Putin, arse, elbow

[ajohn]

The worthy commentators are now wondering what the players' "would settle for" endgames will be. Zelensky has been equivocal, talking about pushing the Russians out of Ukraine to pre-Crimean invasion borders, at the same time as making concessionary noises when talks were mentioned.
Washington - they'll want to see Russia get a bloody nose and a better armed Europe, but will they want to push Russia hard. That could provoke a nuclear reaction, so the guessers say no.
Putin - perhaps he'll want to settle on rigged elections in Ukraine. Nobody sees him having a "general mobilization" to get enough forces to push all the way to Moldova.

Last I heard was out of Crimea too. There has a number of rumbles about the endgame including against Russia they can't win - totally anyway. I don't see it that way. Either sides achievements depend on a number of things so could go either way in terms of degree. Supplies in a general sense often sort out the result of a war. WWII is a good example of that. The need to replace losses quicker than the enemy can. This one is a bit different but fighting needs kit and people and the sundries.

For a mechanised war which it is I am not sure how much masses of foot soldiers help in defended situations. I'd have thought not a lot without a lot of body bags. They need the mechanical bits and an array of guns as well. The mechanical bits need more training to use. Some more so than others. It seems some soldiers are being taken out of Ukraine to achieve that. The howitzers sent are seen as not really different to the general ones so should be easy to use. The German items rather different and that is where training was mentioned. In Germany being mentioned. Pass. C4's lady of experience who has been all over the place thinks contactors will appear. Training even for maintenance. She has seen loads of them elsewhere.

I suppose both sides can draw on trained reserves preferably experienced ones.

Nukes - pass. They can be used in various ways. They tend to capture a mess.

Latest talks - G7, ways of getting grain out of Ukraine. Railways mentioned with problems even if all are working. Not sure about that as E Europe may have some of the same gauge as Russia uses. It appears Ukraine use it too.

 

[transam]

I bet anti-tank rockets are selling like hot cakes

thr factory in belfast making the N law missiles are on overtime ( big time)

 

[Deleted member 174758]

And not even a Brexit benefit...

 

[ajohn]

N law missiles

I may have seen a couple of those there. Look to be a bit more cumbersome than the earlier UK ones. 2 of them. 2 people carrying one in it's plastic crate. I wondered if they were the USA ones but from shape think they were these which might be the same or similar looks wise.

These sorts of things can take out any tank not just Russian ones. As the armour type and thickness etc gets more effective they just get more and more powerful or hit in specific places etc.

 

[charliegolf]

could be expendable in some less scrupulous military organisations

Indeed.

 

[transam]

I may have seen a couple of those there. Look to be a bit more cumbersome than the earlier UK ones. 2 of them. 2 people carrying one in it's plastic crate. I wondered if they were the USA ones but from shape think they were these which might be the same or similar looks wise.

These sorts of things can take out any tank not just Russian ones. As the armour type and thickness etc gets more effective they just get more and more powerful or hit in specific places etc.

russuan tanks have a design flaw

they store ammo in the turrent

so a report said

N laws are single man use

this entire Russian military campaign , for a top military power ?? Is basically a disaster to date



One of the biggest military ba ll s
Up since Lord chelmsford lead his army into a military disaster in South Africa

 

[transam]

Also another report ref Russian casualties

the casualties contain a very high number of officers ??

which suggests that coordination

and discipline in the army ranks is poor ?????

 

[JohnD]

russuan tanks have a design flaw

they store ammo in the turrent

There is a view that if an armour-piercing round penetrates the hull or turret of a tank, it will bounce around inside and mince the crew, so the added inconvenience of exploding ammunition will not make things much worse.

Russian tanks and their crews are turned out in large numbers on a "pile em high and sell em cheap" basis.

Expense is saved.

Lose a few, plenty more behind.

This may not contribute to high morale if they are faced with an enemy capable of firing back.

They are deliberately made light and thinly armoured.

This gives the advantage that they can cross Russian bridges that will not support Western tanks.

And cuts costs.

However they are quite adequate for invading a small and weak country whose army and government immediately surrender. It worked in 2014 in Crimea.

