Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. I seriously doubt this will happen anytime soon. Relax.
    12
  2. The problem is the Soviet airforce was no match for the Allied airforce which had better aircraft, better pilots as well as a long range bomber force. They would pummel the Soviet army just like they did the Germans. Also the western Allies were amazing when it came to logistics and supplying their armies and its something that the Soviets couldn't match back in WWII and right up to the current war in Ukraine.
    12
  3.  @rog69  lmao wtf are u on? soviet aircraft was on par and pilots as good if not better, that's some weird copium. if soviets didn't match the logistics how they went across all of europe to get to Berlin then? allies didn't do nearly as much distance and only had better naval logistics In what way were Soviet aircraft anywhere near as good as allied aircraft? - Soviets didn't have any strategic long range bomber force the entire war while the UK and US and a number of famous long range bombers. - Soviets didn't have any long range transport aircraft in any quantity while the allies had THOUSANDS of transport aircraft that could lift tons of supplies and entire airborne divisions into battle. - Soviet fighter aircraft got better as the war went on, but allied aircraft were much better. Just take a look at the P51D Mustang which could fly like 10,000 feet higher than almost all Soviet fighters and had nearly double the range even before adding drop tanks that allowed them to fly almost 4 TIMES FARTHER than any Soviet fighter. With regards to logistics you do realize that its much, MUCH easier to supply your armies across land than it is across entire oceans right? Moving your supplies across country towards one front is much more easy than building thousands of transport ships and then sailing them around the world to supply your armies in several different theaters of war. What the Soviets did was easily accomplished by the allies, but what the allies accomplished the Soviets could NEVER do. There is ZERO chance that the Soviets could ever have the organization, resources and capability to launch history's largest ever seaborn invasion like D-Day. There's ZERO chance that the Soviets could launch the world's largest airborne operation like the allies did with Market Garden. And if we're talking post war there's ZERO chance that the Soviets could ever organize and maintain an operation like the Berlin airlift where the allies flew in enough fuel, food and other supplies to feed 2.5 MILLION Berliners FOR MORE THAN A YEAR ALL BY AIR. The point is allied technology, organization and resources were FAR SUPERIOR to the Soviets in WWII and there's no way that they could win a war against the allies after WWII.
    11
  4. @erikjohansson4275 Its interesting how when Ukraine was making large gains in territory very quickly during the Kharkiv offensive that the pro-Russian folks played it down as not being a very big deal. Now that Russia has captured a few towns and progressed forward a few kilometers after all these months all of a sudden its the beginning of the end for the Ukrainians again. I guess when you have very little good news its best to celebrate whatever success you have.
    11
  5. Even without nukes in a full conventional war the western allies would've beaten the Soviets and be able to push them back out of Europe and perhaps even further.
    7
  6. i'm not really sure that the soviets would win, there would be no way that the allies would push the soviets back that easily. also, the soviet intelligence already know about the operation and already reinforce the areas of potential attacks so suprise lost. There would be ZERO CHANCE that the Soviets could ever beat the western allied forces even without nukes. The only question is how far could the west push east and how far did they want to push east. The one thing that the west has ALWAYS outclassed the Russians in is logistics. The US supplied its own armies as well as the armies of their allies around the world while the Soviets struggled to keep their armies in the East supplied. Also the Soviets were helped greatly in getting their armies motorized by having the US send tens of thousands of trucks and other vehicles during the war. Without those US trucks, it would've been much more difficult for the Soviets to move troops and supplies around the battlefield. The bottom line is the western allies could've still beaten Germany without the Soviets while the opposite probably isn't true. The west had a vastly superior navy that could blockade the Germans everywhere except the East facing the Soviets. They also had a better airforce with a strategic bombing force that the Germans were never able to develop. And most importantly they had a HUGE industrial and food base to draw from in Canada and the US which would never be attacked and could supply western armies indefinitely. The western allies fighting one on one without the Soviets would definitely mean much more casualties for the western armies, but in the long run they still would've won because they had such a huge logistical advantage over Germany and their allies that the outcome would never be in doubt as long as the west had the resolve to fight to the end for victory.
    6
  7. @sadmanpranto9026 They (propagandas) obscure actual situation and lead to misinterpretation of information and overestimation or underestimation of certain aspects of war. Both parties in this war has flawed military. Also there are innumerable factors in a war. There's no equation where you put the numbers and technology for each countries and get a result of who's stronger and who's weaker. Russian propaganda has been much worse BY FAR and much more inaccurate as well. Each side has their own story and viewpoint, but at least Ukraine has some degree of accuracy in their reporting and they allow their troops to post videos of what's happening on the frontlines. Compare that to the Russians who actively LIE to their people and prevent them from finding out the true extent of the disaster that the war has been for them. Also not allowing Russian soldiers to post videos like Ukrainians allow theirs is mostly because they don't want the world to know how truly in bad shape their military is and how poorly they're doing on the battlefield. This is the same Russian army that lost over 30,000 troops in the Chechen wars against a small country with a small population and army. Things are going much worse for the Russians in Ukraine and most videos posted by Russian troops supports this. If there were plenty of Russian successes to go around, I doubt they would have any issues with their troops posting videos about it.
    5
  8. The T90 is getting wrecked in Ukraine by an army that doesn't have modern tanks. Can't imagine how screwed the T90 would be facing actual NATO tanks.
    5
  9. I seriously doubt western nations would ever turn to using nukes first before the other side launched because its not in the west's nature to do so. Even if they were on the verge of losing I would question if they would turn to nukes because they obviously know there would be retaliation and the west doesn't want to lose everything it has built through the centuries. China has a no first strike policy and I doubt they break that which leaves Russia as the only one that's most likely to use nukes because they're the weakest major power who as we've seen in Ukraine have vastly inferior conventional forces that can't even defeat a smaller opponent that's only been moderately supplied with western weapons and supplies. If Russia didn't have nukes, I think there's a very good chance that within the first week of the invasion of Ukraine that if Russia didn't turn back that there would've been massive NATO airstrikes against the Russians that would've crushed the invasion before it had any chance of going very far. Nukes are the only thing that's been stopping western nations from intervening directly with their military forces in Ukraine because they have too much to lose if things went nuclear.
