Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Alexander Mercouris" channel.

@Nehron Ghamil One of the big reasons Russian helicopters are operating with such impunity is the result of a system known as Vitebsk or President S (Russian Military Tech is simply astounding). In a variety of ways, it neutralizes (jams and/or redirects) the assortment of manpads in the Ukrainian inventory, manpads being the biggest threat to low flying aircraft. If Russian helicopters are so successful in jamming Ukrainian anti-air missiles then why have they been so ineffective on the offensive where they've been largely unable to come near the frontlines and support their ground forces in the attack? I'd say the reason why they're doing damage now in their intended role is because they're mostly operating far behind Russian lines where they can simply wait for the Ukrainians to move forwards towards them rather than having them travel to the frontlines where Ukrainians can launch their missiles at them.
1
@nehronghamil4352 uh, what Island have you been shipwrecked on? The Ukrainian are losing loads of Armor( including Leopards, Bradleys,etc and IFV s, welcome to Bradly square) precisely because the KAs are engaging them at night, close up when the Ukrsinians often make their move. The KAs also have excellent night vision. Of course they are not going to fly deep into the enemy rear to launch attacks. I've seen a few losses of Bradleys and Leopard 2s, not 'loads of them'. I've watched many KA-52 videos from recent battles and not all of the vehicles they've knocked out are Leopards and Bradleys. As I said the only reason they're more effective now is because the enemy is pushing into them while Russian helicopters and aircraft have been mostly unable to push into Ukrainian airspace. If they were effective at the beginning of the war they could've helped keep the Russian advance going when they had plenty of armored vehicles and fresh troops to work with. Instead they took significant losses from Ukrainian air defense and manpads and now they can only be used effectively on defense even though they may have already lost a couple of KA-52s in the last few days and at least one has been confirmed on video to be heavily damaged trying to make it back to base.
1
@nehronghamil4352 you sre still missing the point. KAs as well as any other attack helicopter, are NOT designed or intended as a deep penetration aircraft. Their real purpose is to destroy tanks and IFVs at the front line which by all accounts, they are currently doing magnificently! By the way, I have yet to see any convincing evidence of any lost KAs during the So-called offensive. It depends on the situation. If you're fighting low level fighters in Africa or the Mideast you definitely can use attack helicopters deep in enemy territory when the threat level is relatively low. If you're using them in a conventional war such as Ukraine then you have to be more careful and gain air superiority before you can use them more aggressively. What happened in the early stages of the war should not be applied yo current trends. The Russians have drastically upgraded their fielded gear and tactics. There's no indication at all that the Russians have brought in increased modern equipment to the battlefield and every indication that they're getting desperate when they're bring back T-54/55 tanks to the battlefield. Heck at least one has been used as an mobile IED where there's a video of a T-54/55 tank being packed with explosives and then being sent towards Ukrainian lines where it hit a mine and was stuck in the field before it reached its target. It was then hit with an anti-tank weapon and it blew up in a huge explosion the same as you would see with a car or truck bomb. Can you imagine the US army being so desperate that they'd be reduced to bringing back early Cold War era tanks to the battlefield and even more crazy using some of them as big mobile IEDs that they send towards enemy lines? Yet here we are seeing the modern Russian army doing exactly that and somehow you still believe everything is 'fine' with them??? Really? A similar misconception also applies to the use of Russian fighter aircraft. The SU30, SU35 and SU 57, are NOT ground attack aircraft. Their role is perform in air to air combat and take down Ukrainian Aircraft. Since the Ukrsinian air force has been largely eliminated, their activities have been somewhat reduced. Fighters are suppose to gain and maintain air superiority over the battlefield against your enemy. The Russians have NEVER been able to do that because while the Ukrainian airforce obviously is too small to compete, the Russians have yet to successfully suppress Ukrainian ground air defense which is why the majority of their missions haven't been in Ukrainian airspace. If they had effectively destroyed Ukrainian air defenses, they would be roaming the skies now taking out any target they see and Russian attack helicopters would be doing their job in providing close air support to ground units who are on the offense. Obviously this has never happened during the entire war and the Russians simply gave up trying to gain control of the air after all the losses they took. This doesn't mean they can't fly sorties and be useful, just that their effectiveness is massively reduced when they have to fly low and stay within their own airspace. And of course the TU95s and occasionally the TU160s are busy devastating Ukie ammo dumps and decision making centers derp in western Ukraine. Except this hasn't happened on a large scale because the Ukrainians have been pretty good at hiding their supplies unlike the Russians who required dozens of their huge supply dumps to go up in flames from HIMARS strikes before they finally learned to move them back and split them up. Even just the past few days we've seen some pretty big Russian supply dumps go up in flames again while during the entire war we've seen relatively few Ukrainian dumps go up in flames like that.
1
@comingviking Its not nearly as important if you can't use it going forward. And even if you do deem it important you still have to weigh the costs of gaining that objective compared to its value. If it took you a large part of a year and thousands of casualties and countless amounts of hard to replace armored vehicle losses to take it, to me it wasn't worth it. If you were fighting for Kiev then sure at least you can somewhat justify those massive losses, but for a place like Bakhmut? Not worth it in my opinion. It would've been better to not fight for Bakhmut and continue to train your new recruits while saving your armored forces to hold everything you've gained so far and if needed to use it against the anticipated Ukrainian counter offensive.
1
@fatdaddy1996 I mean It is going to fall at some point and it's not as though there was any time pressure. So why are you laughing? Do you not see the hypocrisy coming from Alexander and most of the other pro-Russian hacks out there? When the Russian advance is slow and plodding and barely moving forward its seen as being 'slow and methodical', but when the Ukrainian advance is slow its seen as a 'failure'. Alexander keeps talking about the Ukrainians taking heavy losses for their current offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson and yet he doesn't mention that the Russians and their mercenaries have taken MASSIVE casualties while banging their heads against the Ukrainians defending Bakhmut for months now. If you want to see what paying blood for every meter of ground gained is like Bakhmut is that place right now. So many attacks and yet only minor progress at best everyday. It makes me wonder why the Ukrainians don't pull a Stalingrad on these Russians and let them into the city more before attacking the flanks and surrounding all these forces.
1