Ukraine War: Berth El Buk

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Ukraine War: Berth El Buk

(Thread IKs: weg, Toxic Mental)

Lammasu: May 8, 2019; lawful Good Monster

Sweaty IT Nerd posted:

I'm no historian but it seems like invading Finland again would be a really tough sell.

Invading Ukraine should have been a tough sell. Even if everything went according to Putin's plan he would be stuck with an occupation that Russia could not afford.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 06:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 13:29

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

golden bubble posted:

https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1640724725021261830

The first Challengers have also arrived and received their customary baptism in Kontakt-1 bricks.

That's a photoshop.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 06:48

zone: Dec 6, 2016

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1641315265588674560
In more feel good news;

# ? Mar 30, 2023 06:53

Zippy the Bummer: Dec 14, 2008; Silent Majority
The Don
LORD COMMANDER OF THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES

it would be fairly comical if it was armored like a giant alligator

# ? Mar 30, 2023 06:57

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Russia's Theft of Ukraines Assets

# ? Mar 30, 2023 07:10

Zero VGS: Aug 16, 2002; ASK ME ABOUT HOW HUMAN LIVES THAT MADE VIDEO GAME CONTROLLERS ARE WORTH MORE; Lipstick Apathy

Pekinduck posted:

Congratulations Finland, you've earned it.

It's Megamaid. She's gone from suck to blow you away!

# ? Mar 30, 2023 07:22

Shaman Tank Spec: Dec 26, 2003; *blep*

kru posted:

Brown is Onion Bhaji, Red is Chicken Pakora

https://i.imgur.com/2KunZps.mp4

This is the editorial from today's Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's largest newspaper. It is written by "their editorial staff" and follows their vague editorial guidelines. I wouldn't necessarily put my name under it either, because it honestly reads like a handful of people just stream of consciousnessed something into a text editor and hit send.

There are some valid points buried in there. We didn't really ever have a national discussion about NATO, because for a long time it was considered a forbidden topic due to our neighbour in the east, and then we rushed in. That's valid. Joining NATO will definitely bring its own complications and problems, because everything in life does. That's also valid. Joining a defense organization de facto led by the United States when it's entire possible the United States will be led by an orange idiot in a couple of years is potentially dangerous. That's also valid. But overall I think this is a good example of the kind of dialogue Finland's "elite" wants: vaguely waving shadowy monsters around and saying that someone should do something about it somewhere.

Helsingin Sanomat posted:

TERROR STIFLED DISCUSSION ABOUT NATO
By joining NATO Finland has solved a problem that has been shaking the foundations of its national security. In NATO we will find new problems which should have been discussed in the lead-up to the parliamentary elections.

A massive fear of failure curbed discussion about Finland's foreign and security policy, and our upcoming NATO membership, in the lead-up to the parliamentary election. Our voyage to NATO being still underway was the excuse all parties needed to not really say anything about NATO at all.

Parties turned inwards to calculate costs and incomes. Feelings were hidden about the long term geopolitical and geoeconomical consequences of Russia's war of invasion. Security policy sneaked into the conversation only because the Social Democratic Party's chair, prime minister Sanna Marin, broke foreign policy consensus with her words. Marin was left alone when a discussion arose about donating our to-be-mothballed Hornet fighters to Ukraine.

We didn't want en election about NATO, nor did we get one. This is a shame, because a real discussion about joining NATO was therefore never had. The decision was made under duress. As Russia started redefining its borders, presient Sauli Niinist� and Marin's government had to make a quick decision on an existential topic to Finland, and the risks were never fully divulged to citizens.

The elite no longer had reasons to hold off discussions about Finland in NATO and Finland's place in the world, but the discussion was once again not had.

Niinist�, Marin's government, and our parliament which finished its term on Wednesday will go into the history books because of their decision on NATO. Finland is joining the organization during a tumultuous period. NATO countries were not prepared for an age of strategic competition.

Finland and Sweden could not allow themselves to be overrun by Russia. The same conclusion was reached in other friction points of the global game. To Australians the Aukus nuclear submarines are what the NATO decision was to Finland and Sweden. The Philippines allowed the United States into its military bases in South-East Asia. Germany and Japan's big moves in national security seal the deal on there never being a return to what was.

