Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/BINKOV008 Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
dafuk is this shit binkov? on christmas? a nightmare video like this? jeezzz at least let us enjoy xmas. I mean ww3 will last less than 1 hour. all life on earth will be wiped out on a nuclear holocaust and we will all die. can we have a video about peace? about hope? about the end of all wars? ffs
Binkov please make video analysis about conventional warfare simulation looks like after protracted nuclear war happened. There is some analysis and battleplan from NATO officer that said after full scale nuclear war happened the conventional war would still be continued. It would be very interesting.
"I don't know what weapons will be used in WW3, but I know in WW4 we will be using fully automated catgirl maids and incelbots with machinegoons" - Albert Einstein, 2016
People thought ww1 would be like Franco Prussian war, they were wrong. Then they thought ww2 would be like ww1, they were wrong. If I’m gonna guess, ww3 would be like something we’ve never seen before, it mostly likely won’t be like the current war in ukraine.
Artillery, quimical weapons, biological weapons, digital war, AI controled drones swarms, stalemate, trench warfare, nuclear weapons. Destruction and dead as such scale that no war in human history will be compared.
I mean... any war between major powers would turn nuclear but assuming the war somehow does not, it would combine the element of precision warefare, the somewhat static forces of modern armies and like in every war, economy and trade would play a huge role. Also, the sides are not clearly defined.
*then they thought ww2 would be like spanish civil war, they were absolutely right Ukrainian war will definitely be the template... But x1000 more deadly
@@matthewwebster3143 you say that But it's the only reasonable take that can be made with such a ridiculous question We have no clue what WW3 would look like. People forget about just how many resources it would require, and most countries aren't either willing or able to commit them
Iran and North Korea should also be added to Russia and China, seeing as how Iran supplies Russia with Shahed drones to hurl at Ukraine and North Korea is fighting against Ukraine in the Kursk direction. Some people say that WW3 is already ongoing.
I think you’re right which is why I think India would be the most important undeclared factor. NATO would need the manpower India could provide and it would be tough sledding for NATO if they stayed neutral or came in on China’s side.
@Uhtred-the-bold India coming in to help CHINA? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Ask ANYONE from India if they see that happening. India will try to be as neutral as possible. Just like Mexico and Indonesia, India doesn't like to pick sides. They're a part of BRICs but certainly not military allies to China or Russia.
Ironically most realistic take here. Its sad to see so many warmongers here thinking it would be over by christmas for nato and how russia would fall like a stack of cards. Germany in both world wars was outnumbered and outproduced, out of supplies yet held out for years, here foes are either an autarky or net exporters, such conflict can easily last decades.
Even if nuclear weapons weren't used instantly, no country with nukes no matter the west or east would actually let the enemy force push deep into their country without resorting to nukes, in a WW3 scenario, no side wants to lose. Also, even with nukes aside let's not forget the other horrors that could end up killing hundreds of millions.. biological weapons, which has VASTLY advanced since the WW2 era. All I know is that I wouldn't want to live in a world like that, because it would be an absolute horror show.
@@gradientascent4218 That's not even remotely close to the situation we're talking about here. We're talking about WW3 where all countries mobilize millions and every part of the border turns into a battlefield. Ukraine didn't even get close to Kursk itself, they took one strategic cross-section city from russian garrison forces and Russia didn't see it as enough of a threat to even send combat units from eastern Ukraine to deal with it. In a WW3 scenario (without nukes), countries would have millions mobilized and there would be layers of manned defenses across the entire border.. on both sides.
I think the conflict would be fought over specific areas like Taiwan, Ukraine, maybe even Belarus, and over trade routes. With only small incursions and raids on undisputed territories. Both sides would probably demand concessions and a ceasefire rather than a unconditional surrender. I doubt there could be a total victory scenario for either side without the world basically ending. But I think there could be a major war without nuclear armageddon necessarily being upon us. Let's hope we never find out though.
@@Regarded69I respect your comment but weapons were made to be used. US eliminated 2 million 1raqis in their invasion. Soo to think that other countries won't do worse In a full out war is wishful thinking.
No man's air zone. WWIII seeing an airborne version of trench warfare where air forces sling long range munitions at each other then retreat behind terrain like mountains with the valleys in between, where ground trench warfare is happening, being an aircraft graveyard.
Actually, one advantage of the F-35 has over the F-22 is its networking with other planes. So the F-35 can get closer to enemy formations without being detected, or at the very least without being locked onto. The the F-35 can get target locks on all the enemy planes and send that information back to the F-15 E, which will be further back but laden with missiles and then those missiles will be guided onto target.
@@The_Greedy_Orphan A stealth Jet opening it's active radar is basically a beacon. Networking allows only one stealth jet to open its radar while the other jets just shoot at targets without being detected easily themselves.
The amount of bots commenting on this video is insane. You can see how a lot of comments have broken mistranslated English and use phrases that no western English speaker would.
Some important things are surprisingly overlooked in this. China and Russia would be stuck in a defensive war. Russia has almost no capacity at the moment to strike any of Nato offensively. China really can only hit South Korea and Japan. They would probably get Taiwan but outside of that neither have really any ability to strike Nato industry. Russia has no real navy now and China would be completely hemmed into the South China sea. Ultimately no real large chunks of land would change hands before nukes are fired but Russia and China would take a much worse beating.
Japan, Korea and Taiwan don't have any oil reserves and they import 50-90% food, fuel and energy. China in currently world leader in drone tech, so naval/drone blockade would put these countries to heel in a year or two. Sure US could blockade China but the fact that Russia country with 1/10 Chinas production capacity is out pasing NATO+ allies in arms production. China would flood the ocean with millions of drones and put global commerce to a halt.
That's probably right, but that scenario can also play to Russia's and China's advantage in some ways. Most of the members and allies of NATO (with the exception of Poland, the countries that border Russia and those that are near to China) are likely to lose morale somewhat early in a war, especially the US. Even after the war of Ukraine had just started many analysts already voiced their concerns that "war fatigue" in the west (specially among those countries that are not geographically close to the conflict) could become one of Ukraine's biggest problems after a few years, which turned out to be accurate. Russia and China won't be affected as much by this issue since the conflict would be taking place close to their borders, and because as autocracies/dictatorships their governments will probably care little about the public's opinion. It's also a problem (to the collective war effort) because if the conflict is taking place near Russia and China, then it is also happening far away from the economies that would fuel the entire war effort (this is of course a good thing for their civilian populations): the USA and Europe's big 5 (Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain), and something similar to what we are seeing today, where the countries that feel the most disconnected from the conflict harbour strong domestic political opposition that supports pulling out of the conflict even at the expense of their allies, which could slowly make the most powerful militaries reduce their participation. It's not nice, but with the current political spectrum in the US it's not hard to imagine them ditching Eastern Europe. The same applies to Europe where countries like Spain, Italy and France have contributed relatively little to Ukraine, when compared to the size of their economies. Now, it does also provide some advantages to NATO since having the frontlines near Russia and China could cause political destabilisation (mutinies, rebellions, etc) that eventually brings their regimes down , which is the most optimistic scenario. The exception to all this could be Japan and South Korea, which have sizeable economies, strong democracies, and are unlikely to lose motivation since they have China quite near.
RUSSIA has no navy???be realistic I know you hate RUSSIA but come on They posses the 3rd largest navy in the world, US is the only powerful nation in NATO, the rest are weak..You can't really expect Germany (which doesn't even have advanced missiles) to go up against Russia. Without US Nato is just a cowardly group. Be realistic with your analysis and stop analyzing with your feelings.
I made the mistake of scrolling down to see what the neckbearded gaming-chair analysts thought. That was a terrible mistake, and I regret it immensely. The idiocy on display is overwhelming.
@@timspiker Jokes I'm fine with, my sense of humor is fucked up beyond belief. It's idiots holding forth like they're experts on topics they obviously don't have the slightest comprehension of is both irritating and dangerous.
@@frodoan My take is that think tanks and military planning offices have staffs in the dozens and experts in every relevant field on staff or on call for a reason and no single person can offer an informed opinion on such complex topics based purely on their own knowledge. I feel confident saying that, because I have a decent grasp on the edges of my own knowledge, which I'm pretty fucking certain exceeds damn near everyone on earth without a TS(C) clearance.
You're ignoring a huge component of modern air power. Blue team will slowly peel back that air defense missile/radar network until a breakthrough is possible, while red team will have limited ability to respond
This. Air defense is inherently overrated comparatively when you can force them to waste precious missiles to intercept missilw barrages and SEAD missiles are lethal. Ultimately whoever has more planes will be the victor of the air long term.
Exactly. Air defenses do not neutralize a near-peer enemy strike package composed of combined stealth aircraft and electronic warfare planes. In such a scenario, air defenses only serve to delay the inevitable.
@@j.b.victor Except stealth isn't really effective against long wave radar systems and those are the exact systems red team countries use. Also don't forget that their missiles have some of the longest range, far exceeding the range and speed of blue team in terms of missile tech. Range and speed is what wins the game, especially when the stealth ability which would ensure closing the gap is ineffective.
Team Blue has a huge advantage in stealth jets, which makes Team Red's advantage in SAM systems less impactful. The quality of Team Red's SAM systems should also come into question, since Russia has lost many SAM systems during the war in Ukraine, among which are also the overrated S-400.
I believe it will be more like the Thirty Years' War. The tecnology and tactics giving an advantage to the defending side, making extremely difficulty for great offensive moviments, both sides fighting external and civil wars at the same time, both sides suffering from recruitment crysis and dicipline, heavy use of mercenaries, extended sieges and static frontlines, etc, etc, etc.
“Ww4 will be fought with sticks and stone” is what my dad used to say about that I think. He also used to say that after ww3 “people will kiss the foot steps of others that they see”
I like how people are always like: Binkov is so biased for the US then the next video for China, for Russia etc just because the video doesn't agree with whatever view they have. Stop having such fragile ego's. That's what gets us into wars, fragile ego's + greed.
The fronts in South Asia and the Middle East will be very important not just for troop movements but the flow of resources and stuff like missile and air bases.
Respectively, I don't agree with the Commissar's assessment of the capabilities of NATO and Pacific air forces in this potential conflict, the impact of stealth technology in air combat or penetrating air defenses, or how well Russia's radar and SAM systems could cover it's territory and vulnerable targets. First, the stealth for the F-35 means that in any air combat will get a missile lock first since it has a smaller radar signal. That means you will see the other plane first, assuming equivalent tech on electronic warfare or even an edge on the Russian side since a lack of lock when you see the other side and can't lock would mean you just sneak away OR you use the Link-16 system that all NATO radars and air to air systems have and have then nearest AWACS lock on for you since it has a powerful active radar, allowing you to remain fully stealthy. See how that works? Any plane or even ground based system can be the eyes for the stealth jet to shoot at them and since it's a directional link, it's very, very difficult to jam. Next, for bombing and achieving air superiority, the first thing that will be done is Wild Weasel missions or using advanced anti-radiation cruise missiles that do the mission and strike themselves. This will degrade the radar and SAM coverage on the front rapidly. Next, in order to achieve coverage to spot and shoot down stealthy aircraft like the F-35, and B-2, Russia would need to place their SAM systems very, very close together as they range that they can cover is significantly shortened. That means that covering the entire front and keeping them on passive mode wouldn't work as they would get destroyed quickly by Wild Weasel attacks. This limits them to protecting things like bases and production facilities near Moscow. As for moving production facilities to near the Ural Mountains or getting equipment from China, that involves shipping it along rail lines that simply can't be protected for every single bridge. You also need to put valuable SAM systems and early warning radars at these new factories since they can still be reached from any approach by stealth bombers. How, you ask? Well, a B-2 or B-3 is over 5600 statute miles. Not far enough, you say? Well, you do an in air refueling over the north pole when leaving and returning and it'll make it and can take a long and winding path that avoids the radars by using the curvature of the Earth, geography, and that reduced radar return that stealth provides to allow a cruise missile to do the rest of the journey. It's like they were designed to do this to Russia and China so that they would have to build so many SAM systems and radars that it would be too expensive to possibly even think about defending themselves using this tactic. And again, the SAM systems are the targets. Once they are down, glide bombs are then switched to since they are cheaper, just as accurate, and we have so many more of them. I'm not worried about WWIII starting or how it will be fought. I'm worried about China and Russia freaking out about how badly they start to get spanked before infantry even really get into serious fighting and then throwing nukes.
