• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkCorrigan said:
Oh, the Ukrainians are making a point of saying that the TV tower that was hit was right by a Holocaust memorial.

The Russians are just awful at every aspect of this.
Click to expand...

Yes but now someone will point out that THIS, right now not later, is the perfect time to point out that the other side (and everyone isn't who might assist or get involved) isn't perfect.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Also on a more serious note, the reconnaissance assets might be unarmed small drones or from nations not currently involved in combat here. I mean I am sure the US has reconnaissance drones keeping an eye on the situation.
Click to expand...
The US has had at least two Global Hawks in the area (call signs FORTE11 and FORTE12)
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That sounds a monumentally stupid design. Why on Earth would they build them like that?

ETA: As there was a post between mine and the one I'm replying to, I meant the Russian tanks, not the various bombers.
Click to expand...

Trade-offs. You're trying to get everything done under a certain weight and size. You're also trying to do it in a way that's accessible, mentally, to the troops you have to train and the quality of training you can provide. You're also trying to do it - hopefully - in a way that makes important stuff accessible to maintenance crews. You're also trying to do it in a way that's accessible to your manufacturing plants who have to make parts for these things.

Most military vehicle designs, something's gotta give. A lot of things have to give, usually, at least a little. If I had to guess, I'd say the Russian design is probably to save weight or simplify crew actions or both.

The T-72 is a very old design. It shares a lot of subpar design features with other tanks of the same era. It's been extensively upgraded, but the underlying chassis is still from the 1970s.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
At this point it seems the Ukrainians can ignore the Russian vehicles and just wait for them to break down on their own.

Pathetic Putin, absolutely pathetic.
Click to expand...

Some are always going to break down, you have to factor it in to your plans.
If you get a breakdown you bulldoze it out of the way and carry on.
Your mechanics and recovery vehicle companies are as important as your tanks.
You run more than one route so you can switch the weight of the advance to it if you get a hold up anywhere. etc.

All basic stuff.

One of the reasons the Ardennes offensive in 1944 failed was traffic jams in the rear areas, supplies and reinforcements got bogged down in the mud then vehicles broke down and were stuck.
It was a big problem for the German advance through the Ardennes in 1940 too and for the advances in to Russia in the Barbarossa and Fall Blau offensives. They didn't learn any lessons from it and it seems the Russians weren't paying attention either.
I mentioned it earlier but one of the reasons for the sustained advance by the Allied forces through Normandy and up in to Belgium and Germany was organising the resupply convoy routes and running them efficiently, the 'Rad Ball Express' as it was known.
 
theprestige said:
Why such a fetish for the A-10? There are much better planes in NATO inventory these days for that mission. The F-16, the F-15E, the B-1B, the Typhoon, the Rafale, of course the F-35. Even the MQ-9. Though I suppose if you can get a Reaper drone over Russian supply lines unmolested, you might as well send a Warthog. Or a Tucano.

I guess my real point is, this whole invasion falls apart the moment NATO decides to start bombing these convoys everyone seems to know about and be taking pictures of. Speaking of which, why isn't whatever is taking pictures of these convoys not shooting at them?
Click to expand...

I think they came from this company. Satellite imagery
https://www.maxar.com/products/satellite-imagery
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That sounds a monumentally stupid design. Why on Earth would they build them like that?

ETA: As there was a post between mine and the one I'm replying to, I meant the Russian tanks, not the various bombers.
Click to expand...

Because they wanted to keep them as small as possible.

Look at the development of Russian tanks since WW2. They all have turrets as small as possible. It keeps the profile of the tank low, and allows thicker armour without a huge increase in weight.

To get the reduced size they decided to go for an autoloader and do away with the 3rd crewman in the turret.
To get the autoloader to work the ammunition is arranged in a circular carousel, When a round is extracted up in to the gun the carousel rotates round to present the next one for loading. It is on two levels, one level contains the propellant charge the other the actual shell.
If this carousel is armoured to any level that would be useful it would increase the height of the vehicle and the weight so there would be no advantage. Instead the floor of the turret is a mix of open mesh and light floorplates like on every other tank.

On top of the safety dangers there is the problem that the gun can only be loaded at a set elevation and if there is a jam anywhere in the system it can't be cleared by the crew in the field.

Also Russian tanks are notoriously badly supplied with vision devices compared to Western tanks, look at the turret of one, see how few periscopes the commander has and the gunner has only his sights.
Situational awareness is not optimal.
 
It's 2022. A well designed tank is "Don't build tanks and put the resources elsewhere."

The US Army literally has tanks forced on it.
 
ponderingturtle said:
To keep the crew smaller with having an auto loader instead of a person to load the shell. I think they can also be faster loading than a person. And it shows how much they care if the crew gets cooked along with the tank.
Click to expand...

