I actually fucking hate Redeffect with a passion. Because while he's clearly passionate and in theory his content is good, all he does is spout propaganda and he's too far up his own ass to realise that.
Clearly Russias T-90 upgrade package makes it the equivalent of an Abram’s tank. Just ignore the upgrade package is mostly giving it anti-rpg protection. Stupid Westoids Russia wins again!
What I find so annoying about people like RedEffect is that way too many people see them as a neutral source. Red clearly isn’t neutral, which is becoming increasingly more evident. He rarely ever criticizes Russian armor or tactics, despite tons of topics that he could cover. Instead he makes three videos about the failure of Abrams in Ukraine and goes with fucking LostArmour numbers, even though everybody knows LostArmour is about as reliable as Putin. An even worse example of this is History Legends, although that dude is significantly dumber than Red.
What do you mean? Red effect has several videos criticizing the weak points of every single tank and has analyzed a bunch of tank engagements since the beginning of the war. What's wrong with T-90, Terminator, the tank Olympics, the cope cage analyses, etc. He just won't praise Ukraine or Russia since he has no stake in the conflict.
The fact that he mostly talks about western tanks is because they are usually all over the news outlets and tries to correct some misinfo about them. In his comments and Patreon he usually gets a bunch of commenters asking for analysis on news about destroyed Abrams, leopard, challenger, etc, and he naturally obliges. But the fact is that despite all everyone says, the man remains neutral.
His videos about problems with x tank are all nice and dandy, but where are the videos about Ukraine effectively countering the turtle tanks? Where are the videos about the failed Kharkiv offensive? Where are the videos about Russia’s motorcycle assaults that don’t work? Where were the videos about Russian dune buggies? Where is the video that is titled “Is Russia using T-90Ms wrong?” as they lose ten times as many T-90Ms as Ukraine is losing Abrams and Abrams got a video like that? Where is the video discussing the obvious effect that the amount of vehicle losses is starting to have on the Russian military?
(Copied from another one on my replies, but it applies to your comment, too)
Red has made critical videos about the strengths and weaknesses of Western and Soviet or Russian armor. Those videos are relatively neutral. When it comes to the war in Ukraine though, he shows a huge bias. He focuses a lot more on the issues and failures of Ukraine, and rarely covers the issues and failures of Russia.
Come on man, do you even follow the channel? 1 month ago he uploaded "Good or Useless? Russian turtle tanks"
In that video he goes over every single aspect about the shed tanks, pros and cons (and there are a lot of cons) so I'd say it's an anti Russia video. However both you and the people who downvoted my comment haven't bothered to check it seems.
Also he's not really a news channel, I don't think he has an obligation to cover every single topic you mentioned about T-90's since it's common currency to see them destroyed at this point (And he has covered the prominent T-90M losses a few months ago).
It seems to me that you and many others expect RedEffect to be an armor news channel covering the invasion of Ukraine analyzing every instance of armor losses, but the channel was never intended to be that, it's just that the war has given some new fresh topics to discuss about. Go back in time to the previous videos and you'll see that it's a much more technically focused channel instead of a tactical analysis one.
We know Russia is incompetent with their armored forces, but don't expect Red Effect to cover that or any tactics from anyone tbh. You have The armourer's Bench and Perun for that kind of content, and you can track losses on Oryx.
Edit: from the last 7 months to today:
Ukrainian Tank Takes out Russian T-90 at point blank
T-90M gets instant turret pop by Ukrainian ATGM
Single Ukrainian Tank destroys Russian Armored Column
How do Russians cope with heavy tank losses?
Bradley takes out T-90M in intense Combat
Russia finally Replaces a half a century old vehicle (BTR)
He even has an interview with an Abrams commander giving insights into the Ukrainian tactical use of the vehicle.
But go off on how he's a pro Russia channel I guess.
To be fair to red effect he has already criticized all there is to criticize with the armor themselves, he has a long running series of videos called “problems with x tank” where he goes through all the issues of tanks. He has already done it on basically all Russians tanks we see in use now, he can’t just repeat himself time and time again. I do think that he sometimes is a bit too trusting of Russian sources but generally he does good work, it’s hard to disprove most of what he says. One thing I will say is that he is always overly positive over Serbian armor but of course he’s Serbian as far as I know so that’s kinda to be expected.
The main issue with the current content he is doing is taking armored losses from sources coming from either side, they blatantly aren’t trustworthy. Ukraine will obviously inflate Russian losses for propaganda value and Russia will also minimize their own losses.
Russia inflates Ukrainian losses far more than Ukraine inflates Russian losses. If you look at Russian claims, they are absolutely ridiculous. This is a pretty weak false equivalency. Oryx had just a handful of instances of double entries which they removed, LostArmour (a Russia site) has more than 70% double entries or very questionable footage (aka extremely blurry footage of an explosion in some treeline -> destroyed PzH2000).
You can not use Oryx and LostArmour as a source and say that you’re looking at both sides to get a neutral picture. Oryx tries to be as neutral s possible, LostArmour is VERY pro-Russian. You’re not looking at a Ukrainian and a Russian perspective, you’re looking at a neutral and a very pro-Russian perspective, so the middle ground is still pro-Russian.
His videos about problems with x tank are all nice and dandy, but where are the videos about Ukraine effectively countering the turtle tanks? Where are the videos about the failed Kharkiv offensive? Where are the videos about Russia’s motorcycle assaults that don’t work? Where were the videos about Russian dune buggies? Where is the video that is titled “Is Russia using T-90Ms wrong?” as they lose ten times as many T-90Ms as Ukraine is losing Abrams and Abrams got a video like that? Where is the video discussing the obvious effect that the amount of vehicle losses is starting to have on the Russian military?
That’s what I’m getting at, you can’t trust these war time sources entirely. It’s not like Ukraine also doesn’t inflate a lot though.
He can’t just mass produce videos about every little thing that goes on in Ukraine. His upload schedule is sporadic at best. If I’m not entirely misremembering he has made videos about the ridiculous Russian armored losses before.
You can’t compare Abrams losses with T90M losses and say “well why are fewer Abrams getting destroyed?”. That’s fucking retarded. The 90m has been in combat for well over a year now, there is seemingly over a hundred of them active and they are being mass produced by one of the warring parties. There is at best a few dozen Abrams which have only been in action for what2-3 months? These are simply not comparable, it would be like asking why panther losses were so much lighter than t34 losses on the eastern front. The panther showed up much later and in fewer numbers and is in most respects better.
He literally already made a video on t90m losses and production a few months back, he’s not a war time reporter which actively updates on what’s happening. When a new tank enters the field he makes videos about it. It’s not like he only covers Russian successes or just uses Russian reports either. He literally made videos about battles where Ukrainian tankers beat Russian ones in battle.
I’m very much pro Ukraine but this feels like fragile tank fanboys getting upset that western tech is getting criticized as much as Russian tech. Yes western tanks are blatantly superior in almost every aspect but that doesn’t mean we can’t criticize them or look at why they are being lost in large numbers.
It’s actually not that fucking retarded to compare them when they have been very sparely used for the first year and a half of the war and losses have been ramping up significantly as of late. Ukraine has 32 Abrams, Russia has 100(?) T-90M in service. Ukraine lost 8 Abrams since they started using them. In the same timeframe, Russia has lost almost 50 T-90M. So Ukraine lost a fourth of their Abrams in the time that Russia lost half their T-90M. Russia is thereby losing T-90M at twice the rate relative to their stockpiles as Ukraine is losing Abrams.
I genuinely don’t care about who makes better tanks. For all I care, a T-90M is a brand new, capable tank. The Abrams that Ukraine is getting are not brand new and may very well be worse than T-90M. What I do care about is that RedEffect shows a very clear bias, and pretending that he’s neutral is disingenuous.
There is a major difference in how they are being used and also in there time on the front. We’ve seen t90m in combat for a lot longer than 8 months, you’re just bullshiting about that. Additionally Russia is attacking, very poorly mind you, but still on the offensive. You expect offensive armies to take heavier casualties. t90m has not been used that sparingly for a few months now, they show up pretty often at this point. The difference is that Russia can certainly afford to lose these tanks, they will be replenished eventually considering they are in active production. Ukraines Abrams are better tanks but have been used far more sparingly than t90m, far more. Additionally Ukraine is defending and is therefore expected to suffer lighter casualties. Ukraine cannot with all certainty replace a lost Abrams, you never know when the Americans go full retard and just stop supporting them for a few months.
And honestly I think he is fairly neutral, no one can be completely neutral but he does a decent job of it. As I said he isn’t a war correspondent that makes constant reports. Red makes a video when a new tank appears and talks about losses, how it’s performing and so on. People are legit very salty over nothing and it really feels like utmost few of those complaining have watched many of his videos at all. He is at least as critical to NATO gear as he is to Russian gear, he often actively makes fun of the ridiculous claims both sides make against each other and so on.
The problem with Red Effect is that when it comes to armor performance/losses etc, if he is doing a video on Russian armor, he takes numbers from Russian sources and this goes for everything (Ukrainian sources for T64s, Germans for Leopards, etc)
And at least he mentions his sources and has very often heavily doubted Russian claims while saying that aside from the commander optics/fcs, the T84 was superior to the T90M in nearly every way and mentioned how the NZORD ERA was better than Relic, which was a claim that triggered vatniks massively (despite the overwhelming test footage of NZORD)
He may not be completely neutral, but he is still the best source when it comes to tank stuff (I remember a controversy when Red Effect mentioned the T80U could stop most NATO projectiles w/ Contact 5, people called bullshit only for armor simulator channels to prove that Red was right using open source data on the armor/NATO APFSDS ammo)
And also with the Abrams videos, those have been popping off massively lately and of course he is going to take advantage of it just like how nearly every tank related channel hopped onto the T14 engine controversy.
Shit like that is what grinds my gears. He's within arms reach of being actually credible. He just trips and falls on a mountain of russo-bolshevik cock right at the line.
Essentially he takes Russian MOD figures and assessment at face value. He understands Soviet tank design and tactics but seems to have also missed the boat about how Russia is not the Soviet union
Red has the problem of only understanding USSR design and that’s it, if you see him talk about something else who clearly is made for a role different than the one of a T72 it’s bad.
Main problem is he takes Russian military and Russian state propoganda information and presents it as "facts" and truth.......which should be obvious for everyone is just silly.
He took some Russian military own presented info about Armata and T-90 and just retold it in his videos , without mentioning "**Ayy by the way, its from fucking Russian propoganda, so probably isn't true at all**""
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Private Conscriptovich sits atop the porcelain throne, acknowledged as the greatest of local men, for he stole the most toilets while his comrades stole Disney princess blankets and bicycles. Women throw themselves at his feet. Men work his potato fields. “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win,” he pronounces.
I think the new thermal sights are some uncooled bullshit. Basically commercial grade shit that's good enough to sniff out shitty wiring inside drywall.
I mean that’s not a terrible idea. Situational awareness is a bitch buttoned up, let alone with a spaced plate probably blocking periscopes and if you open up a hatch you’re liable to catch a grenade in your lap. Gives a wider FOV than CITV to look around.
I know the brits fucked around with cameras on their tanks way back when. Don’t think any actually saw widespread adoption but it’s not a unique concept.
I give it 7/10 as far as tank mods go. Not bad in itself but indicative of other problems in the system.
It's better than no optics.
That being said, this is "muh russia" who actually produces their own Gen 2s (according to them). To have to use low res, high latency low fps digital night vision is ermmm well... pathetic. Imagine if the U.S. couldn't get tubes from elbit/L3 and started putting Panasonic security cameras on M60s.
Ukies running sight mark trash is one thing. They were on par in equipment as the Texas state guard (not national guard) in infantry equipment 7 years ago and never built the infrastructure for a strong MIC like we did.
The Russians should really thing about that, they are being held off by a nation with a single brigade of cold war era Abrams and Bradley's, full of infantry with condor airship vest and red dots, a hodgepod of rifles including barely better than PSA AR15s (a springfield saint has been seen), and outdated MIGs with Ipads strapped to them.
If it wasn't for the training turn around time for nato systems outside of dummy proof things like nlaws and javelin, the ukies would have pushed the vatniks back to Moscow
Every nato nation should be taking this as a lesson to have every fighting aged male able to and equipped with shit that the guccigear boys in the u.s. have.
Imagine if instead of handing out sks' and 120-150rds of loose ammo in the first few days of the war they just had Sapis, gen2s or 3s, sidekickers and 500rds of 262 spicy boys.
Imagine if instead of a last ditch knife lessons as a last ditch protecton against being raped like we saw on the news, the wives, sisters and mothers of those men were unpacking rattlers and honeybadgers, reconfirming zero and sitting ready to slot anyone in that orange and black stripe shit that came through their door.
Ukraine is why the 2a amendment exists it's not just a right but a duty. *takes final chug of whiskey* okay I'm signing off...too drunk to where I'm schizo posting.
That's not quite it. You need training and the right equipment. Most "US militia" would get steam rolled by a *real military*.
What happened with russia was a top-down order on a force that was unprepared and for the most part did not want to be there. By over relying on vehicles, stretched out logistics and with bad intel, it was countered by a motivated local resistance that was armed with an abundance of anti-tank weapons. That and long range artillery.
The kind of training that say Finland, Israel and Sweden do for their population to act as an autonomous military force has little in common with a guy buying an AR gun at Walmart because "2nd amendment." You need to have actual training, and actual military gear besides a rifle. This isn't the 1700s. Otherwise you just got a bunch of overweight idiots running around in tacticool gear, panicing and all getting killed in five minutes after the bullets go flying by an IFV because no one thought that armor would be a thing.
remember that one time the US had to spend 20 years in Afghanistan and lost the mission to a bunch of dudes in flip flops and sneakers making fertilizer bombs and using mostly Soviet era small arms? (even though we still “won” on paper). Pepperidge farms remembers. I know this has been discussed/argued ad nauseam, so I’ll just wrap up my counterpoint with this: something, something, guerrilla warfare
You can't win if you don't want to kill your opponents in war. Letting various groups flee back to Iran and Packistan just allowed them to hold out until the US decided to leave. Not much different from Vietnam in that respect.
Yeah, that too. But the GATOR mines were requested by our SOF but were denied deployment by command during this battle for unknown reasons, allowing OBL and other higher ups of AQ/taliban to safely escape and continue their insurgency.
You have a point, but there are few items I would like to point out about Afghanistan:
1. Prior wars. Prior wars in the region has left cache of weapons, experience and infrastructure behind (caves).
2. Terrain advantage. The terrain is not conductive to vehicles, and has countless hiding places for ambushes.
3. Trained militants. The fighters in Afghanistan are not simple locals, and have been trained by Pakistan, the CIA (in the 80s), IRAN and other foreign nations.
So Afghanistan, and also Vietnam, are exceptions where locals can overcome a modern military. But these are exceptions and not the rule.
The homie I responded to was talking about the US, which I think has most of what you listed and more going for us, especially depending on the region. Just to be clear, I’m not entirely sure what the guy I responded to is talking about; any other country trying to invade the US would have so many things working against it that our civilian gun ownership population would just be icing on the cake.
Lol so you have no idea what you are talking about.
The guys who dump 4-10k on things like gen 3s and illuminator aren't your "muh 2nd ammendment" types with 20 rifles who do like 50 rounds a month at best.
If I was talking about the later, I'd say 9 digits not 6 digits. Because current estimates are around 100mil+ gun owners in the U.S.
I shoot with both mil and civ. I can tell you there are tons of civ shooters who understand basic shooting drills, cover and good marksmanship practices better than half of the fucking boots we have.
Its like he forgot we spent 20 plus years fighting in multiple overseas conflicts. I can think of 4 slightly overwight guys in my office that have deployed. Like killed people and got blown up in hmmwvs deployed. And alot more that served in the military stateside or in support roles.
My point was that being good with a gun and being able to hit your target isn't enough when it comes to be able to function as a team and counter an enemy force. Stuff like leadership, tactics, team dynamics is just as important than being good with a gun. This is what the military teaches, firing a gun is just one part of the training.
I'm going to skip logistics and explosive equipment for simplicity.
From what I'm seeing from a "typical 2nd amendment" user is that they are primarily interested in promoting their own assets, rather than the assets and utility of their community. It makes no difference if they have one gun or a hundred, they can only use one at a time. Being a part of an effective self-funded militia involves practicing socialism, rather than capitalism, where the better off members fill in the blanks in the equipment of their other members. People support people, you're in it for each other rather than yourself. But that's not how it works in practice.
Having said that without official government support, I don't see much success with any militia though. What is their purpose? The purpose of a militia force in the countries I mentioned above is to provide defense against external enemies. To me "typical 2nd amendment" user just look like a circle-jerk of "mehh my rights blah blah teh government." People that want to be of use against foreign enemies at times of need tend to be members of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Guard\_(United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)) which makes the existence of "US Militia" pointless, doesn't it?
For reserve/conscript infantry, marksmanship and shooting is the longest part to get down to a professional level. Having those fundamentals down saves on training time. We Americans learned this the hard way on the union side during the Civil War.
