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

  1.  @oofoof1206  i replied,read it
    1
  2. ​ @denazify_the_banderites  no it isn't. It's getting supplies but doesn't mean the west has to send everything or it's best. Russia would need to cross into a NATO country for it to face them.
    1
  3. ​ @denniscrork318  31 Abrams plus a few leopards isn't fighting 50 nations.
    1
  4. ​ @Chris-bb2cb 600 just in trying to take Povrosk
    1
  5. Ask a Russian sat in his freezing basemenr this winter how his life compares.
    1
  6. ​ @butterzz6913  they did when they where there but why keep bailing out a corrupt government that can't fight it's own battles.
    1
  7. NATO isn't out of weapons
    1
  8.  @andy_NQ  it's already been ramped up. NATO also has extensive stores for example the US with it's Abrams etc. Yet it's only supplied 31.
    1
  9. @neeladridas2096  negative
    1
  10.  @linejumper8204  We don't know yet what trump or NATOV will do but it's irrelevant to the answer i put. He stated NATO is out of weapons which it clearly isn't.
    1
  11.  @lorneiggulden7123  nice piece of complete bollocks you're talking there
    1
  12.  @gibbs677bg  source for the fact?
    1
  13. ​ @FTM1fenn  who watches tv? Some of us are intelligent enough to read and do our own research rather than sit in front of YT,Telegram,X etc watching what bollocks others are putting on. Try it
    1
  14. According to you?
    1
  15. @bdleo300  they weren't US they where downgraded M1s in the Iraqi Army.
    1
  16. Mraps,humvees and a few blackhawks are hardly groundbreaking technology.
    1
  17.  @sudhakarrane7076  IAF ran out of su-27 widow makers?
    1
  18.  @RandleBeckford  seen on here you mean?
    1
  19. ​ @sudhakarrane7076 you can't even get the Taliban out your country 😂
    1
  20. They haven't downed either
    1
  21. ​ @dalibordupor3979  NATO has plenty of surplus. It always has done. There's nearly 5k of Abrams sat in storage,storm shadows and ATACMS are old tech nearly shelf life date and needed getting rid of.
    1
  22. No they don't
    1
  23. They're used daily and very effectively
    1
  24. it's not NATO's war to enter
    1
  25. @lepiss9683  NATO did supply and train them to use them,that is correct. Russia responded with an ineffective and inaccurate conventionally armed ICBM.
    1
  26.  @TokitoLee  no it didn't. I've been in long in-depth conversations about that hit with other wooden heads on here and it's getting tiresome. It was inaccurate with it's CEP being too large and warhead being too small. Also the factory was an old rocket factory not producing NATO arms.
    1
  27.  @TokitoLee  patriots and other area defense systems don't cover everywhere,even a country as small and densely packed as Israel with one of the best layered air defenses in the world has area's they can't cover or of low value they won't.
    1
  28. @tamdang8346  you obviously don't. It hit with a combined 3.6 billion joules including kinetic energy,a 1 ton bomb is 4.4. So basically it's expensive,its shit,inaccurate get over it.
    1
  29. Su-34 has been downed more
    1
  30.  @grunthorful  course it does...,it's dual role same as the F-16 but then again the other aircraft didn't fair so better either.
    1
  31. The corrupt Afghan government did who handed it to the Taliban who funnily enough want the US back to help fight ISIS-K.
    1
  32. How did those Russian helicopters do against those goat herders pretty heavy losses wasn't it,what about the 2 hinds that had to ride suicide alongside the transports as they took off,take the missile instead of the troops
    1
  33. I had to study the Afghan-USSR conflict especially the air campaign Gamer Craig,I've got loads of sources i can highly recommend
    1
  34. What a load of nonsense
    1
  35. NATO isn't fighting. He's right,you're wrong.
    1
  36. A decent army could.
    1
  37.  @JamesJones-c7g  excuses excuses.Russia had it's arse handed to it in Chechnyna and that was with the gloves off. Simply hadn't learned.
    1
  38.  @Bort9878  exactly a weak country but still supplied thousands of headless chickens to the slaughter quite embarrising really. NATO has supplied supplies,quite a large portion of it well past it's sell by date.
    1
  39. @mamabazzz  it's more a change of role. Why spend money replacing one of the oldest m1 models when you're prioritising air mobile assets.
    1
  40. @moonZe_konZa  grafenwoehr was far from funny as was Poland when we do this shit
    1
  41. Sounds like a dock? Su-37? Bit early for the vodka
    1
  42. They are not too heavy,it's a YT myth.Polish mud is the same as Ukrainian mud where they've been used for the last 30 years.
    1
  43. Only if you believe this
    1
  44.  @envya2774  funnily enough it was the himars that done the hitting but why let a bit of state sponsored YT get in the way.
    1
  45. Sa-3
    1
  46.  @andyvonbourske6405  NATO name
    1
  47. ​ @frank-y8n  it hasn't got one
    1
  48. What a load of bollocks
    1
  49. They where designed for the European battlefield. They entered service in the 80s when the USSR and the cold war still existed.
    1
  50. @bdleo300  first gw1 they where. Afghan and GW2 where coin ops so just in supporting roals so no you can't judge their performance from those two latter environments.
    1