Comments by "Gabor Rajnai" (@gaborrajnai6213) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

  1. They actually know the real numbers, thatswhy they are more cautious. They didn't lost more than 25000, which is kind of logical if you think, that they have the artillery advantage, and retreat from wherever they would lose large amount of manpower.
    1
  2. I guess the same reason why the F-22 never seen combat.
    1
  3. They had 25.000 T-65 and 72 variants when the Cold War finished. They will never run out. US analyst just don't get on which scale these were produced back then, even Poland has a few thousand in their stocks.
    1
  4. Lol with the 3 they had? That would only anger the Russians with their 92 bataillons to make a landing in Alaska...
    1
  5. It wouldn't make much sense. Sure they could, but that would play to the Russians. Their frontline would stretch and their supply lines would crumble, as did the Germans back then.
    1
  6. Yep its not likely anyone can win a war with cruise missiles. Although I would add the 7000 fired by Russia up until this point would be enough to level all the Uke airfields even with the most conservative estimates.
    1
  7. Most likely no. The Kalibr is a missile family which is assembled from various standardized parts for naval, submarine and land based operations. Those are technically different missiles, with different requirenemts but all, of them built from technically identical interchangeable parts. Redesign of those parts would be risky and complex. What makes them easy to produce is that they can use the parts in different configurations for a lots of things at once. Its basically a lego rocket.
    1
  8. Nuclear winter would have actually end human civilization as we know it everyone in the world, and the Earth would still be uninhabitable, but otherwise a stellar idea...
    1
  9. Well, I guess the same AA battery, which claims it can intercept a Mach 5 Kinzhal, can intercept a shtty glidebomb as well. @Killua2001 
    1
  10. Lol everybody would have been dead in the world after the US just drops a 100 of them. Nuclear winter you know...
    1
  11.  @sH-ed5yf  Well, he is clearly not, beacuse they fired 7000 during that time period.
    1
  12.  @IvanToman Well, the year is 2023, not 2022, when such things were claimed.
    1
  13.  @sH-ed5yf  Well to put it into perspective US did use 500 cruise missiles during it Iraq campaign. Of course Ukraine has way more potent air defense, most of those were shot down. The real question about it is that if Ukraine could resupply its AA batteries, thats mainly the purpose these cruise missile barrages. If they deplete S-300 stocks then ground support aircrafts can be used against frontline positions. The real problem is Western air defense is really crap except the Patriot and THAAD batterries. Gepard is a joke even compared to a Buk, and NASAMS use AMRAAM missiles, which is an excellent air to air missile, but they use it as an air to ground missile which is not its intended use. It is simply too small not to be boosted by a jet, and use most of its fuel just to climb up to the target altitude, so it has a very limited area coverage.
    1
  14.  @sH-ed5yf  IRIS T has the same problems as the AMRAAMs, its an air to air infrared seeking missile, so it has even more limited use.Its not that they cant take down rockets or planes if they come close to lets say a few kilometers, but it cant defend a frontline 100 km long. It is invented to defend some really important positions. To do a real area denial either Patriots or S-300 400 variants are needed, or fighterjets and air superiority.Iron dome would be another possibility, but it is really a dark horse, because it was never used against some real military hardware just to shoot down some toy rockets of the HAMAS. Western military doctrine is simply different, they use their AA in a very limited manner to protect command centers, and meanwhile reach air superiority. They don't do area denial on a large scale. Really it would be better if the west would just give the money and the spare parts to manufacture S-300 rockets. Ukrainians know how to make those and they are superior to western systems for what they are using them.
    1
  15. Yeah thatswhy French and the British dont really have a nuclear deterrence against Russia. Yeah they have a few weapons, but if Russia attacks first in a decapitating strike most of those can be neutralized before those could be used. As the boomers those could be shadowed by a number of attack subs as it was always done, if they go to launch depth, then the attack sub can take them out. How many of those Britain has four? With one out in the sea at any given time, its not a too big thing for the Russians to find it if they want it to.
    1
  16. I think these tanks will solely be used to drive through minefields and clear the path for the assault strikeforce. Monty pretty much did the same in El Alamein.
    1
  17. Some people say its actually intentional that they dont even try to conduct big mobile offensives. Ukes who want to fight go straight against them. Which means the population conquered later will be easier to pacify. The other choice would be like what the Americans did in Iraq, going in gunblazing, and declare victory in a month, but that has the drawback, that the Iraqui military just turned into insurgents, and made the pacification impossible.
    1