General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

UzuMaki NaRuto
Imperial War Museums
comments

Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

There's no question that the Soviets contributed greatly to allied victory, but lets not pretend that the western allies didn't do the bulk of the work, not always on the frontlines, but in logistics, intelligence and other support.
20
I'd say that although drones have made artillery more deadly that drones themselves are now the number one killer in Ukraine. You can hide from artillery strikes and survive even intense barrages however with suicide drones and explosive dropping drones, they have become mini precision guided weapons that troops cannot escape from. Cheap and plentiful there are so many targets on the battlefield these days that you can now strike with drones that you probably wouldn't want to waste an artillery shell on even if you could hit it with one shot. Right now there's no scarier weapon on the battlefield than an armed drone piloted by a good operator.
14
@davemac1197 I never understood why they couldn't have found a way to drop at least some units on the southern side of Arnhem bridge and seize both ends at the same time. The same goes for Nijmegen bridge where they could've dropped at least a small unit near the northern end so that both sides of Nijmegen bridge could be taken at the same time. Even if there were concerns of AA shooting down aircraft or less than ideal landing zones, I think it would've been worth the risk to land at least some troops on those LZs if it meant that both sides of those bridges could be taken rather than having to fight to cross the bridge to take it.
10
It was a team effort. Both the western allies and the Soviets did their part in defeating Germany and their allies. There's no way the Soviets could defeat the Germans on their own while the western allies would've taken huge casualties to defeat the Germans without the Soviets. They wouldn't lose like 9 million troops like the USSR did, but they would've lost much more than they actually did on the western front.
8
More like new technology with little defense against that new technology. Drones are the biggest menace on the battlefield in Ukraine and it ain't even close and until there's some effective defense against them like a good signal jammer or something, troops on both sides will continue to get injured and killed by them.
8
Like it or not the US was the economic and production engine behind the whole allied war effort including the USSR. Without the Americans supplied and fighting in WWII, the western allies are defeated and the USSR would lose large parts of its territory and probably be pushed well back from Moscow and be forced to retreat to central and eastern Russia.
5
@Marcelo's DBZ Music If we're being realistic, the western allies DID do much of the work in defeating the Axis forces. Japan and Italy were destroyed by western allies and Germany was a shared victory where the Soviets and the western allies contributed in different ways to destroy the German forces.
4
@IanCross-xj2gj The Red Army smashed 30 German divisions in less than 6 weeks. Took the pressure off the D Day landings and Normandy battle. The Soviets smashed a bunch of understrength German divisions who while being good soldiers were vastly outnumbered in men and equipment and could never hope to hold back the waves of Soviet troops forever.
3
Do you have a source for that 400k number for Ukraine? I don't doubt that the Ukrainians are taking significant losses, but I doubt its 400k killed though.
3
@palacehaunter5442 Since when did any army in ancient times invade another nation or empire with SEVERAL MILLION MEN? How about never? The Germans and their allies invaded the USSR with over 4+ million men. What ancient army was even a fraction of that size?
3
Because Russia hasn't been firing 60k shells consistently for the past 2+ years? That was only for a brief period of time that they were firing so many until they too were suffering a shell shortage to a degree which is why they're buying shells from North Korea. Also that 70% casualty rate from artillery doesn't apply to this war because drones have been causing a large proportion of casualties these days and might've even overtaken artillery as being the biggest cause of casualties.
2
Except that they weren't?
2
Much of the losses in the Eastern front was because the Soviets were dumb as rocks in how they managed their forces and how little they cared about their troops as long as they achieved the objectives they wanted. The Battle of Berlin was meaningless other than prestige for Stalin and he had no problems with wasting 80k+ Soviet troops dead and missing to take Berlin while the western allies sat back and saved their own troops' lives. Also you're crazy if you believed that the allies could've launched D-Day much earlier when it was the largest seaborn invasion in history and it was something that required huge resources and logistics and training to achieve. Only the western allies had the engineering, technology, intelligence etc. to pull off such an operation which the Soviets could NEVER hope to achieve.
