|
Warbadger posted:It's more like it's the only cheap option available to improve protection without replacing the entire chassis. Reactive armor has limitations to how effective it can be, serving more as a supplement to the armor protection behind it by soaking up a bit of energy and mass (by throwing a thin metal plate into the path of a penetrator) than a replacement. Yeah that's the whole point tho: if they've got a javelin or equivalent you're hosed either way. Making the vehicle require significantly heavier weapons to stop is significant when a ton of the threats to tanks are not latest model AT weapons. It's not perfect but both sides have been increasingly trending towards closer to 100% coverage with reactive armor and each successive tank upgrade package seems to increase total surface coverage by another 5-10%. Russia's latest t-72 upgrade package now adds reactive armor to the front track cover as a direct response to experience in Ukraine. Alchenar posted:One of the things I really want to read about from an academic/doctrinal standpoint is whether each side has been actively choosing to use tanks to engage other tanks, or whether they have been trying where possible to use them to blast away at infantry while ATGMs/drones/artillery goes after the other side's armour. Yeah I'd love to read something really thorough. Word from interviews (eg plural of anecdotes) is that Russia tanks will not knowingly go within the ~5km AT range of Ukrainian positions because they're known to have a bunch of extremely potent AT weapons. Meanwhile according to Ukrainians, at least for anti-vehicle purposes, Russian tanks have been heavily relying on cannon-launched AT (svir/refleks) that from reports have a practical range of up to about 8km to pick off anything they can get a shot on. On a similar note, I think perspectives of Russian tank tactics as a whole get colored by all the benny hill footage of some ancient reservists who are comically unaware driving straight into ambushes and the like. Russia's better tank units were definitely deploying their tanks in much more of a best-practices way and there's a reason why Ukraine has never found t90s exactly easy to deal with. Similarly some of Ukrainian success against T-80BVM and T-80U and T-72B3M from better units has been in just routing the units as a whole or catching them when not dug in. Modern tanks also performed particularly badly in cities and mud unsurprisingly. Better Russian units using their tanks well are by all accounts a pain in the rear end to deal with, at least until someone can mark their position precisely enough to use m982 or gmlrs on them. Recently there's been so much footage coming out of guided artillery and gmlrs being used against Russian tanks that it appears to be getting established as the easiest way to deal with them.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Djarum posted:I wonder how much longer they can supply the T series of tanks with ammunition. At a certain point one would think moving Ukrainians to NATO standard material would have to happen just to supply them with ammo. It isn't like small arms where there is plenty of manufacturers making Warsaw Pact standard ammo and it is easy enough to spin up production of that. The answer to this question is apparently (mostly) Bulgaria. Bulgaria still has a number of manufacturers producing Soviet standard ammunition, including tank and artillery calibers. They've been quietly selling it to people who are then selling it on to Ukraine since the start of the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Yeah that's the whole point tho: if they've got a javelin or equivalent you're hosed either way. Making the vehicle require significantly heavier weapons to stop is significant when a ton of the threats to tanks are not latest model AT weapons. It's not perfect but both sides have been increasingly trending towards closer to 100% coverage with reactive armor and each successive tank upgrade package seems to increase total surface coverage by another 5-10%. Russia's latest t-72 upgrade package now adds reactive armor to the front track cover as a direct response to experience in Ukraine. It's a bit more complicated than that. The T-90A and T-72B3 both enjoyed *less* ERA coverage than the previous T-72BV/T-80BV/T-64BV from the 80's. With those 80's models you had near complete ERA coverage of the front upper-hull, front half of the turret roof, and just one big open spot on one side of the turret face for the active nightvision IR spotlight. You also had full coverage across more than half the length of the side skirts. The mid-80's T-80U did even better than the above with just one (smaller) gap to one side of the gun, fewer small gaps in general due to fewer larger plates, and near complete coverage of the turret roof aside from the optics and hatches (which admittedly are a large percentage of the turret roof's area on all of these tanks). But it also rolled back ERA coverage area on the side skirts to just under half the length of the vehicle (I'll talk about why that was later). With the T-90A you had similar frontal upper-hull coverage to the T-80U, significantly less coverage on the front half of the turret roof but with some new coverage scattered around on the rear half, a lot less coverage for the turret face with large exposed sections on both sides of the gun plus big bare spots under the two IR jammers to either side. The side skirts also had significantly less coverage with just three spaced ERA plates along the front third of the side skirts. Substantially less coverage overall than any of the old 80's era variants. With the T-72B3 you had pretty much the same coverage as the T-90A on the front hull, similar spotty coverage of