage Putin feed you about the special military operation and how well things are going.🤡
    1
  40. You're full of sh.t Putin started this war in 2014:when the Ukrainian people turned their backs on him and sent the message they didn't want to be a puppet colony of Russia
    1