|
psydude posted:Did Soviet engineers fail to consider the risks of storing ammo beneath the turret, or did they just not care? All russian tanks are to some extent based on the T-64, a 60s design, western tanks from the 60s aren't going to have much better ammo storage.
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ukraine actively invading Russia isn't something Ukraine needs to do, would invite sending the Ukrainian army into the same kind of morass that the Russians are now facing, and could lose Ukraine international support. How long will it take to capture Moscow? 2 days Will Putin be killed? Yes Total Russian civillian casualties: 500 dead Total military casualties Russia: 300000 dead Total military casualties UKR: 15 dead Will the Russian army regulars hold the lines? No Will the VDV fight to the end? No Will chem/bio weapons be used on invading troops?: Yes Will Russia launch attacks on the Finns? Yes Will Putin launch attacks on Poland? No -If yes; will Poland retaliate harshly? Yes Will Putin sacrifice Moscow (gas/nuke it)? No Will the Chechens make a grab for independence? Yes Will China do anything silly like try for land? Yes Will Putin burn the oil fields? Yes How long will Ukraine be occupying Russia? ~15 years Will the Russian war catalyze increased terrorism in Europe?No In the long run, will this war be good or bad for the world? Good We have to look at what those civilian casualties are- just because they're civilian doesn't make them innocent! Lets take a look at a few possibilities: 1) A civilian waiting in a bread line at the market gets killed by a cruise missile fired at the market. 2) A civilian asleep in their house is killed when their house is targetting by a smart bomb and blown up. OK, these two are regrettable innocents being killed- but since the US doesn't make a habit of targetting markets or houses, they're very small in number! 3) A civilian working at a chemical weapon factory gets killed when the chemical weapon plant is bombed. 4) A civilian security guard at a weapons depot is killed when the weapons explode. 5) A civilian contractor repairing a tank is killed by a TB-2 strike on the unit. 6) A civilian engineer is killed when the military command center he works at is destroyed. 7) A civilian delivering krokodil to the Moscow bunker vending machines eats a 5,000lb bunker buster. etc, etc. The list goes on. My point is that there are a lot of civilians directly supporting the military that aren't exactly "innocent" and would be mire rightly counted among the military casualties than civilian. I'm a civilian and work for the US military, but I acknowledge I'm also a valid military target because of what I do. And I think the vast majority of civilian casualties in this campaign will not be innocent.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
psydude posted:Did Soviet engineers fail to consider the risks of storing ammo beneath the turret, or did they just not care? The T-64, T-80, and T-72 are relatively tiny, with not much place to put ammo. There was a realization during that general era of design that no amount of armor could stop modern anti-tank weapons. It gets hit, it's hosed anyway. Use terrain to hide the hull, use the FCS to fire as quickly as possible, use mobility to bug the gently caress out. No, it's not an ideal design at all. The risks of keeping ammo, especially seperate ammo, in the hull were well understood going back to the period between WW1 and WW2. But, like, what else can you do? Ammo lockers like the Abrams has require space. Bustle-mounted storage needs space, a large turret ring, and complicates the autoloader. External ammo storage makes the vehicle very tall, exposes ammo to everthing, and requires the crew exit the vehicle to move spare ammo into the magazine(s). Every design decision on a tank is a compromise betweem mobility, armor, and firepower. Physics is a bitch with all three considerations.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
psydude posted:Did Soviet engineers fail to consider the risks of storing ammo beneath the turret, or did they just not care? It was kinda less of a danger when those tanks were designed and the big threat to a tank was another tank. The autoloader lets them use one less crewmember per tank which means 1/4 again more tanks crewed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 14:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1524334912496676864
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ukraine actively invading Russia isn't something Ukraine needs to do, would invite sending the Ukrainian army into the same kind of morass that the Russians are now facing, and could lose Ukraine international support. I agree with this, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of conducting a rapid air mobile raid if they discover an under protected high value target near the border. That assumes the Ukrainians are capable of such an operation. Slashrat posted:Was that supposed air raid by Ukrainian Hinds on the oil depot within Russia a few weeks ago ever confirmed to be what actually happened? A.o.D. fucked around with this message at 14:48 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
Was that supposed air raid by Ukrainian Hinds on the oil depot within Russia a few weeks ago ever confirmed to be what actually happened?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