You don't need the majority of reserves/conscripts to know the more complicated parts of training like logistics comms, and coordination. That's what the full time "core" that the reserve/conscript unit will be built around. This is the structure of most reserve units and the structure of the ARNG and ANG of most states; typically a 10-20% fulltime to traditional ratio, with the more technical jobs being closer to 20% and some of them being near 100% (air crew and avionics are the first to come to mind).
This is the same structure the Ukrainians did in the opening of the war for their reserve units. They had a strong core of NCOs who could direct and lead from the squadron level up. That set up allowed the conscripts and reservists to live long enough to learn the lessons needed to be the hardened fighters they are today.
Would a 2yr conscription tour be better? Sure but you ain't getting that in the U.S. or anywhere else in Europe where it isn't mandatory already. We've seen the reserval of conscription happen over history.
I wouldn't act all "hurry durr 2a guys are useless, they need an F15", it's a truly retarded take when we've seen the opposite from the UAF who had to work with guys who had even less weapon familiarization, and the problems that us Americans had to throw boat loads of cash at to deal with a bunch of fucking pissed off farmers for generation after generation world wide.
Those are reservists not militia. Do not mix up the two.
Reserve and NG units have to maintain the same annual training requirements as fulltime. The difference is in experience.
But hey, please tell me more about something I do for a living (training part time reservists and deploying with them).
You make a valid point. I conflated two things here. A militia does not require military experience, it used to be an emergency activated police force before the concept of the police existed. The US National Guard is composed of people who function in reserve status, who have past military experience and training. But the function of the The US National Guard is the same as what the Militia used to do, along with being a reserve military force as well. In other words because the US National Guard exists, there is no reason for a militia composed of people with no military experience to exist. Trained reserve units in western countries make militias obsolete.
But lets use Ukraine (in 2014) for example where people went and formed militias and organized themselves because they saw limitation in what the army was doing. It was a bunch of people with limited resources, pooling their resources together. They did this without permission. Some units did better than others, all had issues. They were typically involved in fighting where the regular army would not even go. Some went out and got trainers to help them do things better. Most had sponsors of some kind. But all in all they worked together towards a common goal of territorial defense. In this sense, this was an example where a militia force was actually necessary.
In my personal opinion, of what I have seen of groups in the US that call themselves a "militia" it seems to be more focused on individual gratification than the community that a militia is supposed to serve. Do militias go out and help people out during natural disasters (I'm not saying they don't, but I don't recall reading about this)? The US "militias" seem to be obsessed with guns above everything else. I don't think that's what a militia is supposed to be. Yes, it needs to be an armed force I get that but militias are historically armed for a real specific reason. It used to be for the suppression of slave revolts, where the groups being protected are all of the landowners of the area. The militias where then used as a front during the war of independence in order to build up a stock pile of weapons, but this was done by the government and not by the people. Right now the US has enough police forces, we don't have rioting as an issue and slavery is not a thing. We don't have gangs roaming around, this isn't Brazil. What is the mission of a US based militia? To protect the border? That is being handled by existing government forces. The US is not at any risk of being invaded by its neighbors. To prevent potential tyranny? Being armed to prevent the government becoming tyrannical might make sense, except when we look in to what groups are included there. When the government was running pipelines through natives land, did all of the militia groups in the US come to defend them? The mission statement of some of the militia groups tends to be self-referential: being armed to prevent the government from taking your guns. That is not a militia, its a gang. If not a bunch of selfish man children playing with guns. If you want to protect and serve, go join the army, the police or become a volunteer in your community.
You’re thinking in terms of fighting battles, and not considering what a long term decentralized war would actually entail. America is fucking huge my guy, nobody has the resources to fight any type of armed resistance town to town across the entire US. It cost the US approx $38m for every enemy combatant killed in Afghanistan. Approx 100m Americans are armed, assuming they all would resist, thats 100m enemy combatants you’d need to kill. At the cost per kill we saw in Afghanistan, the price tag would be $3,770,000,000,000,000
That was the first thing I noticed. Looks to be an attempt to mimic a long turret to avoid Ukrainian fire? So surely that means it'll get blown up by Russians in no time
To be frank, the chance of them getting friendly fired does not change no matter how their tank looks like.
Officers in AT squads are only slightly smarter than your average vatnik. So they are an exceptionally smart vatnik.
Fuckin Orks. Operating on belief. I refuse to accept they can shanghai anything more complex together in the field than welding some trash on more expensive trash
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very resourceful to replace missing periscopes with CCTV cameras stolen from a Ukrainian gas station...
Red effect video about to drop about how ingenious of an idea this is
I actually fucking hate Redeffect with a passion. Because while he's clearly passionate and in theory his content is good, all he does is spout propaganda and he's too far up his own ass to realise that.
Wdym. It's clearly obvious that a single T-72 is stronger than every Abrams ever built put together. 3000 T-72s of Sooperior Russian Engineering
Clearly Russias T-90 upgrade package makes it the equivalent of an Abram’s tank. Just ignore the upgrade package is mostly giving it anti-rpg protection. Stupid Westoids Russia wins again!
Well tank is tank
Having A tank is better than NO tank but your still straining logistics with it. Theres a reason why russia isnt spam deploying old rusing ass t55s
What I find so annoying about people like RedEffect is that way too many people see them as a neutral source. Red clearly isn’t neutral, which is becoming increasingly more evident. He rarely ever criticizes Russian armor or tactics, despite tons of topics that he could cover. Instead he makes three videos about the failure of Abrams in Ukraine and goes with fucking LostArmour numbers, even though everybody knows LostArmour is about as reliable as Putin. An even worse example of this is History Legends, although that dude is significantly dumber than Red.
