Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. 3:01 "They didn't do much during the war", that's just not correct. They didn't achieve much maybe. But do much? The border between Austria-Hungary and Italy was a bloody front just like the others. In some ways it was arguably worse.
    122
  2. 5:03 Some of the Gripen fighters belong in the excellent category I'd say, or at the very least the "very good" category. It depends on the exact Gripen model. But the newest ones should be more than a match for even the best Russian planes.
    46
  3. 5:23 That's part of the point with the Swedish planes and their tactics. Remember that they're not meant to be operated from actual normal airfields but rather improvised airfields. Possibly taking off from one then landing on another etc. So the Russians would kind of be playing wackamole... And the Swedes would be able to do surprise hit and run attacks with their fighters. Think of how difficult it can be to deal with shoot and scoot artillery units. Taking down and keeping down all of those improvised airfields in all of these countries would be quite a task...
    38
  4. +Primarch Alpharius This is about more then just the people living on the islands. It's also about the rights to the resources within the waters around the islands both fishing, oil drilling and mining rights as well as strategic importance and national pride for two nations. The only way to settle the issue long term is some kind of compromise from both sides. Sharing the islands is potentially one such solution.
    26
  5.  @tomk3732  DCS is a game and the performance there is irrelevant to how it performes in real life... Real life exercises actually uses the actual plane with its real capabilities unlike flawed simulations made by progrmers that does not have access to enough information to come even close to accurately simulate the plane. Looking at simulations and specifications you'd think that the 109 is a better plane then the 190 for instance losing information about things like how the 190 is designed to be less likely to lose controll due to combat damage because of electric powering of the control surfaces for it instance amoung a number of other features that makes it function better on a real life battlefield then statistics like top speed or service celling might suggest. The same kind of things applies here. The Grippen is easier to maintain and operate, has better situational awareness and electronic warfare capabilities and compatibility with more weapons systems and has lower drag then the F16. When not using the electronic warfare systems it might have a bigger signal then modern American fighters. But when those are active it's actually competitive. Being smaller reduces the signals to begin with, and with the electronic warfare systems and networking systems to these planes can have a advantage in situational awareness even against modern US fighters when used to its strengths unless the Americans have some tricks up their sleeves that they haven't used in the previously mentioned exercises. I'm not saying that the Grippen in a 1 v 1 is better than the modern US fighters, it's clearly not. But in a 10 vs 10 or more the Americans are not guaranteed a win and might end up with a pyrrhic victory if they do win the engagement with a modern fighter. A F16 would be clearly outclassed in a multiple Grippen vs multiple F16 engagement though. For offensive engagements the F22 or F35 might be better options in a advanced nation vs advanced nation engagement. But in a defensive engagement the Grippen might actually surprise you with its capabilities. And vs less advanced foes it's preferable due to its operating costs.
    16
  6.  @tomk3732  You know just as well as me that military sales are just as much about geopolitics as actual capabilities. As for realism. Like I said there's nothing realistic about simulations, especially not the ones made by private game companies. Military ones intended for exercises at least are somewhat realistic when it comes to the capabilities of their own planes but might be off about their opponents. You can only get so much intelligence from spies, satellites and other information channels. Exercises might not be perfect but they're still way better than any commercial games. And honestly I'm kind of shocked that you consider DCS a valid information source about the capabilities of modern fighter jets. It's approximations at best. And I very much doubt that DCS simulates the latest in electronic warfare technology even close to accurately. Maybe one day when everything is fully declassified it'll be another story. But not right now. Also, players do things in these games that's outlandish in real battle for the simple reason that in reality you only die *once*. That's another argument for the Grippen. A plane that's cheaper to operate equals more experienced pilots for the same amount of money. That experience difference matters in combat as a less experienced pilot simply can't push the plane or their own body quite as far as a experienced one can simply because they don't know how far they can go without "ending in a casket" (if there's enough left for one).
    15
  7. Where we watching the same video?!? Because as far as I can tell he predicted most factors involved correctly and was close to spot on. Yes, Ukraine holds more land then in his scenario, they've done well given the circumstances. But that doesn't change that his predictions pretty ended up being close to accurate. He was right about Russia targeting Kiev, about potentially taking the coast to link up with Transnistria, about the Ukrainian air force being no match for the Russian air force, about the west supplying intelligence and air defense assets to Ukraine, helping them contest their airspace despite their inferior air force. The insurgency activities, that Russia would be outnumbered in terms of number of troops with some combat experience etc. Some of the things he got wrong is things that pretty much all analyst did. Like that Russia would struggle with doing sead and dead missions against Ukraine. Or that the Russian and the Russian speaking population in Ukraine would be so much against the invasion as they where. Russia and quiet frankly the world expected far less unity from Ukraine, among other things.