2
The Germans had superior technology and weaponery at the beginning of the war, but were taking on a nation of 190 million people on a front that stretched about 3000km. The Russians could absorb huge losses in men and machinery but then easily replace them with reserves and fresh troops and new weapons from the East of the country. The Soviet Union was a colussus and Germany a minnow by comparison. To be fair, David almost defeated Goliath. The one thing that allowed the Soviets to take such a beating and still be able to comeback and win was because of the sheer amount of land that had to be conquered by the enemy. No matter how much land the Germans took, the Soviets could always fall back and trade land for time to regroup, reform and fight back. If you placed the population of USSR into western Europe, the Soviets would've been defeated the same way the western allies did because they would've ran out of territory to fall back upon and eventually be forced to surrender once their backs were at the Atlantic.
2
@canuck_gamer3359 And the inescapable truth is that Market Garden was a terrible waste of elite allied troops and was something that never should have been allowed to take place. In my view, it's a miracle that it got as far as it did and the only reason for that was the extremely fortunate and RARE accuracy of the air drops and the heroic efforts of the troops. Despite all the problems if the allied commanders had done a few things differently it still might've succeeded and if the weather had cooperated that too might've made a significant difference in not delaying vital drops to reinforce and resupply troops. If they had chosen to drop most of the 1st British airborne troops on the first day giving them the most combat power being the furthest away from allied lines and they had dropped close to Arnhem bridge so that most of the division could make it to the objective and better yet drop troops on BOTH SIDES of the bridge to attack both ends simultaneously, the plan might've still worked even with all its flaws. If Frost's battalion alone could hold so long defending their end of the bridge imagine how long the Brits could've held out if they had most of the 1st Parachute Brigade defending the bridge?
2
You mean the famous T-34. The T-35 was a completely useless heavy land tank.
2
@LamboHUA Ukrainians need more soldiers not only to replaces their losses, but also to relieve many of their units who have been fighting since the beginning of the war. You can't keep soldiers on the frontlines forever without taking them off the battlefield and allowing them to rest and recover. Also why don't you mention the heavy losses that the Russians have taken and how they're also constantly trying to recruit new men to throw into the war? And the Russians definitely aren't doing well when they're taking so much equipment from the Cold War era out of storage to use in Ukraine. Can you ever imagine the US losing so much equipment in a war that they would be forced to bring equipment from back in the 1960s or even earlier to use in a 21st century war? I certainly can't and yet here we see the Russians doing that very thing during the Ukraine war.
2
@eugenekrabs869 Keep telling yourself this lie, 80% of german forces fought on the eastern front. 80%, you think taking down the kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, and Italy mattered, sure it did, not a majority of the war, if the Wehrmacht succeeded nothing else would matter, so the soviets won the war, the allies contributed heavily but without the soviets there would be no hope of victory without britain or america it would be a bloodier longer war, but one germany still could not win. Disagree. Its actually the opposite. Without the western allies, the Soviets would not completely lose the war, but they also would not win either. The USSR is so huge in landmass that the Germans obviously could never conquer the entirety of the USSR, but they would've likely kicked the Soviets out of most if not all of Eastern Europe and perhaps up to losing Moscow if not more. The Soviets would retreat eastwards into the interior and eastern Asia Russia and from there it would remain to be seen if they could fight back and regain their lost territory. The western allies on the otherhand would have to fight a much longer and more costly war, but they could've won it without the Soviets. Why? Because of America's MASSIVE and technologically advanced industrial base and with US and their allies' combined manpower. I think people who argue that the Soviets did 'the bulk of the work' always look at the number of troops at the front and how many were killed without remembering all the huge logistical, technical and other support systems that are required to keep millions of soldiers in the field functioning and fighting. A major reason why the Germans lost was because they didn't have the industrial base and proper logistical systems in place to support their huge armies. If the German forces had the same industrial resources as the US did, they would've beaten the Soviets out of Eastern Europe if not more instead of losing the entire war.
1
@saucy743 they did do the bulk of the work in the skies, intelligence and logistics, but the Soviets did the bulk of the work on the ground and in the destruction of the Wehrmacht You're naming the most important components to having a great army that can fight effectively while being able to not take huge casualties. Those are things that the Soviets lacked in WWII which is why their fight against the Germans was so hard and so bloody. If you put the western allied armies on the Eastern Front and had them fight against the bulk of the German army, there's ZERO CHANCE that they would sustain 9 MILLION soldier deaths like the Soviets did. Absolutely no chance at all. Maybe they lose a million or two killed or maybe more, but 9 million killed? No chance in hell. Why? Because western allied armies as you stated had better logistics, better intelligence and a massively better airforce. All those things combined with better training, leadership and organization allowed them to lower their casualties compared to the Soviets. Look at the parallels to the Soviet army in WWII to the present day Russian army and they STILL suffer from poor training, poor logistics and a weak airforce which is why they're unable to beat the Ukrainians in their current war with them. History repeats itself yet again.
