Comments by "Tx240" (@Texas240) on "Ryan McBeth"
channel.
-
The thing is, if it was a Russian missile that was shot down and hit the ground, it wouldn't necessarily explode as it would normally.
If the theory is that the s300 missile missed the intercept with a Russian cruise missile, there's 2 issues. 1st, where did the cruise missile go? 2nd, as with the shot down Russian cruise missile scenario above, the S300, if it had missed its intercept with a cruise missile, wouldn't explode upon impact, it would just crash.
When you say those theories are being entertained in Poland, I'm guessing it's by people who don't know anything about how missile warheads work or politicians who are trying to keep people calm...as if a Ukrainian missile causing the deaths is better than a Russian missile doing so.
61
-
32
-
21
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Having watched a vid of an American volunteer working with Ukrainian raiders using Humvees to do fast in and out assaults on Russian positions, I think Ukraine would use the Bradley in this role also with its ability to fire on the move and better cross country ability and armor than the Humvee.
In the engagement I saw, the group of several Humvees were primarily tasked with eliminating a Russian BTR that was believed to be in the village. They rode in using .50 cal to suppress the just waking up Russians while the "Anti tank" Humvee was going to use a Javelin from the 50 cal cupola to hit the BTR and then high tail it out. Later, with the BTR knocked out, the Ukrainian infantry would advance on the town.
It turns out that the BTR wasn't there and the Humvees were in and out in 5 minutes with a couple RPG almost being fired at them (yay 50 cal).
However, this could be done much safer with a Bradley. One could be used as a command or spotting vehicle both to use thermal and laser to look for and range any vehicle targets or suppress infantry at range while another 1 or 2 could move into the town to to knock out a vehicle if there wasn't line of sight from outside the town. "Town" being a small collection of houses, basically.
At that time, and since they learn slow probably now, Russia didn't keep a night watch and the vehicles were unmanned and parked near wherever the men were sleeping.
There's a couple things to consider. First, not every Russian position has a tank defending it. BMP and BTR are being used as "heavy weapons squads" to give the infantry more firepower as well as mobility.
Using a Bradley to knock out a BTR or BMP is a heck of a lot better than using a Humvee with Javelins being passed up to the 50 cal gunner who needs to take a shot while taking small arms fire (assuming the Russian IFV isn't awake yet) from the open cupola.
Also, that raid could eliminate the vehicle threats while also using American doctrine of several Bradley to dismount their troops secure the area. Essentially, combining what the Humvees and later foot infantry were doing into one go.
The guy who left the comment about a Bradley being ineffective because even tanks aren't effective is just dumb. Ukraine has been using its BTR-4 as well as the Humvee raid described above to knock out Russian armor in ambush or raid.
With artillery ammo starting to be at a premium, being able to engage targets with safe direct fire capability as well as move infantry with fire support will become critical, especially when Ukraine is on the offensive.
Bradley had growing pains, for sure. However, it does overmatch the BMP, BTR, and T-62 antiques Russia is pressing into service.
Also note, that the Bradley uses the engine in front as "armor" incase it does take a tank round to the face. I haven't looked into if that design feature has saved any crew in our various invasioneering adventures.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As great as the F-16 is, it's missing a counter to the Russian R37 long range air to air missile that according to Ryan and Perun, Russia is lobbing at Ukrainian jets from from the safety of their own ground based air defenses (gbad).
AMRAAM has only half ish of the range. Ukraine really needs the Gripen and its Meteor missile which will pretty much disable the Russian long range attacks.
Unlike the Russian R37, which was designed to hit B-52 bombers and isn't very maneuverable, the Meteor was designed to hit more agile targets.
So, Russia would be risking losing a jet in order to lob a missile at a Ukrainian plane that mainly just causes the Ukrainian to evade. This cancels the mission, but usually doesn't kill the aircraft.
The Gripen and F-16 would completely level the playing field. If Russia wants to lob long range missiles, Ukraine could do it better. If Russia wants to lob cruise missiles from ships in the Black Sea, Ukraine could hunt them (F-16 using harpoon covered by the Gripen and meteor).
Either way, bad news for Putin, good news for Ukraine and American defense manufacturing.
1
-
I'm glad Russia allowed Ryan access to the damn so he could conduct an analysis.
0:16 "doesn't mean that Russia isn't responsible" So, basically, your thumbnail calling it negligence was click bait designed soley to be controversial and help drive traffic to your paid substack? I see.
Keep in mind that Russia intentionally closed the gates to raise the level of the reservoir. In fact, the water was actually over topping the damn before the failure. That fact, that Russia intentionally raised the water level higher than the dam was designed to support, makes the dam failure INTENTIONAL, not mere "negligence" as you suggested.
Imagine this: You're about to cross the street. I see you about to cross the street. I call my friend, who's parked along that street, and tell him to accelerate through intersection. I fail to stop you from crossing the street (by grabbing you, yelling, or other means available to stop you). You are hit by the car.
Now, choose ONE statement that describes my culpability:
A) You were hit by the car because of my negligence in failing to stop you from stepping into the street when I knew both that the car was coming and that you were walking toward the street.
B) You were hit by the car because I intentionally set into motion a chain of events that would cause you to be hit by the car.
Negligence or Intention?
Russia is responsible AND the dam failure was intentional, even if explosives weren't used. If we make the above example more accurate, I had also previously stated that I was going to have you run over by a car at that intersection.