Russia and ukraine militaries 100% have more ground based combat experience now, easily. Especially ukraine. One ukrainian troop deplpyed will see exponentially more combat that 95% of gwot americans at anytime even during the surge in iraq 07-08. Our logisitics however is quite experienced.
US and Europe are not rdy for an industrial war . Military productions is way way less then what it should be. Not to mention that the public wouldnt accept the huge casulties it would bring
@@hirsmthe US isn't "the giant" anymore. They don't have the same industrial capacity and infrastructure they has in the past, now china has that spot
Ground based combat experience vs air supremacy. The US has vastly more air experience than russia and Ukraine, a ground invasion is only there to hold land. Also, the way US trains and russia trains for ground war is vastly different, we don't do scripted events
As far as I'm concerned we're already in WW3 with the first proxy war, Ukraine being Chapter 1. Mass mobilization hasn't happened because western oligarchs would lose all their business contracts and investment money that they pumped into building factories in China. Their shift towards building them in places like India and Vietnam shows that decoupling from China is underway for the west to go to war with the country. China and Russia have been stockpiling gold in record numbers and the Saudi's have said publicly that they view China as their main trading partner for the next 50 years. With BRICS threatening the USD, America will have to use force if it wishes to keep its global imperial financial system or its supremacy will wither away.
Syrian "rebellion" in 2009 was the start of the current war proxy wars......ukraine's anti russian "revolution" and immediate attempt pressure from EU to join nato in 2013 was the second act intended to put nato armour forces on russia's border with no geographical impediments between them and moscow (unlike where nato has forces on the russian border in the Baltic states....I sort of get the impression by the actions and attitudes of the US, EU and Nato leadership that everything is going according to plan so far.......we live in interesting times......
Warfare has cycles of offense and defense. From WW2 to the Gulf War, we were in an offense cycle where mobile combined arms were the key. Now it seems like we entered another defensive cycle with SAMs, ATGMs, drones, advanced mines, precision strikes, etc... This will last until the next offensive technological breakthrough.
Ive had nightmares about those trenches. And the drones? Oh god. I am so scared to think of it, but I cant tell my wife that. I just hope the call never comes
I'm a bit disappointed that the video did not include India as a potential major factor. They would surely enter the fray against China and would field millions of troops. Its military is currently undergoing fairly rapid modernization as well.
To be fair India is rather neutral and it's on its own side, I don't think they would belong to the same military alliance as China (Pakistan might also be part of the reason why), but for now they have been going on pretty well with Russia, so I guess this is why Binkov doesn't really include India into the equation
Experts expect the detection range of the F-35 by the extremely advanced S-400 SAM battery to be around 21 miles. Given that a J-20 and SU-57 AESA radar's power output is orders of magnitude lower than ground systems, it should be no problem for a US stealth fighter to fly up the tailpipe of those fighters without ever being detected.
I think you're overestimating Russian air defenses here. Ukraine has mauled the Russian air defense so badly, at this point, they are stripping far eastern bases of entire batteries to maintain the airspace denial over Ukraine. Again, this is JUST the damage Ukraine did. Now imagine what damage they'll suffer once the US starts roflstomping their air defenses in a coordinated strike from air, land, and sea, with all the best gear NATO has to offer. I give their air defense a month tops before nothing is left and the stealth bomber fleet can start taking out what is left - both in terms of air defenses and air bases - with impunity. Also, let's not forget that the B-2 Spirit is still the stealthiest plane in the world, even compared to the F-22. They literally would not see them coming. See, NATO has tested the F-35 against turkish S-400s. The result was that, contrary to Russian claims, the S-400 cannot detect the F-35 beyond maybe 10 miles, if that. Do you realize the F-35 can kill these things with glide bombs that have 8 times the range? How well do you think that thing will do against a plane like the B-2, or even the B-21 when it enters service in a few years? Not to mention, Russian air defense could not even stop a remote controlled Cessna from hitting a target hundreds of kilometers in their rear. How do you expect THAT air defense to stop a stealth bomber? And trust me, the US has learned the Ukrainian tricks, they are watching this war very, very closely.
Definitely agree for the most part. The only thing I would add is that Soviet era air defense systems used by the ukrainians is performing far better than in the hands of the Russians. Russia cannot stop missiles and drones flying into its airspace even with its vastly superior numbers of air defense systems.
You sound like this: 🥸🥸🥸🥸🥸 lmao 1- Your fantasy scenario would never happen because Russia or any other nuclear power including the US would use them as soon as they start losing badly 2- US bases and warships are struck by cheap drones ALL the time in the middle east, try to educate yourself kid, this isn't a video game,no air defense system has a 100% interception rate, especially not in a high intensity war ( you know, the kind the US hasn't fought in DECADES )... Jesus Christ 3- While you're trying to b0mb Russia or China they will be doing the same to your territory, the ocean won't save you this time, long range bombers, submarines and ballistic missiles are now a thing... Anyway, let's all hope that ww3 never happens so that mor0ns like you can find out what war actually looks like😊
There will be no ww3. If there was, NK iran, china, Venezuela etc would all have sent troops into Ukraine. And no, north korea is not currently fighting in ukraine, they gave troops to russia to use to fight in ukraine. Completely different
One thing I didn't see mentioned that seems important is the political element. This is why I'm still not convinced there really would be any serious attacks on major industrial sites of any belligerent in a third world war. Remember, there's no way of telling whether or not an incoming bomber or missile is carrying a nuclear payload. In a full-scale world war scenario it seems likely that any major belligerent might start assuming that any hostile aircraft or missile approaching their major cities was nuclear armed and respond accordingly just to be on the safe side, which would make conventional strikes on a lot of those major industrial targets far too risky. Similarly one of the things a lot of people forget about the Ukraine war is that one of the key reasons why so many surveillance platforms are able to be used over Ukraine is because a good chunk of them are not allowed to be shot at. 'No shooting at the US/NATO radar planes/big drones/satellites' is one of the very few rules of engagement the Russians have consistently adhered to. In a third world war scenario most of those larger and more capable surveillance and reconnaissance platforms would be valid and very tempting targets and probably draw a lot more firepower on them. Would it completely blind either side? Hell no, there would still be all the masses of smaller cheaper platforms to deal with, but it could very well open up some holes in the other side's observation capabilities to be exploited. You don't need to completely blind the other side, you just need to keep them from seeing what you're up to until it's too late. Or maybe Warhammer 40,000 was right all along and future battles really will be entirely fought with 2-6 units of troops, a few support weapons, a couple of scout units and a tank or two on each side.
I don't know about the Russia, China side but as an American I do not see much that would indicate a sane approach to avoiding nuclear war from either US political party.
With all major powers nuclear armed, it would inevitably turn nuclear. I guess carrier groups will be nuked on day one at the very least. It terrifies me to see people in this day and age talk of "limited nuclear war" as if that is both desirable and achievable.
@@damolux3388 Binkov made the same mistake as many top analysts in the field, who are paid much, much more than he is. He looked at the absolute numbers too much. Yes, if you count the numbers of tanks, airplanes and soldiers, Russia was always capable of opposing NATO. But when you dig deeper, and get to the relative numbers, the numbers that tell you about the training of the soldiers in the tanks, the existence of the NCO corps (Russia does not have one!), the corruption level in the armies (Russia´s is off the charts), the combined arms operations training and experience (NATO is very much better than RUssia and China in this), then you see that there never was any parity, really.
I could see it being more like ww1 since there hasn’t been a large scale war in a while and there is crazy new technology that a lot of countries haven’t had the chance to use but want to test
There wont be another ww3 because war is too politically untenable, too expensive and too unpopular for democracies, and dictatorships dont form defense pacts.
The Seven Years War was in fact the first "world war", fought in Europe, North America, West Africa and on the Indian subcontinent. Britain's global victories consolidated her "First Empire".
Surely you are underestimating the technological edge of the USAF. To say that their air superiority wouldn´t be a significant factor in the war seems like a stretch.
You're underestimating modern SAM capabilities. USAF just like the US army has much "experience" only in fighting 3rd world guerilla forces or armies with Soviet military stock.
Yep, absolutely. This would be a massacre in the air, and for the Red side air defenses. Stealth is a huge advantage. Which explains why everyone is buying F-35s (if they are allowed), or trying to build something like it.
@@Maperator The Israelis just took out the entire Iranian SAM system in ONE raid. Think about that. Sure, it's Iran not Russia or China, but it was Russian systems.
My two cents: the First World War was the 7 year war of 1756 between the English and French. It wasn’t a total war like ww I and II, but it was global, it was fought in Europa, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Maybe ww III be like that: you’ll have flash points everywhere (Ukraine, baltics, arctic, Levant, the gulf, south china sea, korea) but no massive “get to berlin/tokyo” like rushes of men, tanks, planes, etc
People underestimate the extent to which china has industrially outcompeted tge western world. Especially when it comes to key heavy industry goods like steel.
@@minecraftfox4384 people forget the west gave up manufacturing to the CCP and now can't really produce shit and have become nothing more then a bitch to the CCP. Hell a shit load of the electronics for mil equipment in the west is made in china along with most of the other stuff...
Probably something like period between ww1 and ww2. In 20 years we should get ready for next hot round. By that time, China will be ready to take over Taiwan.
Really, the "Cold War" was "World War 3", it was just never declared as such. There was conflict, by proxy, and political whims on every continent. There were potential combatants from practically all countries killed during that period, which began with communist expansion immediately after VJ+1. So, really, "world war" is not new, it has just yet to ramp up to the point where comfortable populations in "The West" can no longer ignore open participation. What is really currently starting, is "World War 4".
In a WW3 situation, assuming it's prolonged and non-nuclear, I forsee a point where both sides will have a major drop in available combat aircraft, due to combat/other losses and damage from the war and the relative complexity limiting early war production. In this situation, I forsee that after that period of limited air Operations, it will ultimately be the Blue force that recovers to build more aircraft than the Red force. This does not include cheap drones, which will explode in numbers and usage.
