Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "This vehicle belongs in a museum. Why is it still being used in Ukraine?" video.

Some old Russian junk costs too much trouble with training crews, repairing and logistics that it is not worth the trouble of having it. The benefits of extra firepower and protection would be minimal. Indeed I think I would be safer as an well equipped infantry man than sitting in a rusty chest waiting to be cooked by a NLAW or a Javelin. And as General I would rather field a well equipped infantry company than a logistically troublesome tank platoon that is crappy on the battlefield and gets slaughtered by any cheap anti-tank weapon made the last 50 years.
9
You have not followed the news. If you had you would clearly see that the donations from western countries have been small and usually included older vehicles that are at the end of their life cycle. Had those Paladins, Gepards, M113, Humvees, PV1110, and all Soviet junk from Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Macedonia been sent to Ukraine would that equipment have been scrapped anyways very soon as it is becoming so old that its not worth keeping. Why do you think Sweden got rid of their Pansarbandvagn 501 (Swedens version of BMP-1)? - It is because it is old garbage. As soon as Sweden bought Combat Vehicle 90 it sold their old Soviet junk off to the Czech Republic, and the Czechs have now given away all those vehicles to Ukraine. There is no point for Sweden to maintain that expensive crappy Soviet garbage. Combat vehicle is a much better vehicle, despite all upgrades Sweden had done to their old BMP-1. So no Nato is not depleting its resources. Even Swedens tiny military have been a large donor to Ukraine. But despite that has Swedens military spending just been a few billions in aid to Ukraine - which is an extremely small sum of money to Ukraine. Only about 0.5% of our GDP this year. So we can afford to give much more help to Ukraine if we are wanting to. USA + EU got a 40 times larger economy than Russia. So guess which side will run out of resources first? - I think it is obvious that Russia will deplete its resources first. And it is already suffering severe shortages now, despite the west have not yet even starting to flex its military muscles even a little bit. The Russian military have proven itself to be not just a paper bear. But also incompetent and completly useless. The help to Ukraine have been minimal compared to what it could have been. And yet are Russia losing so hard against the poorest country in Europe. A country that mostly uses Soviet military junk that is even older than that used by Russia. Pathetic.
2
Their best tank (T90M) was knocked out by an AT-4 - the cheapest and weakest anti-tank weapon in the Swedish army😁 I think that this well can summerize the western technological advantage over old Soviet junk.
2
APC is valuable. Comrade Sergey not so much.
2
A tank is better than no tank. We should send m3 Lee to Ukraine.
1
Soon I bet. According to this musuem are there no bad tanks. A tank is always better than no tank at all. And there exist no bad tanks - only bad ways of using them. We must not be racist towards non-western countries here, and always come up with excuses for them. Even for evil regimes that starts one war of aggression after another, commits a genocide, deliberatly bombs hospitals and schools and which threatens the free democratic world with nuclear bombs. Remember, if you kill your enemies, they win.
1
@wisewarnanazara317 Having a few Toyota pickup trucks will be a faster way of moving soldiers. There will be more spareparts for them as they are still in production around the world, and you do not need any specially trained mechanics as you can use ordinary car mechanics to fix those trucks. Your logistical organization will be much easier to handle with a Toyota truck instead. And you will free up manpower for more useful tasks. You do not need specialized mechanics to work on old T-62 tank garbage and trying to improvise repairs as there are no spareparts. You do instead save up valuable time and manpower. Resources that are better used elsewhere. Even spending money on real modern infantry weapons for your foot soldiers is a better use of money, than wasting money on old junk that only costs more and more money to repair and upkeep. Sure a J-35 Draken that was first flown in 1955, could still perhaps be a powerful plane even today if you upgrade it a lot.. But would it still be worth keeping that plane in service in an airforce today? - I guess your answer is "yes". But personally I disagree. Sure was many hundreds of them built, so they could be a large reserve of planes that one could use if a war broke out. But to me it just seem wasteful to keep all those planes. As they cost money to constantly maintain, and pilots needs to fly them a few times now and then so they are not unprepared for using those planes if a war starts. But the problem is of course that the airframe gets damaged for every flight you make. And after 70 years one can assume that the equipment have been used very intensivly and are reaching the end of their lifespan. The plane will break down more often and need more and more repairs. Just like an old human body that often gets sicker and sicker the older it gets, and is getting weaker and suffer from a long life of wear and tear. When Draken entered service it was a typical combat plane in many ways. Like other planes of its day it needed 50 hours of maintance on the ground for every 1 hour it was flying up in the skies. Now I would guess a Draken would need even more than that because of its high age. Now you can compare that to Swedens newest fighter jet Gripen that only needs 5 hours of maintance on the ground for every 1 hour it flies up in the sky. So for the same maintance work as 1 Draken you can fly 10 Gripen. So I do not think that Draken can motivate its existence in the Swedish defence budget anymore for almost only that reason alone. It costs too much money to upkeep such an old plane. Its better then to use that money to buy a modern plane instead. In a war I do not want hangar Queens. And the same goes for tanks. Sure do they have strong thich metal planets that are not perhaps as fragile as an airframe on a plane. But tanks do also take a beating from metal fatigue and wear and tear. The armor more easily cracks as it gets older. And having a tank that is sitting in the repair shop 50% of the time like a world war 2 Panther tank was not really what Germany needed when its own tanks was already heavily outnumbered, and needed as many tanks in the frontline as it possibly could get.