As for that last point, explosive use, my suspicion is that this video is going to age as well as your "Kerch Straight bridge can't be attacked" video, which you never issued a correction for after it WAS attacked. Russia placed explosives, threatened to blow the dam, and even has a history of blowing up that dam when an enemy was conducting an offensive in that area (Germany vs Soviet Union, WWII).
Jake Broe channel put together a 19 reason list of reasons pointing to a deliberate act by Russia. Blancirio channel, who covered the Oroville, California dam FAILURE put together a good comparison of the drone footage from after the recent Ukraine incident with 1st person view of the dam and turbine house before the incident. He called the Nova Kakhovka dam incident an EXPLOSION.
Time will tell, but I believe that the dam was blown, at the turbine house. The failure was midway through the turbine house, where Russia had admitted placing explosives when they first began threatening to blow up the dam. The failure didn't initiate at the gates where the water was over topping the dam. It's too perfect for it to be a natural failure.
Then, add in all the other 19 facts about the timing of the incident that Jake Broe points out and it would require monumental belief in pure coincidence to try and argue the dam failure wasn't intentional and only slightly less monumental naivete to believe that Russia didn't make good on their threat to blow up the dam in light of Ukraine beginning offensive operation in that area.
I'm not going to watch your video on this. Your click bait thumbnail and first 16 seconds told me all I need to know.
What I WILL watch is Perun channel's video on the incident, should he put one together. The difference between you and Perun is that you don't care about being right. You care about being quick enough with your video that the event is still fresh in hopes of sounding authoritative on the matter so that you can drive traffic to your paid service (I suppose this method of fast over accurate reporting is just coincidence that you've recently decided, according to some comments, to become a youtube star full time).
I'll be eagerly awaiting your correction vid regarding the Kerch Straight bridge attack AND your correction vid on the Nova Kakhovka dam explosion. Until I see you admit your mistakes, you have no more credibility than Tucker Carlson, a wannabe Twitter star, who just spouts Russian talking point misinformation.
FYI, a message from a friend living near the incident used the term "blew up" when I mentioned the dam and asked if they were OK where they are.
Perhaps, since you're allowing yourself to be manipulated or willfully putting out nonsense, since driving views is now your day job, Russia will allow you access to the CC footage where it will show that the dam failed as opposed to blew up.
Shame on you, Ryan, you're better than this.
Or, shame on me for letting you trick me into thinking that you're better than this type of misinformed, fast but inaccurate, need-to-drive-views "reporting".
For people interested in the timing of this incident, I do highly recommend Jake Broe channel vid "Yes - Russia destroyed the dam" where he discusses 19 reasons pointing to an intentional, not merely negligent, act. 19 facts that, apparently, don't exist in whatever alternate universe Ryan Mcbeth lives in and is "reporting" from.
As mentioned, the blancolirio channel also has a good vid showing the Nova Kakhovka incident area. He covered the Oroville, California dam failure and primarily covers air safety incidents in detail.
And, subscribe to Perun channel so you don't miss it if he puts together an actually researched piece on the dam incident.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:40 Ryan, you're still making the mistake of thinking about the Russian army in terms of what you know from your time in the US Army. It's not difficult to find a video of a Russian tank column traveling too close and with all guns pointing forward. This was happening even during the first months, before tank crews were getting supplemented by new, inexperienced reservists. Russian tanks don't have a GPS, possibly don't even have a working radio, and likely only the lead tank even has a map (remember, Russia was playing a disinformation game against their own troops!).
So, two things are going on that promoted Russian tanks to convoy too close. First, human nature. Without proper training to break human nature, the instinct is to get closer together when attacked. Second, if you don't have a map or GPS and aren't sure where you're going or how to get there but you know if you get lost someone will blow you up, you're going to want stay close enough to the tank in front so you don't get lost or left behind.
Since the actually trained units have been decimated and refreshed by inexperienced reservists or new recruits, the likelihood of seeing Russian tanks doing stupid shit that wouldn't be tolerated in a western military has only increased.
It's wise to not underestimate an opponent. However, Russian tank crews have been caught in actual video behaving the way they are depicted in the game scenario.
1
-
6:49 re, covert cabal
Those guys don't seem credible, or at least seem very stupid. They seem to equate "number of tanks" (what they can count) with "number of FUNCTIONAL tanks."
Covert cabal, from what I've seen, vastly overestimates Russian armor power. Basically, they're doing the same thing everyone else did prior Russia becoming the 2nd strongest armored force in Ukraine...possibly the 3rd strongest, depending on how many of the Ukrainian Farmers Army tanks have been reassigned to the Ukrainian military.
So, while everyone else made the same mistake in intelligence gathering, Covert Cabal continues to make that mistake over a year into Russia proving that it's stored armor was not well maintained, at best, and destroyed by corruption at worst.
1
-
1
-
1
-
11:35 re, military at 31
They ought to first think about what they want to be doing at age 35 and 40.
If they aren't interested in a 20 year military career, what are they wanting to do when they get out. Will military service hejp then accomplish that.
There's no point (as far as life goals, career, and retirement) in doing an enlistment or 2 and then being 40 and thinking "Hmmm, what am I going to do for work now?"
If they are thinking about a 20 military career, they may run into age discrimination and find it hard to earn their E-7 promotion by year 13 or 14 (might be branch dependent, but in the USMC, if you didn't make E-7 by year 14, you were blocked from re-enlistment.
If they have a bachelor's degree and are hoping to become an officer, that's not automatic. They will probably have to serve at least one tour and make E-5 before being able to try for officer selection.
And, of course, are they OK with being deployed to a combat zone, should a conflict arise, is always a good question that anyone wanting to join the military should ask themselves even if it might not happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1