Comments by "" (@SnakePliskin762) on "Военное телевидение" channel.

  1. @TwiceStruck  and experts disagreed with their reason for not supplying. Maybe Germany didn't want to give them up with having so little.Taurus is as simple to use as ATACMS and storm shadow. The ukes can fire them inertially as simple as putting coordinates in your car sat nav.
    1
  2.  @catadoxas  course they will,the systems not rocket science pardon the pun. Ukraine has used missile systems before so it isn't hard for them to train on and guide themselves. They way people on here talk,it's like they've given them to Papua New Guinea.
    1
  3.  @nolga3569  is that the sum total of your input? NATO in fancy dress 😴
    1
  4.  @nolga3569  you should get yourself down there instead of sitting in your basement eating turnips,see for yourself.
    1
  5. ​ @tamdang8346 it's been an embarrassing shambles for Russia tam dung. More casualties than every western conflct since the 2nd world war,billions on equipment lost,13000 armoured vehicles,30% of the black sea fleet. Shambles
    1
  6. ​@patriarshie😂 based on what? What nationalities and regiments? Bearing in mind these occupations aren't in the hundreds. What's your sources? Let's see this,I'm looking forward to this one.
    1
  7. ​@patriarshieit's called inertial navigation you fart,still is that NATO fighting...no
    1
  8. ​@patriarshiewhere are these NATO military captured by Russia. Same as the swedish killed at Poltava Or the Danish Pilot that didn't exisr Or the hotels in Odessa that had holes in the roof but NATO killed you guessed it... Complete bollocks
    1
  9. ​@patriarshie Volunteers you complete numbnut,guess you're saying the Australian teacher,the bit who was kicked out for taking drugs and the 18 yr old brit who had no experience are NATO are you? Are you that thick?
    1
  10. ​@patriarshie You do realise volunteers are on both sides,so the italian platoon on the Russian side means Ukraine is fighting Italy by your logic,what about the indians?
    1
  11. ​@patriarshie That's neither thousands or a NATO country regiment,I'm waiting...
    1
  12. @patriarshie regiments? NATO? need evidence silly man
    1
  13. ​ @МаринаКислая-у5ф a base full of peacekeepers as per peace accords.
    1
  14. They did with ATACMS,the aircraft airfields came in range once they got the go ahead they could target them. Hence why these weapons have gone quiet.
    1
  15.  @kerrydavis7034  that's bs. If they had that many they'd have air superiority
    1
  16.  @bobjones-bt9bh  they airfields haven't moved the aircraft have.
    1
  17.  @santaroio1982  Yes it did invade..with terrible tactics and high losses aswell as multiple attacks on civilians. Where you one of those who did that?
    1
  18. @patriarshie no i'm just someone who likes facts silly fart
    1
  19.  @НквКн  don't like facts don't intervene
    1
  20.  @tamdang8346  you mean those who don't use YT as a source tamdung?
    1
  21.  @tamdang8346  Bollockstube and third world halfwits like yourself Tamdung,think i'll pass on that one.
    1
  22. ​ @SMRMilitaryAnalysis  but entirely true,lifes cheap in the Russian army.
    1
  23. ​ @lexburen5932  it hasn't fought NATO
    1
  24.  @ReadyOnThree  nope
    1
  25. Based on?
    1
  26. ​​ @ErnestRomanovich  old m1s (31) c2s (14) and some L2s/L1s dating from the early 80s are doing well against an army that's lost over 13000 armoured vehicles. Quite embarrassing for Russia really.
    1
  27. Yt sources?
    1
  28. They didn't hand it to the British or have arms coming in that route.
    1
  29. What century does it start? It's getting a bit tiresome now
    1
  30. nope,toothless
    1
  31. Exactly. Western arms are coming in via the borders.
    1
  32. So nearly a million dead and injured isn't an invasion. Please give your head a wobble
    1
  33. what is that reliably?
    1
  34. who needs to stop a missile with a 6% chance of hitting a house in a CEP of 150m?
    1
  35. @kathrynck  well the evidence wasn't what the vid looked like,it was actually wider than a CEP of 250m and caused very minimal damage. This was shown on high resolution imagery. This type of weapon has severe drawbacks in accuracy and warhead size hence why the US cancelled it's own Prompt Global Strike when they looked at doing the same. Take into account the cost and the low production per year of these by Russia,it's an expensive way of doing very little.
    1
  36. @vanjamenadzer  except both sides have ICBMs with nukes dummy,they have done for years. That line if crossed will be suicide for both sides. The point of this conversation is the conventional aspect.
    1
  37. @iviciaable  unfortunately for you some of us do a bit more research than YT. High resolution imagery afterwards showed little damage on any of the area,basically it was a dud. No buildings levelled,nothing,too inaccurate.36 warheads at a CEP of 150m gave it a 6% of hitting a house sized target! And all of those waheads combined only gave it the destructiver power of a ww2 v2.And this one's CEP was well out of 150m. It was an expensive way of doing nothing.
    1
  38. @iviciaable  do you want the maths involved or the experts who reviewed all this. 40 tons of rocket to deliver less than 1 ton of explosive power (3.6 million joules compared to 4.4 million for 1 ton of explosive) you can talk all the YT nonsense you want but the facts don't lie.
    1
  39.  @nolga3569  no it isn't it's been tested against ballistic targets for a long time.
    1
  40. @iviciaable  I'm not arsed where you think you worked or what you think. I've explained the science,what the resolution images reported after,what the damage assessment was and that this was done by experts not the likes of you with an opinion on YT.If you want all the links and sources i can kindly supply until then go and give your head a shit. They weren't accurate or penetrated anything,you just don't get it do you.
    1
  41.  @nolga3569  exactly they worked,what targets in Israel have been hit? Please tell
    1
  42. Facts? 😂
    1
  43. More the opposite,that handfuls of antiquated western weapons due for retirement can still hold their own against Russia's best. Quite a shambles.
    1
  44. ​ @C200michmich  trying to deflect from the nonsense of thousands of NATO dead with more nonsense?
    1
  45. @krabbe9078  what a complete load of tripe. All this slav nonsense. You do realise where Ukrainian soldiers are getting trained? NATO countries. 25% of my countries training areas are taken up by them. Why do you think that is?
    1
  46. What a load of bollocks
    1
  47.  @OzzyBloke  proved what? 10,000 Rissian tanks destroyed? An air force that can't maintain air superiority over it's little neighbour. A black sea fleet that's lost 30% of it's ships? What part needs keeping up with?
    1
  48. ​ @mpopenker it took less than 6 weeks to kick them out the country. It was the corrupt government in charge that let them back in,years after the US withdrew.
    1
  49. ICBMs apart from nuclear use are meaningless as for the drone part,NATO & the US definitely won't be behind in that department. You need to concentrate on developing an air force more importantly.
    1
  50. @FantasticNPC  They're too inaccurate and ineffective going by the Oreshnik results. Hence why the US dropped the idea of PGS years ago. As for the drone tech,do you not think they'd of thought of a solution for this.
    1