China is keeping a close eye on what is happening in Europe. The relationship between Europe and the United States is also changing. Europe can't defend itself without the United States. At the same time Europe is afraid of a potential looming change of leadership in the White House. The United States is demanding that Europe increases its defense spending, but is also against the thought of a more independent Europe.

Researchers describe the trans-atlantic relationship as a broken status quo: we can manage for now, but the situation is untenable in the long run.

As Finland's NATO membership approaches, the war in Ukraine is movin to its next phase. As the war increases in scope, the West is moving towards a war economy.

In NATO Finland can look for a significant role as a military power in Northern Europe and the Arctic zone. This will change our view on Nordic co-operation: now we are talking about shared air forces and military purchases. At the same time the fight for NATO's resources rages on.

Finland will always be on Russia's border, and in NATO Finland will be a part of both the Baltic defense and the Arctic zone. The confrontation between the West and Russia is tensing up in the Arctic as well. As Russia's neighbours, Norway and Finland hav a lot in common. In NATO Norway can naturally act as a tutor for both Sweden and Finland. It is a failure of NATO that Sweden are still waiting in the cloak room.

Prior to our NATO membership, Finland's foreign and security policy was always defined by our relationship with Russia. Even though this relationship is now fractured, Russia and the United States always have some channels of communication open as nuclear powers. For Finland EU and NATO's relationships with Russia are crucial. It follows that Finland's role in defining NATO's relationship with Russia must also be discussed.

By joining NATO Finland has solved a problem that's been shaking the foundations of our national security, but in NATO we will face new problems. A more open conversation about our security policies will deepen our understanding of the scale of the earth-shattering period of change we are living in.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 07:33

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

https://twitter.com/Sachamarseille1/status/1641210855319654401

# ? Mar 30, 2023 07:41

Karate Bastard: Jul 31, 2007; Soiled Meat

Thank god Russia is finally starting to come around and doing something positive for humanity. Putting Netflix out of business is an admittedly small step, but honestly I'll take anything at this point.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 07:59

Shaman Tank Spec: Dec 26, 2003; *blep*

Sweaty IT Nerd posted:

I'm no historian but it seems like invading Finland again would be a really tough sell.

I dunno, there's probably a lot of people who feel like Russia has a bone to pick with Finland for historical reasons, after they were defeated due to being backstabbed by $CONVENIENT_POLITICAL_SCAPEGOAT in the Winter War. And then you have to consider that we are decadent homonazis who eat Russian tourists, as revealed in the 2012 documentary Shopping Trip and I'm sure some Russians have experienced xenophobia here, and many more are willing to make up horrible stories.

Putin and his cronies could 100% sell it. The whole line of "former Russian lands that were in error let go in 1917 must be returned to Russia" was something they've seriously been talking about for a while over there.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 08:06

Mr. Sunshine: May 15, 2008; This is a scrunt that has been in space too long and become a Lunt (Long Scrunt); Fun Shoe

Why do the former soviet armies all cover their tanks in ERA while the western armies don't? Is it a matter of doctrine? Or is ERA just not relevant for a modern tank, and it's just something slapped onto the various T-XX tanks to extend their lifespan?

# ? Mar 30, 2023 08:06

Der Kyhe: Jun 25, 2008

Shaman Tank Spec posted:

https://i.imgur.com/2KunZps.mp4

This is the editorial from today's Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's largest newspaper. It is written by "their editorial staff" and follows their vague editorial guidelines. I wouldn't necessarily put my name under it either, because it honestly reads like a handful of people just stream of consciousnessed something into a text editor and hit send.

There are some valid points buried in there. We didn't really ever have a national discussion about NATO, because for a long time it was considered a forbidden topic due to our neighbour in the east, and then we rushed in. That's valid. Joining NATO will definitely bring its own complications and problems, because everything in life does. That's also valid. Joining a defense organization de facto led by the United States when it's entire possible the United States will be led by an orange idiot in a couple of years is potentially dangerous. That's also valid. But overall I think this is a good example of the kind of dialogue Finland's "elite" wants: vaguely waving shadowy monsters around and saying that someone should do something about it somewhere.

