Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Battle Order" channel.

  1. The 4th tank guards are equipped with T-80 tanks which are better than the old T-72 tanks. https://youtu.be/8VJNcE6hQu4?t=237 Otherwise do I think that this war have been a full effort by Russia - they have dropped spetsnaz that made a failed attempt to capture an airport. They used old soviet artillery as well as more modern TOS-1 buratino. Their airforce seems to use late version flankers which can be said to be Russians equalent to the American F15 Eagle. However the logistics and communication system of the Russian forces are junk and the training of the combat pilots is miserable compared to western standards (but still they are better trained than Ukrainian pilots). But it is also true that Russian forces use conscripts and old soviet junk like outdated APCs such as MT-LB. So I would say that Russia have sent in everything from junk to some of their best troops. 65% of the Russian army is involved in this operation so its perhaps not so surprising. And helicopter losses have been heavy so I don't think the Russian military will recover from this any time soon. The Russian military have not deployed much smart bombs in this war. The reason why is unknown. Do they wanna save their smart bombs for a war with Nato? Have they used up all their smart bombs in the war in Syria? Have Russia lacked to money build any such bombs and are therefore using dumb bombs instead? And why use smart bombs if you want to kill innocent civilians anyways? I have not seen any images of any Armata or Su57 deployed in Ukraine yet. But rumours says that some SU57 have been spotted over Ukraine and that some unknown planes have been shot down. Anyhow, the SU57 is not an aircraft that has been completed and ready for production and not a single such plane exist, aside from a half dozen prototypes which have been built. And the Armata tank would probably not do well in Ukraine since its turret armor is paper thin and a hit from an anti-tank missile like Javelin and NLAW would be devestating for this tanks image as the newest supertank in the world.
    5
  2. They did launch a counterattack against an airfield like yesterday. And the war is barely 3 weeks old. Russia did launch a cowardly surprise attack and Ukraine ha just begun its mobilization against a superior foe. So what did you expect?
    3
  3. "T-90s as the equivalent to Abrams yet has produced less than 200." 😂😂😂🤣😂🤣 That would be like saying a crusader tank would be equal to a Tiger. Come on. T-90 is just an upgraded T-72
    2
  4.  @hstad100  I know. But I just wanted to go even further and claim that their T-90 tank is nowhere near M1A2 Abrams or Leopard2A7 in performance. Their tank T80U was pretty good in the cold war and its frontal armor could not be destroyed by the 105mm gun that the Abrams had. But thanks to constant upgrades are the western tanks now superior to that old Soviet junk. The new 120mm gun could easily destroy any Russian garbage. And obviously are they also easily destroyed by modern anti-tank systems like javelin. The Iraq war in 1991 was a disaster for the reputation of Soviet military equipment worldwide. Iraq had a gigantic well-equipped army and everyone thought the war would become very bloody. But everyone was wrong. Thousands of tanks, planes, and other weapons got destroyed by the western military with almost no losses at all despite fighting against an army many hundred thousand men strong with combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. When the war was over it was clear that Soviet equipment had no chance against USA and Natos weapons. This was a disaster for the reputation of Russian and Chinese weapons (which were just crappy copies of Russian weapons). Russia then tried to come with excuses for why a war with Russia would not be an easy win for Nato. They claimed that the Iraqis were using useless variants of Russian tanks instead of the real thing. Instead of a Russian T-72 with thick frontal armor did they get the T-72M (aka "monkey version") of the same tank with less armor and less advanced equipment. Now do we however know how the so called "good versions" of the Russian tanks work. We see that in Ukraine. In one burning tank wreck after another. Tanks destroyed by poorly equiped Ukrainian troops with nearly no military training at all. Its just effing pathetic.