They aren't any faster than a Challenger to load and in theory they are slightly faster than a Leopard or Abrams. In practice they have a lower rate of aimed fire as the gun ahs to be returned to a fixed elevation for loading which slows things down.
In addition the Western tanks have 'hunter-killer' systems. While the gunner is engaging one target the commander can designate the next one. That allows the gunner to be put on to his next target as soon as he destroys the one currently being engaged. Several targets can be queued for the gunner/
Also on Western tanks the commander can completely take over the gun and turret control and engage a target himself if a sudden threat appears and needs to be engaged immediately.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Because they wanted to keep them as small as possible.

Look at the development of Russian tanks since WW2. They all have turrets as small as possible. It keeps the profile of the tank low, and allows thicker armour without a huge increase in weight.

To get the reduced size they decided to go for an autoloader and do away with the 3rd crewman in the turret.
To get the autoloader to work the ammunition is arranged in a circular carousel, When a round is extracted up in to the gun the carousel rotates round to present the next one for loading. It is on two levels, one level contains the propellant charge the other the actual shell.
If this carousel is armoured to any level that would be useful it would increase the height of the vehicle and the weight so there would be no advantage. Instead the floor of the turret is a mix of open mesh and light floorplates like on every other tank.

On top of the safety dangers there is the problem that the gun can only be loaded at a set elevation and if there is a jam anywhere in the system it can't be cleared by the crew in the field.

Also Russian tanks are notoriously badly supplied with vision devices compared to Western tanks, look at the turret of one, see how few periscopes the commander has and the gunner has only his sights.
Situational awareness is not optimal.
Click to expand...

I read The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine by Andrew Cockburn in the late 1980s - making the case that it was a lot less capable than on paper.

He had a section on the tank autoloaders, quoting one US army evaluation team member, a gunner, I think saying "now I know where the Red Army choir gets its soprano section"

The 1970s and 1980s versions were apparently prone to grabbing limbs as well as shells.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They aren't any faster than a Challenger to load and in theory they are slightly faster than a Leopard or Abrahams. In practice they have a lower rate of aimed fire as the gun ahs to be returned to a fixed elevation for loading which slows things down.
In addition the Western tanks have 'hunter-killer' systems. While the gunner is engaging one target the commander can designate the next one. That allows the gunner to be put on to his next target as soon as he destroys the one currently being engaged. Several targets can be queued for the gunner/
Also on Western tanks the commander can completely take over the gun and turret control and engage a target himself if a sudden threat appears and needs to be engaged immediately.
Click to expand...

I believe the western tanks also have greater flexibility with which type of ammo they fire. The Russian tanks have to fire whatever is next in the magazine, but the American/European tanks can pick an armor piercing round, or high explosive, or....

The Russian tanks are much smaller but have similar firepower as the American/European designs. I saw a photo of a T-72 parked next to an Abrams, it is pretty noticeable.
 
The joke the miner in Chernobyl tells that goes:

"What’s as big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a [crap]-load of smoke and noise, and cuts an apple into three pieces? A Soviet machine made to cut apples into four pieces!"

seems appropriate here, if you just throw in "and kills the operater 1 time out 10."
 
Galaxie said:
The UA may have captured a loaded TOS-1A. :eye-poppi Should they use it?

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1498697710429425672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1498707888348573702%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fliveupdate%2F18hnzysb1elcs%2FLiveUpdate_6f8e28ce-9983-11ec-826c-e641cc36a296%2F0
Click to expand...
I'm torn on this. On one hand, that's a vicious weapon and not using it is absolutely the more moral option. Ukraine shouldn't taint itself.

On the other, I bet that would **** the Russians up.
 
"Reynolds: I gather you think that sanctions leveled by the government are inadequate to address this much larger threat?

Hill: Absolutely. Sanctions are not going to be enough. You need to have a major international response, where governments decide on their own accord that they can’t do business with Russia for a period of time until this is resolved. We need a temporary suspension of business activity with Russia. Just as we wouldn’t be having a full-blown diplomatic negotiation for anything but a ceasefire and withdrawal while Ukraine is still being actively invaded, so it’s the same thing with business. Right now you’re fueling the invasion of Ukraine. So what we need is a suspension of business activity with Russia until Moscow ceases hostilities and withdraws its troops."

This has put the fear of God in me
"Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes"

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340
 
JoeMorgue said:
The joke the miner in Chernobyl tells that goes:

"What’s as big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a [crap]-load of smoke and noise, and cuts an apple into three pieces? A Soviet machine made to cut apples into four pieces!"

seems appropriate here, if you just throw in "and kills the operater 1 time out 10."
Click to expand...

We have had a version of that for decades.

"What doesn't buzz and won't fit into your butthole?"
"A Russian butthole-buzzer."

Also, whenever my long-dead grandpa, a veteran of the Winter and Continuation wars, did his most daring, improvised gum-wrap-and-duct-tape temp fixes, he always used to say "There. As good as a new Russian-made one."
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
I'm torn on this. On one hand, that's a vicious weapon and not using it is absolutely the more moral option. Ukraine shouldn't taint itself.

On the other, I bet that would **** the Russians up.
Click to expand...

I mean, the Russians didn't bring it along to not use it.... and if the Ukrainians use it, then its 100% going to be against military targets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom