Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Task & Purpose"
channel.
-
47
-
25
-
02:20 IJA used to call that 'advancing to the rear'!
During WW2, the Red Army had suffered similar setbacks, even after Stalingrad, and they had applied the similar logic, just a ploy to pin the Germans while attacking another area. The thing is the German victories in these Soviet setbacks were merely tactical, barely at the operational level, not strategic level. It didn't restore the strategic momentum back to the Germans.
So the defeats/victories do not really matter by themselves, unless it changes the strategic momentum.
03:59 Brilliant tactics, but please remember tactics win battles, they don't win wars. Both the Finns in 'Winter War', and IJA in 'Khalkin Gol' had done better than the Ukrainians tactically. The Red Army won due to primarily better logistics, and the implementation of optimal operational strategy, not through better tactics.
05:21 A far bigger version had taken place in the Third battle of Kharkov: The Red Army had made the similar mistake, which Manstein took advantage of, winning a victory at the operational level.
But it did not change the strategic momentum, merely operational momentum, which the Germans squandered in Kursk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov
05:53 What do you think of a leadership willing to pour in more lives/resources into a money pit, like Hitler would have done, and IJA would have done? You thank them!
On the other hand, Stalin/Zukov authorized the withdrawal of the Red Army during 'Winter War', and 'Khalkin Gol', at the operational/tactical level when the going got tough.
They re-grouped, rested for about a month, before attacking again, using different tactics, and that was that.
The strategic momentum still hadn't changed.
06:49 Yes, that's exactly what Stalin had done in 'Winter War', after the first major offensives failed ignominiously. Finns used brilliant tactics, in many areas, called 'Motti', to chop up the Soviet supply lines, separated the armored from the infantry, and pick them up one, by one.
https://winterwar.com/Tactics/mottis.htm
All in all, the Red Army had suffered far bigger defeats than the Russian Federation Military, absolutely nothing to show after losing so many people and the resources! At least, Putin got something in the South, absolutely nothing for the Red Army.
09:48 Oh! I don't know about that. If you're talking about regular Russian troops, you are right. But what about Wagner Group/Syrian/Chechen mercenaries?
During WW2, NKVD sometimes wore German uniforms and committed massacres against their own people, especially Volga Germans, in order to create suspicion from potentially willing collaborators.
I think it was a false flag.
Pros and Cons, true, that they could not defend even a minor target in their own area could make them look incompetent, but also it could enrage the Russian population that the Ukrainians would dare to attack resources inside Russia, and give even more support to Putin. In fact, recent polling by more or less independent polling company, Putin's rating went through the roof.
So let's contrast that with the Soviet Union during Barbarossa, the proven incompetence of the Red Army, did it hurt Stalin, politically, or help him?
Support for Stalin went through the roof, even the nominally anti-communist Orthodox believers supporting Stalin, even the traditionally anti-government, any government, whether tsarist or Communist, many professional gangsters ended up joining for the Red Army, and of course, the more traditional professional gangster who refused to support the war effort labeled them as 'bitches', and it created a big internal war among prisoners after WW2, when the gangsters who had served in the Red Army returned to the prison.
Now, look at U.S. after Pearl Harbor, the proven incompetence of USN, did it demoralize the American public or enrage them?
12:01 Brilliant and very balanced analysis. However, what do you think of chances of any Western company helping Ukraine extract gas right next Russian border considering political risk?
Ukraine is unlikely to be able to use those gas for export.
If Ukraine wanted to recapture the Eastern part, then they would have to come to the Russians, this would greatly extend the supply lines for the Ukrainians, whereas Russians would have a considerably shortened supply lines, with overwhelming advantage in armors and artillery. This was the situation in 'Khalkin Gol'.
Also, namely in the battle of Kursk, the Red Army wanted the Germans to come to Kursk to the defense in depth they had prepared for them.
Now, in 'Khalkin Gol', IJA fought really well, tactically, both in offensive and defensive, but due to supply line being far longer than the Red Army, with far smaller logistics base to begin with, they were doomed eventually. In fact, IJA had fought so well to the point, they could have won a victory, offensive one at that, by a knock out, but they ran out of artillery shells, the same problem that would lead to the defeat for the Finns in 'Winter War', and the same problem plaguing the Ukrainians, the lack of artillery shells.
16:11 Why U.S. is going to let MBS get away with Kashoggi murder, as it should be.
17:45 Kiev was supposed to be a big bonus, but they didn't get it. Can't say I blame them for trying, in wars, many times, the enemy is a lot weaker than they seemed at first, then you get lucky. U.S. 3rd Army under Patton won many battles that way, during the 'Rampage', the Germans were a lot weaker than many U.S. and British generals had thought.