the turret roof, same big gaps on the front turret on either side of the gun (but better overall coverage here due to the lack of IR jammer pods), and the same 3 plates on the front third of the side skirts. Again, pretty much the same deal as the T-90A this upgrade heavily borrowed from. The T-90M is the first post-USSR tank to really ramp up coverage area again, with marginally better coverage than the T-80U on the turret face and side skirts. It's notable that much of that ERA on the 80's era tanks on the side skirts and turret roof served almost no purpose. The armor behind those areas is essentially insignificant to the extent that any remotely modern anti-tank weapon from the 60's onward is likely to punch right through it - ERA or no ERA, even without a tandem warhead to spoil the ERA (which are on a huge number of threats from the 70's onward). Somebody with an old 60's era RPG-7 with "only" 500mm of steel armor penetration could very likely punch right through the 60-100mm of steel (sides) or 40-60mm (roof) behind a K-5 plate. This factor is likely why all the 90's era designs rolled back protection on many of the super lightly armored areas - it served little purpose. In the era of cope cages and stacking actual bricks on top of the ERA bricks you're now suddenly seeing ERA plates slapped back onto every possible surface while the armor under them remains unchanged - and it's probably not because that's a significant factor to the vehicle's survival. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
Random Integer posted:The answer to this question is apparently (mostly) Bulgaria. Bulgaria still has a number of manufacturers producing Soviet standard ammunition, including tank and artillery calibers. They've been quietly selling it to people who are then selling it on to Ukraine since the start of the war. Well that’s interesting. I know there has been plenty of places still making most small arms calibers but obviously tank and artillery stuff is a mystery since it isn’t possible to buy it legally. Also those making such stuff generally aren’t super open about it. Logistics for Ukraine has got to be an absolute mess though with all of the stuff they got. Once the war is over they are going to have to go full NATO and standardize across the board what they are using.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
MikeC posted:For all the talk of demoralised troops that will just surrender or flee in a moment's notice, when placed in a good position, the Russian forces have proven that they can and will defend competently and keep the Ukrainians at bay, even if at great cost. How much of this "resilience" is due to the existence of rear guard brigades that will shoot anyone who retreats though? There have been accounts of large numbers of Russians surrendering whenever possible too and that really isn't the sign of a resilient force that has faith in its leadership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
Random Integer posted:The answer to this question is apparently (mostly) Bulgaria. Bulgaria still has a number of manufacturers producing Soviet standard ammunition, including tank and artillery calibers. They've been quietly selling it to people who are then selling it on to Ukraine since the start of the war. huh, i wonder if that has anything to do with why their depots seem to spontaneously combust from time to time
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
Some separatist complaining https://t.me/s/aleksandr_skif quote:After the Mariupol operation, we considered that we suffered most of the losses from friendly fire. Someone even called the figure - sixty percent. This is an ordinary phenomenon, but its spread depends, of course, on the competence of commanders - especially artillerymen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
2nd military of the world news: revolts due to a lack of food and logs for heating https://youtu.be/WUxfK9Vg_yI Recovering historic greatness is going really well and we're somewhere in 1917
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 11:34
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:
I would not say that. It's true that the side armor won't stop a shot coming at it from a right angle, but that's not its job. It's job is to greatly widen the frontal angles that are protected. If someone fires on you from 30 degrees off your nose and hits your side, the armor and ERA will serve a purpose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 12:13
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:I would not say that. It's true that the side armor won't stop a shot coming at it from a right angle, but that's not its job. It's job is to greatly widen the frontal angles that are protected. If someone fires on you from 30 degrees off your nose and hits your side, the armor and ERA will serve a purpose. Yes, which is why you didn't need ERA on more than the front third of the skirts. The remainder of of that skirt ERA coverage on the older designs was pointless as it wouldn't be hit by that low angle shot from the front and it wouldn't be of much use against shots from the sides. That's why nearly half the side ERA coverage was removed in the mid-80's and 90's designs. In general the ERA doesn't "stop" a shot bigger than something like a single autocannon round anyways. It can't, with neither the energy or mass to do so. Instead, it deforms and abrades the penetrator, reducing the impact on whatever is behind the ERA so that armor can have a better chance to stop it. The effectiveness of ERA also greatly varies based on the angle it throws the plate into the EFP/kinetic round. The explosion doesn't matter, the relatively thin armor plate it flings away from the tank does all the work, and there are practical limitations on how heavy and thick that plate can be because you need to fling it at extremely high speeds to make this work. If the round hits that (pretty thin) ERA plate head-on, it's just going to punch a clean hole through and keep going like nothing happened. If the ERA throws the plate across the path of the projectile now that projectile has to grind through a lot more material as the plate rapidly moves across the path of the penetrator, possibly equating to a few hundred millimeters of additional armor plate in perfect conditions. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
