Russia……just an illusion.

[johnofgwent]

What I was pointing out was that, against a well armed and trained enemy, there have never been many "upsides" to being tank crew. I'd always take a hole in the ground over that job any day.

I agree. I've seen the remains of the pig corpses they put in to see what happenned. But that was the early 80s

[DeppityDawg]

Well, you were an NCO and according to various similarly placed relatives, that meant you ran the army. So, do you think that Ukrainians are in with a chance?

There appear to be a lot more Russians than Ukrainians and while the former might benefit from a few decent generals, the average squaddie seems game enough. So what is your take on the matter?

There's little point in commenting on the objective matter, Borchester. I'll stick to the nuts and bolts, thanks. We've had people comparing this conflict to Syria and making comparisons with the fight against ISIS or the Taliban, when they are worlds apart in scale and practice, failing to make a connection when the media was telling us that Ukrainian citizens were being armed, and then getting fraught and distressed when suddenly civilians are being killed. Its just a succession of reactions to headlines. If Eurovision Song contests could decide wars, eh?

The only thing that can be said with any certainty now is that with each day longer this conflict goes on, the more unlikely it becomes, bar a black swan event, that Russia can achieve anything other than a strategic defeat

[Borchester]

Ok. But Tbf John, your original point was correct. Most Russian/Soviet era tanks are autoloaders, and have been for many years. That means the crew (of 3, as opposed to 4 for most NATO countries models) sit virtually on top of the carousel which feeds the autoloader. Whilst Sampan is no doubt pleased to be able to point out that anyones tanks can flame out, its a bit more of an issue with many Russian designed tanks for this very reason. As with everything about AFVs, there is always a trade off somewhere, usually between protection (armour), firepower (gun power/calibre), and mobility (speed). For the same overall weight, more of one negatively affects the others.

What I was pointing out was that, against a well armed and trained enemy, there have never been many "upsides" to being tank crew. I'd always take a hole in the ground over that job any day.

Well, you were an NCO and according to various similarly placed relatives, that meant you ran the army. So, do you think that Ukrainians are in with a chance?

There appear to be a lot more Russians than Ukrainians and while the former might benefit from a few decent generals, the average squaddie seems game enough. So what is your take on the matter?

[DeppityDawg]

To be honest, Ferranti never had much luck with their tank stuff. I do recall a problem in the mid eighties with a new system they had on the drawing board, which managed to hit the target it was aiming at if it stood still, but had a nasty habit of under-estimating where the shell had to land if the target was moving. I found a way to get myself far more involved in the naval stuff the computers I had a hand in were used for, sensing the PR disaster that was about to happen.

Ok. But Tbf John, your original point was correct. Most Russian/Soviet era tanks are autoloaders, and have been for many years. That means the crew (of 3, as opposed to 4 for most NATO countries models) sit virtually on top of the carousel which feeds the autoloader. Whilst Sampan is no doubt pleased to be able to point out that anyones tanks can flame out, its a bit more of an issue with many Russian designed tanks for this very reason. As with everything about AFVs, there is always a trade off somewhere, usually between protection (armour), firepower (gun power/calibre), and mobility (speed). For the same overall weight, more of one negatively affects the others.

What I was pointing out was that, against a well armed and trained enemy, there have never been many "upsides" to being tank crew. I'd always take a hole in the ground over that job any day.

[johnofgwent]

I'll give you a lesson in it then. Most "tank" guns fire variations of rounds called "APDS" (armoured piercing discarding sabot). This basically means they fire a tungsten carbide "dart" that is a fraction of the gun calibre, supported in the breech by plastic "sabots", which can penetrate many hundreds of millimetres of armour plating. Later ammo versions have fins to make them even more accurate. They go in at very high velocity...they go out the other side at very high velocity. If they hit the onboard ammo load, its the pressure of the contained detonation that takes the turret off. If they don't hit the ammo load, the sudden imbalance of air pressure between the inside of the tank and outside means...well...I'll let you figure it out, Mr Scientist...