Its also about the left wing hardliners, Soviet Russia great-NATO west bad-pipebrains, and outright Stalinists, that used to run this country's cultural and political power, being bitter about being sidelined for good. Especially left alliance and the older social democrats like Tuomioja and Halonen are salty towards the current cabinet for not sitting on the fence, idling away and then deciding that NATO vote can happen in 2025 if next parliament supports it, now they didn't leave enough time to muddy the waters and somehow get that 75+ percentage support for NATO membership to melt away. Pushing these editorials out and blaming the sitting cabinet and the president for being 'reckless' and the population 'idiots' for not trusting Putin's assurances and waiting and seeing what happens is now what they can do to keep the issue afloat. These old-timers still have influence on the academia, press, and political money circles, so this just keeps going on as the new left-side argument against NATO until the ecosystem collapses or sun explodes. Yes, we didn't vote for NATO, but the popular support was reaching 90% at its highest peak, and the security situation really didn't allow for protracted stalling or "v�yrystely" in the topic. Any other argument is hindsight and second-guessing.

This hemming and hawing around the topic, and second-guessing the decision that had larger support than joining EU, is really sad and I honestly do not get it, why? In my opinion it is also one of the main reasons why especially SDP but also other cabinet parties are losing the ongoing elections worse than originally thought, as the two in the lead are both parties that have always been openly pro-NATO.

Der Kyhe fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Mar 30, 2023

# ? Mar 30, 2023 08:10

Shaman Tank Spec: Dec 26, 2003; *blep*

Der Kyhe posted:

This hemming and hawing around the topic, and second-guessing the decision that had larger support than joining EU, is really sad and I honestly do not get it, why? In my opinion it is also one of the main reasons why especially SDP but also other cabinet parties are losing the ongoing elections worse than originally thought, as the two in the lead are both parties that have always been openly pro-NATO.

I think you nailed it in your first sentence. A lot of it is coming from the former Stasi youths and Soviet Union Hooray types that used to run this country and are now salty, because we are moving away from Russia's influence, and even worse, joining Nato, which as we all know is really the United States. Even though the right wing National Coalition Party has been in power recently and have support from the upper middle class and upper class, Finland has always been a VERY left-leaning country. A lot of people, especially politically active types, kind of believe the "Russia is our friend, Russia can't fail us, we can only fail Russia, and we shouldn't fail Russia or they'll be forced to lightly invade us and try to strip our independence again and it'll be YOUR fault" party line and are against anything that goes against that, especially if it's related to the United States.

It also feels like a lot of people even in the political elite don't fully understand what Nato is and how it works, because those "if we join Nato then all of Finland's soldiers can be sent to die in some war in Africa or something even if we don't want it" scaremongering stories keep making the rounds regularly.

e: But I do think it's valid that we should have had a really and truly honest and open discussion about Nato, specifically to dispel those horror stories and explain to people what the whole thing is about and what it means.

Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Mar 30, 2023

# ? Mar 30, 2023 08:21

Keisari: May 24, 2011

Shaman Tank Spec posted:

I think you nailed it in your first sentence. A lot of it is coming from the former Stasi youths and Soviet Union Hooray types that used to run this country and are now salty, because we are moving away from Russia's influence, and even worse, joining Nato, which as we all know is really the United States. Even though the right wing National Coalition Party has been in power recently and have support from the upper middle class and upper class, Finland has always been a VERY left-leaning country. A lot of people, especially politically active types, kind of believe the "Russia is our friend, Russia can't fail us, we can only fail Russia, and we shouldn't fail Russia or they'll be forced to lightly invade us and try to strip our independence again and it'll be YOUR fault" party line and are against anything that goes against that, especially if it's related to the United States.

It also feels like a lot of people even in the political elite don't fully understand what Nato is and how it works, because those "if we join Nato then all of Finland's soldiers can be sent to die in some war in Africa or something even if we don't want it" scaremongering stories keep making the rounds regularly.

e: But I do think it's valid that we should have had a really and truly honest and open discussion about Nato, specifically to dispel those horror stories and explain to people what the whole thing is about and what it means.