    5
  10.  @rog69  I said the aircraft were on par, not who has more of what that’s a different argument lmao. Soviet fighters were plenty capable in the tasks they were given. Longer range? What for, to get shot down by AD? I said that Soviet fighter aircraft got better as the war went along, but they were NEVER as good as the best western fighters like the Mustang. Also you must be very uninformed to think that fighter range makes no difference. The Germans knew they lost the air war in western Europe right when they started seeing long range allied fighters escorting their bomber force all the way to their target and back because it meant German fighters could no longer do heavy damage to bomber formations like they use to. Also you don't mention that longer range means you can fly deep into enemy territory and attack ground targets when previously you weren't able to reach. And you also don't mention that longer range doesn't mean just flying further, it also means you can stay longer in the air to support your ground forces or protect the airspace for longer periods of time. Why do you think the Germans lost the Battle of Britain? In part it was because the German BF109 had relative short range and often could only fight over British airspace for about 20 mins before they had to return to base. Imagine if the BF109 had the same range as the Mustang? It would've been able to stay and fight for probably the whole bombing raid instead of leaving before they ran out of fuel to return home. * Yes sure naval logistics more complicated, but land are just as hard across massive distance that soviets covered in mostly desolate land destroyed by the war of attrition. U are acting like they had all the roads and rail already laid out before them as they advanced. D-day? The army that landed there was tiny compared to any soviet one lmao it’s the largest ever because no one else needed to do it so no point of reference.* Naval logistics is VASTLY more complicated. With ground logistics you just load your stuff on trucks and trains and drive it to the front. With naval logistics you have to first build the vast number of transport ships, then make sure all the supplies you make are well packed, can fit onto the ship with maximum efficiency and then make sure they're able to survive a trip overseas that can often take weeks to get to their destination. That's ALOT more resource intensive and needs much more organization than simple land logistics. With regards to D-Day its not just the number of men landed that mattered, its how much planning and resources that were needed to land them on defended enemy beaches. You needed specialized landing craft to assault the beaches and land reserve forces after. You needed to plan for the landing of airborne forces in support of those beach landings. Then you needed to plan for the MASSIVE amount of logistics to be transported across the channel to feed and supply that huge army you landed to keep them moving forward on a daily basis. These are things that the Soviets could NEVER do in WWII and couldn't even do now in 2024. If soviets needed, they could do it just as easily, and same for the airborne ops. The only thing allies (read US) had better is a massive industrial capacity, then again only because they were safe from any damage and destruction unlike soviet IMC, plus they had all the workers needed unlike soviets. How could the Soviets do any of the operations that the allies did when they never had a large air transport or amphibious fleet during the entire war? The Soviets barely experimented with airborne operations before they practically abandoned it entirely because they never had the technology or resources to build the kind of aircraft that the allies had. Amphibious landing vehicles? Nothing significant at all. This isn't just about industrial capacity, but also the technological/mechanical/scientific knowledge that's required to build advanced weapons that the Soviets weren't able to do. The red army was massive, had serious firepower and was battle hardened. It would easily decimate the allies who would realize western front was a joke compared. Soviets would only have to roll over west Germany, finish of France and Spain and allies would have no more foothold in Europe. The Soviet army was large, but SO WHAT? All the allies had to do was launch 1000 bomber raids day and night against Soviet logistical targets behind their lines the same as they did against the Germans and it would be game over. You can't fight when you have no fuel, food and other supplies for your army and there's no way the Soviets could defend against an allied strategic bomber campaign just like the Germans were unable to stop them. Seriously people like you just don't seem to understand how difficult it was for the allies to plan and execute many of the operations that they did and how hard it was for them to bring together so many resources to be able to supply their armies across entire oceans on foreign lands compared to the Soviets who only had to fight in their own backyard for most of the war.
    5
  11.  @dannysharp3729  That's a tough one, the Russians in 1945 were a incredible fighting machine with better tanks and equal planes. They did struggle in the beginning with huge losses the lend lease helped , but they quickly caught up and kept pace with the west. The Russians having better tanks is debatable by the end of the war. The allies were starting to bring in better and more heavier tanks that compete with the Russians. As for the airforce it wasn't even close. The allied airforce had the better trained and more skilled pilots, they had the better aircraft and they also had a massive strategic 4 engine bomber force that the Russians never had and could never hope to defend against. Also you don't mention that allied logistical support was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the Soviets in WWII just like they're still light years ahead in 2022 which is why Ukraine is still effectively more than holding their own against the Russian invasion into their country. Logistics is a huge part of success in wars and there's no way that the Russians could ever hope to match the production and logistical capabilities of the allies. Heck a big reason why the Red Army was effective in WWII was because of allied supplied tens of thousands of trucks that gave the Russian forces mobility and allowed them to supply their army much easier. One has to wonder if the western allies were supporting the Germans and they have given the German forces those trucks how much better they would be able to perform than they already did? Its crazy to think that the German army in WWII did so well when they relied so heavily on horses to move their men and supplies around the battlefield.
    5
  12.  @colonelradec8268  NATO tanks are junks. If T90 is bad their tanks will be twice more bad. If you believe that to be true then that's your opinion, but one thing that's true is that if I'm a crewman in a tank I would choose Abrams over a T90 10/10 times if I value having a chance at surviving if my tank gets hit. If you're in a Russian tank, you're pretty much dead when the turret goes flying. At least in an Abrams they have built in safety features to try and save the crewmen if their tank gets hit. If it was so good they already should send this NATO tanks to Ukraine but like I said it will ruin their reputation Why do you think the Ukrainians are constantly asking for Abrams and Leopards to be shipped to them? Because they know they're good and would make a major difference on the battlefield. The main reason they haven't been shipped to Ukraine yet is political and to a lesser degree the logistics of supplying and maintaining such tanks as well as training on them. The funny thing is its the Russians who have been completely exposed in this war. I have to admit before the war started I really believed that even though the Russian army was inferior to NATO and especially to US forces, I still believed they were a pretty strong opponent that would crush Ukrainian forces within a few weeks from when the invasion started. I really thought their airforce would devastate Ukraine's airforce and gain air superiority early in the war and that Russian armored forces would defeat the UA forces with their numbers when the Ukrainians had far fewer tanks and armored vehicles. In reality none of this happened because the Russian airforce is nowhere near as powerful as I thought and Russian logistical support was horrible and really slowed down their advances greatly. They have made so many strategic and tactical mistakes in this war that they're lucky to have gained the territory that they have and it remains to be seen if they will be able to hold much of it and not lose more as this war keeps going on.
    4
  13. As the video states, the attack helicopter's usefulness will come to an end much quicker than a tank will. Their capabilities can be more easily replaced by other systems than a tank's can. Personally if I were investing in helicopters, I'd rather invest in transport helis than attack ones. Much more utility and cheaper to buy and maintain.
    4
  14. The Abrams would wreck any Russian tank easy with its superior fire control systems, optics, electronics etc. and its biggest enemy would not be Russian tanks, but Russian ATGMs. But one thing you don't mention is that if an Abrams gets hit at least the tank crew will have a decent chance of surviving and it won't have its ammo cooking off and its turret launching off into space.
    4
  15. Well as things have turned out Patton was right. Should've dealt with the Russians when they had the chance back then and they could've potentially avoided all the decades of pain, suffering and worry having to deal with the USSR for so long. Even now the Russians are causing problems as we see in Ukraine. How much different would things have turned out if the Russians had been pushed back.