    13
  8. 14:36 You might be right about the blue water navy situation. But both Sweden and Norway have a lot of island etc along the coast making it very difficult to deal with for any attacking force allowing smaller naval ships to launch surprise attacks from positions invisible to radars etc either at sea or on a different side of the various islands. Something that the Scandinavian countries have a lot of experience with. I believe that you are underestimating Scandinavian overall defensive capabilities.
    13
  9. They are. They have power generators and drone jammers on their tanks under the shed. The shed protects the generator and the jammer.
    11
  10. 6:35 Might be true for the planes we have here in Norway, or those of the Danes and Finns. But again, the Swedish ones are designed for that. Why would their effectiveness be impacted given the limited amount of gear and trained personnel required to operate them?
    11
  11. France is quite warlike. But Germany and Sweden has heavy restrictions on who may buy their weapons due to their pacifism, and that's hurting their sales in a similar way that US geopolitical and security restrictions on sale of US weapons hurts their sales. France doesn't have those restrictions. When buying Russian, Chinese or American you're essentially taking a side in the conflict between them. With european planes less so. But like I said, other than French weapons the rest of them often have many strings attached of their own.
    10
  12.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  That's just not how hacking works. You can't just sit down and hack these planes real time. If that's your plan you've already lost. No if they're going to be hacked then the work is going to have to be done prior to the war even starting. You need to hack the companies making the planes, get the specifications, the component lists etc. You need to find zero day vulnerabilities and craft a targeted program that can defeat these planes and either leave it dormant in the planes till you trigger it with a external trigger and hope that it won't be discovered. Or save it on the outside for a future attack where you run it, and just hope that they haven't patched out the vulnerabilities you count on to get in between getting the specifications and the start of the war. A small or big front really doesn't matter much in this context...
    10
  13.  @tomk3732  Even with a fixed number of pilots a cheaper plane allows you to train said pilots more at the same cost. The actual radar in the plane is mostly relevant over enemy territory. Grippen is designed for networking, communicating with both ground and air units for better situational awareness. And it's easy to upgrade due to its software design. As for Canada, I think a mixed Grippen and something else fleet would be best. Grippen has some range problems that might be problematic in parts of Canada, although they could offset that with more roads they might want something else to support their fleet further away from the coast. Also, did you ever see those pictures of the black holes made by combining data from multiple observatories? While not anywhere near that level the communication between the Grippen fighters means that their radar will work better with more of them than just one can.
    9
  14. The penguins don't need a nuclear war to improve their situation, they'd probably be more harmed then helped. I guess there's a chance that such a nuclear winter might help the polar bear though...
    8
  15. Regarding Finland being a part of Scandinavia. There's a difference between the terms Fenoscandia, Scandinavia and Nordic.
    8
  16. 9:50 Gripen E is supposed to be in the "small" category from what I understand. If it was the cannards dragging it down one tier that could make sense, but the Eurofighter has cannards too... 10:40 Gripen doesn't have as much thrust to weigh as some planes, but it has a low drag design. 10:57 Sorry, but the turn rate of the Gripen is incredibly high... How does it end up essentially as "average" here?!? 11:49 Sorry, but are you mixing up the Gripen E with its older variants? I get that it's not necessarily at the top of any of these categories, but come on... 12:36 Okey, at least Gripens capabilities isn't entirely ignored on this one. But given that it's essentially designed around electronic warfare instead of stealth... 12:52 This one was probably Norways main issue with the Gripen... We have large maritime territories to cover, and the Gripen doesn't have as good a combat range as the F35... :-/ (Interesting that he lists a longer ferry range?) 13:53 Okay, so you claim that the F35 and Gripen is basically equivalent in practical range? Interesting. I don't know if that's accurate, but definitely interesting.
    8
  17.  @rhodium1096  It's incredible how ignorant the alt right movement is about how the Scandinavian countries actually work and what state they're in... The alt right movement takes data entirely out of context to try to prove some point that's essentially a 180 compared to reality...
    7
  18. +Pieter van der zwaan No country wants to face China *alone*. While China would have the edge vs either India or Indonesia in a 1 v 1 fight, the two of them combined would have the edge vs China together... Also, the more countries gets involved the more other countries again might choose to get involved... And I suspect that on the whole that would favour India more then China...