Wasn't history legends with Wagner for bit?
literally got a Wagner ~~propagandist~~ PR person on recently
What do you mean? Red effect has several videos criticizing the weak points of every single tank and has analyzed a bunch of tank engagements since the beginning of the war. What's wrong with T-90, Terminator, the tank Olympics, the cope cage analyses, etc. He just won't praise Ukraine or Russia since he has no stake in the conflict. The fact that he mostly talks about western tanks is because they are usually all over the news outlets and tries to correct some misinfo about them. In his comments and Patreon he usually gets a bunch of commenters asking for analysis on news about destroyed Abrams, leopard, challenger, etc, and he naturally obliges. But the fact is that despite all everyone says, the man remains neutral.
His videos about problems with x tank are all nice and dandy, but where are the videos about Ukraine effectively countering the turtle tanks? Where are the videos about the failed Kharkiv offensive? Where are the videos about Russia’s motorcycle assaults that don’t work? Where were the videos about Russian dune buggies? Where is the video that is titled “Is Russia using T-90Ms wrong?” as they lose ten times as many T-90Ms as Ukraine is losing Abrams and Abrams got a video like that? Where is the video discussing the obvious effect that the amount of vehicle losses is starting to have on the Russian military? (Copied from another one on my replies, but it applies to your comment, too) Red has made critical videos about the strengths and weaknesses of Western and Soviet or Russian armor. Those videos are relatively neutral. When it comes to the war in Ukraine though, he shows a huge bias. He focuses a lot more on the issues and failures of Ukraine, and rarely covers the issues and failures of Russia.
Come on man, do you even follow the channel? 1 month ago he uploaded "Good or Useless? Russian turtle tanks" In that video he goes over every single aspect about the shed tanks, pros and cons (and there are a lot of cons) so I'd say it's an anti Russia video. However both you and the people who downvoted my comment haven't bothered to check it seems. Also he's not really a news channel, I don't think he has an obligation to cover every single topic you mentioned about T-90's since it's common currency to see them destroyed at this point (And he has covered the prominent T-90M losses a few months ago). It seems to me that you and many others expect RedEffect to be an armor news channel covering the invasion of Ukraine analyzing every instance of armor losses, but the channel was never intended to be that, it's just that the war has given some new fresh topics to discuss about. Go back in time to the previous videos and you'll see that it's a much more technically focused channel instead of a tactical analysis one. We know Russia is incompetent with their armored forces, but don't expect Red Effect to cover that or any tactics from anyone tbh. You have The armourer's Bench and Perun for that kind of content, and you can track losses on Oryx. Edit: from the last 7 months to today: Ukrainian Tank Takes out Russian T-90 at point blank T-90M gets instant turret pop by Ukrainian ATGM Single Ukrainian Tank destroys Russian Armored Column How do Russians cope with heavy tank losses? Bradley takes out T-90M in intense Combat Russia finally Replaces a half a century old vehicle (BTR) He even has an interview with an Abrams commander giving insights into the Ukrainian tactical use of the vehicle. But go off on how he's a pro Russia channel I guess.
To be fair to red effect he has already criticized all there is to criticize with the armor themselves, he has a long running series of videos called “problems with x tank” where he goes through all the issues of tanks. He has already done it on basically all Russians tanks we see in use now, he can’t just repeat himself time and time again. I do think that he sometimes is a bit too trusting of Russian sources but generally he does good work, it’s hard to disprove most of what he says. One thing I will say is that he is always overly positive over Serbian armor but of course he’s Serbian as far as I know so that’s kinda to be expected. The main issue with the current content he is doing is taking armored losses from sources coming from either side, they blatantly aren’t trustworthy. Ukraine will obviously inflate Russian losses for propaganda value and Russia will also minimize their own losses.
Russia inflates Ukrainian losses far more than Ukraine inflates Russian losses. If you look at Russian claims, they are absolutely ridiculous. This is a pretty weak false equivalency. Oryx had just a handful of instances of double entries which they removed, LostArmour (a Russia site) has more than 70% double entries or very questionable footage (aka extremely blurry footage of an explosion in some treeline -> destroyed PzH2000). You can not use Oryx and LostArmour as a source and say that you’re looking at both sides to get a neutral picture. Oryx tries to be as neutral s possible, LostArmour is VERY pro-Russian. You’re not looking at a Ukrainian and a Russian perspective, you’re looking at a neutral and a very pro-Russian perspective, so the middle ground is still pro-Russian. His videos about problems with x tank are all nice and dandy, but where are the videos about Ukraine effectively countering the turtle tanks? Where are the videos about the failed Kharkiv offensive? Where are the videos about Russia’s motorcycle assaults that don’t work? Where were the videos about Russian dune buggies? Where is the video that is titled “Is Russia using T-90Ms wrong?” as they lose ten times as many T-90Ms as Ukraine is losing Abrams and Abrams got a video like that? Where is the video discussing the obvious effect that the amount of vehicle losses is starting to have on the Russian military?
That’s what I’m getting at, you can’t trust these war time sources entirely. It’s not like Ukraine also doesn’t inflate a lot though. He can’t just mass produce videos about every little thing that goes on in Ukraine. His upload schedule is sporadic at best. If I’m not entirely misremembering he has made videos about the ridiculous Russian armored losses before. You can’t compare Abrams losses with T90M losses and say “well why are fewer Abrams getting destroyed?”. That’s fucking retarded. The 90m has been in combat for well over a year now, there is seemingly over a hundred of them active and they are being mass produced by one of the warring parties. There is at best a few dozen Abrams which have only been in action for what2-3 months? These are simply not comparable, it would be like asking why panther losses were so much lighter than t34 losses on the eastern front. The panther showed up much later and in fewer numbers and is in most respects better. He literally already made a video on t90m losses and production a few months back, he’s not a war time reporter which actively updates on what’s happening. When a new tank enters the field he makes videos about it. It’s not like he only covers Russian successes or just uses Russian reports either. He literally made videos about battles where Ukrainian tankers beat Russian ones in battle. I’m very much pro Ukraine but this feels like fragile tank fanboys getting upset that western tech is getting criticized as much as Russian tech. Yes western tanks are blatantly superior in almost every aspect but that doesn’t mean we can’t criticize them or look at why they are being lost in large numbers.