    4
  16.  @steveavecillas1114  From a purely military standpoint without politics involved, the western Allied forces would 100% defeat the Soviets in a head to head conventional war post-WWII. The one huge reason why the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans besides the western allies helping them was the fact that the Soviets could outproduce the Germans in everything from tanks to bullets to oil production to keep their armies fighting in the field. However the Soviets could never hope to outproduce the western allies where the US alone was supplying itself as well as its allies with everything needed to fight the war. Pretty much the only advantages that the Soviets had was the size of its armies and perhaps the amount and quality of their tanks. Almost everything else was in favor of the western allies.
    4
  17. Well Russia certainly has lost a crapload of armored vehicles to the point that they're using Cold War era tanks and vehicles now and they can barely launch anymore mobile offensive operations which is why they've resorted to mass artillery and rocket fire before slowly moving forward. Also even after all this time the Russian airforce as yet to gain any kind of air superiority.
    3
  18. @Richard Wolf The Soviets have better tanks than we do, hands down. I wouldn't say Soviet tanks were vastly better than allied ones especially late war when better allied ones were coming online in numbers. And more importantly the tank edge that the Soviets had would be greatly reduced by the vastly superior allied airpower that destroyed every German tank and vehicle that it saw. We have more aircraft than they do, including heavy bombers, but most of their heavy industry is out of range of B-17s and B-24s. Did you forget the B-29? The plane that dropped the atomic bomb? So many cities, military targets and Russian industry would be in range of that plane that all the logistics that Russians need to keep their massive armies functioning in the field would be bombed to kingdom come and there's little that they could do about it when they're all protected by long range Mustangs. The Germans had no answer when long range fighters escorted allied bombers to their targets and back and neither would the Russians. Their supply lines are vulnerable, but they need less logistical support than we do. We have trouble supplying ourselves across the continent, and air strikes on us will make that worse. How are Russian supply lines from Eastern Europe back to Russia any less long and troublesome? If the allies bomb every single rail line and train station, how will the Russians be able to transport supplies from the east to the front? The allies can do it until the cows come home like they did to the Germans and the Russians have no ability to do the same to the allies when they have air superiority. Also you're forgetting that the allies dominate the oceans and have a HUGE transport fleet that the German U-boats couldn't stop. Now imagine those same convoys sailing from the west without being attacked and dropping off their supplies in ports around the Baltic countries or Barents sea or down south in the Black sea where they could open a second front there. How does the USSR ever match the allied industrial capacity and the ability to move those supplies around the globe?
    3
  19.  @simonsobo4644  The idea of a Sherman tank battling a T-34 is utterly laughable. The Germans turned the pitiful Soviet military into the most powerful land army on the planet. The Sherman may or may not be as good as the T-34, but it wasn't far behind especially the later models like the Firefly that could penetrate Tigers and Panthers frontally which means they could probably penetrate most if not all Russian tanks. Also USSR logistics are vastly inferior to the allies who could transport supplies and equipment from North America all the way to the front with relative ease. I don't think the Russians could ever match allied efficiency in that department and lets not even talk about the allied airforce and navy which would dominate the Soviets.
    3
  20.  @EdwarkDiyaz  Truthfully in a fully conventional war without nuclear weapons the US alone could defeat China. Not defeating them as in conquering Chinese territory, but beating the Chinese in any battle whether it be on land, sea or air. The US is the only nation on earth with a military that can invade practically every corner of the planet while China's military remains a largely regional force that likely won't ever project its military power very far beyond its own borders the way that the US can.
    3
  21.  @danielarchambeault-may5162  American Lend/Lease supplies didn't start showing up until 43, by which point the Whermacht was thoroughly broken anyways. Lend Lease never made up more than 2-10% of Soviet equipment (depending on date and catagory.) Not to mention the Soviets had been supplying equipment to the Chinese for the war against Japan. Why do people who talk about lend lease to the USSR always leave out the quality of the lend lease that was given to them? Ask yourself without the tens of thousands of trucks and other vehicles given to them by the allies, how would the Russians be able to become as mobile as they did and be able to transport troops and supplies around the battlefield more easily? Its quite a feat that the German army despite relying so heavily on horses to move their army forward were able to make it to the outskirts of Moscow in a few months of invading USSR. Imagine what they could've done if they were given American made trucks that were far superior to anything the Germans and Soviets had and how much easier and even faster the German army could've moved. They had the best hardware in the War all around, and had plenty of it. The Russians most definitely DID NOT have 'the best hardware' in most cases when compared to their western allies. For the sake of argument lets just assume the Russians had better tanks. After that then what? Better fighters and bombers? Nope. Not even close. Better navy? Obviously no. Better soldier weapons and equipment? Most definitely not. Better intelligence services? Nope. Better trained soldier? Hell no. Better logistical support for their armies? Not even close. So please tell me where the Russians are better than the allies in anything other than maybe tanks?
    3
  22.  @danielarchambeault-may5162  American trucks made the war go quicker, but they by no means made the win. Again, the first American supplies didn't get there until 43, and German defeat was inevitable by that point. They still had trains, horses, all the captured German, Romanian and Italian transportation, and their own two feet. Trucks and other allied vehicles literally helped transform many divisions of Soviet infantry from being slow marching soldiers to becoming mechanized soldiers and it also helped keep them supplied in a way that horses and other vehicles never could. Rail only gets you to an area of operation, but trucks do the hard work of hauling supplies, men and weapons to the frontlines. It was the Red Air Force that knocked the Luftwaffe out of the war to the point were they weren't anything more than a minor nuisance at best, so it couldn't have been too bad. You mention a couple of planes that were decent and say the Soviet airforce was better than the allies? Cmon dude. Nothing in the Soviet arsenal could match the Mustang in performance and range. The bombing campaign was won when the first Mustangs with drop tanks could fly to Berlin and back escorting bombers all the way. The Russians had nothing like that in their inventory. Also the Soviets had neither a strategic bomber force or a strategic airlift force and they had neither the resources or technology to develop such capabilities. But if you haven't noticed, there's not a lot of Ocean between Moscow and Berlin. Soviet naval doctrine was strictly coastal defense at the time, and it did that job admirably. It decimated Axis shipping from Sweden and Finnland. The Red Navy was twice as strong as the Kreigsmarine, and the Nazi's paid it a huge compliment but not even bothering engaging with it. That's the point. The Soviet navy was decent for what it was created for, but it could never match the allied navy that dominated the world's oceans and could deploy armies across the globe to fight wherever it needed to. The US navy in the pacific with its carrier power could decimate the entire Soviet navy on its own without breaking a sweat. Better soldiers is probably a matter of opinion, but after Kursk Red Army infantry performed head and shoulders above the Allies. And as for equipment, there's no question the Soviets had better stuff than the Americans. Allied troops were most definitely better on the whole no question. They received far more training before they shipped overseas to fight which is something many if not most Soviet soldiers didn't have before they were sent to the frontlines. As for equipment its not even close. Every allied soldier that went into combat especially later in the war was well equipped and supplied which is something that can't be said for Soviet troops. Also one thing I didn't mention before was the medical support that the allied troops received that the Soviets could never come close to. Between immediate first aid and being able to often evacuate wounded soldiers to field hospitals quickly to operate on them, hundreds of thousands of troops that would otherwise have died were saved. The same can't be said for Soviet troops and the poor support they received. They had spies in German high command, and the Lucy spy ring. I'm not sure what more one could ask for. A few spies doesn't come close to equaling the vast intelligence network that the allies had developed during the war. Not even close. We're talking about strategic and tactical intelligence that the Soviets could never hope to match. From Baration onward, Soviet logistics was as good or better than anyone elses. Not to mention, the western Allies never had the problem of supplying 12 million troops, 3-4 million at a time. You're talking about the Soviets being able to support a land army with huge help from ALLIED VEHICLES mind you and trying to compare the massive logistical network and capabilities that the allies possessed? Cmon dude. The industrial hub for supplies and equipment for the allies was in North America. They had to ship countless tons of supplies daily ACROSS OCEANS and then once they arrived in Europe to move those supplies and men from the shores to the frontlines. They also did the same in the Pacific at the same time. The Soviets could NEVER hope to create such a capability and to maintain such a complex logistical operation across much of the planet the way the allies did. Supplying millions of men by shipping supplies by rail and roads to the frontlines is easy in comparison. Also the allies' massive logistical advantage allowed them to launch numerous amphibious and airborne operations that the Soviets could only ever dream of doing. Even the much more advanced Germans didn't have such capabilities even if they had the know how to launch such operations. Because flying divisions of men behind enemy lines, dropping them off and then keeping them supplied is a massive logistical operation. The same with amphibious operations. These kinds of operations required specialized vehicles, complex planning and having the necessary supplies to keep those troops fighting. All of these things that the Soviets could never develop and implement on a large scale the way the allies could. If you went down the list of all the major operations launched by the Soviets and the allies during WWII you would easily see that every single operation that the Soviets launched could also be done by the allies and probably done better and with fewer casualties. If you looked down the list of allied operations, the Soviets wouldn't be able to do many if not most of them because they lacked the resources, technology and general know how in planning and launching such complex operations.