    7
  19. No nukes wouldn't have lead to a invasion, Japan was already trying to offer a surrender. their only condition was to keep the Emperor, something they ended up getting anyway... So if the US had been willing to accept this conditional surrender with next to no strings attached they'd have saved a whole bunch of lives on both sides...
    7
  20. I suspect that you underestimated the Hungarians a bit. The Gripen is designed for defensive operations and can be operated on worse airfields and be maintained easier and cheaper. It will therefore probably be able to spend more time in the air over the battlefield. I agree that they probably can't push into Romania, but the overall air war might not turn out the way you expect. The tank battles might also be... Interesting... Local numerical superiority isn't necessarily required in a defensive battle. Israel was beating a significantly bigger tank force on the Golan heights. There's no reason why Hungary can't do the same if they choose their fights carefully. The overall outcome will probably not change much. But Romanian advance might be slower and might not reach as far in. Also, let's just say that these Romanian tanks are not the most capable in the world... Check the link at the bottom for reference. 4:10 Yeah, if you assume that the Gripen a are able to relocate faster and take down a few Romanian planes early on the fight could end up being surprisingly even. Remember that the Gripen has advanced electronic warfare capabilities. Not sure what exact Gripen variant they have, but it should be doing well compared to the planes it's facing regardless. On the tank side... https://youtu.be/ypm9bOoohnM
    7
  21. Well, maybe I'm a little bit biased. But it feels like it was doing worse in areas where it has specialized in these rankings... And I'm not sure if that's really fair...
    7
  22. +Cesar Muroya Bombing cities is so effective at ending wars... -_- Just look at the British, they surrendered right away during the bombing of London... /sarcasm No, but seriously, you can bomb a city, but that really doesn't help much on its own in a war and often increase the will to fight instead of reducing it...
    6
  23. Some EU subs have enough of a technological edge to essentially be able to almost ignore US anti-sub assets and operate almost freely. They do have limited endurance though...
    6
  24. 2:08 Not exactly, they just wanted a conditional surrender, the main condition being something the US ended up doing anyway...
    6
  25. +Yuri Gagarin Britain might not have a chance against Spain on the Spanish mainland. But Melilla and Ceuta might be possible to take. Ceuta can then provide a helicopter base to attack Gibraltar from, and Melilla got an airport that can be used for the fighting in Gibraltrar. And both cities got ports that can be used for British warships.
    5
  26. +MrCastodian As already mentioned the Royal Navy is superior in its capabilities to their Spanish counterparts. Melilla can be cut off from Spain 100% by said navy, Ceuta is more difficult, but once Melilla is held It would be plausible I think. If cut off the troops already present there can be defeated. I'm not saying that it's easy, but it would be a possible jump off point to reclaim Gibraltar.
    5
  27. Because the Gripen is cheaper to operate day to day and handles battlefield conditions with dispersed maintenance etc better? All your airfields may be gone, most of your technicians dead, the enemy has air superiority etc yet you can keep the Gripen flying while the F35 would struggle without way more ground support.
    5
  28.  @kingmac6638  Look at the casuality numbers on that front and then say that again... Like seriously... The fighting there was absolutely brutal. Now on the achievement side of things I can agree. They didn't achieve much since the terrain favored defenders even more then the trenches on the western front did.
    4
  29. +MrCastodian Why do you think that the troops in Melilla would be superior to the British ones? This whole scenario hings on the assumtion that Gibraltar is attacked with little to no warning. If that's the case then Melilla would not have significant troop deployments yet and the Royal Navy would probably be able to stop any reinforcements from being moved to Melilla. Also, troops would be needed all along the Spanish coast to stop the UK from both invading Spain and stopping the UK from incursions, special ops missions etc. In short, troops would be tied up on the Spanish mainland for the most part. Also, any troops landing in Melilla would not be without air support, it just wouldn't be the full strength of the Royal Airforce. And the UK could do enough damage to the airfield to make landing fighters there a rather bad idea leaving Spain with the issue of not having fighters close by at a moments notice just like the UK. If the UK is able to surprise Spain they could get local air superiority for long enough to make the landing. And I doubt that such a small area would hold particularly long so the brits would probably be able to move their own fighters there fairly quickly. Basically the axioms you're stating that I don't believe to be the case is presence of significant Spanish forces. What's currently there is just these: Tabor Alhucemas I Tabor Rif II 1st Legion Tercio So three regiments... Or something along the line of 9 000-15 000 men. Since 2/3rds of that are local volunteers whose training is I suspect less rigid then their professional brethern from the Spanish mainland. So only 3 000- 5 000 troops that are high quality. I'm fairly sure that the UK can beat that. Especially if the regiments in question are on the smaller side of what a typical Spanish regiment tend to be. 3 000 professionals and 6 000 essentially "militia" should be easy enough to beat. 5 000 professionals and 10 000 "militia" on the other hand would be tougher, but not impossible to beat.
