Comments by "Tiago D\x27Agostini" (@tiagodagostini) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. THat is absurd. Brazil constitution explicitly forbids its forces to enter ANY other country without UN authorization. The military would not even ACCEPT an order to enter a neighbor country.
    20
  2. I don't know why people are SO focused on "Carrier Killers" when they see a new Russian weapon. carriers are NOT their main concern! Carriers are just mobile airbases. If the war is goind to happen in YOUR territory or adjacent to yours, then a traditional airbase is superior! Carriers are NOT the main target of Russian, and never were of Soviet navy. Their target are the TRASNPORT forces. To move US army to europe in full force takes time and the role of soviet navy always was to DELAY that. To waste time tryign to kill carriers when nato has HUNDREDS of airstrips is stupid!
    14
  3. In modern battlefield a TOP of line tank dies as easily as a T55. That mean it is nto worth to invest in expensive tanks.
    13
  4. The Ka-52 were used in the most dangerous missions ever flown by helicopters in any war. I do not know why people think there would not be heavy losses.
    10
  5.  @kurousagi8155  The only fire and forget ATGM for LONG RANGE in world is the hellfire II (and even then it has some limited Fire and forget capability depending on the density of terrain)
    7
  6.  @Roland_of_Brittany  Yes Russia started it, but currently the war is heavily between NATO and Russia. The strategies are NATO made, the equipment is NATO supplied, the intelligence is NATO gathered. Ukraine is supplying the hard part.. the blood to be risked. That is what allowed the Ukranians to hold and start to flip the tables.
    7
  7. Sensors and DATALINK ENCRYPTION KEYS are the important things.
    7
  8. China is probably learnign a lot about the new relaities of war with the Russo Ukranian war. They are probably rushing to adapt with the lessons learned, but as soon as that is done a high risk may exist.
    6
  9. I sincerely think the time of planes with pilots is over. As someoen that works with AI, I cannot fathom investments of hundreds of billions on something with a pilot from today onwards.
    5
  10. I do not think they are in position of choosing. If they got WW2 vehicles they would use it.
    5
  11. In fct an enemy invading army woudl probably have their possession robbed by local criminals.
    4
  12. They can. It is not so hard to make an automated small .50 scale turret that shot incomming drones. Problem is.. a constant radar emission would make it target of anti radiation missiles. Expensive tanks are not in a great position right now. Even the High end NATO tanks die as easily as the T72 (on side of ukraine) in this war.
    3
  13.  @trut52  in 56 HUngary was part of the Comunist block. Intervention at the peak of the cold war is an absurd context.
    2
  14. Yes and no.. theones whose weaposn work as advertised.. yes the ones that weaposn fall short.. no.
    2
  15. NO war takes forever. This war had very little impacton Europe compared to other wars in past, so EU and USA prefer to grind Russia down then to go all in and risk a nuclear escalation.
    2
  16. But several of these losses also did nto result in a pilot death. That is harder to measure.
    2
  17. This scenario is Baltic coutnries becomming a battle royale match room and having no word at it.
    2
  18. IT depends on how the situation triggers. Is for example there is some large political turmoil in Ukraine, they might pretend it was not related to Russia and look to other side.
    1
  19. Putin would sit in his chair and mutter.. "exccllent!", with his hands exaclty as Montgomery Burns
    1
  20. No territory would be changed in the even t that NATO help was called for the defendant. THe charter limits that.
    1
  21.  @thegenericguy8309  Russian missiles are laser riding weapons, different fromt he first hellfire that tracked the reflection of the laser with a frontal sensors. The russian missiles track the laser source with a backwards sensor. The advantage of that is that they are less vulnerable to countermeasure, the downside is that the helicopter cannot shake, turn or rotate violently or it will take the missile out of its riding laser.
    1
  22. When the next Abrams have an auto loader, I want to see what the thousands of fanboys that swornd over their granfparents graves that autoloaders are BAD and stupid (just because Russians do it) will say about it.
    1
  23.  @will.provolone18  But that is not what most Abrams lovers say, they explicitly say Auto loaders are a stupid Idea.
    1
  24. That would depend ont he initial scenario. Your scenario fo skirmishes that after motnhs erupt woudl give NATO all time in the world to move US forces to europe. On other hand a Warsaw pact surprise attack would be completely different.
    1
  25.  @leonleeoff2216  They do.. there is zero ukranians planes flying. That is air superiority. The Russians are not RISKING usign it too much although.
    1
  26.  @timtrewyn453  They do not need that (not at the risk of losing expensive Su-34 to manpads). They are achieving basically the same with drone surveillance and artillery guided by those drones. And it is working, the Ukrainans are having very hard time logistically , specially in the central front. The only reason Ukraine can still keep the units supplied is that they are low consumption ones (i.e very few tanks) Again air SUPERIORITY is not about neutralizing SAM. You are mixing air SUPREMACY with air superiority., Air superiority is your side operating their bombers without fear of fighters and your units being able to move without being under heavy risk of bombers. Ukranians are simply unable to stop Russian movements by using planes, they have too few. Russians CAN do it, but at the current front situation they have an alternative form that is way cheaper (and much less likely to cause an incident with NATO directly)
    1
  27. The russians still have a lot of tanks. Jsut see current footage of the war.
    1
  28.  @darenzy  HInt, first world problems, rest of the world have this kind of inflation ALWAYS!
    1
  29. Yes, but the problem for west is, they cannot make this war in an existencial threat for Russia or Russia WILL use nuclear weapons. So West needs to grind and hodl Russia until some coup happens.
    1
  30. Well historically only UK and France started more wars than USA, so it is not so far from a realistic concept.
    1
  31. Israel does indeed change the balance a lot. It woudl make impossible forturkey to focus their air force at the west of their country.
    1
  32.  @jacob-lf4id  The wording invulnerable is usually used regarding attack helicopterts. It does nto mean indestructible it means cannot be shot down by small arms (usually up to .50 is considered a small arm for that purpose)
    1
  33.  @EricHamm  Flying a plane is MUCH MUCH easier than driving a car in a busy city. You clearly have no clue even on how modern AI works. The only thing limiting AI fully controlling cars are litigation issues. In all areas it is like that, I know because I work with it. There are tons of projects that are technically feasible but the legal framework we live in spoils it. For example, AI directed diagnistics.. it is rather solved problems (AI is as good as an average doctor), but legally it cannot be done as a human must be responsible for the clinical diagnistic.
    1
  34. Part yes, but Russians have been preparing for this war. They likely had stockpile the stuff they knew they would have not access to.
    1
  35. The one attacked can call for help. For that reason strikes against territorial assets are basically out of the equation sicne all the other NATO members are FORCED to join the war in the side of the defendant (including USA).
    1