1
@saucy743 they did do the bulk of the work in the skies, intelligence and logistics, but the Soviets did the bulk of the work on the ground and in the destruction of the Wehrmacht. No one is questioning that the Soviets did the bulk of the work on the ground defeating the Wehrmacht, however it would've been a much harder job or even near impossible if it wasn't for the western allies greatly helping the USSR. Logistics is EVERYTHING on the modern battlefield and the western allies were constantly hitting German industry and reducing their ability to produce weapons and supplies for their armies. Without that constant disruption the Germans could've greatly increased their output which would've all went to the east and made the Soviets job of defeating the Germans near impossible. I think without western allied help, the best the Soviets could hope for would be a stalemate where neither side could claim a decisive victory. The problem with the Soviets is that they didn't care about losses or doing anything in an efficient manner which is why they suffered so many casualties even fighting against a declining Wehrmacht with vastly larger forces. I 100% guarantee you that if it were western allies fighting on the east against the bulk of the German army that they would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS suffer 9 million dead soldiers. Why? Because they actually CARE about their soldiers and not wasting them and they had better tactics and strategy and overall support for their armies that all led to suffering much fewer casualties. The Soviets NEVER had that kind of ability to organize and plan the way the western allies did, which is why they suffered such insane casualties.
1
@alexanderleo8947 The problem with your numbers is that you leave out the most important parts. With the lend lease the US provided the USSR with almost 60% of all its aviation fuel used during WWII and 90% of high-octane fuel that high performance aircraft needed that the Soviets couldn't produce themselves. They literally kept a large portion of the Red Airforce in the air because the Soviets were not able to refine such high quality fuels. Also you don't mention that the Allies sent over 420,000 trucks, 2,000 locomotives and 10,000 rail cars that helped the Soviet Army become mobile and allow it to move men, supplies and equipment around the battlefield more quickly. All those big offensives that you see the Soviets launching in the mid to late war period are much harder to accomplish and they don't nearly move as fast if they don't have those trucks and trains moving their army around. Its the reason why the German Army offensives in the East as successful as they were, are still not as successful as they could've been when much of their army and supplies are moved around the battlefield by horses instead of trucks and rail. Lets look at it another way. Pretend that western nations are allies with Germany instead of the USSR in WWII and they provide all their lend-lease to the German Army instead of the Red Army. Ask yourself how much more successful would the Germans and their allies have been in the East with increased mobility and a stable supply of oil and other important supplies coming from the west? Ask yourself how do the Soviets stop the Germans when their airforce is heavily impacted by the lack of aviation fuel and are forced to move around much slower because of the lack of trucks, locomotives and rail cars? How do you propose the Soviets stop a well supplied and very mobile German Army?
1
@АлександрЕкдитовЯковлев-в1966г It is interesting. And why were you not confused by the fact that it was the Red Army that captured a city called Berlin? The USSR captured Berlin at the cost of 80,000 soldiers killed and many thousands more wounded at the end of WWII when the western allies were trying to minimize their casualties while Stalin threw away so many Soviet soldiers lives needlessly all for Stalin's ego of conquering his enemy's capital.
1
@tommyt4259 nope, the whole war Russia has had roughly a 10/1 arty advantage while simultaneously out producing NATO in arty rounds. Russia is outproducing NATO countries in arty rounds because Russia relies much more on arty than NATO does. When you have vastly superior airforces and have tons more precision guided missiles you tend to rely less on artillery to support your troops. Also you don't take into account that NATO nations are ramping up their arty shell production and have a much greater capacity to produce shells as well as every other type of modern weapon compared to Russia if they chose to put more funding towards it which they're currently doing now. Also they are made producing drones and high end ones at that (eg lancet). Truth is, Ukraine casualties are too high for the world to cope with so they aren't being told the true numbers. I think anyone who has followed the war closely would acknowledge that Ukraine has taken significant casualties, but you'd have to be INSANE to also not acknowledge that the Russians have taken far, FAR more casualties during this war. You can't have watched all the videos from this war and see how the Russians really don't give a damn about their troops and how many casualties they take as long as they achieve their objectives. To put it simply if Ukraine and Russia both had about the same population size, the Russians would've ended this war LONG AGO because of the massive losses they've taken. This war wouldn't be going into the 3rd year and Russia would've either retreated or been pushed out of most if not all of Ukraine by now. If Russia was doing so well and taking so few casualties then they wouldn't be announcing another wave of mobilization for 300,000 more troops just a few days ago would they? Like I said if they had the population size the same as Ukraine they would've been done for by now.