Of course, eventually, one's going to overextend and meet enemy resistance stronger than expected, as even Patton found out.
19:22 Yes, typical Soviet/Russian operational strategic thinking that defeated both the Germans and Japanese, despite the tactical superiority of both, even the Soviets acknowledged as much.
20:20 Oh, yes, logistics the most under-rated part of war by the most. That's what had happened to IJA in Khalkin Gol, running out of ammo, food, even water, so that they ended up drinking foul smelling/tasting water from radiators of vehicles! No oil left anyway, so why not?
IJA had been 'winning' tactically both offensive and defensive, against overwhelming odds.
20:38 That shows how much advanced IJA was tactically, sometimes. IJA had come up with that solution before anyone.
Type 92 Battalion Gun, U.S. Army put to good use captured ones, exactly for that reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_92_battalion_gun
A corollary would be French breech loading direct fire dual purpose mortar.
It was the first mass production, of its kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Mle_CM60A1
21:15 Ukraine still hasn't changed the strategic imbalance, only an operational one. Both Finns and IJA had done better.
I hear that Ukraine doesn't publish its casualty list unlike the Finns, and even IJA. I also hear Ukraine forbids men in fighting age from leaving the country. I don't think that was the case with the Finns, or UPA, also running out of supplies, especially artillery shells, the 'railroad' of battlefield suppression, implying Ukraine wouldn't even have the stamina of the Finns or their ancestors, in the form of UPA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army
Anyone interested in analyzing the battlefield development, you can take a look at 'Winter War', and 'Khalkin Gol', and reach your own conclusion.
Thanks for great, impartial, objective analysis. Btw. You might say I am 'Pro-Russian' on this one. Not just because Russia has a 'historical' right, (Russia had annexed the vast swarth of lands, in Urals and the area now known as Russian Far East, committing mass murder and robbery, but how come no protest?) just like ROK and the previous Korean kingdoms have in Jeju island, but also ROK would need a dependable ally, post-PRC, against possible/almost certain ROC/Taiwan-Japanese alliance.
22
-
16
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
@jimpark8379 ''German weapons are ridiculously expensive and break, or massively underperform, like how the Turkish Leopards just got blown up so easily because of their design flaws....''
To be fair to the Turkish Leopards, their failure was mainly due to faulty tactics in urban environment, than hardware failures. The way the Turks used the Leopards, pretty much every other MBTs would have failed, other than the latest Merkava with their iron vision, but then IDF has a plenty of experience using armors in a terrain not suitable for traditional MBTs.
''Even Germany can't maintain the Leopard. Over half their Leopard tanks are out of service because they don't have enough spare parts.''
I didn't know that, but still that is way better than vaunted Eurofighters, which has even lower reliability rates, almost bordering or even 'surpassing' in the wrong way PRC fighter jets.
7
-
6
-
6
-
10:01 Right on! Autoloader is the future, especially when the next stage of MUM-T comes along, the autonomous war engines.
13:40 Yes, very perceptive, you should have gone to West Point, become a general, and consultant to MIC after the military, making millions.
14:53 Again, I am impressed, especially you're an infantry man, not a tanker. Yes, one very important reason why the German Panzer III/IV performed so well against the vaunted T-34s during Operation Barbarossa was the optics. The German gun optic was far superior to the Soviet T-34 gun optics, especially given the extended range the tanks engaged in.
This 'superior' German optics was less of an advantage against the Shermans, especially during the 'Rampage', the range was far shorter, and the Shermans had a wider field of view, giving them advantage in close quarter fighting.
17:36 Also, it can become smaller, lower profile, especially an advantage during hull down position, also lighter means it can rotate faster, and the center of gravity is going to be lower, a big advantage in mountainous terrain, CG is very important in hilly terrain, one reason why Merkavas performed poorly in hilly areas, and why ROK eventually decided against Merkavas.
19:22 That is THE eventual goal of K2.
19:33 On this the Russian made a mistake: they should have gone for the gas turbine engine like M1, in fact, that's what they had in T-80, which ROK had bought back in early 90s, in lieu of cash payment during the financial collapse, and not only that, but ended up getting full spec T-80, not downgraded export version, like they almost always do with the latest advanced weapon platform, (just like U.S.), at the time, only the Moscow Guard units had T-80.
