วีดีโอ

You can’t argue with room temperature IQ logic like that.

It flew once, then had an entire hangar collapse on it Sure buddy

@@dalek14mc With their country collapsing around them, some engineers built a self-landing space shuttle in the 1980s, then it got to fly and it WORKED. Buran is not overrated because there is no overrating to be done. An honest look at the material reality of the matter reveals all. It was not better than STS, no one thinks that. It was a goddamn prototype, and it WORKED.

@@adrianthe402nd As opposed to the vast fleet of space rocket ships you yourself own and which each have several dozens of successful missions under their belts?

Once again, the Vatnik has to simplify the situation down to a level that they can argue against.

@@dalek14mc he has never even seen Buran. Buran was only meant to do something better. There was no need for it anyway,. Americans are arrogant with an inflated sense of self importance.

@@no_hyperbole_xone Oh, blah blah blah. That was just gibberish. You just wanted to tack on that tired old line about Americans feeling “self-important.”

@@dalek14mc butt hurt american boy

@@MisterMemeDude I sincerely hope you’re joking. The AH-64 was years into service before Operation Mount Hope II.

@@MS-gr2nv The shuttle flew over 130 missions successfully and built the international space station. It’s hilariously pathetic that the only bragging right you buran simps can think of is that “it landed.” Your bragging is a mystery. PS The Soviets also used Nazi scientists. Take a walk, vatnik.

​I love how Vadnik logic has degraded to the point where something can be deemed as 100% reliable as long as its almost never used and retires before it can even be properly utilised even in the slightest lmao. Some things never change regardless of which flag is flying over Russia.

@@KaiserHabsburg No, they didn’t. Just because you idiots repeat it, doesn’t make it true.

@@dalek14mc And your reasoning is what? The design came about after they had the blueprints to an aircraft with the exact same layout? Amazing. it's almost as if they had the exact same layout lol.

@@KaiserHabsburg MY “reasoning” is backed up by evidence. Yours is not. Thats the difference between you and me. Mate, the blueprints for a three bearing swivel nozzle existed 20 years before the Yak-141 flew. You’re just making things up!

@@sebastianjakubzik2807 …This was all addressed in the video. What are you talking about?

You have a source for that?

@@dalek14mc www.nasa.gov/history/sts1/pages/scota.html

@@daciandraco6462 😆 Only 6 of the 30 Abrams were destroyed over the span of a year. It speaks pretty well of western equipment when you Vatniks are so quick to celebrate 6 destroyed Abrams when there are literally thousands of burned-out Russian vehicles in the scrapyard.

@@dalek14mc more pics coming out, showing captured Abrams tanks. The most ridiculous thing? All of them have Russian ERA modules tacked on, plus cope cages 🤣🤣🤣 Shine bright, beautiful Abrams, until you face actual combat, then thine beautiful armor gets covered in what actually saves lives: Russian kit 🤣🤣🤣 How the allegedly mighty have fallen. Clown.

​​@@daciandraco6462 No sources and large amounts of arrogance, sounds like cap and cope.

@@daciandraco6462You vatniks are so quick to celebrate whenever a western tank is destroyed. Again, this happened over the course of a year. Considering these are old M1A1s, these are doing fairly well compares to their Russian counterparts. “Then thine beautiful armor gets covered in what actually saves lives: Russian kit.” Oh, really? Because I’m fairly certain we’ve seen more videos of T-90Ms and T-72B3s tanks having their turret blown off, despite being slathered in the latest ERA. Show us something similar with the M1. “The most ridiculous thing? All of them have Russian ERA modules tacked on, plus cope cages.” I’m not seeing how that’s ridiculous. Ukrainians are going to do what they need to repel a fascist invasion of their country. If that means covering an M1 in ERA, I’m all for it. Also, I really enjoy seeing you speak out of both sides of your mouth. So, which is it? Does Russian not save lives or is the M1 ridiculous for having it? You say that Russian kit saves lives, but you also make fun of destroyed Abrams which are using that exact ERA. You can’t have it both ways, idiot.

@@dalek14mc you are aware that Uncle Sam's already asked for the indestructible Abrams tanks to be withdraw from the front for inability to deal with Russian threats, right? "They're doing pretty well" mainly because they rarely see combat. And the ones that do, get a $20k drone to the face. Tell me more about fascist regimes, as your country's just had a soft coup, with a clinically senile puppet-president and a new candidate just shoved down people's throats. In terms of other facism in plain view, hope you caught news reports of Ukrainians in Kursk sporting SS helmets. Regarding ERA modules, it was simply meant to highlight the irony of expensive US hardware only made viable with a layer of Soviet era protection hastily stuck on top😉 For someone who's trying to come across as a serious source of info, you've got quite the immature reaction to any type of criticism. Basically, anyone who doesn't share your opinion is a vatnik. You're employing the same crooked logic seen in cheap US media attacks: "whoever criticizes our favourite politician must be linked to Russia somehow. Absolutely no one else would ever have anything bad to say about them. Sssstraight out of the Soviet playbook". And you wonder why half of your country is ready to murder the other half 🤔😂

@@daciandraco6462 “Similarity” between the nozzles isn’t the issue and nowhere do I say “these two things are not the same at all.” Why you put that in quotes is a mystery. If you’re just going to resort to the tired old canard of calling me “biased” to make up for your lack of arguments (while accusing ME of grasping at straws), then spare me.