    4
  30. +MrCastodian Spain has little in access to spy satelites though while the UK has a decent number of them. So UK bombing would presumably be more efficient then the Spanish ones since they'd know what to target. And while you're right that the Spanish air defense is superior to the British ones the British ones does exist for one and the Spanish ones are not likely to stop the majority of those missiles. So I doubt Spain would end up with the upper hand if it comes to cruise missiles. As for Spain taking Gibraltar without too much trouble, you're right, they can. But in a long term war after such an action Britain would have plenty of options to make life difficult for Spain and retaking Gibraltar might even be possible even if it's not easy. With the help of locals (as well as probably many Spanish nationals who have worked in Gibraltar and might be inclined to want British controll over the area to continue) special ops attacks on the place would probably be possible after the Spanish occupation is started. And with Melilla and possibly Ceuta a proper landing and proper fighting would be possible. Britain might even manage to retake the most of Gibraltar before significant defenses can be put in place if the attack is surprising enough. Then Britain would just have to hold the ground they've made. Holding most of Gibraltar, all of Melilla and possibly Cauta or even the Canary Islands would give Britain a good negotiating position during the peace talks afterwards. Britain would probably regain Gibraltar. But I doubt they'd gain any territories... Don't get me wrong, Spain could probably make this costly for Britain. But there's no way that they'd give up Gibraltar, even if the costs are high.
    4
  31. +Johny Ricco China is not a superpower, at least not yet, and the US is slowly losing its status as a superpower even though it still is one. China does not have the capability of fighting an effective war far from their homeland. The US does (the reason they're still a superpower) but that capability is diminishing for a number of reasons. If the US and China where to fight a war then yes, strategic bombing would indeed play a role. In a war between India and China however, there's no way in hell that strategic bombing would play any role at all in any war lasting less then 6-7 years... The Himalayas just completely negates any material advantage on either side in any shorter wars... Now, if we where to imagine a war actually being faught for 10+ years then yes, strategic bombing might indeed play a role as it could potentially allow China to break out of the Himalayas and start invading the Indian subcontinent... But wearing down the Indian forces to a point where breaking through the Himalayas would be non-suicidal would take at least that long... And starting bombing strategic targets like factories in India would just be a waste of resources for any war expected to be shorter then that as the impact simply won't be noticable on the battlefield *at all*.
    4
  32.  @tomk3732  Grippen actually won vs the F35 in some exercises they've done together. I'm not aware of any between it and the F22. Can you share a link or something? I'd love to watch or read about it.
    4
  33. 6:10 Well, one of the arguments for the Gripen back when they where competing with the F35 here in Norway was that it was cheaper then the F16 in operating costs... So placing it above seems... Odd... That said, I never heard the actual sum. It was also originally cheaper to purchase then the F35, although the manufacturer claimed that the F35 would be cheaper, and it looks like they now have a similar purchase price at least... 7:42 I'll take your word for it. It was never a part of the open debate here in Norway. 9:20 It's disappointing to see the Gripen so far down, but given the claims in the previous video it's not surprising... There pretty much wasn't a single factor where it was placed where they probably should have been. It's far superior to the F15EX and for defensive war probably better then the Eurofighter. It's probably a bit weaker on the offense though... 10:10 Yeah, Gripen has fewer hard points, that makes the ground attack role less effective in some ways. Still it won't have to fly as far to reload. 12:26 It's not. The Gripen is severely underestimated here... It would be at the top of value and top 3 in performance if it was more accurately evaluated...
    3
  34. @Binkov's Battlegrounds Regarding the favoring of medium size satelites over large size ones. Remember that you can combine data from multiple satelites through the use of software to essentially get a higher resolution picture then what a single big satelite can create.