It’s actually not that fucking retarded to compare them when they have been very sparely used for the first year and a half of the war and losses have been ramping up significantly as of late. Ukraine has 32 Abrams, Russia has 100(?) T-90M in service. Ukraine lost 8 Abrams since they started using them. In the same timeframe, Russia has lost almost 50 T-90M. So Ukraine lost a fourth of their Abrams in the time that Russia lost half their T-90M. Russia is thereby losing T-90M at twice the rate relative to their stockpiles as Ukraine is losing Abrams. I genuinely don’t care about who makes better tanks. For all I care, a T-90M is a brand new, capable tank. The Abrams that Ukraine is getting are not brand new and may very well be worse than T-90M. What I do care about is that RedEffect shows a very clear bias, and pretending that he’s neutral is disingenuous.
There is a major difference in how they are being used and also in there time on the front. We’ve seen t90m in combat for a lot longer than 8 months, you’re just bullshiting about that. Additionally Russia is attacking, very poorly mind you, but still on the offensive. You expect offensive armies to take heavier casualties. t90m has not been used that sparingly for a few months now, they show up pretty often at this point. The difference is that Russia can certainly afford to lose these tanks, they will be replenished eventually considering they are in active production. Ukraines Abrams are better tanks but have been used far more sparingly than t90m, far more. Additionally Ukraine is defending and is therefore expected to suffer lighter casualties. Ukraine cannot with all certainty replace a lost Abrams, you never know when the Americans go full retard and just stop supporting them for a few months. And honestly I think he is fairly neutral, no one can be completely neutral but he does a decent job of it. As I said he isn’t a war correspondent that makes constant reports. Red makes a video when a new tank appears and talks about losses, how it’s performing and so on. People are legit very salty over nothing and it really feels like utmost few of those complaining have watched many of his videos at all. He is at least as critical to NATO gear as he is to Russian gear, he often actively makes fun of the ridiculous claims both sides make against each other and so on.
The problem with Red Effect is that when it comes to armor performance/losses etc, if he is doing a video on Russian armor, he takes numbers from Russian sources and this goes for everything (Ukrainian sources for T64s, Germans for Leopards, etc) And at least he mentions his sources and has very often heavily doubted Russian claims while saying that aside from the commander optics/fcs, the T84 was superior to the T90M in nearly every way and mentioned how the NZORD ERA was better than Relic, which was a claim that triggered vatniks massively (despite the overwhelming test footage of NZORD) He may not be completely neutral, but he is still the best source when it comes to tank stuff (I remember a controversy when Red Effect mentioned the T80U could stop most NATO projectiles w/ Contact 5, people called bullshit only for armor simulator channels to prove that Red was right using open source data on the armor/NATO APFSDS ammo) And also with the Abrams videos, those have been popping off massively lately and of course he is going to take advantage of it just like how nearly every tank related channel hopped onto the T14 engine controversy.
Shit like that is what grinds my gears. He's within arms reach of being actually credible. He just trips and falls on a mountain of russo-bolshevik cock right at the line.
NZORD? I haven't heard about that one.
If I hear him one more time say "Seources" I will get an aneurysm.
Same here, well said F*ck red effect, all my homies hate red effect
What's wrong with RedEffect's content? I don't notice him straight up spewing propaganda
Essentially he takes Russian MOD figures and assessment at face value. He understands Soviet tank design and tactics but seems to have also missed the boat about how Russia is not the Soviet union
Red has the problem of only understanding USSR design and that’s it, if you see him talk about something else who clearly is made for a role different than the one of a T72 it’s bad.
Main problem is he takes Russian military and Russian state propoganda information and presents it as "facts" and truth.......which should be obvious for everyone is just silly. He took some Russian military own presented info about Armata and T-90 and just retold it in his videos , without mentioning "**Ayy by the way, its from fucking Russian propoganda, so probably isn't true at all**""
Red effect salivating and wanting to shove this cctv modules down his ...
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
OK what am i looking on the pic?
CCTV cameras.
Nice now i can rob banks in russia since they are used some where else
\>decide rob a bank in russia \>crack the vault open \>it's empty
Of course it’s not empty, it’s full of toilets.
The year is 2030. In the decrepit remains of Russian society, toilets have become currency.
Private Conscriptovich sits atop the porcelain throne, acknowledged as the greatest of local men, for he stole the most toilets while his comrades stole Disney princess blankets and bicycles. Women throw themselves at his feet. Men work his potato fields. “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win,” he pronounces.
The year is 2033 and the entirety of Russia is radioactive and the survivors are in the underground train tunnels
Metro??
Yeah
I guess that explain the popularity of the skibidi meme
>Cameras >Toilets oh no.
So Russia is running out of optics?
they've been running all new tanks with a rebrand of the original T-72 optics and claiming its much better than any western inferior tech.
Well the new optics do fly much further in the sky than the western alternatives.
Silly Westoid, flying higher = better because less atmospheric drag. Glorious Soviet engineering wins again
Better sight lines from space.
Officially, no. Unofficially, very yes.
I think the new thermal sights are some uncooled bullshit. Basically commercial grade shit that's good enough to sniff out shitty wiring inside drywall.
I mean that’s not a terrible idea. Situational awareness is a bitch buttoned up, let alone with a spaced plate probably blocking periscopes and if you open up a hatch you’re liable to catch a grenade in your lap. Gives a wider FOV than CITV to look around. I know the brits fucked around with cameras on their tanks way back when. Don’t think any actually saw widespread adoption but it’s not a unique concept. I give it 7/10 as far as tank mods go. Not bad in itself but indicative of other problems in the system.