In the end, status quo bias will kick in and we will stay. I'm just relieved that I can now sleep easy knowing that neither me or my kids will have to die in a trench in 20 years.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 08:47

Dwesa: Jul 19, 2016; Maybe I'll go where I can see stars

Oh well, I guess Orb�n wasn't bootlicking Putin hard enough

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1641342540644249600

# ? Mar 30, 2023 09:09

Der Kyhe: Jun 25, 2008

Keisari posted:

In the end, status quo bias will kick in and we will stay. I'm just relieved that I can now sleep easy knowing that neither me or my kids will have to die in a trench in 20 years.

Fortunately, the popular support for NATO peaked just month ago and is around 80% For and 10% no opinion. Currently it is a political suicide to start backpedaling and talking about "not actually joining" or "leaving the moment war in Ukraine ends", no matter what Keskusta and anti-Marin leftists want to believe.

^^^^ "This has nothing to do with the decision of allowing Finland into NATO because we weren't planning an invasion right after the Ukraine."

# ? Mar 30, 2023 09:09

Goatson: Oct 21, 2020; The real 12 points was the Thug-Friends we made along the way

I have evidence that the Venn diagram for Finnish people opposing Nato and flu shots is a complete circle

# ? Mar 30, 2023 09:16

Karate Bastard: Jul 31, 2007; Soiled Meat

I'm so proud of little Hungary growing up and becoming a real boy.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 09:27

zone: Dec 6, 2016

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1641314607754096641
They'll be lucky if they scrape together half this much on short notice.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 09:29

tiaz: Jul 1, 2004; PICK UP THAT PRESENT.

Zelensky's Zealots

Mr. Sunshine posted:

Why do the former soviet armies all cover their tanks in ERA while the western armies don't? Is it a matter of doctrine? Or is ERA just not relevant for a modern tank, and it's just something slapped onto the various T-XX tanks to extend their lifespan?

As I understand it, different upgrade paths. Western armies used passive techniques (e.g. Chobham/composite armor) that are thought to achieve the same or better in regards to defeating APDS/HEAT. Unwilling or unable to retool the entire manufacturing pipeline or pay for composites, Russia went long on ERA.

Tandem warhead ATGMs can defeat ERA, I don't know what they're like against passive methods. ERA isn't useless, it just has caveats you might choose to avoid if you can. Even then, defeating single-warhead ATGMs and thereby getting a mulligan on your engagement is nothing to sneeze at.

the T-14 is though haha :owned:

# ? Mar 30, 2023 09:57

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

tiaz posted:

As I understand it, different upgrade paths. Western armies used passive techniques (e.g. Chobham/composite armor) that are thought to achieve the same or better in regards to defeating APDS/HEAT. Unwilling or unable to retool the entire manufacturing pipeline or pay for composites, Russia went long on ERA.

Tandem warhead ATGMs can defeat ERA, I don't know what they're like against passive methods. ERA isn't useless, it just has caveats you might choose to avoid if you can. Even then, defeating single-warhead ATGMs and thereby getting a mulligan on your engagement is nothing to sneeze at.

the T-14 is though haha

But if you combine them... best of both worlds? We'll see I guess.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:01

Barudak: May 7, 2007

Why dont you make the whole tank out of ERA? <rides directly to god>

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:09

Roblo: Dec 10, 2007; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Does the fact that ERA is a danger to dismounted troops around the vehicle factor into it? Obviously a missile hitting the vehicle is bad if you're near it either way, but I doubt ERA helps.

Edit: ngl the Challenger covered in ERA did look pretty sweet.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:13

weg: Jun 6, 2006; Reassisted Retrogression

https://twitter.com/HuffPostPol/status/1641366087806898178

As great as it would be to get a good war scoop, I don't know if being an American journalist in Russia is a safe move at the moment.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:28

Keisari: May 24, 2011

weg posted:

https://twitter.com/HuffPostPol/status/1641366087806898178

As great as it would be to get a good war scoop, I don't know if being an American journalist in Russia is a safe move at the moment.