@@EdwarkDiyaz так они по сути в отчаянии, у них на шее висит долг в десятки триллионов, они все свои деньги растратили, загнали себя в долги и теперь надеятся за счёт войны списать всё это. И воевать они будут 100% потому что эти триллионы они выплачивать никуда не собираются, когда доллар потеряет свою ценность в международных рассчётах, вся эта бумага напечатанная за 80 лет хлынет на их внутренний рынок и пачки этих долларов никому не нужных можно будет засовывать под ножки мебели которая качается. Они надеятся маленькими укусами, избегая прямого конфликта, расшатать Китай и Россию изнутри, а потом ограбить чтобы еще лет 50 красиво жить за чужой счёт. По сути это кучка пиратов, бандитов с большой дороги. Сами воевать они тоже не хотят, поэтому пытаются это делать руками тех, кого не жалко. Руками своих марионеток. В случае с Китаем, они скорее всего возьмут условную Корею и Японию и попытаются их руками вести войну с Китаем. Сами они будут стоять в стороне и говорить "а это не мы, мы то тут причем?". И с точки зрения Китая будет сложно решиться на ядерный удар по Корее и Японии, потому что это будет выглядеть как безумие. Тогда можно будет всем своим западным коллегам сказать - смотрите, они сумасшедшие, давайте все им объявим экономическую блокаду. А эти рассказы про третью мировую это просто для отвлечения внимания, ничего они в открытом конфликте сделать не смогут, их эти авианосцы это бесполезные корыта которыми они одержимы с 1940х годов, они их коллецкионируют просто как плавучие отели для своих солдат чтобы воевать с племенами аборигенов на ближнем востоке, для полноценной войны это просто плавучий гроб на 6000 человек.
Note without US supply China, Russia, the UK, and Australia would've fallen to the Axis. Edit: I wanted to make some corrections I'm not underestimating the capabilities of the USSR and Britain because they did very well. However, the US Lend-Lease program did significantly bolster the defensive and offensive capabilities of all allied nations. While Soviet ground forces did in fact blunt any further German expansion anywhere.
Man, where are you reading this stuff? Without USSR, the world for anyone who is not german would be hell. USSR did the job, and the West were just entering after the germans were exausted.
US supply quite useless nationalist lost with the "mighty US supply". and turned out the nationalist was the strongest force US supplied, clapping cheeks at SEA after leaving mainland China. edit: others like Afghanistan collapse at the very moment US forces leave.
@ Yes, they did an amazing job I'm not undermining that but note without the amount of resources America had given them via lend-lease they would lacked the ability to swing back. America had given Russia about 11 billion dollars worth of supply which included over 400k jeeps and trucks, 12k APCs including 7k tanks, 11k aircraft, and so on. While the UK was gifted about 31 billion worth of resources. In general, Without the US supply of both the UK and Russia in the early war would've led to both of them falling due to Axis air and land supremacy. For China as well the US gifted them about 246 billion including instructors in terms of the Flying Tigers which helped fend off more continued Japanese incursion.
@ actually they arrived a year earlier according to historical records and I quote: “The United States began sending supplies to the Soviet Union in August 1941, shortly after Germany attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The first convoy of American and British cargo ships arrived in Murmansk harbor.” Also if I’m not mistaken that’s when German forces had the most progress through Soviet Russia.
It's cute that you assume that China's SAM systems are on par with ours, or on par with our offensive weapons/planes. That kind of assumption that numbers matters more than quality is exactly how people came to think that Russia had the second strongest military on Earth, and was almost on par with the US. And yes, quantity can be a quality of its own, but really only from an offensive standpoint. You can overwhelm a Tiger with twenty Shermans. But if SAM systems can't detect or hit an F-35, then their numbers are literally meaningless.
@socire72 I'm not in the military so I have the luxury of underestimating my enemies. Also, I am not saying FOR SURE that their SAMs are inferior. I am saying that it is certainly possible, so just assuming they are definitely top notch, like Blinkov, is a little more silly than going the middle ground on them.
@@СнежныйДжони I sure as hell didn't say they couldn't. I said it is possible. I assume English isn't your first language, but please avoid straw manning my argument.
Harambe wants you to live. That noble Gorilla died for a human baby, how can he like that you do not want to live? LIVE. Eat a banana for Harambe, but do not seek death.
That's an understatement. Binkov has no idea how modern air warfare works. He also doesn't realize exactly how dominant the US military is. Russian and Chinese air forces wouldn't last 3 days. The US has no need to capture mainland Chinese territory, all the US wants to do is protect the independence of the ROC. The US can destroy the PLAAF and bottle up China until they capitulate. In fact, the US military is so strong that we could fight EVERYONE else in the world, including our allies and the war wouldn't last 3 months. It comes down to 2 simple facts, if you can't control the air, the US wins and no one can stop the USAF alone, throw in the USN and USMC and you're screwed.
What happend in Afghanistan then? Afghanistan didn't had modern western support and still usa run away in the middle of the night leaving there equipment to people in bedsheets 😂😂😂😂
I still believe it will depend on whether red team allows - then survives - blue team's initial "Shock and awe", made possible by its hi-tech weapons superiority and greater experience in using them. Red team would see the buildup in the Pacific, but Blue team may still have ways to trick red team into not attacking until the buildup is complete enough. Once/if the conflict enters the attritional phase, then I think we end up with WW2 in reverse. Red team has immensely more capabilities in out-producing blue team - and eventually out-bomb any of its attempts at increasing its production capability. In other words, China would be able to decisively take advantage of being the factory floor of the world. But the U.S. still has the ability to win an initial blitzkrieg, and not allow China to switch to the attritional phase, where it has the advantage.
Chinese manufacturing is dependent on seabourne trade. No more black coal and iron ore from Australia and Brazil would cripple Chinese manufacturing. Food security would be the other Chinese weak point, the CCP relies on food imports to feed it's people.
Turkey fought against Russian proxies in Syria, Libya, Azerbaijan and several African countries and yet there are people still yaping like in this comment section. "Ignorance is bliss" is the motto as it seems.
I don't think any country has the industrial capacity, civic unity or manpower to churn out present day technology or the necessary specialist troops en masse the way they did in either world war.
Even if it will ever happens (hope it will never ever obvsly), I hope it would be like the second one sides wise, for the sake of my own country Turkiye.
Maybe by the time that the war got too entrenched, everyone would decide that it’s too expensive to fight, and everyone would want to ramp down the conflict so we could get back to getting richer together.
I hope war doesn't happen because we already have Slovakia crying about not getting fuel, because apparently Europe thought getting fuel from Russia was good?
I’m going to strongly disagree on the resource angle. The issue is China’s entire infrastructure is based predominantly on Seaborn infrastructure, if the blue side were to cut off naval access, which is pretty much a given since new supply lines would have to be built through Siberia, which would take years and standoff munitions firing at those supply lines would be absolutely devastating, especially if they were to target bridges or tunnels. For the red side China is basically their manufacturing base but they can easily be starved by the blue side most powerful asset, it’s Navy. China is fully reliant on either food, imports or the necessary components to make food. The best international support for the red side with may come from the global south, but the global south is completely cut off via the blue side naval dominance… He who rules the sea rules, rules the world Also, as far as experience is concerned, all of those troops from the 2000s the United States had deployed, are now the middle of the road officers, and on their way to becoming the leaders… Which means the high command actually knows how to fight a war. Unless China is willing to put their troops under Russian command, they will have no leadership with any experience. The troop number difference also would be negated by India, who realistically would have no reason to sit out a war where China could be pulled into three or four different fronts, them making a fifth front just makes hard political sense or at the very least parking a very large army, tying up a sizable proportion of the Chinese military in Tibet
For WW III, logistics and resources will become more critical than in WW I and II. A blockade can be even more devastating to China than direct military attacks.
@@EdwarkDiyaz I do tend to agree, the United States finds itself as a waning Superpower - a global authority that is declining. China merely needs to wait out the United States and allow the problems of the world to spread it thin through further distraction and turmoil brewing at home. The challenges poised against the CCP are not insurmountable.
As far as air power and SAMs go, depends on how well Chinese radar could detect the F-35. I’m not putting much stock in Russian radar capabilities at this point. If they can’t stop the F-35 it’s not going to be a fair fight.
@@Mary-supremacistHoly shit. . .talk to the Iraqis about that. Air Supremacy absolutely wins wars in an industrial war. You must be talking about the counter insurgencies of the last two decades. In a peer conflict of industrial powers in the last 100 years every nation with air Supremacy has won.
Air strikes can easily win defensive wars, and red force is in the revisionist position. They need to take and hold hostile territory to achieve their objectives.
@scoobydoobers23 you're comparing Muslims in Toyota trucks and no air defenses to two wealthy modern countries lol. And American troops still needed to be deployed to the Middle East.
@@Mary-supremacist Yes and due to US air support, US troops would be deployed into Russia rather than the other way around. The best Russia could hope for is that the west gives them a WW1 style treaty and still cling to a lie that they weren't defeated on the battlefield 100 years later.
Rebuttals: "Surprise is impossible in modern warfare" -Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive in 2022 says you are wrong "Russia is now very good at frontline reconnaissance." -Ukrainian Kursk offensive in 2024 says you are wrong "China would have plentiful resources and economy" (despite being a net exporter AND importer, especially for fossil fuels) says you are wrong SAM/ADA systems ARE now very good...if they are allowed to be un-suppressed. Western air forces, especially all three of the United States' air fleets, have raised breaking air defenses to an art form over the last 50 years, and generally consider the first stage in any campaign. The performance of Soviet SAM systems has not been impressive against things like stealthed cruise missiles in Ukraine, or even light aircraft modified into long-range attack drones. I am not sure what you think they (or their Chinese equivalents, which are based on the same Soviet tech) are going to do against 5th gen stealth fighters & bombers with stand-off stealth ordinance, or large numbers of modern cruise missiles. You also neglected cyber and space warfare. Both have no corresponding domains in previous world wars, but would open avenues to strike at enemies in far-reaching ways. There are also macro factors like rapidly aging populations, which hits both Russia and China particularly hard since they are not generally immigrant-friendly countries.
I think your point about it being impossible to launch a surprise attack is not true and Ukraine proved that with the incursion into Kursk. The requirements are quite specifc though: Stagnant front line Negation of enemy air power Ability to consolidate a large force (equipment, personal, and a good strategy) Geographic restrictions
That is hardly a LARGE attack. He was referring to decisive armored assaults that that penetrate and envelop large enemy formations. Uranian Army managed to penetrate weakly defended borderlands up to a few dozen km.
@@rammfreakserbThey were not weakly defended. Big trench formations were dug there, and they advanced dozens of kilometers into Russia. So yes, surprise offensives are possible.
Surely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even perhaps India will be on the side of the EU and US and that is an enormous increase of GDP and manufacture Furthermore, there are lots of former Soviet countries and regions of Russia just waiting for Russia to be weaken. It would not survive even one year after the Ukrainian war, if this scenario would happen soon and if it doesn't happen soon, then AI will change everything. In fact, China's interests are not to ally itself with Russia in such a conflict but to wait to join in the feast when Russia is defeated.
Maybe, but China might actually see those opponents if it tries to take Tawain so Xi might think getting Russian help before it completely collapses would be best.
There are many unknowns. The countries you mentioned are definitely oriented towards the US. However, it would be interesting how Arabian and African countries behave, especially keeping in mind that China has been expanding its influence on the African continent with vast FDI increase in recent years.
I shouldn't be surprised but you are very favorable to the Axis in this theoretical. How can you even begin to believe China will have an excess of energy, oil/gas? They can not just stop all domestic use unless you think the people will just allow themselves to starve and freeze to death. You didn't mention how dependent they are on imports for food/food inputs. The long and very inefficient land routes for trade will be their downfall. They cannot send all of their limited anti-air tech to defend the trade routes without sacrificing the front line. Also, Israel and the US have proven that US stealth tech can reliably beat the best SAM systems the Axis has, and that is only with the capabilities we know of. Russia has proven it is completely ineffectual and China is pretty much completely unproven. Their only recent history with war is very embarrassing. I think we would see high ally death and material losses initially, until all Axis' most modern tech is defeated, then see kill to death ratio's that the US is very historically familiar with once we have ~33% of our most advanced tech left and the Axis is exhausted.
