Comments by "" (@SnakePliskin762) on "" video.

  1. Nope
    4
  2. Wrongly speaking
    2
  3. That wasn't the reason
    2
  4. @shadowreaver1851  industrial juggernaught 😂 who has Russia fought? Chechnya was a disaster and 3 years later with this debacle they need NK to help kick Ukraine out of their own country.
    2
  5. No that was in a US/NATO all arms battleground. Neither side fighting here has that ability.
    2
  6. Russia can't even take out Ukraine's rear area logistics so hows it going to manage against NATO & the US?
    2
  7. @vaninec  no that's how the Russians used their tanks unsuccessfully,in a tank v infantry debacle. In your army they may be used like that in NATO and mine it's part of a battlegroup. The infantry side is taken care of with other assets. It's how we train and always have done.
    2
  8. Last paragraph hits the nail on the head.
    2
  9. It was designed for peer warfare from the start.The m1a3 is a completely different beast altogether
    1
  10. What a load of shite,what army where you in? Bangladesh?
    1
  11. @bdleo300  they weren't US they where downgraded M1s in the Iraqi Army.
    1
  12.  @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
  13. @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
  14. @moonZe_konZa  grafenwoehr was far from funny as was Poland when we do this shit
    1
  15. They where designed for the European battlefield. They entered service in the 80s when the USSR and the cold war still existed.
    1
  16. @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
  17. No they're not
    1
  18. YT is not a source
    1
  19.  @xxxVEYRONxxx  course it was...
    1
  20. ​ @toro-g9n except they prefer using both the bradleys and the Abrams more than the Russian origin equipment,hence the losses.
    1
  21. It's designed for the opposite
    1
  22. What a load of shite
    1
  23.  @bdleo300  1v1 against a Russian adversary. My money's on the c2.
    1
  24. @historysciencebooks  what a complete load of bollocks. Kursk says otherwise they quite easily managed to move around there the same way the UK troops move them in every conflict they've been involved in. Now the Armata that's the ornament you're looking for.
    1
  25.  @chargedx5768  bro has seen enough footage of abrams &c2 holding their own in Ukraine and Kursk, Bro has also seen Nato competitions in Germany with all 3 western tanks. And back to that did the penny finally drop in your head bro what i was on about reference cost?
    1
  26. Why would you need that when you're in an all arms battlegroup. Air supports only a call away same as an infantry fighting vehicle.
    1
  27.  @vaninec  tanks aren't for infantry,look what happened to Russia's tanks in Chechnya 1. Tank v tank is what they are designed for in a peer conflict.
    1
  28.  @vaninec  48 with 24 years in a mechanised unit,you?
    1
  29. Except it didn't
    1