I didn't see this posted so... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/finnish-police-no-evidence-weapon-201400758.html So apparently the "WEAPONS SENT TO UKRAINE ARE ALL GOING TO CRIMINALS" thing was totally made up. Big shock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 13:03
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:How much of this "resilience" is due to the existence of rear guard brigades that will shoot anyone who retreats though? I’ll ask for some citations here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
I wonder how much of the ERA is still effective considering that we’ve seen instances of tanks without the actual explosive bricks part of the ERA package. I have no idea if this is widespread or not but the Russian army command definitely likes to cut corners and pocket the difference
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I wonder how much of the ERA is still effective considering that we’ve seen instances of tanks without the actual explosive bricks part of the ERA package. I have no idea if this is widespread or not but the Russian army command definitely likes to cut corners and pocket the difference It's the kind of thing that needs to function near perfectly to do any good, with a shelf life for the explosives and storage requirements. If it goes off just a tiny bit late, it will make no difference. If the explosive blast isn't formed to lob that plate of material the way it was designed, it still probably won't make much difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I’ll ask for some citations here. There were some of those vids translating Russian calls back to family and friends and one of them had a guy commenting about being in a brigade that shoots anyone who tries to run away. They mentioned it was the same for them too. The Ukrainians are also saying this is happening too. Zelensky has also said around a couple of thousand Russians have tried to surrender so far. All the sources for this stuff is Ukrainian or intercepted calls that could've been edited for propaganda purposes so not the ideal of a official Russian document or whatever as evidence but I don't think they're lying about this stuff either. Things are just going way to lovely for your avg Russian soldier to dismiss it out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
I'm often dubious about those intercepted calls. They often feel a bit too on the nose
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:There were some of those vids translating Russian calls back to family and friends and one of them had a guy commenting about being in a brigade that shoots anyone who tries to run away. They mentioned it was the same for them too. Tigey posted:I'm often dubious about those intercepted calls. They often feel a bit too on the nose Same, they got old back in 2014 already, and shouldn’t be used as the sole or an otherwise load-bearing piece of evidence on anything, since I’m 3 bored hours with Audacity away from a heart-gripping tale about a Russian special forces captain crying how the commissar took their matryoshkas away. Continuing, “several thousand soldiers” and “everyone surrenders when they can” are two very different statements, without even commenting on the nature of continued Ukrainian casualties if the latter was the case. Same goes for claims not backed by evidence, when contrasted to, e.g., Lapin’s “disciplinary techniques” episode being ratted immediately by his own, despite very much serious stakes. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I didn't see this posted so... Its just shockingly dumb for the state police to go on record on the public broadcaster's website claiming bullshit while demanding more funding. Did they seriously expect nobody in Ukraine would get wind of this? I hope the Ukrainian foreign ministry presses for an official apology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Yeah I'd love to read something really thorough. Word from interviews (eg plural of anecdotes) is that Russia tanks will not knowingly go within the ~5km AT range of Ukrainian positions because they're known to have a bunch of extremely potent AT weapons. Meanwhile according to Ukrainians, at least for anti-vehicle purposes, Russian tanks have been heavily relying on cannon-launched AT (svir/refleks) that from reports have a practical range of up to about 8km to pick off anything they can get a shot on. First, this entire post was a good post. Second, where have you seen anecdotes of 8km shots with 125mm? That's further than I thought Russian optics could really shoot with any precision. I heard of M1A2SEP (version 1) gunners hitting targets at vup to 5000m, but admiteddly that was almost 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Tigey posted:I'm often dubious about those intercepted calls. They often feel a bit too on the nose The NSA and NRO have been waiting for their moment since the Cold War and conflicts like this are their dream. I’m sure they regularly intercept, analyze, and share phone data traffic with the Ukrainians so it’s not too far fetched to hear these sorts of recordings
