Putin, arse, elbow
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The loss of which, was I think the reason for them having to yomp across the Falkland on foot.
That was sunk by an high tech modern UK attack sub.
If you had ever been involved in restoring a car filled with the usual stuff and left standing for n years you'd find things didn't work out, They have to use preservatives which do just that. So yes in a sense they wont be usable,
Sponsored Links
Using what was effectively a standard WWII torpedo as the commander didn't think it was worth using the far more expensive modern stuff. The relative costs were mentioned in an interview. LOL The wiki reckons the more expensive option wasn't reliable enough. Pass he just mentioned the cost difference. I was listening to it.
Even so, the delivery system/the sub, was very modern. I don't think a WWII sub could have produced the desired result, It would have required much longer to get there, plus it would have needed to spend far too long on the surface. Conqueror could travel at full speed under water and remain under for months is necessary.
WW2 light cruiser sunk by torpedo roughly 50% more powerful than the WW2 version designed to sink WW2 battleships.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,405
- Reaction score
- 606
- Country
On the Belgrano I remember quite clearly what was being reported at the time, which is not what they're saying now. Interesting.
nationalinterest.org
The mk8 torpedo's design went back a long way, but everything gets upgraded.
Two hit out of three fired. Fair enough!.
Oh and - the Falklands event was never declared as a WAR either!
Meet the General Belgrano: The Only Ship Ever Sunk by a Nuclear Submarine
Two British torpedoes took the Argentine ship down.
nationalinterest.org
Two hit out of three fired. Fair enough!.
Oh and - the Falklands event was never declared as a WAR either!
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,405
- Reaction score
- 606
- Country
Where did you see that? CNN? I'm suspicicious of many of the "facts" being reported which even not many Russians would know. If they have a load of old tanks with much the same 152mm destructive power as the later ones, and the later ones don't have an advantage in a chunk of applications, there could be many good reasons for keeping the best back.
The source I quoted was knowledgeable. Perhaps yours was quoting the "BTG" rather than a battalion, which is much bigger. Numbers are hard to pin down - I just failed in a slew of searches. The implication was that the quantity wasn't huge.
There's a nmber of articles gung-ho about what a big bang they make , propaganda style.
Some interesting bits in this article about the guns which may have arrived
American M777 Howitzers 'Wreak Havoc' On Russian Military As Ukraine Strikes Back To Save Donbas
US M777 Howitzers have begun shelling Russian sites, and the Ukrainian soldiers have been issued jammers to take down enemy drones.
eurasiantimes.com
One of the sub-links there comments on what an indirect hit on a Russky tank can put in your front room:
.
.
An uncle of mine worked for Hawker Siddeley. He had some ineteresting tales about flaws in active military aircraft. The Vulcans at Falkland missed the runways. Thanks to that uncle and the company air display I have seen a Vulcan do a bombing run, Sack of flour or something hitting a cross. Given the crowd it's a good job it was accurate. Too young really to know what it was then but later I have seen them in flight, looosely speaking over Elmdon airports. More or less B;ham airport now. One was a parked up too. There was a strange fly over as well. USA from the announcement I suspect it was a spy plane.
There was an interesting problem with the Jump Jet taking off fully loaded on a ship so they appealed to the engineering institute for ideas. Some senior military man came up with the ramp. The fall at the end was enough to get it up to speed.
In a jocular fashion long since then I have wondered if Russian gear sells because it works, LOL Sees plenty of use now and again.
There was an interesting problem with the Jump Jet taking off fully loaded on a ship so they appealed to the engineering institute for ideas. Some senior military man came up with the ramp. The fall at the end was enough to get it up to speed.
In a jocular fashion long since then I have wondered if Russian gear sells because it works, LOL Sees plenty of use now and again.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,405
- Reaction score
- 606
- Country
Russian stuff got a reputation for working, when the fancy Nazi engineered tanks etc froze up in WW2, etc. You can drive a truck over a Kalashnikov and it'll (probably) still work. It's worth reading the history, it's an immensly successful product. A lot of much later than ww2 US guns failed at the sight of dirt. There are tales of US grunts in Korea I think it was, using AK's because the US guns failed. Visiting bigwigs were not impressed. The M16 series went through several iterations until they cracked that.