1
Germany fought against the US and USSR. The two largest industrial powers on the planet with huge populations. They had no chance. If it were only Germany vs the USSR with no western allies, they probably could've at least fought the Soviets to a stalemate if not win to a degree.
1
@PeoplecallmeLucifer you'd be surprised how many people don't even know that soviets were the one who captured Berlin At the cost of 80,000+ Soviet dead just to satisfy Stalin's ego of being the one to capture the German capital. I'm glad the western allies allowed Stalin to have that 'honor' because they actually gave a damn about their soldiers and of minimizing their deaths.
1
Russians are 100% taking more casualties than the Ukrainians and its not even close. If you've followed the war since the beginning you'd see that the Russians really don't give a damn about their troops and how many they lose as long as they achieve their objectives.
1
@poppystars9005 I wouldn’t be shocked if Ukraine was well above 400k, Russian 150, Ukrainians fighting for Russia likely 150 as well. Ukrainians are certainly taking alot of casualties, but the Russians are losing far, FAR more. It would be impossible for them to not to with how carelessly they throw their own troops' lives away as long as they achieve their objectives.
1
@kindlingking * Neither German military nor economy were ready for war of attrition, allied blockade and bombings helped to speed up their degradation, but by all metrics they lost in 1941 and were just falling with style for 4 more years.* Without the western allies the Eastern front would've been a stalemate. Germans could never fully defeat the Soviets when they had such a large population, industrial base and natural resources to fall back on along with endless amounts of land that could never be all conquered. On the other side the Germans were vastly hindered by having their industrial base constantly bombed and prevented from operating at full capacity and having blockades that prevented them from possibly importing resources from elsewhere. Also it had to leave large numbers of its military in the west and southern Europe to defend against allied invasion that could've hugely helped in the East. Without the west, the Soviets would never be able to beat the Germans and it would've likely ended in a stalemate.
1
@x7Samuraix If we're excluding civilian deaths and only counting military casualties then a big reason why so many Soviet troops died was because of the lack of care for their lives. How many Soviet attacks have we seen where they send masses of men forward and try and overwhelm their enemy rather than sending them forward in a more orderly and measured fashion to try and reduce casualties? The western allied soldiers were generally better trained, better led and had better support and their generals on the whole cared more about their soldiers' lives than the Soviets ever did. Where possible western generals didn't throw their men's lives away needlessly which is why they let Stalin have the 'honor' of taking Berlin which cost 80,000+ Soviet soldiers' deaths to do so. How crazy was that? The war had already been won and it was nearing the end and yet Stalin had no issues with wasting so many Soviet lives to take Berlin instead of perhaps encircling the city and negotiating its surrender or starving the Germans out. That's the kind of avoidable losses that the Soviets could've taken to save lives but didn't because their leaders largely didn't care about their own men.
1
You'd have to be taking some seriously awesome drugs to believe that Ukraine has taken 1 million casualties. I mean its not as low as Ukraine publicly acknowledges, but 1 million is laughable. With that number there wouldn't be many troops left on the frontlines and Russia should be rolling through Ukraine by now. Also I'm curious if you really believe Ukrainians have taken 1 million casualties, then what do you believe the casualty number is for Russia?
1
@heavyartillery-qm5hu The Soviets gave so much blood because they never learned to care about their own people and to find ways to save more of their lives. They just cared about getting the job done no matter what the human cost was.
1
@Zero4Infinitives The 31 000 lost figure that Zelensky put out is biggest lie of 21st century. They are not like Russia said, like for every 7 ukrainian 1 russian dead so a 7:1 ratio but they are more like 2:1 and Russia has more population willing to fight, much more. No doubt that the Ukrainians have lost more than 31,000 troops, but there's also no doubt that the Russians have lost 100,000+ killed easily by now and probably much more. The Ukrainians at least know when to stop costly attacks and to retreat when necessary while the Russians don't seem to care about casualties at all as long as they achieve their objectives. If you've followed the war since the beginning you'd see how costly Russian offensives are and how they just keep coming no matter what the costs are. Lets just say that if the Ukrainians and the Russians had the same population size that the Russians would've retreated out of Ukraine and ended this war a long time ago. The Russians are still fighting now because they still have plenty of poor, unfortunate men to throw into battle without a care in the world.