    3
  23.  @Arinisonfire  The only areas the USSR were significantly behind the allies in was air force and naval power, everything else was comparable or in some cases, like man power, artillery and tanks, superior. There's pretty much only a few weapons that the Soviets were on par or better than the allies and even that's often debatable. For example if we're talking about tanks, the late war allied tanks were getting better and powerful and were comparable to Soviet tanks, but OK for the sake of argument lets give that category to the Soviets. How many other areas can you point to that the Soviets were unquestionably superior to the allies? Not very many. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the Soviets had bad logistics or bad equipment or that their soldiers weren't as well trained because none of that is true. A big part of why the Soviets beat the Germans is because of superior logistics and they were very much on par with the allies in regards to technology and equipment too. A huge reason why the Soviets had better logistics as the war went on was because of allied vehicles being sent to the USSR during the war that turned many of their infantry divisions into motorized units and it also helped them move supplies and weapons around vastly more easily than the Germans ever could while using horses in much of their army. If you have a couple of minutes I invite you to read this article that shows how much the US Studebaker truck contributed to the Soviet army to which they had no comparable vehicle in their arsenal that could do what the Studebaker could do. https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet The average Soviet soldier would also be more experienced and battle hardened than US or British soldiers. Sure the Soviet soldiers that actually could survive for a while would be more experienced, but there's a reason why the Soviets suffered millions of troop casualties during the war because they usually didn't properly train them before throwing them to the wolves. With the allies, all soldiers received a decent amount of training before sending them to the frontlines. Also you don't mention that allied soldiers had a VASTLY superior medical system behind their troops that could treat the wounded quickly and save many of their lives unlike the Soviets where getting a severe wound is likely death. Its funny how the more things change the more they stay the same with the Russians where in WWII they sent undertrained men to the front and didn't have very good medical support to treat the wounded and now in 2022 in Ukraine nothing has changed and they're also sending many recently mobilized troops to the front with little training, crap equipment and relatively poor ability to treat them properly if they get wounded. The air advantage would have been the allies big trump card, but it wouldn't take away from the fact that they would NEED to fight a long, bloody, war of attrition on the ground at the same time. That's kind of the whole point of having a powerful airforce and gaining air superiority so that YOU DON'T have to fight a long, bloody war of attrition. The Soviets could dig massive Kursk like defenses to try and stop the allies, but what use would they be when allied fighters could destroy every single vehicle that's close to the Soviet front and send their strategic bomber force behind their lines to destroy their logistics, command and control centers and every single remotely important target they could find? Also how can there be a 'war of attrition' when the allies could airborne drop several divisions of men with their equipment behind enemy lines the way they did during D-Day and Market Garden? How can there be a long drawn out fight when they could launch amphibious attacks in any number of places along the coastline of the vast USSR? These are all capabilities that the allies possessed and could use over and over again that the Soviets couldn't even accomplish ONCE during the entire war. Really though, why the allies would lose this war simply comes down to morale and public support. Who knows maybe you're right on this one. That the people in the west would be tired of war and wouldn't want to fight another against the Soviets so soon after WWII. That's off the battlefield though. On the battlefield the allies would beat the Soviets no question because they were that vastly superior to the Red Army. Again look to present day in Ukraine where even western trained and equipped troops are beating the supposed mighty Russian army to the point that they're resorting to the old school numbers game by calling up hundreds of thousands of recruits to try and stop from losing everything they gained in Ukraine. Always found it hilarious that early in the war the pro-Russian folks kept saying the Russian army could easily beat NATO forces and now they can't even beat NATO trained Ukrainian troops.
    3
  24.  @Fugitive685  Modern day NATO without the US would lose to 1945 USSR??!!??! Yeah I doubt it. NATO wins in a curb stomp.