    2
  5. And the so called super weapons Armata and SU57 are jokes as well. Armata is so expensive that it will never be built in large numbers, and it will certainly not replace the large numbers of Soviet junk tanks you see in Ukraine - there are simply not enough money for it. And there are surely good things about this tank. However even the Russians admit that this tank got to turret armor at all. So all you have to do is to destroy its turret to take out its gun and then it will become useless on the battlefield. And having a tank that relies on cameras and sensors instead of the human eye have its benefits, but it also comes with weaknesses like many weakspots and the tank could become useless if you hit it with a high explosive shot that destroy all cameras and sensitive electronics so the tank become blind. And having weak turret armor is not so good is something all javelin kill videos from Ukraine have tought me. So I think this tank has been overly hyped. And the new gun on Leopard2A7 will be able to deal with it. M1 Abrams use depleted uranium ammunition with high penetration so the Americans do not even need to upgrade their tank gun to deal with Armatas supposed super thick armor. And the modular construct of Merkava allows it to install a larger 15cm gun on the tank if the need one day arrives, but today it would be overkill to have such a large gun when Israels neighbours mostly use old Soviet junk that can easily be killed with a tiny gun with cheaper ammunition. The SU57 fighter is also a joke. Russians claims that this plane is better than the F22. And even if I think both F22 and F35 are overrated I do still think they are greatly superior. I will be controversial and say that SU57 does not even deserve to be called a stealth plane. It does not have any mechanism to hide the hot exhaust gasses from the engine which makes this plane easy to spot from far away with IR sensors. I don't know about its air intakes, but I have heard that they are not optimal at deflecting radar waves. So this plane could probably be spotted by western planes before this plane could spot a western plane. In the past I heard that western planes have superior sensors, but this Russian plane had superior stealth. But now I have the opinion that its stealth is crappy and that it doesn't deserve to be called a 5th generation fighter. Anyhow, why am I even arguing about this plane? It will probably never be built anyways because its too expensive for Russia to make. Only 6 prototypes have been built if I remember correctly. And it is doubtful any more planes will be built. This project have been expensive and Russia have many times been forced to put it on ice. India agreed to help Russia pay for the project so it could be finished and India pumped in billions into this project. But no plane ever came and India lost patience with paying billions for this project which never become finished, so they have pulled out of the project. And now Russia alone has to pay for the development, but Russia lacks money so once again have Russia decided to waiting with going further with this project. And the plane is so delayed that I start to think its doubtful if it ever gonna be built. UK+Sweden, Germany, Japan and USA are all starting to develop 6th generation fighters. So this SU57 is risking becoming outdated before it is even finished.
    2
  6. Tanks are probably as powerful as before, but if you are going to have bad tanks and extremely bad tactics like the Russians then of course you are going to suffer heavy losses. A tank in itself is not a good weapon. This is not how you use a tank. A tank is best when it works togheter with other troops. You need to have infantry to protect the tank, artillery to soften up enemy resistence, anti-aircraft guns to protect the tank against drones and helicopters, recon troops that spot the terrain so you don't walk into ambushes, engineers that can remove mines and construct bridges, and a well functioning logistics organization of course. The Russian tanks you see in Ukrainian war movies seems to lack both support from foot soldiers and they also lack fuel and ammunition, and the enemy can listen in to their crappy radio equipment and lay out traps for them. So no wonder that tank losses are piling up. If you have good support for your tanks, then your tanks can be good support for your troops. Its frontal armor can take much beating and survive. Its firepower will help your foot soldiers enormously as rifles cannot blow up buildings, and it will be a strong morale boost for your own men while it demoralizes the enemy - especially if they lack proper anti-tank weapons. Tanks are great, but they also got many weaknesses. The men inside the tank are almost blind to what is going on outside. And the side armor and rear of a tank can often be easily be penetrated even by old crappy rocket launchers or by mediocre anti-tank cannons. If you fight on open ground with long distances between the tanks and the enemy - then the tank wins. But if the tanks are going on a road through a forrest and suddenly the enemy opens fire and blow up a tank with a rocket before it realize it has been under attack. Then it is very likely that the enemy wins. Especially if the terrain offers good protection and disguise, and if the ambush site have been prepared with mines or explosives that can be set off with remote control. And if the enemy tanks are moving closely to each other and the enemy suddenly destroy the first and the last tank in the line... then there will be no room for the other tanks to move around so they could fight back and protect themselves. If you get surprise attacked you want to turn your tank as quickly as possible so you don't show your enemy your weak side armor. But if you don't do that, then your tank could be the next one to being blown up by a rocket. The tanks can of course not go into the forest and hunt down the men who attacked them - but if you got infantry with you, then they can do that and protect the tanks. But once again, land mines could have been placed out so losses for them can pile up. So the lesson learned here is that tanks are vulnerable to enemy infantry if forests. And also in citys and mountain terrain. And in open terrain if the enemy got air superiority. And on top of all those problems, are the the supply trucks carrying fuel to the tanks also very vulnerable. And without supplies like fuel and ammunition is a tank worthless.
    2