1
You're smoking crack if you seriously believe that the Russians haven't taken many more losses than the Ukrainians.
1
@anthonyeaton5153 You hide from artillery shells the same as its been done for a hundred plus years now since large scale bombardments became a regular occurrence in WWI. Namely you take cover and preferably in a deep hole or trench. Unless your enemy is using guided shells, its been shown that simply having underground cover like a trench greatly reduces artillery shell effectiveness. Why? Because unless you take a direct or a near direct hit, a hole or trench protects you from a shell blast and shrapnel pretty well. Compare that to attack drones who are human guided and can literally follow you everywhere and try and kill you like a terminator and its no comparison. As scary as artillery or missiles or many other things that can kill you on the battlefield, they all pale in comparison to the absolute terror that drones have become in war where its extremely hard to escape from them. Just watch all those drone videos where pilots fly their suicide drones packed with explosives straight into your dugout or trench to take you out. Its just crazy how good many of these pilots have become during the war and because drones are so cheap, they have no problems wasting it on a single target that you probably wouldn't waste an artillery shell or missile on.
1
@1112viggo I don't get it. How are military suicide drones with all their technology, electronics and small parts of different materials, cheaper and faster to produce than simply stuffing a metal casing with the same explosives and launch it from artillery? Have you looked up the cost of producing a standard NATO 155mm shell these days? Its listed at anywhere between $3000-8000 per shell in 2023 depending on which source you look at. For that price you could build at least several suicide drones that are far more accurate and can hit individual targets and take them out much more effectively rather than trying to hit them with an artillery shell. And if you want to use precision guided shells like Excalibur then you're talking about $120,000+ US per shell. In comparison suicide drones are MUCH easier to produce in large numbers and you don't need any special equipment and materials to build a suicide or explosive dropping drone the same way that you do for artillery shells that require large factories to produce. All you need to do to setup a drone factory is to get drone parts and have some people to assemble drones and others to deal with the electronics. Not very hard at all in comparison to requiring so many specialized factory processes to make artillery shells that actually work rather than exploding in your face. Id also think its harder to intercept a shell before impact than a larger slower moving drone that's susceptible to jamming. Yes some drones can be shot down or jammed, but when you have such large numbers of drones flying around the battlefield, its impossible to place jamming equipment that can effectively jam every drone with every military unit. Plenty are going to get through and hit their targets and if you've watched all the drone videos in the past year or so, they are frighteningly effective in taking out their targets. I don't think I'd be surprised to see that in the past year and certainly going forward in 2024 and beyond that drones have become the biggest killer on the battlefield. If there's one single system that I could get rid of in my opponent's inventory it would be drones easy. Surveillance/suicide/explosive dropping drones are just far too effective and dangerous for the cost of producing them and keeping them in the field. No other weapons system is so scary dangerous and yet so accessible as drones are these days.
1
Except the Soviets didn't and COULDN'T do it on its own. The western allies and even the US on its own could beat the Germans. The western allies had the largest industrial base to build all the weapons and supplies necessary to support their armies, they had the best intelligence departments, they had far better training for their soldiers and they had by far the most advance technologies and engineering on their side. Why do you think that it was possible for the western allies to fight ALL OVER THE WORLD while the Soviets were struggling to survive in the east? Because their armies were vastly inferior and relied heavily on sheer numbers to stop the Germans along with the weather and their massive land size.
1
These days its more like God is on the side with the most drones with the best pilots. Artillery is still scary, but NOTHING is scarier than drones being controlled by experienced pilots on the battlefield these days.
1
That's because Stalin had no issues with throwing his soldiers and people away no matter how great the numbers as long as it stopped the Germans otherwise he could've possibly saved millions of Soviet lives. The Germans lost large numbers of soldiers and civilians because they were fighting an overwhelming number of enemies with not enough supplies and resources and no matter how good the Germans were in the field, they could never defeat enemies that were many times larger and better supplied than they were.