    3
  25.  @Mark-fr5pu  You have a clear misunderstanding of russia in late world war 2, ammuntion shortages and logistical problems were all sorted out, on account of russia becoming a full fledged total war time economy similar in caliber to the US. Soviet production even at full wartime footing could NEVER hope to match even US wartime production let alone all the western allied production. The US alone had tons of resources and people at their disposal to pump out endless supplies for their own armies as well as their allies. Also they were hugely more technologically advanced and efficient when it came to mass production of everything from tanks to aircraft to food the troops. Also don't forget that not only was the US able to produce all these supplies, they were able to send all these supplies to anywhere in the world which is something the Soviets could never hope to match. America would find trouble supplying so many troops overseas in such large offensives, one must realize that america would face a lot of new logistcal problems that would hinder their momentum. Not true at all. The US supplied its own armies as well as its allies on two major fronts in Europe and the Pacific. The main problem of supplying their troops wasn't the lack of resources and supplies, but rather the lack of ports where ships could dock and unload and have trucks move those supplies to the front. Once major ports like Antwerp fell into allied hands these supply issues were largely solved. USSR would be prepared defesnivley and offensivley for such large fronts unlike the US and British You must only look no further than operation Bagration 1944. One must also consider that Russia’s tanks and offensive doctrine was superior to the US who at the time had few heavy tanks, the entire US offensive would be cut short by their lack of heavy vehicles and over reliance on air support. The thing is unlike fighting the Germans, the western allies would have air superiority that would help stop any Soviet attacks and would help destroy any Soviet defenses. Also they would have a heavy bomber force that could pound Soviet logistics and supply lines in a manner that the Germans could never do. Seriously what defense would the Soviets have against 1000 bomber raids escorted by fighters hitting their supply dumps, factories etc.? Russia fielded heavy tanks like the IS2 and soon the IS3 that were impervious frontally to all american fielded tanks. Another point not mentioned in the vid is Russia’s considerable advantage in artillery, they were experts in combing artillery and heavy tanks to perform breakthroughs. The allies were starting to bring newer tanks to the fight just before WWII ended and they would've ramped up production of these newer tanks if they knew they'd still have to fight the Soviets. Also any advantages the Soviets had on the ground would be mostly if not completely negated by allied air superiority. The same way that German forces had much difficulty in moving around the battlefield in the west with allied fighters dominating the airspace above them, that would happen to the Soviets as well. The bottom line is western allied armies were much better armed, much better supplied and much better led which is a big reason why they suffered far fewer casualties than the Soviets. If you placed the western allies on the Eastern Front to fight the bulk of the German army on the same Russian battlefields, there's ZERO CHANCE that they would lose 9 million soldiers killed like the Soviets did.
    2
  26. ​ @looinrims  It makes no sense to stop now. Support for Ukraine should be increasing even more if the west is serious about ending this war sooner rather than later. The ONLY WAY to achieve long lasting and close to permanent peace when your neighbors with Russia is to decisively defeat them on the battlefield and then join NATO to have indefinite protection against future Russian attacks against you. I don't see how without Ukraine gaining NATO protection that there might not be future skirmishes between them and Russia or even another future war between them when Russia recovers from their losses.
    2
  27. @Prkau telek As the Soviet Army advances and captures airfields, the air advantage loses importance while their superiority in tanks, artillery, and staff experience begins to tell. How would the Red Army advance when the allied airforce would pound the hell out of Russian supply lines? Supplies are the life blood of an army and there's no way the Soviets could ever hope to stop the allies from destroying their supply lines much like the Germans couldn't stop them. The allied tactical fighter airforce would attack everything at or near the frontlines around the clock. The allied strategic bomber force would hit everything deep behind Soviet lines night and day and there would be nothing they could do about it. Russian supply lines would cease to exist and no matter how strong and powerful the Red Army was on the frontlines, they would be forced to retreat or face complete destruction. What happened to the German 6th army at Stalingrad would happen to the Red Army in 1945 just on a much more larger scale if the Soviets didn't retreat.
    2
  28.  @richardwolf8024  yes i think they have better tanks than we do. I do not think the M4 is a good match for the T-34/85, and it's certainly not a match for IS-1s or IS-3s. Yes we have M26 Pershings, but not that many of them yet. They also have hundreds of Su-85, Su-100, Su/Isu-122, and Su/ISu-152 heavy assault guns. Warning long post!! I think the western allied ability to have communications between units and different branches of the military to launch combined arms attacks is far superior to the USSR's ability to do the same in WWII. The same goes for intelligence gathering and analysis. Also lets not forget that yet again you need to talk about logistics and how FAR superior the allies were in that branch of the military and it isn't even close. And all this doesn't even include the allied airforce which would more than compensate for any Russian superiority in tank quality. Just look at what they did to the Germans and their tanks during the Normandy invasion and beyond. No, I didn't forget the B-29. It has great range, but flying into Soviet air defenses will be alot tougher than flying into Japanese ones. The Japanese were short on trained/experienced pilots and aircrew, as were the Germans, but the Soviets are not. The Soviets might not train their pilots as well as ours, but they have as much combat experience as ours do. The Germans spent immense resources on air defense over a much smaller area and they still weren't able to stop the allied bombing campaign that went on day and night. I don't see Russian air defense being that much better than the Germans and probably they'd be lucky to be on par with them. Ask yourself if the Germans couldn't stop masses of B-17s and Lancasters from raining bombs on them non-stop, what hope do the Russians have of stopping B-29s who have even longer range and a bigger bombload? You have to remember that air defense in WWII is vastly worse than air defense in present day. In WWII you send up fighters to intercept and you use AA guns to try and hit a plane which was difficult to do. I don't see how the Russians could hit enough allied aircraft to make a difference with WWII AA technology when the Germans never came close to doing it. In every category allied aircraft and pilots were superior and there's zero chance that the Soviet air force would survive for long in the skies before they lose control of their airspace much like the Germans did. Both supply lines are vulnerable. They can't do much about our transoceanic convoys, but they can bomb roads, railways, and rail yards just like we can do to them. Their troops are less lavishly equipped then ours, so they don't need as much as ours do. They would have to repair those things in Eastern Europe, but we would have to do the same in France. They have no qualms about drafting civilian labor at gunpoint. We won't do that. How would the Soviets bomb allied logistics when the allied airforce would have near complete control of the air? The allied airforce could put up a permanent combat air patrol over their ground forces and it would be suicide for the Soviets to even try and penetrate it. Also the Russians barely had many bombers that were considered 'heavy' and they were vastly outdated and inferior to what the allies possessed. Again it would be suicide to try and fly those anywhere near allied forces to try and bomb them. Just consider that the US production of B-17 bombers ALONE was several times more in number than ALL Soviet heavy bomber production in WWII. There is no way the Soviets could ever hope to counter this and much like the Germans their cities and factories would be constantly bombed into kingdom come especially with B-29s that could drop more bombs per flight. Yes, we have massive naval superiority. Absolutely. But where would we land? In the Barents? Fighting them in the arctic sounds like a nightmare. In the Black Sea? Not unless the Turks let us go through the Dardenelles and the Bosporus. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. if the Turks say No, what are we going to do? Try to force it? Ever hear of the Gallipoli Campaign, in WW1? The point of having a massive navy is to be able to land wherever the allies want. If I were in charge I'd just land anywhere in the Barents sea where a port existed and use them to bring supplies in to support the continuing allied advance. In the south this is 1945 and onwards and not 1918. If the allied navy wanted to sail into the Black Sea it would do so with or without Turkey's permission because there's nothing they could do to stop us. They could then launch an assault against the Caucasus oil fields and the Soviets would be forced to respond which would further weaken their forces in central Europe much like it did to the Germans who were fighting in North Africa and then Italy rather than deploying those forces to the east. The bottom line is any advantages that the Soviets had with their land army would be vastly wiped out by all the advantages that the allies had in practically everything else you could think of.
    2
  29. Well the T90 isn't looking very good in Ukraine when its getting popped by UA soldiers. Abrams is a heavy tanks for a reason because of all the protection it provides to the crew. If I were a crewman in an Abrams I wouldn't worry too much about Russian tanks, I would worry most about Russian ATGMs.
