Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
23
-
22
-
15
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
Look at history. Russia typically outnumbered Sweden 4 to 1 in most battles fought in the Great Northern War and Russia typically lost most of those battles and suffered 10 times higher losses than their opponent.
And the story is the same in most other wars as well. Russia got humiliated by Frederick the Great, they got humiliated by Finland in the winter war and the continuation wars, and the Germans humiliated Russia with the same catastrophic losses for russia in 1941 as seen in the battles in the Great Northern war.
So for Russia it is usual for them to suck. They always suck at war. Incompetent leadership, corruption, crappy doctrine, bad dicipline among the soldiers that rather spend time for rape and loot than focusing on combat, low willingness to fight among the soldiers, poorly maintained rusty old equipment, political meddling in the war effort, Putins nepotism, insecure communication...
well the reasons are many why I do not consider the russian military to be nothing but a mob and a barbarian horde.
It does not deserve to be called a professional force since it lacks professionalism, dicipline and skill.
Its year 2023 and the stone age barbarians in the east have not yet even invented the pallet for their logistical system.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@AlexanderTch
Russia is a weak country which is why it constantly gets humiliated in every war it fights. It initially was able to steal some territory with its cowardly surprise attack but bit by bit is russia forced back. It retreated from the outskirts of Kyiv, then it was forced to retreat from Sumy, and then it was forced to retreat from Charkiv, and then it retreated from snake island, and the navy was forced away from the western black sea, and then it retreated and lost Khersun.
So russia once again gets humiliated on the battlefield like it have for most of the last 170 years... when it lost the Crimean war, lost the russo-japanease war, lost World war 1, lost the Polish-Bolshevik war, got humiliated in the winter war, suffered catastrophic and humiliating losses against Nazi-Germany in 1941-42 until lend lease help and US involvement could begin turn the tide of that war... but never the less would russia continue to suffer humiliation for the rest of world war 2 with its pathetic and bad performance against Finland in the continuation war. It later on lost the war in Afghanistan and it also lost the first Chechen war.
It is a worthless loser nation totally lacking military skill, and only have its large territory and a brutal disrepect for the value of a human life as it it is willing to waste its own soldiers lives in meat wave attacks. It is a country that needs help from other countries in a military alliance to beat a foe since it is too worthless to achieve anything on its own. It could not beat Hitler on its own, nor could it beat Napoleon, and not even the Swedes could it beat on its own.
And yes russia lose big wars - World war 1 is an example of that.
And this time around you get no lend lease help from a great power that could save your ass.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wzjzkldjskd
They won back terrain with their victory at Kyiv, they won it back near Sumy. They took back a large piece of land with their Charkiv offensive, they won back the strategically and symbolically important snake island, and they retook Khersun.
Right now have they punched a hole in the russian line. And while it is true that the frontline isn't moving, is it also true that russia is suffering disproportionatly heavy losses. You often see 40 artillery pieces per day getting destroyed. And without artillery will russia be unable to win this war in the long run. If things continue down this path, then will russia lose all their artillery (at least locally) and then will the remaining russian troops quickly get knocked out and their defence falls apart.
When that day come I will not be surprised to see large Ukrainian land gains.
It will be a severe blow to russian morale. And then it will be a question if russia will retreat or make a stubborn Stalinist "not a step backwards" policy. Either way is it not good for russia.
I also think that a bunch of long range missiles will severely reduce russias logistical effiency like the arrival of HIMARS did last year, altough in a less dramatic fashion. Russias stupid bumbling mass artillery doctrine needs massive stockpiles of centrally located artillery shells to work effectivly. But when a single missile can hit those ammunition depots that are sitting far behind the frontline, then will russias artillery get starved from lack of artillery shells.
And the little russia fires is not very effective compared to Ukrainian artillery because russian gunners have little training, they lack high precision ammunition, they lack counter-battery radars, their guns are more inaccurate, have shorter range, takes a longer time to reload and more often malfunction and fail to explode.
So Ukraine therefore have the upper hand.
It also have more tanks.
And without tanks and artillery support will infantry not fight very well. Especially not if they lack willingness to fight, lacks training, and are badly equipped. Making attacks under such circumstances is suicidal. But I expect Putin to waste his next wave of mobilized in this stupid manner like he did with the mobiks lives he gathered in autumn last year and threw away in a poorly handled winter offensive with little gains to show for it. Or his idiotic offensive towards Bakhmut that costed 100.000 russian soldiers their lives.
This meatwave attacks without support from artillery and tanks reminds me of russias attacks in world war1, or the attacks in world war 2 that resemble that in the movie enemy at the gates.
So I guess that russia never changes...
Well this idiocy did not work out well in russias wars the last 170 years. And I doubt it will work out well in this war either. So far it have only led to gigantic humiliating defeats.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3