We Brits had a round in the 80s and 90s (and still have I think) called "HESH" (high explosive squash head). We could do this because we kept rifled barrels on the Chieftain and the Chally, long after most NATO countries had gone for smooth bores. The thing about HESH was, it didn't have to penetrate the target to destroy it. It just turned the crew into soup by flaking the white hot internal surfaces off the armour inside the tank

Truth is John, there aren't many "upsides" for tank crews. As all those pictures demonstrate to anyone with a functioning imagination. That in these pictures the crews were Russians doesn't make it any less soul destroying

To be honest, Ferranti never had much luck with their tank stuff. I do recall a problem in the mid eighties with a new system they had on the drawing board, which managed to hit the target it was aiming at if it stood still, but had a nasty habit of under-estimating where the shell had to land if the target was moving. I found a way to get myself far more involved in the naval stuff the computers I had a hand in were used for, sensing the PR disaster that was about to happen.

[Thomas]

Thats bad for your teeth

I hear the latest coming out of Moscow is that this is some Holy campaign to save the Russian orthodox church or some mumbo jumbo .  I knew God would get drawn into it at some point

bad for cromwells teeth?



You are taking the piss now streetwalker arent you? Cromwell lives on a diet of fried bread and vimto for breakfast . The mancs dont want to hear about any of your cockeny lectures on eating fruit and drinking water.

Healthy eating in manchester happens when they get a salad with a kebab or a pea in their curry.

[DeppityDawg]

I'd like to focus on one small area of that

I'm quite shocked at the number of tanks lying around with turrets blown clean off. It's not my area of expertise and indeed I got the hell out of the business altogether a while back, but if I am to understand correctly from the propaganda pages I've indulged myself in reading, the issue is that the Russian tanks store their ammunition in an area shared with the crew, whereas to cut a long story short NATO countries try very hard NOT to do that.

The consequence of a successful strike on such a tank is the detonation of the magazine which blows the turret clean off the main body. There are a LOT of pictures of such .

The up side of that for the tank crew is they are most unlikely to suffer. Indeed, I doubt they know much about it, one minute a functional human the next a charred paste on the bulkhead. Not even a chance to become a disease vector for any of the usual warzone diseases.

I'll give you a lesson in it then. Most "tank" guns fire variations of rounds called "APDS" (armoured piercing discarding sabot). This basically means they fire a tungsten carbide "dart" that is a fraction of the gun calibre, supported in the breech by plastic "sabots", which can penetrate many hundreds of millimetres of armour plating. Later ammo versions have fins to make them even more accurate. They go in at very high velocity...they go out the other side at very high velocity. If they hit the onboard ammo load, its the pressure of the contained detonation that takes the turret off. If they don't hit the ammo load, the sudden imbalance of air pressure between the inside of the tank and outside means...well...I'll let you figure it out, Mr Scientist...

We Brits had a round in the 80s and 90s (and still have I think) called "HESH" (high explosive squash head). We could do this because we kept rifled barrels on the Chieftain and the Chally, long after most NATO countries had gone for smooth bores. The thing about HESH was, it didn't have to penetrate the target to destroy it. It just turned the crew into soup by flaking the white hot internal surfaces off the armour inside the tank

Truth is John, there aren't many "upsides" for tank crews. As all those pictures demonstrate to anyone with a functioning imagination. That in these pictures the crews were Russians doesn't make it any less soul destroying

[Sampanviking]

I'd like to focus on one small area of that

I'm quite shocked at the number of tanks lying around with turrets blown clean off. It's not my area of expertise and indeed I got the hell out of the business altogether a while back, but if I am to understand correctly from the propaganda pages I've indulged myself in reading, the issue is that the Russian tanks store their ammunition in an area shared with the crew, whereas to cut a long story short NATO countries try very hard NOT to do that.

The consequence of a successful strike on such a tank is the detonation of the magazine which blows the turret clean off the main body. There are a LOT of pictures of such .