1
They will take home the price as the most militarily useless country in the northern hemisphere for sure.
1
BMP-1 cannot stand and fight either. Its rate of fire with its tiny gun is horribly slow. The vehicle is cramped and filled with fuel and ammunition to quickly kill everyone inside if it gets hit. Its armor protection is crap and made out of crappy soviet steel - and it is even more crap now because of its old age, rust, and 40 years of wear and tear that exhaust the armor quality of tanks, planes and other vehicles alike. I rather try to swim in a M113 than I do with a BMP-1 that is filled with holes because of low production standards that can allow water to come in and sink the vehicle and let the troops inside drown in the river. And I rather risk getting a hit inside a well maintained M113 than a crampy rusty BMP-1.
1
The M113 have the same ground pressure (and even slightly lower than BMP.1) so they should be able to handle the mud equally well. Given that the quality of western machines are generally better and given that the maintance is not being neglected in western countries like it is in rotten Soviet Russia... would I guess that M113 would be much less prone to breakdowns than the rusty Soviet junk used in this war.
1
The Ukrainian army is still a post-Soviet army just like Russia. It does not have enough western kit so it therefore have to put this junk into use. This choice stands between this crap or no weapons at all.
1
Of course its armor will not stop that. But on the other hand do I think that it shouldn't be too much to ask that not everyone inside should be burned alive because the vehicle have a stupid design that instantly cooks off its ammunition and fuel, and is so crampy that it is impossible for everyone inside the vehicle to get out once it catches fire.
1
@henriht1147 "If an armored vehicles hull gets penetrated with anything then most of the crew is destined to die either way." Nonsense. If an American M4 Sherman or a German Panther got destroyed in battle, then did on average 80% of the crew survive the hit. Compare that to Russian tanks. When a T-34 got destroyed, there was a 80% chance that a crewman would die. So there is obviously a big difference in crew safety from vehicle to vehicle. Are there many safety hatches that the crew can reach? Is the vehicle cramped inside, or is it easy to get out of it if a fire starts inside? How is the ammunition stored inside, is it safely stored like in M1 Abrams or is it stored like inside a T-72 where all the ammunition cooks off and throw the tank turret 75meters up in the air and kill everyone inside the tank in a gigantic explosion? Soviet vehicles have never prioritized crew safety as much as their western counterparts. They rather want to keep production costs down for making a vehicle. And sure have Russia been succesful in selling cheap armor vehicles to poor countries that cannot afford much else. But the drawback have always been bad crew safety. And for that reason am I not a big fan of Russian vehicles. A good tank crew is very valuable in my opinion. More valuable than a tank. I think Israels obsession about crew safety in their design of the Merkava tank have some merit. While Russias design philosophy from WW2 that views human lives as easily replaceable junk, while equipment is more valuable is coming to an end. Good crews takes years to make. A tank can be destroyed, but new ones can be built. But a new human soldier takes 20 years to make and needs lots of expensive training. And his willingness to fight will be low if you treat him like a wasteable resources. While a soldier in a democratic society that values soldiers lives will have a stronger willingness to fight. Russia can no longer behave like it did in the past. It can no longer afford human waves attacks and lose mountains of dead Russian soldiers for every war they win. Those days are gone. Russias birthrate is going down. And fewer soldiers are therefore available. Russia must now transition away from quantity to quality. But the problem is that Soviet weapons lack quality and only got quantity in mind. It is junk compared to its western counterparts. And even the better weapons in the Soviet arsenal have aged and is no longer up to date with the best stuff from the west. Russia better starts mass producing their T14 Armata and SU57 soon, because will everything they have be outclassed by everything that the west got. Indeed even if Russia gets the SU57 project finalized... it seems like Russia is in a hopeless situation by now. They have not yet finished their first own 5th generation jet, while USA, Japan, Sweden, UK, Germany and France are already on their way building their own 6th generation planes. I don't think a technologically backwards, boycotted country, with an economy as large as Spain's can compete with the west anymore in developing advanced weapons systems.
1