    2
  30.  @nikitatarsov5172  Armor didn't make it up as fast as weapons, so almost no matteer how thick your armor is - you'll exposed. That's the point though. The Abrams armor isn't just about thickness, its about what's INSIDE the armor the that also makes a huge difference. That's a big reason why the Abrams is 14 tons more than the T-90 and its not because the US likes its tanks to be big and heavy for no reason. So in modern tank warfare, all are vulnerable, and due to smaller mobility and number, Abrams would face higher casultys and lower results in the same situations. This one situation didn't make one tank more or less bad, but individually unsuitet for this situation. Of course there is no such thing as a invulnerable tank, but the fact is the Abrams has a much higher survival rate than any Russian tank. Also 10,000 Abrams have been built since it went into production so I don't know what you mean by smaller numbers? We're really in a time where doctrines of a long gone past colides with halfe modernised material and no idea what a 'tank' should really be. The tank is still what its always been which is a good offensive and defensive weapon that is used to support soldiers on the frontlines just that in today's modern battlefield with more threats that can damage or destroy a tank, an army needs to be smarter in how it deploys its tanks to try and minimize losses. So far the Russians have shown that they haven't been very smart in how they deployed and used their tanks and they also didn't take into account how many supplies their armored forces needed to keep going and its why they lost so many vehicles both to being damage and also to being abandoned and captured by the Ukrainians.
    2
  31. @Kira Your map and your video are historicly so inaccurate. The soviets would have one in a matter of days or weeks against the allies. Only in fantasyland could the Red Army ever defeat the allies in a head to head battle after WWII. The allies had a vastly superior airforce and it wasn't even close. Better trained and more skilled pilots and also having a huge 4 engine bomber force that the Russians couldn't ever hope to defend against. Even more importantly the allies had way, WAY better logistical support to supply their armies with. The Red Army would be vastly worse off if the western allies didn't give them tens of thousands of trucks to supply their armies and to move their troops around with. If the allies were fighting the Soviets head to head, the allies would bomb the hell out of Soviet supply lines and there would be little that they could do about it. Without air superiority and the ability to properly supply their armies, the Russians would have no choice but to retreat or face destruction. Without supplies you can't fight no matter how good your weapons or how brave your troops are. Just look at the Germans at Stalingrad and that's exactly what would happen to the Red Army in 1945 just on a much larger scale.
    2
  32.  @altaccaltacc7652  Lend Lease gave the Soviets tens of thousands of trucks to help get their armies motorized. Go lookup the kind of trucks that the Soviets were able to build for themselves and see how inferior they were to the American Studebaker and then you'll understand why Lend Lease helped the Soviet armies so much.
    2
  33.  @altaccaltacc7652  That's kind of the point. The Russian trucks COULD NOT do the job anywhere near as good as the American Studebaker. Go google the Soviet equivalent trucks at the time and see how vastly inferior they were. The US sent 150,000+ of these trucks along with thousands of other vehicles to help motorize the Soviet army and allow them to become more mobile they otherwise would've been. Did you know that the German army during the entire war relied heavily on horses to help them move supplies and men? Its pretty surprising how well the Germans did despite being so non-motorized during the war and then imagine what would've happened to the Soviets if they were similarly so non-motorized without the US and western allies sending them so many vehicles that helped them become more mobile? Imagine how much better the Germans would've been able to fight and how much further they might've been able to advance if the US had sent all those vehicles to the German forces and helped them get motorized?
    2
  34.  @altaccaltacc7652  Did you even bother to lookup the specs of the Studebaker compared to Russian trucks at the time? The Studebaker was much better and more reliable and NO the Soviet army was not heavily motorized when it came to moving supplies much like the Germans even with all their tanks and other armored vehicles still weren't heavily motorized when it came to their logistics. The only armies that had their logistics fully motorized were the western ones. Also you're kidding yourself if you actually believe the Soviets weren't poorly armed at the beginning of the war. Vast numbers of inferior equipment does NOT mean 'well armed'. If the Soviets were truly well armed they wouldn't have gotten pushed back so quickly at the beginning of Barbarossa. The main reason the Soviets were able to survive the German onslaught was that their lands were so vast that they could endlessly retreat and give up space for time to regroup and rearm. If the Soviet army were fighting in western Europe, they would've been wiped out the same as the British and French were early in the war. With no land to fall back from, the Soviets would've gotten crushed just as badly as the western forces would've been in 1940.
    2
  35.  @JokersAce0  Ukraine isn't winning. The Russians aren't objectively winning either but they have still taken a massive amount of territory. The Russians took a significant amount of territory because of sheer numbers and the amount of armored vehicles they had to move forward with. Also the Russians had the most success in the south because increasingly it looks like they had inside help there. The fact is the initial Russian invasion because of their ineptness and stupidity cost them ALOT of needless troop and armored vehicle losses that are now coming back to bite them in the asses. Think about it. They went from attacking on three fronts to now barely being able to launch a significant attack in one region. They went from moving many kilometers a day to barely crawling forward even with heavy artillery and missile support. Once again, you are overestimating the potential for allied aircraft to deplete Soviet forces. WW2 close air support was not as effective as you are alluding. Just because they are the ORIGIN of modern day attack aircraft now, doesn't mean they were truly effective back then. A long term strategic bombing campaign woulnd't hold the tide back. Do you even do any research before making such comments? Here's an article that details US close air support from the Normandy invasion and beyond and how in just a couple of months they refined the system of how air support could be provided to frontline troops from being inefficient to a much more smooth and efficient operation. If you have the time, try reading it as its very imformative. https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=cmh Also you're WRONG and Allied strategic bombing played a significant part in degrading Germany's ability to continue their wartime production and you're lying to yourself if you believe otherwise. The goal of strategic bombing isn't to completely destroy every factory and kill every person, its to disrupt and damage a nation's ability to keep their production levels up. The Germans had no answer to such a bomber force and neither did the Russians. The Allies literally only faced one true large offensive and that was the Bulge, with drained and depleted Germans and they did not have fund. Have fun with being completely outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Soviets. The Brits did a study on who would win, they determined the allies would lose thanks to being massively outnumbered by the superior Soviet forces and ground equipment. Again the very fact that you only talk about the amount of men and equipment that the Soviets had available to fight with and never mentioning the logistical requirements needed to keep that army supplied and fighting shows how little you know as to how a modern army functions. The larger an army, the more resources it needs on a daily basis to keep it fighting and you NEVER mention how the Russians could ever accomplish that when they have the allied airforce bombing the crap out of their logistics on a daily basis. Allied aircraft and pilots were so far superior that it wasn't even close and once the allies swept the Soviets from the air, they would be vulnerable to constant air attack that would destroy the Soviet army's ability to effectively fight. Air superiority has been a vital objective that gives the side who gains it a MASSIVE battle winning advantage and its been that way since WWII. The Soviets would never have the ability to beat the allies in the air and that would put them at a huge disadvantage that they could never recover from. The Soviets still used mechanized logistics and you are really acting like they wouldn't have been making the supply rounds even though they had done so for the entire war to the point of inventing new fields of advanced mathematics to do so, compared to Germans using horsies and slaves. You do realize a big reason why the Soviets had mechanized logistics was because the allies sent them SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND vehicles including 200,000 or so trucks that were far superior to anything that the Soviets had. https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet The “Studery” (as Soviet soldiers called them) were built for a load of 2,500 kg, yet it was not uncommon for them to carry up to four tons. On the highway, the powerful all-wheel-drive truck could reach a top speed of 70 km/h, and its 150-liter tank was enough for 400 km. The main workhorses of the Red Army, the ZIS-5 and the GAZ-AA, could not compete with their foreign counterpart. “The Studebaker was better, of course,” recalls Lieutenant Pavel Gurevich of the 6th Separate Guards Mortar Battalion: “The ZIS was two-axle and stalled if the road was bad. But the Studebaker was an all-terrain vehicle, both front and rear-wheel drive. Plus it was more maneuverable. In the swamps of Karelia, the Studebakers arrived not a moment too soon.” So the US gave Soviets a truck that was VASTLY superior to anything that they could produce on their own, but hey lets forget that that played a large part in helping the Soviet army become more mobile and pretend that the Russians did everything on their own. OK.
    2
  36.  @tomk3732  Ukraine is might be giving ground in some places, but its still holding for the most part which is why this new offensive hasn't resulted in an Ukrainian collapse or encirclement of eastern forces.
    1
  37. If money is no object then Javelin all the way. Longer range fire and forget attacks. Can attack some air targets. Optical unit can be used for scouting/surveillance. Much more versatile weapons system overall.
    1
  38.  @dougcoombes8497  Operation Market Garden was a colossal intelligence failure by the British, they dropped the 1st Airborne division into an area held by an SS Panzer Corps. There was no way for the lightly armed British to hold their positions and no way for Allied armor to get to them in time. To be fair if 1st Airborne were dropped closer to Arnhem bridge and most of the division actually made it to the bridge rather than just a battalion or so, they very likely could've held until XXX Corps arrived. Frost's battalion was able to hold for over 3 days alone, surrounded and with barely any resupply against a much larger German force. Imagine if most of the 1st Airborne had been in the city around the bridge and especially if the allies were dropping supplies on their positions? Most likely they would've held out until XXX Corp came to relieve them. Market Garden had a number of mistakes and yet despite all those errors and miscalculations, it still very nearly succeeded.
    1
  39.  @dougcoombes8497  If most of 1st Airborne had actually made it to Arnhem and the bridge, they most likely would've been able to hold out until XXX Corp arrived to relieve them. Frost's battalion alone was able to hold on at the bridge for 3 days while surrounded and cut off from everyone and with no resupply or reinforcements against a much larger and heavily armed enemy.
    1
  40.  @TacticalBeard  If the Ukrainians continue to do what they're doing now and keep hitting supply depots and supply lines going into the Kherson region then eventually the Russians will either be forced to fight with low supplies or retreat back while they can to more defendable ground. No need to fight a bloody street by street battle like they did in Mariupol when you can slowly starve out your enemy.
    1
  41.  @franzhalls2174  The Russians have been fought to a standstill and are now being pushed back by the Ukrainians. I think we've VASTLY overestimated their abilities in the last couple of decades.
    1
  42.  @Gearparadummies  Attack helicopters can be deployed anywhere and use terrain features to avoid being killed. What we're watching in Ukraine is a deficient use of air assets. Attack helis still have their uses, but they are a luxury item that gives a relative small bang for the buck when you look how much you have to spend on them to gain the benefits from having them. Maybe if you're the US and have a huge budget its worth buying them, but otherwise they would be at the absolute bottom of the list for me to purchase when there are weapons systems that can do so much more for the money.
    1
  43.  @grahamstrouse1165  For sure. The cost vs benefit of attack helis isn't very good at all. Unless there are major advances that can increase survivability and keep maintenance to a manageable level, then its just better not to invest in them to begin with.
    1
  44.  @EdwarkDiyaz  Then why did the United States fail to do this in the Korean War in 1950? The fact is that in any field, whether it is technology war, trade war or military affairs, China can defeat the United States alone. If the United States wants to defeat China, it must mobilize all military forces to gather in the Western Pacific. The US didn't fail to win the Korean War. They along with other UN nations didn't want to fight another full scale war just a few short years after winning WWII. If the US and UN forces decided to go all in and throw all their industrial might and military forces into winning the Korean War, they would've done so. However after WWII I think most people were tired of war and fighting over a small asian country didn't seem like it was worth it beyond preserving South Korea. If the United States wants to defeat China, it must mobilize all military forces to gather in the Western Pacific. In a US/China conflict the US wouldn't be looking to completely defeat the Chinese forces or even want to occupy any Chinese territory. Their main goal of 'defeating' the Chinese would be to prevent China from successfully attacking Taiwan or any other ally in the region. That's it.
    1
  45.  @EdwarkDiyaz  China did not use all its strength in 1950, because the Chinese Volunteer Army invested only one million troops in the Korean battlefield, and the United Nations Army invested about one million troops in the Korean battlefield. China also did not use all its strength in 1950. The UN army DID NOT have one million troops on the frontlines in Korea EVER. There may have been one million troops rotating into and out of the frontlines during the war, but if the UN army actually had one million soldiers on the frontlines all together at the same time, the Chinese would have likely been pushed back to their own borders. With that many soldiers and with enough firepower supporting them, there's no reason the UN forces couldn't launch another Inchon amphibious assault that could've beaten the Chinese the same way it defeated the North Koreans. Also all China had was manpower and some artillery, but what else did they have? No airpower other than the Russians, very few tanks and vehicles to move their forces and zero navy. This is why the Chinese lost 4-5 times or even more troops than all UN forces combined. This is not because the United States can stop China now, but because China wants to wait for greater advantages. After all, confrontation between major powers is not a child's play. China must ensure unification. Taiwan has a higher chance of winning in dealing with decoupling from the West I really believe that the Chinese government no matter how much they want Taiwan back, isn't ever stupid enough to actually try and make that come true. I don't think and I hope the Chinese government is smart enough to understand that possibly gaining back an island nation isn't worth all the massive economic damage that it would do it itself. Russian trade with the world outside of natural resources is relatively minimal. Chinese trade with the world is insanely huge. Any full scale sanctions would be devastating to the Chinese economy when their economy relies so much on other nations buying their products. To me the best course for China would to be to continue what they're doing now which is continuing to improve their own nation and the standard of living for all Chinese people. A war with the west would set them back massively and Taiwan is not a prize that's worth all the pain and suffering that Chinese people would receive as a result of Chinese aggression towards Taiwan.