 

[transam]

Apparently the turret om them
New state of the art Russian tanks
Weighs 12 tons ????

there was a video on line from some Chinese news organisation
That showed one of these tank turrets exploding 20 foot up in the air

missile probably hit the stored ammo ???

apparently the Chinese are reporting from Russian lines / Russian held territory ????

 

[ajohn]

One difference with some of the Russian tanks is size due to being suitable for E European roads and aspect like that. Smaller than a typical western tank. The model they are said to have most of is the T72
The T-72 is extremely lightweight, at forty-one tonnes, and very small compared to Western main battle tanks. Some of the roads and bridges in former Warsaw Pact countries were designed such that T-72s can travel along in formation, but NATO tanks could not pass at all, or just one-by-one, significantly reducing their mobility.
Length
9.53 m (31 ft 3 in) gun forward 9.95 m (22 ft 10 in) hull
Width 3.59 m (11 ft 9 in)
Height 2.23 m (7 ft 4 in)
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)

The armour they have used varies over time.

A T90 comes out at ~46 tonnes.
Length 9.63 m (31 ft 7 in) 6.86 m (22 ft 6 in) (hull)
Width 3.78 m (12 ft 5 in)
Height 2.22 m (7 ft 3 in)
Crew 3

 

[Justin Passing]

I may have seen a couple of those there. Look to be a bit more cumbersome than the earlier UK ones. 2 of them. 2 people carrying one in it's plastic crate. I wondered if they were the USA ones but from shape think they were these which might be the same or similar looks wise.

These sorts of things can take out any tank not just Russian ones. As the armour type and thickness etc gets more effective they just get more and more powerful or hit in specific places etc.

They don't have a 2 stage mechanism specifically to deal with reactive armour, like Javelins do, but they're smaller, lighter, cheaper, shorter range , faster use, and still deal with "all modern battle tanks" including the Jack-in-the-box types of Russian tank. I guess they'd "do" for most other sorts of target too.

I wrote something previously about the flying-turret tanks before. Read a bit since then. It's not as simple as anyone here has described. All depends on the shell, the tank and exactly where you hit it.
As I understand it, though not exactly explained like this, if you hit the ass end (engine) of these ammo-in-turret Russky tanks, their ammo still explodes, to, er, your detriment. Yank Tanks eg, have the ammo in a cupboard which explodes outwards if the shells explode, also if the turret is hit the crew below are still protected.

The proximity fuse on the NLAWS makes it go bang above, before contact with, the tank, and that reliably explodes the ammo in the turret.

There's an article about NLAWS here https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/nlaw-the-anti-tank-missile-making-putin-sweat-in-ukraine/

and a page of chat which is informative here: http://www.mellophant.com/forums/sh...upants-die&s=3dd885661de259c51a5864b191b6b7cf

Also https://www.saab.com/products/nlaw

How the NLAW works:

Another worth watching

The Ukes also have found that a quadcopter drone they use can carry two armour penetrating hand grenades (finned so the shaped-charge end hits first) ,, which if dropped onto the lid of a Russky tank, will also kill them.


There are anecdotal tales of the evilest variety of Molotov cocktail which has so much poison-plastic-containg crap dissolved in the fuel that getting one on the cabin air intake of a tank makes the crew pass out. Braschai. That would be annoying.

 

[ajohn]

Yank Tanks eg, have the ammo in a cupboard which explodes outwards if the shells explode,

I don't think I would like testing that from the inside.

Biden passed a comment that they had sent twice as many of their antitank missile as Russia has tanks. It's interesting that one of the early aims of tanks was to help troops advance. Now they can only be used at distance when these things are around. There are reports that modern western tanks have been damaged by pretty early anti tank stuff. Crew injured rather than all killed.

 

[ic1927]

 

[ajohn]

Not so sure about that. It'll sell a lot of certain anti tank items but when it comes to tanks there is a significant difference in cost. Assuming Russia can carry on making them................... Not being able to do that seems to be one of the ideas.

 

[THFC]

These phone conversations between Russian soldiers should cheer up the Ukrainians