ROK originally had wanted to use T-80 as a 'red' team training only, ROK tank crews had had a very low, stereotypical view of the Russian weapons at the time, and pleasantly surprised at the creature comfort, workmanship, build quality of T-80, to the point at one time, wanted to purchase more, a lot more T-80s, and even entertained the thought of license producing T-80, in ROK, and adopt as the new MBTs to replace K-1.
Quiet, reliable, fast, it is still used for Recon-in-Force brigade, for front line service.
20:01 Right on, and one of my criticism of F-35, and why U.S. military is going to replacing them pretty soon.
22:11 That's what happens when one is obsessed with tactical application, rather than operational, strategic application.
22:31 You're better than average. Thanks for the most objective video on tank I've seen to date. This video puts almost all other tank videos, even the ones done by 'experts' to shame.
6
-
@jimpark8379 '' First, the German powerpack is the best and Korean powerpack is second. There is no debate or controversy on this issue. Even the Koreans acknowledge the superiority of the German powerpack.
Re the Omani trials, I read the Leopard 2 got stuck, which is not a failure of the powerpack it's just the Leopard is too heavy, and that the K2 variant tested by the Omanis had the German powerpack.''
Didn't K2 variant produced, the lot 2, use hybrid powerpack, ROK engine, German transmission?
What I have read from ROK channels was that the testing that faulted ROK powerpak was not designed fair; the German powerpaks were allowed to be maintained per maintenence schedule, while ROK powerpak were continously run, without maintenence. That's per the technicians from Doosan, and ST Dynamics.
Not only that the so-called, 'failure' of ROK powerpak was due to the failure of the neighboring components to the transmission, a German component!
''The MTU engine generates the same horsepower as the Hyundai Doosan Infracore engine but it weighs 1,000 pounds less due to its, in the words of Korean engineers, "insane cooling tech." 1,000 pounds lighter is a huge advantage.''
Didn't K2 use ROK engine with the German transmission in Omani trial, and still won the test?
In MBTs, weighing along 60 to 70 tons, 0.5 ton is a miniscule advantage.
There's more than just power to weight performance advantage in engine, for military gears. Reliability, durability, robustness over rough terrain/weather, the ease of maintenance, and the overall cost, both initial, and maintenance.
Why Ferrari makes great formula 1 racing engine, but not a car to drive day to day; why both UK and even U.S. are going to ditch F-35. Why ROK is working on 'hard coat baked' stealth coating instead of F-35's 'soft panel' stealth coating. For the present, F-35 'soft panel' stealth coating is superior in minimizing radar cross section, but ROK 'hard coat baked' stealth coating is far superior when it comes to robustness, durability, and maintenance, and its ability to minimize the radar cross section is steadily improving.
''The Germans are the world's best at diesel engines and among the world's best at heavy duty transmissions along with the Alison company of USA. The ZF 8 speed transmission is perhaps the best automatic transmission ever made.''
Didn't Himsen engine win both IF and Red Dot awards in 2010?
Not only that, the word I hear from Norway is that K2 is winning over Leopard.
6
-
@d.o.g573 ''ROK doesn’t even have plans for a fifth gen tank''
K3, supposed to work with Poles; supposed to incorporate rail gun eventually, thermal camf, stealth against tactical ground radar, with built in unmanned option.
Btw, ROK might even invent a new category of armored platform that could make MBTs obsolete.
quadrupedal robot control technology, that's like AT-AT from Star Wars, but better, faster, more stable on rough terrain, and autonomous.
DreamWaQer technology that can help run a robot run 'blind'.
''for the plane: I am not a Chinese „war thunder“ player….''
Germany has no plan for 5th gen fighter jets. ROK is working on KF-21, is supposed to incorporate virtual laser turret that will revolutionize the dog fights by 2035. Plus an ability to launch microsatellites from ultra high altitude to low orbit on demand, in real time. This could be the bid for space domination, dominate the space, dominate GPS guided weapons, with advances in thermal sensor, detect even nuclear powered submarined beneath the waves.
Also, autonomous stealth fighters, Kaori-X, 1 manned KF-21 'managing' 3 to 4 Kaori-X.
Plus UCAV for ROKA, that's like, but better than USMC Osprey, safer, more reliable.
Night Intruder 500 Vectored Thrust (NI-500VT)
F-35 Germany relies on, even U.S and U.K. are planning to ditch them, due to poor QA.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jimpark8379 Here, I am talking about optimal course of action, from future grand strategic perspective, not just current short term financial.
ROK needs Turkiye to build the bridgehead into EU, V4, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. Turkiye is the 'gatekeeper' to V4, and EU, in turn.