@@thealexanderbond I don't think so. I would bet the allies do not actually take any territory beyond immediate strategic necessity. The Allies will not defeat the Axis in such a humiliating way as to elicit such a response. It will be a very different kind of war, mostly economic and strategic battles with each side trying to destroy the others most advanced tech and infrastructure. The western front will be trench warfare like Ukraine war currently is and the Eastern front will be a tech war with naval and air assets but virtually no land conflict, just mho.
The US will run out of high tech weapons in the first few days or weeks based on scenarios of war against China (war games) that have been conducted. All the high tech strikes you talk about will happen from both sides and after that it is whoever recovers and adapts faster that will win. Bombers that drop 2000km range cruise missiles the first day will drop 100km range glide bombs the next day and will begin to use gravity bombs in dive bombings in a few weeks. The stealth has never proven that it can defeat modern SAM networks. That is something simply made up because there is simply no modern conflict with such aircraft taking place. Every weapon can eventually be destroyed, even the best SAM. That doesn't mean that it is not effective. Some weapons require the support of other weapons to work and they also require a competent operator and plentiful ammunition. If one of these requirements is not met then the weapon system will fail. The S400 requires 2-4 layers of ever closer range air defenses covering the area it is defending, the S400 provides protection against high altitude threats (a bomber at 15km altitude) that the other systems cannot defend against. Even if you take down the S400 you will have to start taking out the other shorter range SAMs using the high altitude advantage, if the enemy gets another S400 operational you will find yourself losing heavy bombers. Taking out the S400 gives you a short window, it doesn't completely clear the air defenses and it is still not safe because you don't know when another one will be activated. If the country you bomb only has 2 or 4 S400 systems that they imported your mission is successful. If the country you bomb pumps these systems out of the factory and might have a lot in reserve (that you cannot know of) then you simply took out one asset with an expensive weapon, after that it is war of attrition, not a strategic victory.
The one thing that is different today is that demografics play a much larger role. The societies of WW1 and 2 were quite resistant to losses. In the Russia-Ukraine-war we see that both sides are quite sensitive to losses among the younger people, the ones who haven't yet established families. (I don't count prisoners and such since they are an unusual cases and would have less demografic impact anyways) But both Ukraine and Russia invest quite a bit in the protection of their younger people. With current birthrates especially in Asia and some other western countries I would expect that just intentionally grinding forces down could be much more effective then in past wars. (assuming that loss rates would be significantly higher in a higher stakes conflict where larger shares of the population are engaged on both sides.
Interesting analysis and cautionary tale. But, I think you should have brought up 5th gen fight numbers, navy tonnage, GDP, and theorized about SEAD operations with stealth and precision weapons. No sane military would hope to use a large bomber over contested airspace of a near-peer opponent, you'd do SEAD first. But once it's done, SAMs take a long time to make, they are not cheap. I'd also have considered the effect of allies such as Iran, Japan, Israel, Yemen, the Koreas, Taiwan, etc. I think WW3 will be even more different from WW2 than WW2 was from WW1.
As someone who has lived in China (and I think Chinese people in the comments can confirm this) the loss of access to many different kinds of foods would really grate on the Chinese populace. Yes, people can deal with hardship, but if there is a religion in China, it's food. And the loss of being able to worship will be the biggest source of war weariness besides casualties.
The other factor might be that any casualty would be the end of an entire family due to the one child policy and this would make the war reaaaally unpopular
You certainly have no idea of china before the 80s. Forget about variety of food, people were eating grass roots, barks, even kaolin clay. I myself can still remember vividly that when I was a child, my biggest treat was a couple of slice of plain boiled pork because we can only afford to have meat once a year. I’d often have to eat rice husk and corn stalk, so trust me Chinese can endure the lack of food, and it’s nothing like a religion.
@@donaldlee8249 We do not live 40 years ago. We live today. I also know that milk for children amongst every tier 1 city family I ever met is imported, since most Chinese milk is in powder form and often not trusted. Unless that's changed in the last 4 years. And my post said that all people can endure hardship, but the lack of food self-sufficiency in MANY categories (not all categories) would be one of the hardest aspects of a protracted World War for China. Also, I guess you dislike popular proverbs like 民以食为天?
Do you not remember how the US dismantled Iraq’s air defence they lost like 20 planes in the whole conflict. Sure they have better technology now but I’m sure with the growing fleet of f-35’s today and much better weapons I’m sure they wouldn’t have much trouble with the Russian air defences.
@ maybe you should do some research because Iraq had the 6th largest Air Force at the time of operation desert storm and over 6000 Sam’s that’s like 40x more than North Vietnam had. Also Vietnam happened in the 60’s lmao the US Air Force had minimal training and strategies around taking out air defences since it was like the first time pilots had to watch out for them. So I guess you can say they definitely learned from there mistakes. Also 4rd gen fighters and no stealth tech back then so……
@@absflux2381 iraq had a whole bunch of crap, Vietnam had almost no airforce and very few anti air, yet shot down so many American aircrafts, the fact thst you Americans think that your aircraft will not be detected during war baffles me , buffoonery
@@cuties5864 well I never said that aircraft wouldn’t be detected lol. The combination of electronic warfare and stealth technology definitely makes it harder to detect. Like I said they still lost aircraft
@@cuties5864Yes, let’s compare saturation bombing jungles with SAMs and precision/radiation seeking bombing SAMs in a desert. You can’t compare the two off hand as incompetent/competent. There are many factors and advancements to consider.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Play Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
💥s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/BINKOV008
Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
10:55 is a JSOW? I didn’t know they had a tandem warhead. Or what’s the secondary explosion?
🔱🖥⚡🔥😎
dafuk is this shit binkov? on christmas? a nightmare video like this? jeezzz at least let us enjoy xmas. I mean ww3 will last less than 1 hour. all life on earth will be wiped out on a nuclear holocaust and we will all die. can we have a video about peace? about hope? about the end of all wars? ffs
US can't even force Hamas to release the Israeli captives, let alone fight Russia and PCR forces combined.
Binkov please make video analysis about conventional warfare simulation looks like after protracted nuclear war happened. There is some analysis and battleplan from NATO officer that said after full scale nuclear war happened the conventional war would still be continued. It would be very interesting.
"I don't know what weapons will be used in WW3, but I know in WW4 we will be using fully automated catgirl maids and incelbots with machinegoons" - Albert Einstein, 2016
Wise man😎👍
People thought ww1 would be like Franco Prussian war, they were wrong. Then they thought ww2 would be like ww1, they were wrong.
If I’m gonna guess, ww3 would be like something we’ve never seen before, it mostly likely won’t be like the current war in ukraine.
Artillery, quimical weapons, biological weapons, digital war, AI controled drones swarms, stalemate, trench warfare, nuclear weapons. Destruction and dead as such scale that no war in human history will be compared.
I mean... any war between major powers would turn nuclear but assuming the war somehow does not, it would combine the element of precision warefare, the somewhat static forces of modern armies and like in every war, economy and trade would play a huge role.
Also, the sides are not clearly defined.
@@donaldlee8249 ww1 was very like the Russo Japanese war
As long as no states tries to straight up conquer the other i think nukes are unlikely to be used due to the cost vs reward@@klemklemius5091
*then they thought ww2 would be like spanish civil war, they were absolutely right
Ukrainian war will definitely be the template... But x1000 more deadly
World war 3 will be like World War 3
Thank you.
How informative 😂
source?
@@matthewwebster3143 you say that
But it's the only reasonable take that can be made with such a ridiculous question
We have no clue what WW3 would look like. People forget about just how many resources it would require, and most countries aren't either willing or able to commit them
It could actually be a lot different
Iran and North Korea should also be added to Russia and China, seeing as how Iran supplies Russia with Shahed drones to hurl at Ukraine and North Korea is fighting against Ukraine in the Kursk direction. Some people say that WW3 is already ongoing.
Although in this scenario, Iran would be mostly concerned with its local region than trying to make some kind of expeditionary Force
Yeah they can bring the kids if they don't wanna leave any orphans.
I think you’re right which is why I think India would be the most important undeclared factor. NATO would need the manpower India could provide and it would be tough sledding for NATO if they stayed neutral or came in on China’s side.
There will be a EU-Russia front, a China-Pacific front, an Iran-Israel front and a N Korea-S Korea front.
@Uhtred-the-bold India coming in to help CHINA? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ask ANYONE from India if they see that happening.
India will try to be as neutral as possible. Just like Mexico and Indonesia, India doesn't like to pick sides.
They're a part of BRICs but certainly not military allies to China or Russia.
WWIII would have to end with very little important gains. Either side would use nukes if they would start decisively losing.
Excactly and that why WW3 did not happen yet.
No leader till now was so crazy to actually risk mutualy assured total nuklear Annihilation
Ironically most realistic take here.
Its sad to see so many warmongers here thinking it would be over by christmas for nato and how russia would fall like a stack of cards.
Germany in both world wars was outnumbered and outproduced, out of supplies yet held out for years, here foes are either an autarky or net exporters, such conflict can easily last decades.
Even if nuclear weapons weren't used instantly, no country with nukes no matter the west or east would actually let the enemy force push deep into their country without resorting to nukes, in a WW3 scenario, no side wants to lose. Also, even with nukes aside let's not forget the other horrors that could end up killing hundreds of millions.. biological weapons, which has VASTLY advanced since the WW2 era.
All I know is that I wouldn't want to live in a world like that, because it would be an absolute horror show.
I don't think so. Ukraine pushed into the Russia territory and we didn't see any response, not even speaking of nuclear weapons.
@@gradientascent4218 That's not even remotely close to the situation we're talking about here. We're talking about WW3 where all countries mobilize millions and every part of the border turns into a battlefield.
Ukraine didn't even get close to Kursk itself, they took one strategic cross-section city from russian garrison forces and Russia didn't see it as enough of a threat to even send combat units from eastern Ukraine to deal with it.
In a WW3 scenario (without nukes), countries would have millions mobilized and there would be layers of manned defenses across the entire border.. on both sides.
@@gradientascent4218Because that's just a tiny Russian territory, not some Barbarossa extinct threat invasion style
I think the conflict would be fought over specific areas like Taiwan, Ukraine, maybe even Belarus, and over trade routes. With only small incursions and raids on undisputed territories. Both sides would probably demand concessions and a ceasefire rather than a unconditional surrender. I doubt there could be a total victory scenario for either side without the world basically ending. But I think there could be a major war without nuclear armageddon necessarily being upon us. Let's hope we never find out though.
@@Regarded69I respect your comment but weapons were made to be used. US eliminated 2 million 1raqis in their invasion. Soo to think that other countries won't do worse In a full out war is wishful thinking.
No man's air zone. WWIII seeing an airborne version of trench warfare where air forces sling long range munitions at each other then retreat behind terrain like mountains with the valleys in between, where ground trench warfare is happening, being an aircraft graveyard.
Sounds like something stealth planes were made for
@@mikkovalle7944 Stealth planes are not invisible, its just less visible, so it can shorten the range.
Actually, one advantage of the F-35 has over the F-22 is its networking with other planes. So the F-35 can get closer to enemy formations without being detected, or at the very least without being locked onto. The the F-35 can get target locks on all the enemy planes and send that information back to the F-15 E, which will be further back but laden with missiles and then those missiles will be guided onto target.