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
I've heard maybe a couple of those 'calls home' that sounded genuine, where people speak in some very specific local dialects, and don't go into geopolitics, just talk about life. The majority are, if not outright staged, at least heavily edited or incorrectly dated or geolocated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Tigey posted:I'm often dubious about those intercepted calls. They often feel a bit too on the nose They probably intercept a loooot of calls, and they post the most egregious ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The NSA and NRO have been waiting for their moment since the Cold War and conflicts like this are their dream. I’m sure they regularly intercept, analyze, and share phone data traffic with the Ukrainians so it’s not too far fetched to hear these sorts of recordings The Ukrainians are perfectly capable of intercepting phone traffic themselves. e: sorry for doubleposting spankmeister fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:They probably intercept a loooot of calls, and they post the most egregious ones. They're not gonna post people discussing what little Vanya had for lunch, do people take them for Wikileaks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I've heard maybe a couple of those 'calls home' that sounded genuine, where people speak in some very specific local dialects, and don't go into geopolitics, just talk about life. The majority are, if not outright staged, at least heavily edited or incorrectly dated or geolocated. I mean, you may be right but do you have any more to back that up than "trust me bro" ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I mean, you may be right but do you have any more to back that up than "trust me bro" ? I’d argue than a Russian would be a competent party to characterising a Russian dialogue as naturally or unnaturally sounding, unless it feels very important for you to make “the majority that you have heard” distinction, that should be obvious from the text. The burden of proof, in any case, is on my_crimes.mp3 being reasonably linked to material evidence, like it ultimately was with, e.g., the MH17. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I mean, you may be right but do you have any more to back that up than "trust me bro" ? I don't think anyone did proper analysis, but just by listening, people often speak in weird unnatural movie dialogue Russian, when the call is presented as recent, there are either suspiciously no mentions of particular recent events, just general 'mum, we're dying here by the dozen, it's so hosed' or references to what seems to be much earlier events, etc. I'm not a journalist, so I don't have the resources to sit and listen to hours of calls and write up what's potentially wrong with them, so my impression is all I can give you on this one. But you have to understand that when Ukraine publishes them, their evidence that they are real is also 'trust me bro'. As I said, some of them sound more genuine than others, it just shouldn't be something to go off of when assessing how well or badly Russians are doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
The calls alone shouldn't be enough to assess sure. But the phone calls, along with the Ukrainan's official commentary, along with the evidence of lousy logistics, poor living conditions, low to no training for Russian troops, etc. are a different story. If the Russians were doing good or at least OK I could understand dismissing them out of hand as baseless propaganda but since that isn't the case I don't think that makes sense to do. And yeah they're definitely picking which calls to put out there publicly but as far as anyone can tell they are real. I think NYT did some background investigating into at least some of them and said as much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Intercepted calls are sort of like vox populi style interviews. A very large dataset can be reduced to a small set of edited calls. Journalists who are good at vox populi have told me that they don't really need to coach people. Even documentarists often use the technique of simply having people talk for a very long time and grab the sections they need. People say all kinds of stuff on the phone. For any kind of hot war that isn't a complete steamroll - you'll have a massive gamut of personalities, information bubbles, rumors and call circumstances (people will express themselves differently to their wives than to their buddies than to their younger brothers than to their parents, etc.) I do think a lot of these calls provide important information on many topic, including war crimes, poor morale, brutal tactics. But the value of intercepted calls for military and political intelligence is very different than it is to the wider public. For the international public it should be considered yet another form of war reporting and propaganda. That doesn't make it all untrue or useless. Documenting and/or boosting the reporting individual incidents is a perfectly valid and important aspect of war journalism. But as the audience, we should be aware that like vox populi reporting, this is not guaranteed to be representative, we do not know the frequency of similar events, and we do not know what has been omitted. But as for staging these calls? Some might be, but like vox populi, why fake when you can use real material? So I do not think it is likely many of these calls are staged. However, a staged call can be more representative of reality than a cherry picked one, so it isn't as simple as whether calls are real or not. Intercepted calls are one of many information sources that document that war crimes are sadly rampant from the Russian side