The up side of that for the tank crew is they are most unlikely to suffer. Indeed, I doubt they know much about it, one minute a functional human the next a charred paste on the bulkhead. Not even a chance to become a disease vector for any of the usual warzone diseases.

Just for you John
Video from an Islamic State attack on Turkish Armour including Leopard 2 tanks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6nZvDn6gRQ

[Streetwalker]

Don't drink any Yankee rubbish,a can of Vimto maybe .

Thats bad for your teeth 

I hear the latest coming out of Moscow is that this is some Holy campaign to save the Russian orthodox church or some mumbo jumbo .  I knew God would get drawn into it at some point 

[johnofgwent]

Poor equipment even poorer preparations...

I'd like to focus on one small area of that

I'm quite shocked at the number of tanks lying around with turrets blown clean off. It's not my area of expertise and indeed I got the hell out of the business altogether a while back, but if I am to understand correctly from the propaganda pages I've indulged myself in reading, the issue is that the Russian tanks store their ammunition in an area shared with the crew, whereas to cut a long story short NATO countries try very hard NOT to do that.

The consequence of a successful strike on such a tank is the detonation of the magazine which blows the turret clean off the main body. There are a LOT of pictures of such .

The up side of that for the tank crew is they are most unlikely to suffer. Indeed, I doubt they know much about it, one minute a functional human the next a charred paste on the bulkhead. Not even a chance to become a disease vector for any of the usual warzone diseases.

[cromwell]

I think your in danger of drinking the coolaid there Cromwell.

I only ever heard this "Russia wants to occupy the whole of Ukraine" from Western sources and never from the Russian side.
If that were the plan they would have needed many times more forces and one of the first targets would have been to cut off the Western Border to prevent resupply.

I never bought into the claims of looking to capture Kiev either (although I am sure they would have happily taken it had it been left undefended. I always saw the Northern Group as being there for the Dneiper river. The Northern group holding it from where it entered Ukraine from Belarus and the Southern end of the operation holding where it went into the Black Sea. The mission I could see was that of a massive encirclement West of the River.

I still say that Russian interest is primarily the majority Russian speaking, pro Russian Areas of the East, with a question as to how far they might want to push into the center, West of the River, where the mix is more even. I never saw them trying to hold the former Hapsburg territories in the West.

The think the Northern operation was always high risk for the TBG concept they have been trialing, as the ground is largely bog and forest and not ideal for rapid armour advances. It did not pay off and so they withdrew, bruised by largely intact and able to withdraw in good order. Generals we were told are dead keep reappearing very alive and units we are told were destroyed pop up very much still in existence.

The effect of the forces of Ukraine so far have been devastating. They have lost up to 90% of their armour and other heavy weapons. There navy is gone and their airforce only exists in the far West of the country. This is why Zelensky is begging everyone to send him all the armoured vehicles they can spare.

The Donbas is very different from the country north of Kiev. Its wide open Steppe, exactly the terrain that the Russians have always trained to fight in. Now they are concentrating the numbers to finish the best of the Ukrainian army once and for all, in country that they know and love.

Has Russian armour done so badly? The Kurds destroyed loads of Turkish Leopard 2's when the Turks went into North Syria and the Houthis have destroyed plenty of Saudi Arabia Abrams. It is simply military reality that hand held ATGM's can destroy any MBT is they get a clear line of sight.

The Russian's have made two mistakes that I can see.
1) Not enough actual foot infantry which you need for Urban and Forest combat. Its no coincidence that the Chechans and Syrians that Russia have brought in are all Veterans in Urban Warfare and largely Infantry based.

2) The importance of having small drones at platoon level to scout ahead for you. This can be just shop bought and controlled by a mobile phone.

Neither of these things are particularly difficult to correct.