1
@michaelhowell2326 I'm not arguing, just asking, but at what point is it considered fully mobilized? And are you saying Russia is a peer or near peer to the US and/or NATO? In a conventional war without nukes, Russia is NOWHERE NEAR close to NATO without the US let alone including them. This war has once and for all proven that the Russian armed forces are largely a paper tiger that relies mostly on sheer numbers to overwhelm their enemies as they've so often done so in the past. Russia with the way they fight would've never lasted in any major conflict without the size of their population, the size of their industrial capabilities and the size of their country. The Russians have rarely beaten their opponents with a superior trained, organized and led armed force and instead have almost always beaten their opponents with sheer size and amount of men and equipment they could bring to the battlefield and simply overwhelm their opponents. And if they can't do that quickly then they try and out last you and hope you run out of men and supplies before they do.
1
And yet the Russians can't use their airforce anywhere over Ukraine where the Ukrainians are because they'll likely get shot down and so they're relegated to only operating behind their own lines.
1
Other than thin air, where's the proof that they lost 300k men? I think its much more likely that Russia has lost that many than the Ukrainians when you see how little they give a damn about their troops and throwing their lives away in poorly organized and led attacks over and over again.
1
The Soviet contribution to WWII is endless amounts of young men that they could send to their deaths and a willingness to endure pain and suffering and to keep fighting forever. The western allies contribution to WWII was skill, technology and organization that allowed them to fight without taking such massive casualties.
1
And if you look at other conflicts fought in Middle East - Yemen civil war, Syria civil war - or Africa - war in Ethiopia - where the numbers of civilians killed are just staggering and run into the hundred of thousand the war in Ukraine would simply stands at the bottom of the list of the most deadly conflicts of the 21st century. There's no war in the 21st century that has gone as full scale as the war in Ukraine has. All the other conflicts going on in the world are fought by poorly armed, poorly trained men and also often fought by uneven opponents like the Israelis vs Hamas. The war in Ukraine is the first one since WWII that has involved mostly modern armies fighting each other head to head in an all out war.
1
@lucapieralisi Syria was not a full scale conflict? The war in Yemen was not a full scale conflict? The war in Ethiopia was not a full scale conflict? The war in Nagorno Karabakh was not a full scale conflicts? What were these, couple of skirmishes between couple of rag tag bands??? Why don't you tell these people that they weren't killing each other but just slapping each other cheeks. None of the conflicts you mentioned are anywhere near the size and scale that's close to the war in Ukraine. Sure the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Sudan etc. are deadly, but they're nowhere near as large and as deadly as it is in Ukraine. This is the first war that has involved conventional forces at this scale for this length of time since WWII in Europe. The Russians and Ukrainians/NATO are throwing their industrial might against each other the likes we haven't seen since WWII. Thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, artillery systems etc. have been lost. Hundreds of thousands of men killed and wounded and many weapons that were meant to fight a third world war are being used here. All the other conflicts going on in Africa, the Mideast and elsewhere might produce large numbers of casualties, but in terms of industrial scale and how much financing, men and equipment is being put onto the battlefield, all of them pale in size and scope compared to the Ukrainian war.
1
@lucapieralisi That's the thing though. When people talk about the size and scale of a conflict they're often talking about the armed forces involved and the intensity and scale of the fighting more so than just the amount of casualties. Just look at the various Sudan/Darfur conflicts that have been going on for decades that have killed and wounded hundreds of thousands over the years and yet in terms of military scale its nothing compared to the Ukrainian war and that's why this war is getting much more attention than most every other conflict we've seen in recent decades.
1
Drones have overtaken artillery as the biggest killer on the battlefield.
1
Drones are the new deadliest weapon on the battlefield now. I don't think there's a more frightening sight than seeing a drone coming towards you and knowing that its going to be hard if not near impossible to dodge one or more attack drones if the enemy drone operator really wants to kill you. If there's one weapons system that I could completely remove from my enemy's arsenal it would be drones of all types.
1
And to this day in Ukraine, history repeats itself. The Russians never learn which is a good thing for the rest of the world.
1
Ukrainians have definitely lost alot of men, but the Russians have lost even much more. If the Ukrainians and Russians both had the same population size, Russia would've ended this war a long time ago with all their losses. Right now they're staying in the fight solely because of the size of their army and their ability to draw from a much larger pool of men to throw their lives away in Ukraine. Its crazy to see countless videos of Russian losses everyday and yet they still keep attacking without a care in the world with how many men and how much equipment they lose as long as they achieve their objectives.
1
The Soviets were partners in freeing Europe. Without the help of western allies there's zero chance we see the Soviets in Berlin. At best the Soviets would be in a war of attrition with the Germans that might've went on for many years without the west providing so much help.
1