psydude posted:Did Soviet engineers fail to consider the risks of storing ammo beneath the turret, or did they just not care? The big takeaway from WWII tank vs. tank engagements was that whichever tank managed to first score a hit on the other tended to win. Combined with the advent of anti-tank weaponry, the thinking was to keep the tank small and hard to hit, while making it shoot fast. It's somewhat similar to the different schools of thought between the British Royal Navy and German High Seas Fleet in WWI. The British favoured lots of big guns and speed, thinking they would out-maneuver and out-gun their opponents. The Germans on the other hand traded some speed and guns for better survivability. Neither won decisively, but the Royal Navy took double the losses.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Was that supposed air raid by Ukrainian Hinds on the oil depot within Russia a few weeks ago ever confirmed to be what actually happened? Like 10 different angles of footage of two helicopters flying in and launching rockets at the oil depot turned up within hours of the attack so I don't think there's been much doubt (nor any alternative credibly put forth). There's also footage of them leaving flying about as low as i've ever seen a helicopter fly.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Crew are actually rather expensive for tanks because people take up a good bit of space (even if they're restricted to being under 5'10 like in many Russian vehicles) and we don't exactly fold up all that well. So each crew member requires more room in the vehicle (especially a loader since they tend to be standing instead of sitting and have to move around to get ammo), more armor to protect that space, and more systems to support them, resulting in a vehicle that is bigger and heavier. Back when the main targeting system for any anti-tank weapon, be it rocket, missile, or gun was the Mk I eyeball, a smaller vehicle was harder to spot and harder to hit, but in modern times with advanced targeting systems, smarter computers and sensors, and so on being smaller doesn't really help all that much anymore, so being more survivable becomes more important, which is why you see things like the ammo bustles on many NATO tanks that are designed to vent out if struck. These don't make it impossible to use an auto-loader, by the way. Prior to blow-out panels one of the main ways to keep ammo 'safe' was to store it in containers that were surrounded by water or a similar liquid in an attempt to smother and sparks or fires before bad things happened. This of course isn't something that you can easily make work with an ammo carousel or other means of auto-loading/revolver systems. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 15:16 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
And almost all these old soviet designs were meant to used in a furious one-week war against NATO in the hopes of winning before the nukes started flying. It made sense for the time, but that time was a little over half a century ago.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
If you cut your tank crew down from 4 people to 3, you can operate 33% more tanks for the same personnel/training costs, too
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:The big takeaway from WWII tank vs. tank engagements was that whichever tank managed to first score a hit on the other tended to win. Combined with the advent of anti-tank weaponry, the thinking was to keep the tank small and hard to hit, while making it shoot fast. Judging by the results from Gulf War I and II, the American approach to tank design clearly won.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:If you cut your tank crew down from 4 people to 3, you can operate 33% more tanks for the same personnel/training costs, too Yeah but you’re short one person per tank for field maintenance and repairs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:And almost all these old soviet designs were meant to used in a furious one-week war against NATO in the hopes of winning before the nukes started flying. It made sense for the time, but that time was a little over half a century ago. They're also from a time where it was generally viewed that HEAT weapons were going to be better than any amount of armor you could put on a tank so it wasn't even worth bothering with, which was more or less true when armor was just RHA. This is also why you saw experiments like the silica armor to try and improve the resistance against shaped charge weapons, though IIRC those never saw active service.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Does all the new explosive reactive armor, and that Chobham armor actually work on modern tanks, then?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
The actually high end of modern tanks are legitimately hard to knock out, yes. Even the Russian tanks. Ukraine originally desperately needed the top-attack missiles specifically because nothing else was reliably effective against t90s (which seems likely given the ratios of destroyed russian tanks).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Does all the new explosive reactive armor, and that Chobham armor actually work on modern tanks, then? It makes tanks harder to kill from those directions protected by such additions, absolutely. But it was never really ideal to blast a tank from the front with an RPG, either. One consequence of the improved equivalent armor is that the penetration of a HEAT round is physically constrained by the diameter of the warhead. Thus the systems in the classic 84mm diameter class (AT4, Carl Gustav, SMAW, etc) have plateaued in effectiveness. This is where launchers with the warhead diameter not constrained by the launch tube, like the Panzerfaust 3, or larger tube-contained systems like the 100+mm RPG-27 or -30 come in. Alternatively, top attack profile weapons like Javelin or NLAW, which avoid the thickly armored parts of the tank. Which by all accounts appear to be spectacularly effective. And of course when on one hand you have ERA, on the other you have tandem warheads built to defeat it. In short, its a land of contrasts and the race between armor and weapon continues. Arrath fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maxfras/status/1524385330652188673?s=20&t=lmmenKsz2d9HeIQuJcKB1w