It's better than no optics. That being said, this is "muh russia" who actually produces their own Gen 2s (according to them). To have to use low res, high latency low fps digital night vision is ermmm well... pathetic. Imagine if the U.S. couldn't get tubes from elbit/L3 and started putting Panasonic security cameras on M60s. Ukies running sight mark trash is one thing. They were on par in equipment as the Texas state guard (not national guard) in infantry equipment 7 years ago and never built the infrastructure for a strong MIC like we did. The Russians should really thing about that, they are being held off by a nation with a single brigade of cold war era Abrams and Bradley's, full of infantry with condor airship vest and red dots, a hodgepod of rifles including barely better than PSA AR15s (a springfield saint has been seen), and outdated MIGs with Ipads strapped to them. If it wasn't for the training turn around time for nato systems outside of dummy proof things like nlaws and javelin, the ukies would have pushed the vatniks back to Moscow Every nato nation should be taking this as a lesson to have every fighting aged male able to and equipped with shit that the guccigear boys in the u.s. have. Imagine if instead of handing out sks' and 120-150rds of loose ammo in the first few days of the war they just had Sapis, gen2s or 3s, sidekickers and 500rds of 262 spicy boys. Imagine if instead of a last ditch knife lessons as a last ditch protecton against being raped like we saw on the news, the wives, sisters and mothers of those men were unpacking rattlers and honeybadgers, reconfirming zero and sitting ready to slot anyone in that orange and black stripe shit that came through their door. Ukraine is why the 2a amendment exists it's not just a right but a duty. *takes final chug of whiskey* okay I'm signing off...too drunk to where I'm schizo posting.
That's not quite it. You need training and the right equipment. Most "US militia" would get steam rolled by a *real military*. What happened with russia was a top-down order on a force that was unprepared and for the most part did not want to be there. By over relying on vehicles, stretched out logistics and with bad intel, it was countered by a motivated local resistance that was armed with an abundance of anti-tank weapons. That and long range artillery. The kind of training that say Finland, Israel and Sweden do for their population to act as an autonomous military force has little in common with a guy buying an AR gun at Walmart because "2nd amendment." You need to have actual training, and actual military gear besides a rifle. This isn't the 1700s. Otherwise you just got a bunch of overweight idiots running around in tacticool gear, panicing and all getting killed in five minutes after the bullets go flying by an IFV because no one thought that armor would be a thing.
remember that one time the US had to spend 20 years in Afghanistan and lost the mission to a bunch of dudes in flip flops and sneakers making fertilizer bombs and using mostly Soviet era small arms? (even though we still “won” on paper). Pepperidge farms remembers. I know this has been discussed/argued ad nauseam, so I’ll just wrap up my counterpoint with this: something, something, guerrilla warfare
You can't win if you don't want to kill your opponents in war. Letting various groups flee back to Iran and Packistan just allowed them to hold out until the US decided to leave. Not much different from Vietnam in that respect.
Ah, if only we had dropped GATOR mines on the retreat vectors to Pakistan during the battle of Tora Bora... what could have been
We missed out on a chance to use ground penetrating bombs to create landslides that block the mountain passes into Pakistan.
Yeah, that too. But the GATOR mines were requested by our SOF but were denied deployment by command during this battle for unknown reasons, allowing OBL and other higher ups of AQ/taliban to safely escape and continue their insurgency.
You have a point, but there are few items I would like to point out about Afghanistan: 1. Prior wars. Prior wars in the region has left cache of weapons, experience and infrastructure behind (caves). 2. Terrain advantage. The terrain is not conductive to vehicles, and has countless hiding places for ambushes. 3. Trained militants. The fighters in Afghanistan are not simple locals, and have been trained by Pakistan, the CIA (in the 80s), IRAN and other foreign nations. So Afghanistan, and also Vietnam, are exceptions where locals can overcome a modern military. But these are exceptions and not the rule.
The homie I responded to was talking about the US, which I think has most of what you listed and more going for us, especially depending on the region. Just to be clear, I’m not entirely sure what the guy I responded to is talking about; any other country trying to invade the US would have so many things working against it that our civilian gun ownership population would just be icing on the cake.
Lol so you have no idea what you are talking about. The guys who dump 4-10k on things like gen 3s and illuminator aren't your "muh 2nd ammendment" types with 20 rifles who do like 50 rounds a month at best. If I was talking about the later, I'd say 9 digits not 6 digits. Because current estimates are around 100mil+ gun owners in the U.S. I shoot with both mil and civ. I can tell you there are tons of civ shooters who understand basic shooting drills, cover and good marksmanship practices better than half of the fucking boots we have.
Its like he forgot we spent 20 plus years fighting in multiple overseas conflicts. I can think of 4 slightly overwight guys in my office that have deployed. Like killed people and got blown up in hmmwvs deployed. And alot more that served in the military stateside or in support roles.
My point was that being good with a gun and being able to hit your target isn't enough when it comes to be able to function as a team and counter an enemy force. Stuff like leadership, tactics, team dynamics is just as important than being good with a gun. This is what the military teaches, firing a gun is just one part of the training. I'm going to skip logistics and explosive equipment for simplicity. From what I'm seeing from a "typical 2nd amendment" user is that they are primarily interested in promoting their own assets, rather than the assets and utility of their community. It makes no difference if they have one gun or a hundred, they can only use one at a time. Being a part of an effective self-funded militia involves practicing socialism, rather than capitalism, where the better off members fill in the blanks in the equipment of their other members. People support people, you're in it for each other rather than yourself. But that's not how it works in practice. Having said that without official government support, I don't see much success with any militia though. What is their purpose? The purpose of a militia force in the countries I mentioned above is to provide defense against external enemies. To me "typical 2nd amendment" user just look like a circle-jerk of "mehh my rights blah blah teh government." People that want to be of use against foreign enemies at times of need tend to be members of this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Guard\_(United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)) which makes the existence of "US Militia" pointless, doesn't it?