    1
  46.  @Baraxes  i think you all hold the US in high regards too much, just in the Ukraine war alone US and Nato have run out of weapons that matters, they supplied all then had to Ukraine in terms of Artillery and small arms fire and grenades, rpgs, and ATGM. Made don't rely on TV news for concrete info. Read articles, defence articles and you will see that NATO and US are currently struggling to match russia in that regards. Neither the US or NATO have 'run out of weapons' and I really don't get how you have come to that conclusion with all facts just a google search away. Both the US and NATO have lower amounts of artillery shells left to give to Ukraine, but that's because they're still keeping the majority of shells for their own armed forces rather than emptying all their warehouses of every shell they have and then shipping them all to Ukraine. As much as the US and NATO forces might want to help Ukraine, none of them are willing to do so if its going to significantly affect their own military. If they actually really wanted to go all in and supply Ukraine with everything they had, then Russia would've lost this war a long time ago. Heck if the US/NATO really wanted to go all in and help Ukraine it would just send all the many thousands of guided bombs and missiles sitting their nations to Ukraine and the war would be over. Imagine Ukraine firing off thousands of guided missiles and glide bombs against every single military target within Ukraine and western Russia? It would be the end of Russian forces being a functional fighting force.
    1
  47.  @EdwarkDiyaz  The Chinese government has made it clear that it is preparing a plan for Taiwan's return, so you can see that China is making various preparations, including establishing a new trade settlement system with the BRICS countries, and then massively expanding its navy and air force, including nuclear weapons Strength, do you think the West will not suffer losses by imposing sanctions on China? If China is making a plan for Taiwan then I hope it will be a peaceful one because a military one would be insane. Also no matter how much China expands its armed forces they will ALWAYS be behind the US technologically. Why? Because the US isn't developing all of its weapons systems alone the way China needs to do most of the work themselves or else get those secrets through spying. A big part of the reason why NATO is so strong is because not only does each nation contribute militarily on the battlefield, but they also contribute logistically and scientifically as well. Getting the best minds from around the world to work together on a problem and sharing the workload will almost always be than doing it mostly by yourself. As for sanctions, sure the west would suffer but China will suffer the most when such a large part of its economy is about selling things to the world. Look at how many factories both large and small that build and manufacture things for the world and what would happen if many of them stopped production because of a war? Look at how many domestically owned factories that would also suffer from losing much of the world as its customer base? How many companies that sell on places like Aliexpress and Temu that sell millions of products to customers around the world would be massively affected if suddenly they were banned from selling to western consumers? Barely anyone buys Russian consumer products, but almost everyone buys at least some Chinese made products hence why sanctions would hurt the Chinese economy far more than the Russian one.
    1
  48.  @EdwarkDiyaz  I must remind you that China won all three decisive battles of the Korean War, Shangganling and Changjin Lake. Then the Soviet Union sent some air force support in the later period, but the war in the later period was of little significance because it had long been a stalemate. Winning a few battles while taking huge casualties doing so is not a long term recipe for success. Just ask how that's working out for Russia in Ukraine. Sure the Russians are still making some progress, but they've taken huge losses in men and equipment to do so because their armed forces are stuck with using mostly Cold War equipment and are poorly trained before being thrown into battle. If the Russians were doing so well in Ukraine the war would've been over a long time ago and they wouldn't be resorting to throwing North Korean lives away in their attacks now. During the Korean war, China took more soldiers killed than the US and all UN nations COMBINED by 4-5x. The only force that suffered more on the South Korean side were the South Koreans which is to be expected. The Chinese didn't have anywhere near the firepower and support that the UN forces did which is why they took so many human casualties. In a modern conventional war the Chinese will almost always lose more men than the US/NATO because they're still significantly behind technologically, logistically and organizationally. Until they close that gap, then they will always have to sacrifice men to compensate for not being as advanced as western forces are.
    1
  49. @JokersAce0 How would the Soviets continue fighting when the Allied airforce would completely smash the Soviet airforce and then bomb the Soviet ground forces to kingdom come? How would the Soviets keep fighting if Allied bombers and fighter bombers devastated Soviet logistical support? It doesn't matter if you have the largest army in the world if you can't keep it fed, fueled and maintained. We're already seeing that in Ukraine today where Russian logistics are still inferior to this day and it greatly increased their armored vehicle losses and slowed down their advance. Even after all these decades the Russians still haven't learned to properly keep their armies supplied and maintained in the field. The allied forces were able to transport supplies all the way from North America across the Atlantic, then across Europe to the front lines and keep that going indefinitely and I doubt the Russians could even supply their armies across Eastern Europe with such efficiency and certainly not with Allied airpower constantly bombing the crap out of them. The point is allied airpower, their navy and massive production capabilities would overwhelm the USSR in the long run. They wouldn't even need nukes to beat the USSR.
    1
  50.  @JokersAce0  You are overestimating the allied air power over ground forces. Air power didn't end the war compared to land forces, you are thinking A-10 warthogs when there wasn't anything like that back then since close air support was effective against land forces. I think you're GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATING allied airpower and how much damage it did to the Germans and their ability to fight. Airpower alone can't win a war, but it can greatly help you to do so when you dominate the skies and can attack any target you like at will. WWII fighter bombers were the basis of modern day close air support where ground forces could call down air support by radio to attack targets in front of them. Because of allied air dominance after the D-Day invasion, they literally had masses of fighter bombers flying on standby waiting for a call to come down and attack. There's a reason why the Germans largely restricted their movements to night time because during the day it would be absolute suicide. The Soviets would have no answer to the allied airforce and they would have no way to stop the THOUSANDS of day and night time heavy bombers that would destroy USSR logistics and factories. And all this doesn't even include the allies' transport fleet that could provide strategic lift capability that the Soviets never had. Allied ground forces wouldn't have stood a chance and the Soviets would have taken the continent and that would have been that. Allied ground forces would've beaten the Soviets because of better trained, better led troops and also much, MUCH better logistical support. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 of the best tanks on your frontlines if you can't get fuel and spare parts to them to keep them running. That's the advantage that the allies had that the USSR were far behind in. I think you really need to look at logistics and how important it is to keeping a modern army functioning in the field. Without a good supply chain to get supplies to the front to your soldiers, you lose every single time. In Ukraine the Ukrainians are matched with manpower compared to the Russians and have 3-1 anti tank weapons to Russian tanks. They aren't exactly "winning" either when they have lost a great chunk of territory. Ukraine is 'winning' when most people thought the Russians would take their entire country within a couple of weeks. How many people predicted that Ukraine wouldn't fall within a few weeks at most to the supposed Russian onslaught that initially looked unstoppable? The Russians were counting on Ukrainians to fold once they leaned on them like they did when they took Crimea. They didn't expect the Ukrainians to fight and resist and to do so effectively on the scale that they have. If the Russians could turn back time, they would've either not invaded or drastically down scaled their invasion plans to be much less ambitious.
    1