Arresting or targeting Americans for reprisal is also a really stupid move in my opinion.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:30

Tuna-Fish: Sep 13, 2017

Mr. Sunshine posted:

Why do the former soviet armies all cover their tanks in ERA while the western armies don't? Is it a matter of doctrine? Or is ERA just not relevant for a modern tank, and it's just something slapped onto the various T-XX tanks to extend their lifespan?

tiaz posted:

As I understand it, different upgrade paths. Western armies used passive techniques (e.g. Chobham/composite armor) that are thought to achieve the same or better in regards to defeating APDS/HEAT. Unwilling or unable to retool the entire manufacturing pipeline or pay for composites, Russia went long on ERA.

The Soviets used composites before the west did. The T-64 is the first production tank in the world with composite armor, and entered service 14 years before any western equivalents. The reason the Soviets added a lot of ERA on top is that they designed their composite systems in the 60's, and by the late cold war they were no longer looking so hot, and ERA was a cheaper upgrade than replacing the armor itself.

Also, the idea that the west doesn't use ERA is mistaken. When US sent a lot of M1's into Iraq and found that tanks with side armor with the protection level of cardboard are a bad idea in urban environments, they designed the successive TUSK upgrades, which coat the sides of the tank in the kind of quantities of ERA that makes even the Ukrainians blush.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:31

tiaz: Jul 1, 2004; PICK UP THAT PRESENT.

Zelensky's Zealots

Tuna-Fish posted:

The Soviets used composites before the west did. The T-64 is the first production tank in the world with composite armor, and entered service 14 years before any western equivalents. The reason the Soviets added a lot of ERA on top is that they designed their composite systems in the 60's, and by the late cold war they were no longer looking so hot, and ERA was a cheaper upgrade than replacing the armor itself.

Also, the idea that the west doesn't use ERA is mistaken. When US sent a lot of M1's into Iraq and found that tanks with side armor with the protection level of cardboard are a bad idea in urban environments, they designed the successive TUSK upgrades, which coat the sides of the tank in the kind of quantities of ERA that makes even the Ukrainians blush.

ah, true, thanks for clarifying - but it is true that western tanks don't tend to do ERA for frontal protection/feel they need to add ERA in that area. I didn't mean to suggest Russia was still using straight RHA or the west uses no ERA or anything like that, but Russia clearly feel that frontally they want ERA to fix something missing.

mobby_6kl posted:

But if you combine them... best of both worlds? We'll see I guess.

Sort of. There's no reason to carry twice as much armor as it takes to defeat anything the enemy has, you're just paying extra fuel and ground pressure for no real benefit. Not to say the Ukrainians don't know what they're doing, I guess we'll see when the non-photoshop/shop floor prototype images come out.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:41

Budzilla: Oct 14, 2007; We can all learn from our past mistakes.

tiaz posted:

Sort of. There's no reason to carry twice as much armor as it takes to defeat anything the enemy has, you're just paying extra fuel and ground pressure for no real benefit. Not to say the Ukrainians don't know what they're doing, I guess we'll see when the non-photoshop/shop floor prototype images come out.

A Challenger 2 tank is at least 20 tons heavier than a T-72. I don't think it would be wise to throw more armour on it.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:52

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

There were plenty of M60s equipped with ERA during the Cold War.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:56

Borscht: Jun 4, 2011

Budzilla posted:

A Challenger 2 tank is at least 20 tons heavier than a T-72. I don't think it would be wise to throw more armour on it.

It's era, Micheal. What could it weigh, 5 tons?

# ? Mar 30, 2023 10:59

Drone_Fragger: May 9, 2007

I dont think anything but ADS will actually stop two stage anti tank missles, even the fancy bricks the uk and usa uses are more designed to stop sabots and single stage missles.

Thats really the main thing - you need both. Missles are easy prey for ads systems because of their low speed and ERA and NERA is good against armour piercing fin discarding sabots and HEAT rounds.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 11:11

weg: Jun 6, 2006; Reassisted Retrogression

Keisari posted:

Arresting or targeting Americans for reprisal is also a really stupid move in my opinion.

Agreed but it worked out for them when they nabbed Brittney Griner.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 11:11

Power Khan: Aug 20, 2011; by Fritz the Horse

Mr. Sunshine posted:

Why do the former soviet armies all cover their tanks in ERA while the western armies don't? Is it a matter of doctrine? Or is ERA just not relevant for a modern tank, and it's just something slapped onto the various T-XX tanks to extend their lifespan?