One last observation.
The West has been happy to trumpet its fast victories during its invasions of the last twenty years or so. These have masked the fact that these victories were always far from complete and that the vast majority of the target countries fighting men, were able to just melt away and then come back and make sure there was no peace and that the countries had to be abandoned. The Russians seem to be concerned to repeat this mistake and make sure that the armed forces of the Ukraine are well and truly defeated for the long term. Admittedly it does not play as well for the 24/7 new cycle, but ultimately it is a lot more real.

Don't drink any Yankee rubbish,a can of Vimto maybe .

My point is I think Vlad thought it would all be over in short order,he underestimated the Ukranians and overestimated his own militaries capabilities.

Citing the errors of Bush and Bliar are irrelevant to Vlads current situation and whatever he is the junior to China becoming ever more so on this showing.

Its not about humiliating the Russians Vlad needs to be though.

[Sampanviking]

I think your in danger of drinking the coolaid there Cromwell.

I only ever heard this "Russia wants to occupy the whole of Ukraine" from Western sources and never from the Russian side.
If that were the plan they would have needed many times more forces and one of the first targets would have been to cut off the Western Border to prevent resupply.

I never bought into the claims of looking to capture Kiev either (although I am sure they would have happily taken it had it been left undefended. I always saw the Northern Group as being there for the Dneiper river. The Northern group holding it from where it entered Ukraine from Belarus and the Southern end of the operation holding where it went into the Black Sea. The mission I could see was that of a massive encirclement West of the River.

I still say that Russian interest is primarily the majority Russian speaking, pro Russian Areas of the East, with a question as to how far they might want to push into the center, West of the River, where the mix is more even. I never saw them trying to hold the former Hapsburg territories in the West.

The think the Northern operation was always high risk for the TBG concept they have been trialing, as the ground is largely bog and forest and not ideal for rapid armour advances. It did not pay off and so they withdrew, bruised by largely intact and able to withdraw in good order. Generals we were told are dead keep reappearing very alive and units we are told were destroyed pop up very much still in existence.

The effect of the forces of Ukraine so far have been devastating. They have lost up to 90% of their armour and other heavy weapons. There navy is gone and their airforce only exists in the far West of the country. This is why Zelensky is begging everyone to send him all the armoured vehicles they can spare.

The Donbas is very different from the country north of Kiev. Its wide open Steppe, exactly the terrain that the Russians have always trained to fight in. Now they are concentrating the numbers to finish the best of the Ukrainian army once and for all, in country that they know and love.

Has Russian armour done so badly? The Kurds destroyed loads of Turkish Leopard 2's when the Turks went into North Syria and the Houthis have destroyed plenty of Saudi Arabia Abrams. It is simply military reality that hand held ATGM's can destroy any MBT is they get a clear line of sight.

The Russian's have made two mistakes that I can see.
1) Not enough actual foot infantry which you need for Urban and Forest combat. Its no coincidence that the Chechans and Syrians that Russia have brought in are all Veterans in Urban Warfare and largely Infantry based.

2) The importance of having small drones at platoon level to scout ahead for you. This can be just shop bought and controlled by a mobile phone.

Neither of these things are particularly difficult to correct.

One last observation.
The West has been happy to trumpet its fast victories during its invasions of the last twenty years or so. These have masked the fact that these victories were always far from complete and that the vast majority of the target countries fighting men, were able to just melt away and then come back and make sure there was no peace and that the countries had to be abandoned. The Russians seem to be concerned to repeat this mistake and make sure that the armed forces of the Ukraine are well and truly defeated for the long term. Admittedly it does not play as well for the 24/7 new cycle, but ultimately it is a lot more real.

[cromwell]

It might be a mistake to write them off just yet,Hitlers "kick the doors in and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down" proved to be an error.

However all but the odd Russophile can see not all has gone to plan,what originally and clearly was a plan to take the whole country has now been changed to look like there is a victory coming in the south and east.

Poor equipment even poorer preparations and some less than enthusiastic military allied with unexpected losses.


Might still have a shedload of nukes but clearly Russia are very much a sometimes useful but very much junior partner to China.....how times change and Vlad might yearn for past glory but I think he might find himself disappointed.