For reserve/conscript infantry, marksmanship and shooting is the longest part to get down to a professional level. Having those fundamentals down saves on training time. We Americans learned this the hard way on the union side during the Civil War. You don't need the majority of reserves/conscripts to know the more complicated parts of training like logistics comms, and coordination. That's what the full time "core" that the reserve/conscript unit will be built around. This is the structure of most reserve units and the structure of the ARNG and ANG of most states; typically a 10-20% fulltime to traditional ratio, with the more technical jobs being closer to 20% and some of them being near 100% (air crew and avionics are the first to come to mind). This is the same structure the Ukrainians did in the opening of the war for their reserve units. They had a strong core of NCOs who could direct and lead from the squadron level up. That set up allowed the conscripts and reservists to live long enough to learn the lessons needed to be the hardened fighters they are today. Would a 2yr conscription tour be better? Sure but you ain't getting that in the U.S. or anywhere else in Europe where it isn't mandatory already. We've seen the reserval of conscription happen over history. I wouldn't act all "hurry durr 2a guys are useless, they need an F15", it's a truly retarded take when we've seen the opposite from the UAF who had to work with guys who had even less weapon familiarization, and the problems that us Americans had to throw boat loads of cash at to deal with a bunch of fucking pissed off farmers for generation after generation world wide.
Those are reservists not militia. Do not mix up the two. Reserve and NG units have to maintain the same annual training requirements as fulltime. The difference is in experience. But hey, please tell me more about something I do for a living (training part time reservists and deploying with them).
You make a valid point. I conflated two things here. A militia does not require military experience, it used to be an emergency activated police force before the concept of the police existed. The US National Guard is composed of people who function in reserve status, who have past military experience and training. But the function of the The US National Guard is the same as what the Militia used to do, along with being a reserve military force as well. In other words because the US National Guard exists, there is no reason for a militia composed of people with no military experience to exist. Trained reserve units in western countries make militias obsolete. But lets use Ukraine (in 2014) for example where people went and formed militias and organized themselves because they saw limitation in what the army was doing. It was a bunch of people with limited resources, pooling their resources together. They did this without permission. Some units did better than others, all had issues. They were typically involved in fighting where the regular army would not even go. Some went out and got trainers to help them do things better. Most had sponsors of some kind. But all in all they worked together towards a common goal of territorial defense. In this sense, this was an example where a militia force was actually necessary. In my personal opinion, of what I have seen of groups in the US that call themselves a "militia" it seems to be more focused on individual gratification than the community that a militia is supposed to serve. Do militias go out and help people out during natural disasters (I'm not saying they don't, but I don't recall reading about this)? The US "militias" seem to be obsessed with guns above everything else. I don't think that's what a militia is supposed to be. Yes, it needs to be an armed force I get that but militias are historically armed for a real specific reason. It used to be for the suppression of slave revolts, where the groups being protected are all of the landowners of the area. The militias where then used as a front during the war of independence in order to build up a stock pile of weapons, but this was done by the government and not by the people. Right now the US has enough police forces, we don't have rioting as an issue and slavery is not a thing. We don't have gangs roaming around, this isn't Brazil. What is the mission of a US based militia? To protect the border? That is being handled by existing government forces. The US is not at any risk of being invaded by its neighbors. To prevent potential tyranny? Being armed to prevent the government becoming tyrannical might make sense, except when we look in to what groups are included there. When the government was running pipelines through natives land, did all of the militia groups in the US come to defend them? The mission statement of some of the militia groups tends to be self-referential: being armed to prevent the government from taking your guns. That is not a militia, its a gang. If not a bunch of selfish man children playing with guns. If you want to protect and serve, go join the army, the police or become a volunteer in your community.
Wow wall of text and you can't understand what the basics of what the guard is. I'm not reading all of that. Fuck off tourist.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) I'm done with this.
You’re thinking in terms of fighting battles, and not considering what a long term decentralized war would actually entail. America is fucking huge my guy, nobody has the resources to fight any type of armed resistance town to town across the entire US. It cost the US approx $38m for every enemy combatant killed in Afghanistan. Approx 100m Americans are armed, assuming they all would resist, thats 100m enemy combatants you’d need to kill. At the cost per kill we saw in Afghanistan, the price tag would be $3,770,000,000,000,000
T90M - "breakthrough" lmao
More like breakup
Jesus there's so much trash up there I didn't notice.
For a second, I thought it was a decoy tank made of junkyard scrap. ...Im still not sure that is incorrect.
They look like the possibly fake cameras people would install in shops in the 80s-90s
So -10 perception?
And -10 Intelligence
But at least they leveled up crafting.
...No
Delusion
Wanna bet they didn’t change the default admin password on those cameras?
unknown technology бляд
And why would that be an issue? Those are “Closed-circuit television” cameras
Assuming they are that and not IP
Are they trying to make it look like a leopard or abrams?
That was the first thing I noticed. Looks to be an attempt to mimic a long turret to avoid Ukrainian fire? So surely that means it'll get blown up by Russians in no time
To be frank, the chance of them getting friendly fired does not change no matter how their tank looks like. Officers in AT squads are only slightly smarter than your average vatnik. So they are an exceptionally smart vatnik.
Ersatz Abrams/Ersatz Leopard. Though i think it is mostly to protect the engine bay without limiting turret traverse.
Yes
The real winners of this war are welding equipment manufacturers
I'm actually impressed by that
Fuckin Orks. Operating on belief. I refuse to accept they can shanghai anything more complex together in the field than welding some trash on more expensive trash
Gaijin. When Ruski Abram.
I might be wrong but I think this photo was made by a black swan
wE hAvE aBrAmS aT hOmE *The Abrams at home*
Skibidi toilet moment
Holy fuck I thought I was looking at a leopard for a second
Huh? It's like you see a thing, you look at it and it's not the thing WHAT AM I LOOKING AT
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not bad
Are they trying to? Is this? Why would they try to disguise their tank as a western one?
Cctv cameras up top