and that the professionalism, morale and effectiveness of the Russian army is not what most outsiders thought it to be. How much friendly fire is happening? Probably a lot, given the nature of the war on the ground and the tactics used. How much infighting is happening? Probably much less than boosted incidents could indicate. Widespread infighting and mutiny does not happen until after the collapse has happened. Armies have historically show a surprising level of integrity and obedience right up to the moment they surrender. Disobedience is much more likely to be passive in nature - not advancing, picking the wrong targets, not coordinating, taking the wrong routes, etc. Which is also what a lot of intercepted calls describe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The NSA and NRO have been waiting for their moment since the Cold War and conflicts like this are their dream. I’m sure they regularly intercept, analyze, and share phone data traffic with the Ukrainians so it’s not too far fetched to hear these sorts of recordings That's just supporting the possibility of successfully intercepting phone calls, though. The ability to intercept phone calls doesn't have any correlation with whether or not the Russians are actually making those calls. Or to put it another way, the NSA likely has the ability to intercept YOUR personal phone calls, but that doesn't mean that a recording of you plotting terrorist activity is necessarily real, is it? Not making a direct comment on the veracity of the phone calls, mind you, since I'm not really in a position to properly gauge that, just calling out the logical foul. PC LOAD LETTER posted:The calls alone shouldn't be enough to assess sure. But none of this is really hard proof that the Russians are surrendering in droves, is it? All the other things you suggested are proof that Russians might have good reason to consider surrender, but frankly people can and have fought on in worse conditions. The official commentary you point out actually backs this up - it notes that "two thousand people have already called the surrender hotline in a few weeks," which is a lot of people to fit into a high school auditorium but kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the size of Russian forces in the field and mobilizing. Nor is it really proof of blocking detachments used en masse - what you have here reads to me essentially like "It sounds like it could be true, so why not accept it as true?" Not directly specifically at you but I feel like this thread goes through rounds of circular logic sometimes where "The Russians have bad troops" -> "The evidence that they have bad troops is X, Y, and Z" -> "X, Y, and Z isn't verified but it's probably true because the Russians have bad troops." And yeah, there IS actually verified evidence of the Russians being bad troops but they've also not completely bottomed out yet either for the simple reason that if they HAD bottomed out the war would be over and Ukraine would be marching triumphantly into Crimea unopposed. They might not be fighting well, but they're still absolutely fighting, and as long as they continue to fight they're still entirely capable of killing Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, and the Ukrainians can't afford to take them lightly. The much-vaunted superior skill of Ukrainian soldiers isn't because they're deadlier in honorable one-on-one combat, it's because their officers are better at bypassing and neutralizing Russian strengths and identifying and exploiting Russian weaknesses - and even then it's worth remembering the old saying that victory in war belongs not to the side that makes no mistakes, but rather to the side that makes fewer mistakes. The Ukrainians at least aren't treating the Russians as punching bags to knock down as they please, but rather as serious adversaries that requires careful thought, preparation, and planning to overcome - why shouldn't we do the same? Tomn fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I mean, you may be right but do you have any more to back that up than "trust me bro" ? The Ukrainians are not going to release the intercepts where people talk about how badly the Ukrainians are doing, how well lead their specific division is, or how they're kicking rear end, so you're looking at a heavily biased sample that gives a preselected impression. You really shouldn't need someone to prove to you that you need to be skeptical about what is essentially propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
The only soldiers you see surrender are the ones who sit in a trench or a treeline, get overwhelmed and surrounded by some enemy raid and they just fight it to the end or just put their hands up. Happens to both sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
saratoga posted:The Ukrainians are not going to release the intercepts where people talk about how badly the Ukrainians are doing, how well lead their specific division is, or how they're kicking rear end, so you're looking at a heavily biased sample that gives a preselected impression. You really shouldn't need someone to prove to you that you need to be skeptical about what is essentially propaganda. You seem to be arguing against a position that I've never taken. I've never said the recordings were not biased and shouldn't be taken as anything but propaganda. They are highly likely to be carefully curated and edited by the Ukrainian authorities. However, Paladinus was saying that most of the recordings seemed to be staged and I was curious about their reasons for saying so. I am perfectly willing to accept their viewpoint but I am careful about basing an opinion about the authenticity of the recordings based on the comments of only one person whose credentials I don't know. Hence my post. I'll grant that it came off as more skeptical than curious and I'll try to hit a better tone next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