ROK wants to build hyper tube trade route across Central Asia, boosting trade, and building an alliance, relying Pan-Turanism. Without Turkiye, ROK cannot get to V4, and EU.
With the alliance secure, ROK would have 'built-in' customers for both military and civilian goods.
As far as Poles are concerned, I agree ROK should not grant as generous deal as Turkiey got, but keeping the current technology too secret is not in the optimal interest of ROK.
The reason being, the state of art technology has rather a short, shelf life. It's either use it or lose it. Not only that, keeping the technology too secret makes one's platform becoming the standard that much more difficult. Also, it would make the domestic companies too complacent relying on patent protection, rather than continued excellence in innovation.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@peterisawesomeplease ''It is also not a good idea to trust what the US military says. The US military has a long history of building massively expensive projects of little military value due to pressure from politics or the military industrial complex.''
Yes, Billy Mitchell found out the hard way!
As for my own objective analysis, aircraft carriers can make force projection more efficient and effective than without, so long as you have either the air superiority or have a very good chance of gaining air superiority.
If not, then air craft carriers are money pits, and gigantic waste of resources.
For U.S. for present, carriers are assets, within reason, especially against PRC.
But in the future, where U.S. might have less chance of gaining air superiority, USN should gradually downsize the number of carriers. Unless it is for the purpose of launching suborbital fighter force, rather than conventional carrier tasks.
For majority of countries out there, carriers are a waste of money. Just because a superpower has and uses them, it doesn't mean they should emulate the superpowers, unless they are contenders.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@chris8612 ''2 trillion plus for 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not much we got in return. ''
I commend you for being forthright on those money pits.
''80 billion for Ukraine while our troop aren't in the firing line, while trashing insane amounts of if Russia equipment. This is not even remotely comparable.''
80 billion is not the final investment. Janet Yellen said U.S. was going to be with Ukraine as long as it takes. Russian Federation is far stronger than those pseudo-religious nutjobs.
U.S. with boots on the ground, for more than a decade with all those resources couldn't defeat them; what make you think Zelensky and the corrupt Ukraine government could do what U.S. couldn't do.
Given U.S. was going to support them for the next 20 years, it would be about 2 trillion again.
''Even if you don't care about helping Ukraine, ....''
Do you know how many Ukrainians have died? Why do you think we should care about Ukraine?
''the amount of money for USA companies and tax revenue to be made is staggering.''
For MIC, and who foots the bill, U.S. taxpayers? It's the money that could have been used for infrastructure, the wall, for example, R&D for semi-conductors, or more pressing military needs, such as Space defense, SLBMs, decommissioning silo-based ICBMs, lasers, hypersonic missiles.
''Already the USA military complex has increased sales by 50%.''
....and that's the money that has come from U.S. taxpayers, what about their needs?
''Factories for mil hardware are already being built by top defense companies in Western Ukraine.''
For the benefit of MIC, and the locals, not U.S. taxpayers.
''
''It's not like Afghanistan where the biggest export is poppy for heroin.''
Again, I commend you for being forthright; too bad, Bush Jr. and the NeoCon gang didn't talk about that when U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
''It has massive mineral deposits, the biggest and best agricultural lands in Europe.''
Yes, and it will belong to Russian Federation.
''The country will have to be rebuilt, China won't get the contracts it will be the USA and European companies.''
You're putting the cart before the horse; it will be Russian companies and others such as ROK will get the contract. Not U.S. or the West.
''They are also saving us money, since much of the systems sent were near the end of their shelf life, the USA tax payers would have to pay for decommissioning old stocks.''
...but neither U.S. nor the rest of the West have built more modern, replacement yet. Soon, we're going to be running out of the old stock; are you implying that U.S. should give Ukraine the latest and most advanced weapons when that happens? Don't you think some of those could be captured by the Russians to examine, the strength and weakness, so that they could engineer better weapons to be used against the West?
''Most of the stuff sent was payed for in the 80s and 90s. It's not like we handed them a blank check for 80 billion dollars too what they want with.''
There is no accounting of what happened to the aid package, much of which could have been sold to black market; Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
How long do you think U.S. should keep pissing the resources into this money pit?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I used to support Vietnam war. Nowadays, I have opposed almost all the wars U.S. has engaged since then, (well, except the Gulf War, not to be confused with Iraq War, and the initial raid/invasion against Talis, but not the resulting occupation/nation building.)
Just in case, someone think I've become a peacenik, I still support the war against the Native Americans, and annexation of Hawaii, and take over of Panama from Columbia.
3
-
3