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:https://twitter.com/maxfras/status/1524385330652188673?s=20&t=lmmenKsz2d9HeIQuJcKB1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3I6gFmlls https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1524399801617592322 "IDK just drive everything in???" zoux fucked around with this message at 16:34 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
The river is too deep to ford. You lose: 2 washing machines 307 rounds of APFSDS 2 Louis Vuitton handbags 3 sets of lingerie 459 pairs of shoes Ivan (drowned) Oleg (drowned) Alexei (drowned)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
More images of the aftermath of that battle. https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/1524406832890064901
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:More images of the aftermath of that battle. Thats not the remnants of a pontoon bridge?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:More images of the aftermath of that battle. Holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Good ole pile'o'tonks (turrets not included)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
If we send all of the tanks across the bridge at once, they won't be able to kill ALL of us.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:https://twitter.com/maxfras/status/1524385330652188673?s=20&t=lmmenKsz2d9HeIQuJcKB1w Seems like an effective way to target continued support from certain elements of the American political right.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
lightpole posted:Thats not the remnants of a pontoon bridge? The pontoons probably washed down river. The tanks weren't so lucky.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
I mean, its ALSO the remnants of a pontoon bridge. One that seems to have been in use when it stopped being an active duty pontoon bridge and started being diversified into pontoon bridge debris.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
lightpole posted:Thats not the remnants of a pontoon bridge? There's a better picture where you can see the other side showing the bridge remains https://twitter.com/poliitikasse/status/1524402114407059456?s=20&t=e9DiDEp6uYdeEGMaRiS5Zg
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
A river crossing under enemy fire is probably one of the most complex combined arms operations you can undertake. So I'm unsurprised that the Russians failed spectacularly.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
I don't see craters. I suspect every munition hit a target directly. No misses.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't see craters. Its been said a couple times Ukraine has access to loitering and laser guided munitions, so suspect a juicy target like this would be a "Do not miss" opportunity to use one.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
I don't think I double counted any separated turrets that returned to the ground, and I'm at ~29 AFV's lost in the three pics in that tweet. Even given Russian performance in the war, that is really spectacular, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
How are they so bad at this? all these Zapads they get up to. every Battlegroup exercise I've done the Battlegroup would always hammer us with unaposed and apossed crossings. Crossings are so complex but we'd never bunch up like that or be allowed to, also your tracked and wheeled crossings shouldn't be that close either, I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Arrath posted:I don't think I double counted any separated turrets that returned to the ground, and I'm at ~29 AFV's lost in the three pics in that tweet. Even given Russian performance in the war, that is really spectacular, isn't it? How many AFVs in a BTG? TCD fucked around with this message at 18:25 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
The Russians quite literally have colonels and possibly even generals screaming at privates to set up a bridge HERE and drive THOSE tanks across the bridge to occupy THIS grid point. The level of micromanaging and indifference to troop risk results in what we're seeing here.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
TCD posted:How many AFVs in a BTG? The Washington Post had an article a while ago that included a graphic about what a BTG might look like (at full strength, which current Russian BTGs may not be):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/30/russia-military-logistics-supply-chain/ BTGs don't necessarily have exactly the same equipment in each BTG, though. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 18:33 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:The Washington Post had an article a while ago that included a graphic about what a BTG might look like (at full strength, which current Russian BTGs may not be): Thanks for this, been finding it hard to track down a good example.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
psydude posted:If we send all of the tanks across the bridge at once, they won't be able to kill ALL of us. keep driving in tanks until you have a bridge of tanks
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 18:43
|
|