@@dalek14mc The entire video is you jumping between arguments, then drawing ridiculous, unreasonable conclusions. "Yes, even though Lockheed bought 4 Yaks, that doesn't mean they copied bla bla." Are we both aware of what Lockheed have been willing to do to avoid bankruptcy on several occasions over the past many decades?! If their management was happy -- among many other sleazy things -- to bribe foreign administrations into buying crappy jets like the F104, leading to considerable number of fatalities, how exactly are we putting "copying designs" so easily past them? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals#:~:text=On%20February%206%2C%201976%2C%20the,for%20aid%20in%20the%20matter. You are absolutely delusional. And yes, biased to the point where you can't even tell when you're sliding into ridiculousness.

@@daciandraco6462 I absolutely did not jump between arguments. That’s just a lie. Making an argument that you can’t refute is not the same as “jumping between arguments.” The fact that you have to completely change the subject to the F-104 (while accusing ME of jumping between an arguments) tells me everything I need to know. Just like any Yak simp, you have to resort to speculation and stitching together disparate facts in order to have any kind of point. "Are we both aware of what Lockheed have been willing to do to avoid bankruptcy on several occasions over the past many decades?! If their management was happy -- among many other sleazy things -- to bribe foreign administrations into buying crappy jets like the F104, leading to considerable number of fatalities, how exactly are we putting "copying designs" so easily past them?" This has absolutely nothing to do with the YAK-141 or the dealings that LM had with Yakolvev. Saying "how exactly are we putting "copying designs" so easily past them?" is just a fancier way of saying "speculation." Which you wouldn't have to do if you actually had facts on your side. Which, to clarify, you don't. I actually showed the evidence on screen and linked to sources. All you can seem to come up with is “herp derp lOoK aT it!” "You are absolutely delusional. And yes, biased to the point where you can't even tell when you're sliding into ridiculousness." Bla blah blah "you're biased" blah blah blah. You're just another vatnik moron who goes around calling people "biased" because he has nothing better to say, but is all too willing to shut down the conversation.

@@dalek14mc are the vatniks in the room with us right now? :D If that protects your ego, so be it. But entertain the thought that not everyone criticising your stuff is a Russian or a russophile. Unless you have access to Lockheed board meeting notes and deep insider knowledge, you've just spent time trying to prove a negative, relying on a hefty amount of speculation and conjecture yourself. Given the above, we are then forced to rely on the corporation's character, history and past activities, while keeping things as reasonable as possible. Given that Lockheed have been caught red handed doing things orders of magnitude worse than copying designs -- on numerous occasions, brazenly and across continents -- given the harsh competition between US defence corporations for US and other countries governments' money and Lockheed's several near bankruptcies, it stands to reason that they were more than willing and likely to copy designs, to "draw inspiration" from hardware and intellectual property bought (or otherwise obtained) from competitors.

@@daciandraco6462 "If that protects your ego, so be it. But entertain the thought that not everyone criticising your stuff is a Russian or a russophile." It's absolutely amazing how you vatniks go around shilling for Russia and then act as if we're unjustified in calling you "Russophiles." No, you're not a Russophile because you're criticizing my content. You're a Russophile because you're posting comments all over my channel and all them, as of now, have been exclusively for the purpose of sucking off Russia. To be clear, THAT is why you're a Russophile. Not because you're "criticizing my content." That's just you trying to simplify the argument down to a bullshit strawman that you can argue against. This is actually a theme amongst you vatniks. "Unless you have access to Lockheed board meeting notes and deep insider knowledge," Oh, that's funny, because I don't recall you having that either. Why don't you apply that standard to yourself like you do to others, you hypocrite? Everything I have presented in this video is much closer to that insider knowledge than your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning that "herp derp Lockheed Martin did bribery at one point, therefore this must be true." That's not only bullshit reasoning, it's also a logical fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc Then again, why should expect the vatnik to understand logic? "you've just spent time trying to prove a negative," LOL "Prove a negative?" Do you even know what that means? First of all, let's say that your bullshit premise is correct, and you have the positive position. A "positive assertion of fact" doesn't mean it's "true" you idiot. That just means that you are making a positive assertion of fact, which, BTW, requires a burden of proof. You clearly don't seem intent on providing evidence, so I'd say that boat has sailed. "relying on a hefty amount of speculation and conjecture yourself." Nope. Nothing I said relies on speculation. Nothing. Everything I said was backed up with evidence and has a corresponding source. You don't realize it, but this is you telling on yourself. Making arguments that are exclusively based on speculation while criticizing others for speculating is you subtlety admitting that you know what you're saying is bullshit and you're hoping that nobody would pick up on it. "Given the above, we are then forced to rely on the corporation's character, history and past activities, while keeping things as reasonable as possible. " Yeah, except your conclusions are not "reasonable" and just because you say they are doesn't make them so. Nope, sorry. That's not acceptable evidence. No way. No how. You'd be laughed out of court if that was the case you were bringing. " Given that Lockheed have been caught red handed doing things orders of magnitude worse than copying designs" Sorry, I don't think you can objectively quantify that bribery is worse than copying. That's a just a bullshit standard that you're using to help your specific narrative. In any case, once again, not evidence.