    3
  35.  @paulpeterson4216  Maybe long term you'd be right. But the UK was already sending equipment before US resources where relevant, and by the time Germany invaded Denmark and Norway the merchant navies of these nations (both fairly sizable) where added to the British war effort. Britain was more than capable of providing aid to Russia for quite some time into the war even without US involvement. However you're right, continued submarine attacks would probably take its tole and the UK might have been forced to reduce its aid down the line. But helping other nations in Europe with war materials is something that the UK has done through many wars through history. And would have taken place even without US involvement.
    3
  36. That sounds about right. Honestly Ukraine is doing surprisingly good, especially since neither they nor anyone else expected Belarus to allow Russian troops through.
    3
  37. The CV 90 allow you to flank enemies by using terrain that their tanks and IFVs can't traverse to surprise them. Terrain that the Bradley can't traverse.
    3
  38. I think you might be underestimating Russia slightly. Even with US help Russia could probably get troops and supplies through the ice using their ice breakers and establish a foothold in northern Canada. And the ice would offer some protection from NATOs navies since our fleets are seriously lacking in ice breakers.
    3
  39. Yeah, had forgotten about AUKUS. That is a factor.
    3
  40.  @kermittoad  I'm not Russian... There's plenty of them doing propaganda work too. But my point is rather that Americans constantly thinks their equipment is better then everyone elses, European, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Indian etc. And when tests show that this isn't true it's not learned till the US finds itself genuinely humiliated like with the Gotland class subs. And when other countries experience poor results with American equipment it's dismissed as poor usage of the equipment etc instead of acknowledging that it's not as great as Americans think. It's much the same as how Americans think that the US is the best place to live in when it most definitely is.
    3
  41.  @mattiasrolf1868  Yep, of course Russia would win eventually if we don't get help from outside the Nordic region. But people seriously underestimate how capable our militaries are at defense in our own terrain.
    3
  42. Side grade. In sufficient numbers the networking capabilities of the patriot makes it better, but in lower numbers... Not so much...
    3
  43.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  Because the increase in capabilities that you get from networking far outstrips any and all disadvantages as the Swedes demonstrated when they started with this stuff. Your plane could be inferior in every other way and still come on top with networking because you end up with better situational awareness (and also you're less likely to be shot down by friendly fire, both from the ground and air)
    3
  44.  @DefaultProphet  He's right that it could happen, but I dissagree with him about the conclusion. The advantages of networking just are too big to ignore even with the added risks. It's simply worth taking the chance.
    3
  45.  @bigGullyV  You claim that no one else is close in capabilities, but have you actually been in the cockpit of European or Japanese top of the line planes and seen what they can do? Americans always seems to underestimate other countries capabilities and overestimate their own. Don't get me wrong, the F35s are impressive planes, but so is many others, and I doubt that they're sharing information about all of their capabilities with you even if you're allies. The latest generation Gripens are quite capable for instance with a focus on networking, avionics and electronic warfare, but they're still very reluctant to actually show anyone their true capabilities.
    3
  46.  @Cheka__  While it's true that Norway also make good military hardware in this case we're talking about Swedish military hardware, across the border from us (they make even more things then we do) Gripen is a Swedish fighter. We produce other things like anti-ship missiles and air-defense systems in Norway.
    3
  47.  @xdas11  Eh. Stealth might be overrated. Yes, you need a way to counter enemy sensors, but there's more then one way to do that. Electronic warfare makes targeting you as difficult as if you're in a stealth plane, but it's way easier to upgrade your electronic warfare suit once it gets countered, sometimes all you need is just a software upgrade. While stealth requires you to research a completely new airframe and replace the old ones once they're countered. That's also part of why stealth planes aren't as available on the export market, you need to trust anyone you sell them too much more than a fighter that relies on electronic warfare suits for defense.
    3
  48.  @dr.j5642  Finland, Japan and South Korea are all within the US sphere of influence and relying on US aid in case of war. Their choices are likely as much or more geopoliticaly motivated then motivated by capabilities. Don't get me wrong, the F35 is capable. But those nations have a reason to overstate the capabilities of the F35 and downplay those of the others. For Japan the F35 might indeed be a better fit then say a Gripen. For Finland I'm convinced that a Gripen is better. For South Korea... I'm honestly not sure. It depends on the exact scenario playing out.
    3
  49. I wonder what the Ukrainian air force could do with some Gripens. Send some pilots and ground personell up to Sweden for training for a few months. And if we here in Europe fund some Gripens for them they'd have a air force able to counter the Russian air force fairly well, and make use of the Ukrainian countryside and its roads for bases. And it's not that expensive or complicated to operate.
    3
  50. You guys are dreaming...
    2