I'd second Paladinus regarding the calls - If you are a native speaker you can tell how a lot of them are way too "correctly" staged and dont sound natural. Then, NYT managed to verify a lot of those from spring - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/world/europe/russian-soldiers-phone-calls-ukraine.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:I'd second Paladinus regarding the calls - If you are a native speaker you can tell how a lot of them are way too "correctly" staged and dont sound natural. Just opened the thread because I remembered this, too. There were also occasional phone calls where someone mentioned relatives, and journalists managed to find the person on VK, but obviously nobody checks every single recording, and the question of when and where the call was recorded, while very important, can't be answered with certainty most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
It would be cool to see a compilation of calls which sound the most real to the native speakers and which ones sound the most staged
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:It would be cool to see a compilation of calls which sound the most real to the native speakers and which ones sound the most staged The differences are not major, they just occasionally have out-of-place lingo, like if you'd imagine someone replying to a street dealer pronouncing weed price with “copy that”. Edit: Maybe to slightly clarify what I mean, the interviews that have sounded off to me normally either have entirely unnecessary, contextually, political tangents, or overly specific jargon when talking about Ukrainians/NATO/the baddies. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:First, this entire post was a good post. Second, where have you seen anecdotes of 8km shots with 125mm? That's further than I thought Russian optics could really shoot with any precision. I heard of M1A2SEP (version 1) gunners hitting targets at vup to 5000m, but admiteddly that was almost 20 years ago. To be clear it's just missiles being reported at that range. Comes up in a number of longer video'd interviews with people on front lines. Supposedly it's just the cannon-launched AT missiles, like refleks, or possibly they're using something similar or new (and yes I know they on paper have a lower range of 5km) but I also wonder if this is a misattribution because the complaint around those has been essentially that they come from so far away that its seemingly out of the blue, which doesn't fill you with confidence that the source of the missile was accurately known. On the other hand, it sounded like it was something being used consistently and eventually they adapted their behavior around, so it seems like they did figure out what it was. I think I first heard that mentioned back in July or August. I think it's possible that it is either some other AT system being used or a number of other options. On a somewhat related note, around September footage of Ukrainian attacks on tanks seemed to have shifted heavily to precision artillery rounds or even gmlrs or similar. An increasing amount of the videos of Russian tanks being attacked are filmed from incredibly long range and generally show direct hull hits. I suspect that has to do with supplies of precision guided artillery rounds getting larger and more consistent and crews gaining more experience using them. I guess they'd also be preferable because they can kill a tank without having to expose anyone on the ground and ease of resupply for artillery crews vs front-line units. Another curious shift is that since the beginning of October Ukraine has generated more footage of attacks on T90Ms than they have throughout pretty much the entire rest of the war. No clue if that's just Russia using them more or if they got something useful out of the one they captured back in mid September. There's also the real and frankly likely possibility that Ukraine MoD is selective about not letting footage of certain kinds of engagements out, so that's a big potential limitation on the openly available, uh, dataset. and, yknow, full disclosure that I'm just some rear end in a top hat who has been watching how Russia uses and misuses armored vehicles for a decade, there are people around here far, far more knowledgeable on everything to do with tanks, Warbadger posted:It's a bit more complicated than that. [snip] yeah you're right and the large numbers of blown up tanks with higher % total coverage doesn't lie. I guess it is mostly just marketing bullshit and what you originally said "It's more like it's the only cheap option available to improve protection without replacing the entire chassis." I shouldn't have flippantly called it the biggest factor in survival cuz the actual amount of factors going into tanks surviving in Ukraine is a long list. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Isn't ERA mostly intended to disrupt HEAP and the effectiveness against kinetic penetrators is quite limited? Also completely useless against top-attack-munitions of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't ERA mostly intended to disrupt HEAP and the effectiveness against kinetic penetrators is quite limited? ERA works against kinetic penetrators if so designed, and would work against top attack munitions if era modules of appropriate strength were placed on the top. Most of the late generation tanks on both sides should have ERA that works against kinetic rounds. The older t-72s and t-62s wont though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 02:08
|
|