Budzilla posted:

A Challenger 2 tank is at least 20 tons heavier than a T-72. I don't think it would be wise to throw more armour on it.

From what I understand, Budzilla gave part of the answer here, because the soviet lineage reached the end of it's design's lifespan in that the tanks already suffer from problems with the powerplant and drivetrain reaching it's limit as it is. (You might have seen how fast they can go in reverse, which is kinda important). Adding some more tons of better armor cannot be done without requiring a completely new hull design that's able to house all this. ERA is a cheaper solution to extend the lifespan of what they have.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 11:13

Splorange: Feb 23, 2011

Shaman Tank Spec posted:

I dunno, there's probably a lot of people who feel like Russia has a bone to pick with Finland for historical reasons, after they were defeated due to being backstabbed by $CONVENIENT_POLITICAL_SCAPEGOAT in the Winter War. And then you have to consider that we are decadent homonazis who eat Russian tourists, as revealed in the 2012 documentary Shopping Trip and I'm sure some Russians have experienced xenophobia here, and many more are willing to make up horrible stories.

Putin and his cronies could 100% sell it. The whole line of "former Russian lands that were in error let go in 1917 must be returned to Russia" was something they've seriously been talking about for a while over there.

Look, whatever comes after Putin - you can be absolutely 100% certain that Russian imperialism and clown-crazy ultra-nationalism is not going anywhere. In the class of nations, Russia is the most likely to shoot up the school.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 11:36

Tafferling: Oct 22, 2008; DOOT DOOT
ALL ABOARD THE ISS POLOKONZERVA

Shaman Tank Spec posted:

And then you have to consider that we are decadent homonazis who eat Russian tourists, as revealed in the 2012 documentary Shopping Trip and I'm sure some Russians have experienced xenophobia here, and many more are willing to make up horrible stories.

I dunno, after suffering through My summer car I could see harvesting russian tourists for meat and spare parts.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 11:44

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Uh-oh, I think the russians just per-emptively defeated the offensive

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1640683155400040451

# ? Mar 30, 2023 12:19

Tarquinn: Jul 3, 2007; I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you
my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.; Hell Gem

Why do we only see them (badly) fortifying the beaches? Are they that sure that an attack will come from that direction or are they convinced that their sad little plaster pyramids are insurmountable?

# ? Mar 30, 2023 12:31

Tuna-Fish: Sep 13, 2017

tiaz posted:

ah, true, thanks for clarifying - but it is true that western tanks don't tend to do ERA for frontal protection/feel they need to add ERA in that area. I didn't mean to suggest Russia was still using straight RHA or the west uses no ERA or anything like that, but Russia clearly feel that frontally they want ERA to fix something missing.

Specifically, the late 60's armor plan of T-64B, T-72 and T-80 was designed to defeat the L11A5 120mm gun in the Chieftain tank. The problem is that since it's introduction, there has been a lot of significant improvements in ammunition, to the point that the armor was no longer felt to be enough. Because of this, the Soviets added ERA on top. (Yes, the era is primarily for darts, not for HEAT.)

Similarly, the armor of the Leopard 2 was designed to defeat the Soviet 125mm gun, but in the 80's the Russians had new ammo that could defeat their armor. Because of this, they added the angled applique on the turret face.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 12:42

Jasper Tin Neck: Nov 14, 2008; "Scientifically proven, rich and creamy."

Tarquinn posted:

Why do we only see them (badly) fortifying the beaches? Are they that sure that an attack will come from that direction or are they convinced that their sad little plaster pyramids are insurmountable?

Resort town beaches are probably most accessible to the civilian population because they're right up to the streets. You'll probably be arrested for spying if you film trenches outside the cities.

# ? Mar 30, 2023 12:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 13:29

Tarquinn: Jul 3, 2007; I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you
my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.; Hell Gem

Jasper Tin Neck posted:

Resort town beaches are probably most accessible to the civilian population because they're right up to the streets. You'll probably be arrested for spying if you film trenches outside the cities.

Yeah, that might be it.

Thanks!

# ? Mar 30, 2023 12:51

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Ukraine War: Berth El Buk

«‹›1429 »