Nah, air defense is a meme. “Let’s put hundreds of millions of dollars of radars and missiles on some trucks” - words spoken by the utterly deranged.
@@The_Greedy_Orphan A stealth Jet opening it's active radar is basically a beacon.
Networking allows only one stealth jet to open its radar while the other jets just shoot at targets without being detected easily themselves.
The amount of bots commenting on this video is insane. You can see how a lot of comments have broken mistranslated English and use phrases that no western English speaker would.
Aye
Americans when people outside of America and the UK exist. Are you new to the internet or how it works?
Some important things are surprisingly overlooked in this.
China and Russia would be stuck in a defensive war. Russia has almost no capacity at the moment to strike any of Nato offensively.
China really can only hit South Korea and Japan. They would probably get Taiwan but outside of that neither have really any ability to strike Nato industry.
Russia has no real navy now and China would be completely hemmed into the South China sea.
Ultimately no real large chunks of land would change hands before nukes are fired but Russia and China would take a much worse beating.
Japan, Korea and Taiwan don't have any oil reserves and they import 50-90% food, fuel and energy. China in currently world leader in drone tech, so naval/drone blockade would put these countries to heel in a year or two. Sure US could blockade China but the fact that Russia country with 1/10 Chinas production capacity is out pasing NATO+ allies in arms production. China would flood the ocean with millions of drones and put global commerce to a halt.
That's probably right, but that scenario can also play to Russia's and China's advantage in some ways. Most of the members and allies of NATO (with the exception of Poland, the countries that border Russia and those that are near to China) are likely to lose morale somewhat early in a war, especially the US. Even after the war of Ukraine had just started many analysts already voiced their concerns that "war fatigue" in the west (specially among those countries that are not geographically close to the conflict) could become one of Ukraine's biggest problems after a few years, which turned out to be accurate. Russia and China won't be affected as much by this issue since the conflict would be taking place close to their borders, and because as autocracies/dictatorships their governments will probably care little about the public's opinion.
It's also a problem (to the collective war effort) because if the conflict is taking place near Russia and China, then it is also happening far away from the economies that would fuel the entire war effort (this is of course a good thing for their civilian populations): the USA and Europe's big 5 (Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain), and something similar to what we are seeing today, where the countries that feel the most disconnected from the conflict harbour strong domestic political opposition that supports pulling out of the conflict even at the expense of their allies, which could slowly make the most powerful militaries reduce their participation. It's not nice, but with the current political spectrum in the US it's not hard to imagine them ditching Eastern Europe. The same applies to Europe where countries like Spain, Italy and France have contributed relatively little to Ukraine, when compared to the size of their economies.
Now, it does also provide some advantages to NATO since having the frontlines near Russia and China could cause political destabilisation (mutinies, rebellions, etc) that eventually brings their regimes down , which is the most optimistic scenario.
The exception to all this could be Japan and South Korea, which have sizeable economies, strong democracies, and are unlikely to lose motivation since they have China quite near.
RUSSIA has no navy???be realistic I know you hate RUSSIA but come on
They posses the 3rd largest navy in the world, US is the only powerful nation in NATO, the rest are weak..You can't really expect Germany (which doesn't even have advanced missiles) to go up against Russia.
Without US Nato is just a cowardly group. Be realistic with your analysis and stop analyzing with your feelings.
Some light viewing on Christmas Eve lol
Just don't go into the comment section. Its all armchair strategists making wild claims or political statements. For your sanity just scroll back up
Thanks man
You forgot to mention the bot comments, which are also strong on this channel! :)
I made the mistake of scrolling down to see what the neckbearded gaming-chair analysts thought.
That was a terrible mistake, and I regret it immensely. The idiocy on display is overwhelming.
Chill, most people are just joking because the topic is FUBAR and should be joked at.
@@timspiker Jokes I'm fine with, my sense of humor is fucked up beyond belief. It's idiots holding forth like they're experts on topics they obviously don't have the slightest comprehension of is both irritating and dangerous.
@@jamesharding3459 so what's your take?
@@frodoan My take is that think tanks and military planning offices have staffs in the dozens and experts in every relevant field on staff or on call for a reason and no single person can offer an informed opinion on such complex topics based purely on their own knowledge.
I feel confident saying that, because I have a decent grasp on the edges of my own knowledge, which I'm pretty fucking certain exceeds damn near everyone on earth without a TS(C) clearance.
WW3 will be fought on Reddit.
You're ignoring a huge component of modern air power. Blue team will slowly peel back that air defense missile/radar network until a breakthrough is possible, while red team will have limited ability to respond
This. Air defense is inherently overrated comparatively when you can force them to waste precious missiles to intercept missilw barrages and SEAD missiles are lethal. Ultimately whoever has more planes will be the victor of the air long term.
Exactly. Air defenses do not neutralize a near-peer enemy strike package composed of combined stealth aircraft and electronic warfare planes. In such a scenario, air defenses only serve to delay the inevitable.
@@j.b.victor Except stealth isn't really effective against long wave radar systems and those are the exact systems red team countries use. Also don't forget that their missiles have some of the longest range, far exceeding the range and speed of blue team in terms of missile tech. Range and speed is what wins the game, especially when the stealth ability which would ensure closing the gap is ineffective.
Red team has greater production capacity, I don't think anything will be peeled back without signifficant losses.
Team Blue has a huge advantage in stealth jets, which makes Team Red's advantage in SAM systems less impactful. The quality of Team Red's SAM systems should also come into question, since Russia has lost many SAM systems during the war in Ukraine, among which are also the overrated S-400.
Also team red doesn't have better SAMs. They can't even shoot down F-16s. China and Russia have paper tigers, we have the real thing.
I believe it will be more like the Thirty Years' War. The tecnology and tactics giving an advantage to the defending side, making extremely difficulty for great offensive moviments, both sides fighting external and civil wars at the same time, both sides suffering from recruitment crysis and dicipline, heavy use of mercenaries, extended sieges and static frontlines, etc, etc, etc.
true
“Ww4 will be fought with sticks and stone” is what my dad used to say about that I think. He also used to say that after ww3 “people will kiss the foot steps of others that they see”
Your dad did not say that lmfao
I like how people are always like: Binkov is so biased for the US then the next video for China, for Russia etc just because the video doesn't agree with whatever view they have.
Stop having such fragile ego's. That's what gets us into wars, fragile ego's + greed.
I talked to a time traveler about what WW3 looked like. He couldn't tell me because he was looking towards the flash during round 1.
Daaaaaaaamn Nice one.
The allies also had a secret weapon. Vicious storm troopers that took no prisoners and used ungentlemanly tactics. They referred to them as Canadians.
The fronts in South Asia and the Middle East will be very important not just for troop movements but the flow of resources and stuff like missile and air bases.
No india will be neutral
@@AhaanMishra-yp7kl I could see India being like Italy in ww1. Seeing which way it goes and open to offers
@@AhaanMishra-yp7kl China is Pakistans main arms supplier and Russia is the biggest arms supplier to India
People looking forward to WW3.
“Sooo it’s not going to be “fun” like WW2?”
What a wonderful video for christmas
why are you on youtube watching a channel called "battlegrounds" instead of enjoying the festivities with your family?
Respectively, I don't agree with the Commissar's assessment of the capabilities of NATO and Pacific air forces in this potential conflict, the impact of stealth technology in air combat or penetrating air defenses, or how well Russia's radar and SAM systems could cover it's territory and vulnerable targets.
First, the stealth for the F-35 means that in any air combat will get a missile lock first since it has a smaller radar signal. That means you will see the other plane first, assuming equivalent tech on electronic warfare or even an edge on the Russian side since a lack of lock when you see the other side and can't lock would mean you just sneak away OR you use the Link-16 system that all NATO radars and air to air systems have and have then nearest AWACS lock on for you since it has a powerful active radar, allowing you to remain fully stealthy. See how that works? Any plane or even ground based system can be the eyes for the stealth jet to shoot at them and since it's a directional link, it's very, very difficult to jam.
Next, for bombing and achieving air superiority, the first thing that will be done is Wild Weasel missions or using advanced anti-radiation cruise missiles that do the mission and strike themselves. This will degrade the radar and SAM coverage on the front rapidly. Next, in order to achieve coverage to spot and shoot down stealthy aircraft like the F-35, and B-2, Russia would need to place their SAM systems very, very close together as they range that they can cover is significantly shortened. That means that covering the entire front and keeping them on passive mode wouldn't work as they would get destroyed quickly by Wild Weasel attacks. This limits them to protecting things like bases and production facilities near Moscow.
As for moving production facilities to near the Ural Mountains or getting equipment from China, that involves shipping it along rail lines that simply can't be protected for every single bridge. You also need to put valuable SAM systems and early warning radars at these new factories since they can still be reached from any approach by stealth bombers. How, you ask? Well, a B-2 or B-3 is over 5600 statute miles. Not far enough, you say? Well, you do an in air refueling over the north pole when leaving and returning and it'll make it and can take a long and winding path that avoids the radars by using the curvature of the Earth, geography, and that reduced radar return that stealth provides to allow a cruise missile to do the rest of the journey. It's like they were designed to do this to Russia and China so that they would have to build so many SAM systems and radars that it would be too expensive to possibly even think about defending themselves using this tactic.
And again, the SAM systems are the targets. Once they are down, glide bombs are then switched to since they are cheaper, just as accurate, and we have so many more of them.
I'm not worried about WWIII starting or how it will be fought. I'm worried about China and Russia freaking out about how badly they start to get spanked before infantry even really get into serious fighting and then throwing nukes.
What is a B-3?
@@JinKeehe prob meant b21. Or something else 😂😂
@@centurymemes1208Something else😏
Russia and ukraine militaries 100% have more ground based combat experience now, easily. Especially ukraine. One ukrainian troop deplpyed will see exponentially more combat that 95% of gwot americans at anytime even during the surge in iraq 07-08.
Our logisitics however is quite experienced.
US and Europe are not rdy for an industrial war . Military productions is way way less then what it should be. Not to mention that the public wouldnt accept the huge casulties it would bring
@@vasilijesamardzic4151 Like in any world war, when the giant wakes it will surpass the enemys production by many times
@@hirsmthe giant is China
@@hirsmthe US isn't "the giant" anymore. They don't have the same industrial capacity and infrastructure they has in the past, now china has that spot
Ground based combat experience vs air supremacy. The US has vastly more air experience than russia and Ukraine, a ground invasion is only there to hold land.
Also, the way US trains and russia trains for ground war is vastly different, we don't do scripted events
No battle plan survives first contact. The perception of what a war will be like doesn't either.
As far as I'm concerned we're already in WW3 with the first proxy war, Ukraine being Chapter 1. Mass mobilization hasn't happened because western oligarchs would lose all their business contracts and investment money that they pumped into building factories in China. Their shift towards building them in places like India and Vietnam shows that decoupling from China is underway for the west to go to war with the country. China and Russia have been stockpiling gold in record numbers and the Saudi's have said publicly that they view China as their main trading partner for the next 50 years. With BRICS threatening the USD, America will have to use force if it wishes to keep its global imperial financial system or its supremacy will wither away.
We really do just want to grill, bro.
Syrian "rebellion" in 2009 was the start of the current war proxy wars......ukraine's anti russian "revolution" and immediate attempt pressure from EU to join nato in 2013 was the second act intended to put nato armour forces on russia's border with no geographical impediments between them and moscow (unlike where nato has forces on the russian border in the Baltic states....I sort of get the impression by the actions and attitudes of the US, EU and Nato leadership that everything is going according to plan so far.......we live in interesting times......
soo WW4?