At a short course I did in a strange place, I came across an ex RAF squadron leader who'd flown Vulcans at diplays etc - rippling the wings in the dive. He went incandescent at the suggestion that they'd missed the runway, but of course they pretty much had. They had to drop a stick of bombs at a slight angle to the runway so as not to be 10 metres off to the side. Unfortunately they didn't put it out of action for long. Harriers had to keep dropping their smaller bombs on it. The ground was very hard so the craters weren't big. Should have used Barnes Wallis's Earthquake Bombs!
There are a few Vulcan-drop pictures floating about but I think this refers:
At a short course I did in a strange place, I came across an ex RAF squadron leader who'd flown Vulcans at diplays etc - rippling the wings in the dive. He went incandescent at the suggestion that they'd missed the runway, but of course they pretty much had. They had to drop a stick of bombs at a slight angle to the runway so as not to be 10 metres off to the side. Unfortunately they didn't put it out of action for long. Harriers had to keep dropping their smaller bombs on it. The ground was very hard so the craters weren't big. Should have used Barnes Wallis's Earthquake Bombs!
There are a few Vulcan-drop pictures floating about but I think this refers:
In the 80's I did the controls for a pump, just at the end of the runway at RAF Finningley, now Doncaster Airport, which was a Vulcan base. Me working inside a tiny brick building, when they without warning scrambled the Vulcans. The noise was incredible, the whole building shook.
Where did you see that? CNN? I'm suspicicious of many of the "facts" being reported which even not many Russians would know. If they have a load of old tanks with much the same 152mm destructive power as the later ones, and the later ones don't have an advantage in a chunk of applications, there could be many good reasons for keeping the best back.
The source I quoted was knowledgeable. Perhaps yours was quoting the "BTG" rather than a battalion, which is much bigger. Numbers are hard to pin down - I just failed in a slew of searches. The implication was that the quantity wasn't huge.
There's a nmber of articles gung-ho about what a big bang they make , propaganda style.
Some interesting bits in this article about the guns which may have arrived
American M777 Howitzers 'Wreak Havoc' On Russian Military As Ukraine Strikes Back To Save Donbas
US M777 Howitzers have begun shelling Russian sites, and the Ukrainian soldiers have been issued jammers to take down enemy drones.
One of the sub-links there comments on what an indirect hit on a Russky tank can put in your front room:
.
.
View attachment 270725
Imagine the insurance claim
No Zelenskyy chat doing his job so could be anything from totally incorrect or partial etc. A Russian general speaking in Russia said that they may need to increase their precision missile production rate. That was a while ago now.
While its' fun to mock Russian stuff bear in mind that Ukraine is using stuff intended to take out ANY tank. I don't take much notice of that sort of talk. It's being going on for years. The stuff is effective. What is odd is how they have being handling things. In order to understand that fully I suspect we would need complete details of talks held by Russia and the USA etc before it started. Then we are shown the results of mission impossible as far as Russia is concerned - Kyiv for instance. Flattening it would have worked out. Mariupol for instance which it seems may not be icompletely flattened. One person who came out mentioned 1/2 of it. Footage of may celebrations showed some in pristine conditions. How is it all really - we don't know. Clearly a lot of it really is a mess.
WWII. Russia's production rate of tanks and artillery when they got going was rather impressive. Numbers of troops too. Warfare isn't really done the way it was then now. I have seen footage of Ukraine tanks and soldiers used to protect troops way - what do you think would happen if they tried that on Russian positions?
I had a nose around about the disadvantage of towed artillery. Main one is fragmentation stuff in replies. Those are used on sheltering troops as well. There will be a need to take ammunition with them. Mobile ones are armoured, the degree seems to vary and there is another version that goes by the name of an infantry fighting vehicle. Looks like they have a shorter range gun and carry troops who can fire without getting out in some. Armour rather light. One mobile artillery unit mentions 50 rounds. Both sides have some of each.
Forgot there are tank like things for taking out aircraft. The German one - still don't know.
Mainly because the entire population of Russia knew they were fighting the invading German army, Strong motivation to manufacture arms and serve in the military to repulse the German army,
Sponsored Links