Team blue has a huge advantage of having most if their industries out the the range of team red's weapons.
Warfare has cycles of offense and defense. From WW2 to the Gulf War, we were in an offense cycle where mobile combined arms were the key. Now it seems like we entered another defensive cycle with SAMs, ATGMs, drones, advanced mines, precision strikes, etc... This will last until the next offensive technological breakthrough.
I think WW3 will have the casualties of WW2 but at the speed of just a few months to a year or two
I think the casualties of world war 3 would dwarf world war 2, and do so within months.
Ive had nightmares about those trenches. And the drones? Oh god. I am so scared to think of it, but I cant tell my wife that. I just hope the call never comes
Tell her that you're scared? Why not?
AI will feature in WW3.
I'm a bit disappointed that the video did not include India as a potential major factor. They would surely enter the fray against China and would field millions of troops. Its military is currently undergoing fairly rapid modernization as well.
And given the population size could produce large number of factories adding to US/EU numbers.
Nope we dont wanna be part of another colonial wars. India would have good time in sidelines.and we hate west as much as we hate china
@@chocochoco5186 India doesn't really hate west
but it rather distrusts west. But we do hate the Chinese government, nothing against the people.
To be fair India is rather neutral and it's on its own side, I don't think they would belong to the same military alliance as China (Pakistan might also be part of the reason why), but for now they have been going on pretty well with Russia, so I guess this is why Binkov doesn't really include India into the equation
India can't really join, unless guarantees are made because China controls the land their fresh water originates on.
All this video is counting is numbers. The US has numerous Quality advantages against China/Russia, and vice versa
Can't win without numbers.
@@counterrevolution8077 Fair, but who would win in a fight? 20 F4U Corsairs or an F35?
WW3 ended with break up of USSR into Russia. We're in WW4 which is not nation vs nation but war against humanity.
Yeah, no cold war sure as hell wasn't a world war xD
Interesting perspective 🤔
So we facing WW5 then? Because WW4 is already happening, considering the staggering losses of Russian military personal and Ukrainian civilians.
Putin couldn't even hold Syria.
Russia couldn't afford itself to fight in Ukraine while helping Assad.
Syria was under attack by hordes of terrorists armed by israel, turkey, america and it's vassals
It's holding 20% of ukraine just fine
@@BeveragedDriver98Rebels showed Putin how a three day SMO is done.
@@user-sh3cf7kd6ePutin's three day SMO strategy was lacking.
Let's hope it never happens i am not even in my 30s and have seen enough once in a lifetime events
Waiting for the outro without Binkov saying "only true peace can bring us together"...
That will be an ominous sign...
Oh my God, there was no "only true peace can bring us together" outro...
.....Bros..............Is it going to happen?
Experts expect the detection range of the F-35 by the extremely advanced S-400 SAM battery to be around 21 miles. Given that a J-20 and SU-57 AESA radar's power output is orders of magnitude lower than ground systems, it should be no problem for a US stealth fighter to fly up the tailpipe of those fighters without ever being detected.
Merry Christmas!
"What will happen, we do not know." ~ Genghis Khan
I think you're overestimating Russian air defenses here.
Ukraine has mauled the Russian air defense so badly, at this point, they are stripping far eastern bases of entire batteries to maintain the airspace denial over Ukraine. Again, this is JUST the damage Ukraine did. Now imagine what damage they'll suffer once the US starts roflstomping their air defenses in a coordinated strike from air, land, and sea, with all the best gear NATO has to offer. I give their air defense a month tops before nothing is left and the stealth bomber fleet can start taking out what is left - both in terms of air defenses and air bases - with impunity.
Also, let's not forget that the B-2 Spirit is still the stealthiest plane in the world, even compared to the F-22. They literally would not see them coming. See, NATO has tested the F-35 against turkish S-400s. The result was that, contrary to Russian claims, the S-400 cannot detect the F-35 beyond maybe 10 miles, if that. Do you realize the F-35 can kill these things with glide bombs that have 8 times the range? How well do you think that thing will do against a plane like the B-2, or even the B-21 when it enters service in a few years? Not to mention, Russian air defense could not even stop a remote controlled Cessna from hitting a target hundreds of kilometers in their rear. How do you expect THAT air defense to stop a stealth bomber?
And trust me, the US has learned the Ukrainian tricks, they are watching this war very, very closely.
thought the same
Definitely agree for the most part. The only thing I would add is that Soviet era air defense systems used by the ukrainians is performing far better than in the hands of the Russians. Russia cannot stop missiles and drones flying into its airspace even with its vastly superior numbers of air defense systems.
You sound like this: 🥸🥸🥸🥸🥸 lmao
1- Your fantasy scenario would never happen because Russia or any other nuclear power including the US would use them as soon as they start losing badly
2- US bases and warships are struck by cheap drones ALL the time in the middle east, try to educate yourself kid, this isn't a video game,no air defense system has a 100% interception rate, especially not in a high intensity war ( you know, the kind the US hasn't fought in DECADES )... Jesus Christ
3- While you're trying to b0mb Russia or China they will be doing the same to your territory, the ocean won't save you this time, long range bombers, submarines and ballistic missiles are now a thing...
Anyway, let's all hope that ww3 never happens so that mor0ns like you can find out what war actually looks like😊
Then why hasn't Biden sent his pilots to save poor Ukrene?
The US struggled in Iraq and in Afghanistan this idea that us is op is crazy
Damn a binkov video on Christmas eve 😅
Merry Christmas Binkov.
Tbh personally, i feel like WW3 will be like WW1, where countries are itching to try their weapons on each other
There will be no ww3. If there was, NK iran, china, Venezuela etc would all have sent troops into Ukraine. And no, north korea is not currently fighting in ukraine, they gave troops to russia to use to fight in ukraine. Completely different
One thing I didn't see mentioned that seems important is the political element. This is why I'm still not convinced there really would be any serious attacks on major industrial sites of any belligerent in a third world war. Remember, there's no way of telling whether or not an incoming bomber or missile is carrying a nuclear payload. In a full-scale world war scenario it seems likely that any major belligerent might start assuming that any hostile aircraft or missile approaching their major cities was nuclear armed and respond accordingly just to be on the safe side, which would make conventional strikes on a lot of those major industrial targets far too risky.
Similarly one of the things a lot of people forget about the Ukraine war is that one of the key reasons why so many surveillance platforms are able to be used over Ukraine is because a good chunk of them are not allowed to be shot at. 'No shooting at the US/NATO radar planes/big drones/satellites' is one of the very few rules of engagement the Russians have consistently adhered to. In a third world war scenario most of those larger and more capable surveillance and reconnaissance platforms would be valid and very tempting targets and probably draw a lot more firepower on them. Would it completely blind either side? Hell no, there would still be all the masses of smaller cheaper platforms to deal with, but it could very well open up some holes in the other side's observation capabilities to be exploited. You don't need to completely blind the other side, you just need to keep them from seeing what you're up to until it's too late.
Or maybe Warhammer 40,000 was right all along and future battles really will be entirely fought with 2-6 units of troops, a few support weapons, a couple of scout units and a tank or two on each side.
I don't know about the Russia, China side but as an American I do not see much that would indicate a sane approach to avoiding nuclear war from either US political party.
With all major powers nuclear armed, it would inevitably turn nuclear. I guess carrier groups will be nuked on day one at the very least. It terrifies me to see people in this day and age talk of "limited nuclear war" as if that is both desirable and achievable.
china has a no first attack policy
I'd take anything this channel says with a grain of salt.
Given their assessment of the Russian military capability pre the Ukraine invasion.
He assumed zero international support in his assessment so that video doesn’t have any application to real life
@jackjack-sm2jg his assessment wasn't vs Ukraine, it was in general. Russia is supposed to have a military capable of opposing Nato........
@@damolux3388 Binkov made the same mistake as many top analysts in the field, who are paid much, much more than he is. He looked at the absolute numbers too much. Yes, if you count the numbers of tanks, airplanes and soldiers, Russia was always capable of opposing NATO. But when you dig deeper, and get to the relative numbers, the numbers that tell you about the training of the soldiers in the tanks, the existence of the NCO corps (Russia does not have one!), the corruption level in the armies (Russia´s is off the charts), the combined arms operations training and experience (NATO is very much better than RUssia and China in this), then you see that there never was any parity, really.
@PandaPanda-ud4ne 100% then add Chinese tyres, fake body armour, rubber ERA tiles, tampon bandages and its all down hill 🤣
I could see it being more like ww1 since there hasn’t been a large scale war in a while and there is crazy new technology that a lot of countries haven’t had the chance to use but want to test
There wont be another ww3 because war is too politically untenable, too expensive and too unpopular for democracies, and dictatorships dont form defense pacts.
1:33 downvote for including in-video ads without a visual AD timer. It's what consumers want
Here's an idea: let's all hope we never find out.
Any sustained war for a year or more would see trench warfare set in as all sides rapidly run out of ammunition.
The Seven Years War was in fact the first "world war", fought in Europe, North America, West Africa and on the Indian subcontinent. Britain's global victories consolidated her "First Empire".
Surely you are underestimating the technological edge of the USAF. To say that their air superiority wouldn´t be a significant factor in the war seems like a stretch.
You're underestimating modern SAM capabilities. USAF just like the US army has much "experience" only in fighting 3rd world guerilla forces or armies with Soviet military stock.
USA would dominate in air vs air.
Air vs land is what they’re talking about here.
@@Maperator Like the S-400?
Yep, absolutely. This would be a massacre in the air, and for the Red side air defenses. Stealth is a huge advantage. Which explains why everyone is buying F-35s (if they are allowed), or trying to build something like it.
@@Maperator The Israelis just took out the entire Iranian SAM system in ONE raid. Think about that. Sure, it's Iran not Russia or China, but it was Russian systems.
My two cents: the First World War was the 7 year war of 1756 between the English and French.
It wasn’t a total war like ww I and II, but it was global, it was fought in Europa, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
Maybe ww III be like that: you’ll have flash points everywhere (Ukraine, baltics, arctic, Levant, the gulf, south china sea, korea) but no massive “get to berlin/tokyo” like rushes of men, tanks, planes, etc
I think it would go nuclear pretty fast. Otherwise, NATO would have already gotten directly involved in Ukraine.
Nah.
People underestimate the extent to which china has industrially outcompeted tge western world.
Especially when it comes to key heavy industry goods like steel.
People overestimate the extent to which china undercompetes with the West.
Especially in areas like steel.
@@minecraftfox4384 people forget the west gave up manufacturing to the CCP and now can't really produce shit and have become nothing more then a bitch to the CCP. Hell a shit load of the electronics for mil equipment in the west is made in china along with most of the other stuff...
Not WW3 but Cold War 2
Probably something like period between ww1 and ww2. In 20 years we should get ready for next hot round. By that time, China will be ready to take over Taiwan.
It’s kind of crazy to see how much tensions have spiked in the world recently
We are all losers if the situation degenerates to a world war. Good video none the less. Please compel our world leaders to a an agreement.
Really, the "Cold War" was "World War 3", it was just never declared as such. There was conflict, by proxy, and political whims on every continent. There were potential combatants from practically all countries killed during that period, which began with communist expansion immediately after VJ+1. So, really, "world war" is not new, it has just yet to ramp up to the point where comfortable populations in "The West" can no longer ignore open participation. What is really currently starting, is "World War 4".
In a WW3 situation, assuming it's prolonged and non-nuclear, I forsee a point where both sides will have a major drop in available combat aircraft, due to combat/other losses and damage from the war and the relative complexity limiting early war production. In this situation, I forsee that after that period of limited air Operations, it will ultimately be the Blue force that recovers to build more aircraft than the Red force. This does not include cheap drones, which will explode in numbers and usage.
想象如果使用核武器是个什么情况，中国俄罗斯的核力量大概是北约的2.5倍，到时候北约需要申请人道主义救援
当然中国俄罗斯不是军事盟友所以可以将中国俄罗斯分开计算，但是如果真的按照假设是北约vs中俄军事联盟，那么无论是常规战争还是核战争，北约没有机会，因为中国是第二大浓缩铀加工国，到了2030年中国就会超过俄罗斯成为第一大浓缩铀加工国，也有可能现在中国已经是第一大浓缩铀加工国，中国俄罗斯的战略核载具数量是北约的2倍以上，所以想象一下如果是北约vs中国俄罗斯军事联盟，北约会死的很难看
@@EdwarkDiyaz так они по сути в отчаянии, у них на шее висит долг в десятки триллионов, они все свои деньги растратили, загнали себя в долги и теперь надеятся за счёт войны списать всё это. И воевать они будут 100% потому что эти триллионы они выплачивать никуда не собираются, когда доллар потеряет свою ценность в международных рассчётах, вся эта бумага напечатанная за 80 лет хлынет на их внутренний рынок и пачки этих долларов никому не нужных можно будет засовывать под ножки мебели которая качается. Они надеятся маленькими укусами, избегая прямого конфликта, расшатать Китай и Россию изнутри, а потом ограбить чтобы еще лет 50 красиво жить за чужой счёт. По сути это кучка пиратов, бандитов с большой дороги.
Сами воевать они тоже не хотят, поэтому пытаются это делать руками тех, кого не жалко. Руками своих марионеток. В случае с Китаем, они скорее всего возьмут условную Корею и Японию и попытаются их руками вести войну с Китаем. Сами они будут стоять в стороне и говорить "а это не мы, мы то тут причем?". И с точки зрения Китая будет сложно решиться на ядерный удар по Корее и Японии, потому что это будет выглядеть как безумие. Тогда можно будет всем своим западным коллегам сказать - смотрите, они сумасшедшие, давайте все им объявим экономическую блокаду.
А эти рассказы про третью мировую это просто для отвлечения внимания, ничего они в открытом конфликте сделать не смогут, их эти авианосцы это бесполезные корыта которыми они одержимы с 1940х годов, они их коллецкионируют просто как плавучие отели для своих солдат чтобы воевать с племенами аборигенов на ближнем востоке, для полноценной войны это просто плавучий гроб на 6000 человек.
Can we not have a World War 3 please. Thank you
Note without US supply China, Russia, the UK, and Australia would've fallen to the Axis.
Edit: I wanted to make some corrections I'm not underestimating the capabilities of the USSR and Britain because they did very well. However, the US Lend-Lease program did significantly bolster the defensive and offensive capabilities of all allied nations. While Soviet ground forces did in fact blunt any further German expansion anywhere.
Man, where are you reading this stuff? Without USSR, the world for anyone who is not german would be hell. USSR did the job, and the West were just entering after the germans were exausted.
US supply quite useless
nationalist lost with the "mighty US supply".
and turned out the nationalist was the strongest force US supplied, clapping cheeks at SEA after leaving mainland China.
edit: others like Afghanistan collapse at the very moment US forces leave.
US supplies arrived to the soviet union AFTER Stalingrad
@ Yes, they did an amazing job I'm not undermining that but note without the amount of resources America had given them via lend-lease they would lacked the ability to swing back. America had given Russia about 11 billion dollars worth of supply which included over 400k jeeps and trucks, 12k APCs including 7k tanks, 11k aircraft, and so on. While the UK was gifted about 31 billion worth of resources. In general, Without the US supply of both the UK and Russia in the early war would've led to both of them falling due to Axis air and land supremacy. For China as well the US gifted them about 246 billion including instructors in terms of the Flying Tigers which helped fend off more continued Japanese incursion.
@ actually they arrived a year earlier according to historical records and I quote: “The United States began sending supplies to the Soviet Union in August 1941, shortly after Germany attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The first convoy of American and British cargo ships arrived in Murmansk harbor.” Also if I’m not mistaken that’s when German forces had the most progress through Soviet Russia.
Depends on the theater, but in general armies will be much smaller compared to the frontage, so mobile warfare will be easier I would guess.
Binkov likes to start the new year off on a positive note
It's cute that you assume that China's SAM systems are on par with ours, or on par with our offensive weapons/planes. That kind of assumption that numbers matters more than quality is exactly how people came to think that Russia had the second strongest military on Earth, and was almost on par with the US. And yes, quantity can be a quality of its own, but really only from an offensive standpoint. You can overwhelm a Tiger with twenty Shermans. But if SAM systems can't detect or hit an F-35, then their numbers are literally meaningless.
How can you be sure they can't detect f35?
Underestimating your enemy....this hasn't happened in history right?😂😂
Germany’s military had a similar quality and quantity to the Allies in 39/40. Yet they still won. Don’t underestimate your enemy
@socire72 I'm not in the military so I have the luxury of underestimating my enemies. Also, I am not saying FOR SURE that their SAMs are inferior. I am saying that it is certainly possible, so just assuming they are definitely top notch, like Blinkov, is a little more silly than going the middle ground on them.
@@СнежныйДжони I sure as hell didn't say they couldn't. I said it is possible. I assume English isn't your first language, but please avoid straw manning my argument.
ima be real with ya chief, they can launch them nukes when they ready, im comin harambe
Harambe wants you to live. That noble Gorilla died for a human baby, how can he like that you do not want to live? LIVE. Eat a banana for Harambe, but do not seek death.
You are severely overestimating the quality of Russian SAMs. Israel has already shown that stealth planes and even 4.5 gen planes counter them.
Better to overestimate than to underestimate
That's an understatement. Binkov has no idea how modern air warfare works.
He also doesn't realize exactly how dominant the US military is. Russian and Chinese air forces wouldn't last 3 days. The US has no need to capture mainland Chinese territory, all the US wants to do is protect the independence of the ROC. The US can destroy the PLAAF and bottle up China until they capitulate.
In fact, the US military is so strong that we could fight EVERYONE else in the world, including our allies and the war wouldn't last 3 months.
It comes down to 2 simple facts, if you can't control the air, the US wins and no one can stop the USAF alone, throw in the USN and USMC and you're screwed.
What happend in Afghanistan then? Afghanistan didn't had modern western support and still usa run away in the middle of the night leaving there equipment to people in bedsheets 😂😂😂😂
@@trplankowner3323😂😂😂😂 never make a comment again
@ if you really think US assets will be able to operate in South Chinese proximity you were absolutely massively underestimating modern missiles
We can say that whatever weapons they had made or thought of making during the Cold War will surely be used
Damn i didn't know russia was so weak, soo it's a must for russia to team up with china to stand a chance in WW3
Shit tonnes of men and material but of limited quality.
I still believe it will depend on whether red team allows - then survives - blue team's initial "Shock and awe", made possible by its hi-tech weapons superiority and greater experience in using them. Red team would see the buildup in the Pacific, but Blue team may still have ways to trick red team into not attacking until the buildup is complete enough. Once/if the conflict enters the attritional phase, then I think we end up with WW2 in reverse. Red team has immensely more capabilities in out-producing blue team - and eventually out-bomb any of its attempts at increasing its production capability. In other words, China would be able to decisively take advantage of being the factory floor of the world. But the U.S. still has the ability to win an initial blitzkrieg, and not allow China to switch to the attritional phase, where it has the advantage.
Chinese manufacturing is dependent on seabourne trade. No more black coal and iron ore from Australia and Brazil would cripple Chinese manufacturing. Food security would be the other Chinese weak point, the CCP relies on food imports to feed it's people.
Turkey fought against Russian proxies in Syria, Libya, Azerbaijan and several African countries and yet there are people still yaping like in this comment section. "Ignorance is bliss" is the motto as it seems.
Ignorance is bliss
@@AsukaLangleyS02 yes you are right, i didn't realize i wrote "bless"
I don't think any country has the industrial capacity, civic unity or manpower to churn out present day technology or the necessary specialist troops en masse the way they did in either world war.
I truly believe that the USA is a sleeping giant
In total war of course they will you just haven't seen it yet.
Even if it will ever happens (hope it will never ever obvsly), I hope it would be like the second one sides wise, for the sake of my own country Turkiye.
Let’s not find out.
I can't stop thinking, no matter what, Europe and Russia are screwed. If only they could work together..
Never. It's These are different levels of civilization.
Maybe by the time that the war got too entrenched, everyone would decide that it’s too expensive to fight, and everyone would want to ramp down the conflict so we could get back to getting richer together.
Optimist i see.
@ Jesus help me I’m trying!
came here for the inevitable Einstein "weapons of WW4" quote
It will be WW1+WW2+WW3 SO WW6?
I hope war doesn't happen because we already have Slovakia crying about not getting fuel, because apparently Europe thought getting fuel from Russia was good?
Now, the West has a pretty massive advantage, buuuut they have Germany on their side. And Germany currently stands 2:0 🤔
the west doesnt _not_ have a massive advantage this time, that is the entire point of the video
I’m going to strongly disagree on the resource angle. The issue is China’s entire infrastructure is based predominantly on Seaborn infrastructure, if the blue side were to cut off naval access, which is pretty much a given since new supply lines would have to be built through Siberia, which would take years and standoff munitions firing at those supply lines would be absolutely devastating, especially if they were to target bridges or tunnels.
For the red side China is basically their manufacturing base but they can easily be starved by the blue side most powerful asset, it’s Navy. China is fully reliant on either food, imports or the necessary components to make food.
The best international support for the red side with may come from the global south, but the global south is completely cut off via the blue side naval dominance… He who rules the sea rules, rules the world
Also, as far as experience is concerned, all of those troops from the 2000s the United States had deployed, are now the middle of the road officers, and on their way to becoming the leaders… Which means the high command actually knows how to fight a war. Unless China is willing to put their troops under Russian command, they will have no leadership with any experience.
The troop number difference also would be negated by India, who realistically would have no reason to sit out a war where China could be pulled into three or four different fronts, them making a fifth front just makes hard political sense or at the very least parking a very large army, tying up a sizable proportion of the Chinese military in Tibet
I have one question. Was there a draft of this video that included Syria on the Russian side a month ago?
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
U gotta read 1984 bro
@@CalasTyphon488 George Orwell...
@@CalasTyphon488 Bro didn't get the reference
The S-400s have way underperformed. I think a shock and awe style campaign would be able to clear enough airspace to protect the front lines.
they underperformed against missiles, but they were always designed in mind against fighters.
For WW III, logistics and resources will become more critical than in WW I and II. A blockade can be even more devastating to China than direct military attacks.
😂封锁中国？美国有能力吗？美国那些老旧生锈的舰队全部沉在马六甲海峡倒是有可能封锁中国，因为中国需要大量时间去打捞那些生锈老旧的美国军舰，另外封锁中国之后，美国国内就得自相残杀了，因为收不到任何来自墨西哥东南亚日本韩国欧洲的工业品，包括美国人最喜欢芬太尼，对了这是假设美国有能力封锁中国，然而事实是中国更有能力封锁印度洋澳大利亚西太平洋然后通过陆路与东南亚南亚阿富汗蒙古中亚俄罗斯朝鲜贸易，而美国基本上只能被困在北美，即便美国想与非洲贸易，但是美国与非洲能够贸易到什么？😂总之，让我们不要吹嘘，看看是美国更能承受封锁还是中国更能承受封锁，现在就做吧，不要只是在网络上吹嘘能够军事封锁中国，而现实当中看着中国一年下水一个法国海军的吨位并且看着美军不断老化
@@EdwarkDiyaz I do tend to agree, the United States finds itself as a waning Superpower - a global authority that is declining. China merely needs to wait out the United States and allow the problems of the world to spread it thin through further distraction and turmoil brewing at home. The challenges poised against the CCP are not insurmountable.
As far as air power and SAMs go, depends on how well Chinese radar could detect the F-35. I’m not putting much stock in Russian radar capabilities at this point. If they can’t stop the F-35 it’s not going to be a fair fight.
Air strikes do not win wars. You should've learned this by now.
@@Mary-supremacistHoly shit. . .talk to the Iraqis about that.
Air Supremacy absolutely wins wars in an industrial war. You must be talking about the counter insurgencies of the last two decades.
In a peer conflict of industrial powers in the last 100 years every nation with air Supremacy has won.
Air strikes can easily win defensive wars, and red force is in the revisionist position. They need to take and hold hostile territory to achieve their objectives.
@scoobydoobers23 you're comparing Muslims in Toyota trucks and no air defenses to two wealthy modern countries lol. And American troops still needed to be deployed to the Middle East.
@@Mary-supremacist Yes and due to US air support, US troops would be deployed into Russia rather than the other way around.
The best Russia could hope for is that the west gives them a WW1 style treaty and still cling to a lie that they weren't defeated on the battlefield 100 years later.
Rebuttals:
"Surprise is impossible in modern warfare" -Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive in 2022 says you are wrong
"Russia is now very good at frontline reconnaissance." -Ukrainian Kursk offensive in 2024 says you are wrong
"China would have plentiful resources and economy" (despite being a net exporter AND importer, especially for fossil fuels) says you are wrong
SAM/ADA systems ARE now very good...if they are allowed to be un-suppressed. Western air forces, especially all three of the United States' air fleets, have raised breaking air defenses to an art form over the last 50 years, and generally consider the first stage in any campaign. The performance of Soviet SAM systems has not been impressive against things like stealthed cruise missiles in Ukraine, or even light aircraft modified into long-range attack drones. I am not sure what you think they (or their Chinese equivalents, which are based on the same Soviet tech) are going to do against 5th gen stealth fighters & bombers with stand-off stealth ordinance, or large numbers of modern cruise missiles.
You also neglected cyber and space warfare. Both have no corresponding domains in previous world wars, but would open avenues to strike at enemies in far-reaching ways.
There are also macro factors like rapidly aging populations, which hits both Russia and China particularly hard since they are not generally immigrant-friendly countries.
We are already in it.
That would be like saying that we were already in world war 2 during the anchluss or second sino-japanese war.
I think your point about it being impossible to launch a surprise attack is not true and Ukraine proved that with the incursion into Kursk. The requirements are quite specifc though:
Stagnant front line
Negation of enemy air power
Ability to consolidate a large force (equipment, personal, and a good strategy)
Geographic restrictions
That is hardly a LARGE attack. He was referring to decisive armored assaults that that penetrate and envelop large enemy formations. Uranian Army managed to penetrate weakly defended borderlands up to a few dozen km.
@@rammfreakserbThey were not weakly defended. Big trench formations were dug there, and they advanced dozens of kilometers into Russia.
So yes, surprise offensives are possible.
Surely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even perhaps India will be on the side of the EU and US and that is an enormous increase of GDP and manufacture Furthermore, there are lots of former Soviet countries and regions of Russia just waiting for Russia to be weaken. It would not survive even one year after the Ukrainian war, if this scenario would happen soon and if it doesn't happen soon, then AI will change everything. In fact, China's interests are not to ally itself with Russia in such a conflict but to wait to join in the feast when Russia is defeated.
Yeah, a war between Russia and China is more likely than both of them fighting vs NATO. But beating a dead horse would not be fun for a video.
Maybe, but China might actually see those opponents if it tries to take Tawain so Xi might think getting Russian help before it completely collapses would be best.
There are many unknowns. The countries you mentioned are definitely oriented towards the US. However, it would be interesting how Arabian and African countries behave, especially keeping in mind that China has been expanding its influence on the African continent with vast FDI increase in recent years.
i trust a talking puppet to give me a sober and reliable analysis of future conflicts
I shouldn't be surprised but you are very favorable to the Axis in this theoretical. How can you even begin to believe China will have an excess of energy, oil/gas? They can not just stop all domestic use unless you think the people will just allow themselves to starve and freeze to death. You didn't mention how dependent they are on imports for food/food inputs. The long and very inefficient land routes for trade will be their downfall. They cannot send all of their limited anti-air tech to defend the trade routes without sacrificing the front line. Also, Israel and the US have proven that US stealth tech can reliably beat the best SAM systems the Axis has, and that is only with the capabilities we know of. Russia has proven it is completely ineffectual and China is pretty much completely unproven. Their only recent history with war is very embarrassing. I think we would see high ally death and material losses initially, until all Axis' most modern tech is defeated, then see kill to death ratio's that the US is very historically familiar with once we have ~33% of our most advanced tech left and the Axis is exhausted.
But this is where the scenario breaks down - at the point where the Axis are facing defeat they WILL turn to nukes.
@@thealexanderbond I don't think so. I would bet the allies do not actually take any territory beyond immediate strategic necessity. The Allies will not defeat the Axis in such a humiliating way as to elicit such a response. It will be a very different kind of war, mostly economic and strategic battles with each side trying to destroy the others most advanced tech and infrastructure. The western front will be trench warfare like Ukraine war currently is and the Eastern front will be a tech war with naval and air assets but virtually no land conflict, just mho.
The US will run out of high tech weapons in the first few days or weeks based on scenarios of war against China (war games) that have been conducted. All the high tech strikes you talk about will happen from both sides and after that it is whoever recovers and adapts faster that will win. Bombers that drop 2000km range cruise missiles the first day will drop 100km range glide bombs the next day and will begin to use gravity bombs in dive bombings in a few weeks.
The stealth has never proven that it can defeat modern SAM networks. That is something simply made up because there is simply no modern conflict with such aircraft taking place. Every weapon can eventually be destroyed, even the best SAM. That doesn't mean that it is not effective. Some weapons require the support of other weapons to work and they also require a competent operator and plentiful ammunition. If one of these requirements is not met then the weapon system will fail.
The S400 requires 2-4 layers of ever closer range air defenses covering the area it is defending, the S400 provides protection against high altitude threats (a bomber at 15km altitude) that the other systems cannot defend against. Even if you take down the S400 you will have to start taking out the other shorter range SAMs using the high altitude advantage, if the enemy gets another S400 operational you will find yourself losing heavy bombers. Taking out the S400 gives you a short window, it doesn't completely clear the air defenses and it is still not safe because you don't know when another one will be activated.
If the country you bomb only has 2 or 4 S400 systems that they imported your mission is successful. If the country you bomb pumps these systems out of the factory and might have a lot in reserve (that you cannot know of) then you simply took out one asset with an expensive weapon, after that it is war of attrition, not a strategic victory.
The one thing that is different today is that demografics play a much larger role. The societies of WW1 and 2 were quite resistant to losses. In the Russia-Ukraine-war we see that both sides are quite sensitive to losses among the younger people, the ones who haven't yet established families. (I don't count prisoners and such since they are an unusual cases and would have less demografic impact anyways) But both Ukraine and Russia invest quite a bit in the protection of their younger people. With current birthrates especially in Asia and some other western countries I would expect that just intentionally grinding forces down could be much more effective then in past wars. (assuming that loss rates would be significantly higher in a higher stakes conflict where larger shares of the population are engaged on both sides.
Interesting analysis and cautionary tale. But, I think you should have brought up 5th gen fight numbers, navy tonnage, GDP, and theorized about SEAD operations with stealth and precision weapons. No sane military would hope to use a large bomber over contested airspace of a near-peer opponent, you'd do SEAD first. But once it's done, SAMs take a long time to make, they are not cheap. I'd also have considered the effect of allies such as Iran, Japan, Israel, Yemen, the Koreas, Taiwan, etc. I think WW3 will be even more different from WW2 than WW2 was from WW1.
As someone who has lived in China (and I think Chinese people in the comments can confirm this) the loss of access to many different kinds of foods would really grate on the Chinese populace. Yes, people can deal with hardship, but if there is a religion in China, it's food. And the loss of being able to worship will be the biggest source of war weariness besides casualties.
The other factor might be that any casualty would be the end of an entire family due to the one child policy and this would make the war reaaaally unpopular
@@manekrudolph728 they don’t have that anymore
You certainly have no idea of china before the 80s. Forget about variety of food, people were eating grass roots, barks, even kaolin clay. I myself can still remember vividly that when I was a child, my biggest treat was a couple of slice of plain boiled pork because we can only afford to have meat once a year. I’d often have to eat rice husk and corn stalk, so trust me Chinese can endure the lack of food, and it’s nothing like a religion.
@@donaldlee8249 We do not live 40 years ago. We live today. I also know that milk for children amongst every tier 1 city family I ever met is imported, since most Chinese milk is in powder form and often not trusted. Unless that's changed in the last 4 years. And my post said that all people can endure hardship, but the lack of food self-sufficiency in MANY categories (not all categories) would be one of the hardest aspects of a protracted World War for China. Also, I guess you dislike popular proverbs like 民以食为天?
@@justinadams7824 True but the oldest children post-policy revocation are not even 10 yet. Since the policy was officially revoked in 2016.
The west should rearm again.
Poland got the message
Do you not remember how the US dismantled Iraq’s air defence they lost like 20 planes in the whole conflict. Sure they have better technology now but I’m sure with the growing fleet of f-35’s today and much better weapons I’m sure they wouldn’t have much trouble with the Russian air defences.
Yea right, like the us didn't lose up to 10 thousand aircrafts in Vietnam, iraq was simply weak, its not a matter of American superiority
@ maybe you should do some research because Iraq had the 6th largest Air Force at the time of operation desert storm and over 6000 Sam’s that’s like 40x more than North Vietnam had. Also Vietnam happened in the 60’s lmao the US Air Force had minimal training and strategies around taking out air defences since it was like the first time pilots had to watch out for them. So I guess you can say they definitely learned from there mistakes. Also 4rd gen fighters and no stealth tech back then so……
@@absflux2381 iraq had a whole bunch of crap, Vietnam had almost no airforce and very few anti air, yet shot down so many American aircrafts, the fact thst you Americans think that your aircraft will not be detected during war baffles me , buffoonery
@@cuties5864 well I never said that aircraft wouldn’t be detected lol. The combination of electronic warfare and stealth technology definitely makes it harder to detect. Like I said they still lost aircraft
@@cuties5864Yes, let’s compare saturation bombing jungles with SAMs and precision/radiation seeking bombing SAMs in a desert. You can’t compare the two off hand as incompetent/competent. There are many factors and advancements to consider.
India would be hugely important in WWIII. We need an analysis of what would happen if they joined the blue team.
The only war India would fight would be against Pakistan and that would destroy both countries