International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V8

[SandisLL]

I cannot help but to think that this is somewhat of a interim solution and in the future bulk of their tanks will be whatever is conjured with the South Korean partnership.

Poland will not purchase any tanks from Germany becaue Germany isn't their friend...
Germany just is considering them as 3 rd tier ppl, even lower tier than illegal immigrants from Africa...
Just as cheap resin buffer like " should not be too strong in order not to worry their buds in Russia and still usable like Ukraine now is...IF Russia will decide to deNazify East Germany, they most likely are dreaming that Poland just will be usable as cheap buffer...

While in reality they will default and France and Co will be full with cautious ppl from Germany...IF Russia will invade Poland..


---
K-2 from Korea aren't bad and most likely it is backup solution for case if " friends " from U.S will not deliver them Abrams tanks....

We can't trust France and Germany if there will be problems with Russia...

For a reason Finland and Estonia had opted for Korea as 155 mm self propelled guns supplier...not Germany....
For anti tank missiles...from Poland till Finland...Israel and U.S.

 

[Rholk]

we've seen this tactic before i think:

 

[SandisLL]

Lurked.
A bit dumb comments for this video...
T-90 heavily sucks and appeared that isn't much better than T-72 1988 th-1990 th version upgraded with the same react armour and dazzlers & jammers & smokescreen equipment & the same import stuff filled in...like after 2017 th...production.
_
The same russian propaganda posts about old C-300 from Slovakia....
Yeah, it is correct that it is OLD pre 1992 th stuff.
We don't know was this even capable to work.

While reality is that Russia even doesn't knows where it is not alone had " destroyed " this USSR era stuff...


Because claims usually are made after mass media had announced transfer....
Like : first day posts in mass media about transfer.
After few hours and next day and later comes in propaganda statements: we had destroyed....


While in reality mass media is getting some info AFTER transfer had been done and not like....in the same day...

More likely transfered in 1 st day...mass media get info in 7 th day....etc...

Whole world loading Ukr with weapons too is Kremlin's Solovjov type excuses for overrated Russia's military....

F.e ofc Ukr sometimes IMHO even had claimed that they had shot down helicopter and airplane ....while in reality they just had fallen down cos obivious reasons...
At least with 1 helicopter and 1 airplane I'm sure about this reality....

 

[Rational Poster]

Lurked.
A bit dumb comments for this video...
T-90 heavily sucks and appeared that isn't much better than T-72 1988 th-1990 th version upgraded with the same react armour and dazzlers & jammers & smokescreen equipment & the same import stuff filled in...like after 2017 th...production.
_
The same russian propaganda posts about old C-300 from Slovakia....
Yeah, it is correct that it is OLD pre 1992 th stuff.
We don't know was this even capable to work.

While reality is that Russia even doesn't knows where it is not alone had " destroyed " this USSR era stuff...


Because claims usually are made after mass media had announced transfer....
Like : first day posts in mass media about transfer.
After few hours and next day and later comes in propaganda statements: we had destroyed....


While in reality mass media is getting some info AFTER transfer had been done and not like....in the same day...

More likely transfered in 1 st day...mass media get info in 7 th day....etc...

Whole world loading Ukr with weapons too is Kremlin's Solovjov type excuses for overrated Russia's military....

F.e ofc Ukr sometimes IMHO even had claimed that they had shot down helicopter and airplane ....while in reality they just had fallen down cos obivious reasons...
At least with 1 helicopter and 1 airplane I'm sure about this reality....

From what I understand, Russia does have reactive armor. The problem is most of their crews are not trained in the proper maintenance and it's quite technical stuff to deal with.

So over time the effectiveness degrades and/or they just discard the plates so they're just driving around in 2022 in what amounts to a 1970s era tank.

 

[Strychnine]

It's going to take years to get some of the weapon systems promised anyhow.

And yet, HIMARS.

 

[SandisLL]

From what I understand, Russia does have reactive armor. The problem is most of their crews are not trained in the proper maintenance and it's quite technical stuff to deal with.

So over time the effectiveness degrades and/or they just discard the plates.

Russia does have reactive armour since early 1980 ies and had improved this constantly with better and better versions....

While it is overrated if we are talking about dreams that this might provide 100% protection...

It is good thing against single stage shaped charge warheads like shells and grenades from 1970 ies era....
Modern anti tank missiles and shaped charge shells usually does have doubled tandem shaped charge and extended probe .....
Vs old type pre 1992 th era fin stabilised sub caliber armour piercing shells darts they aren't magic solution at all.
They just degrade till some % remaining penteration potential....

+ they are single use stuff....once plate had " worked " ....it will be simple steel wreck....plate...
Hit the same plate again and vuala will happen..

Even some top attack anti tank weapons does have doubled tandem type shaped charge...


While if about maintenance...I don't always agree.
In good military unit boxes are delivered already filled and are attached by technicians not random tank - mens....

 

[Denter]

I explained this to you already. The DOD is not playing a word game. They stated it clearly as 80k casualties of which 15-20k I believe they said were KIA. They never changed this to make the Ukrain happy or whatever you keep implying. You didn't understand the definitions.

This is believable.

 

[Rational Poster]

Russia does have reactive armour since early 1980 ies and had improved this constantly with better and better versions....

While it is overrated if we are talking about dreams that this might provide 100% protection...

It is good thing against single stage shaped charge warheads like shells and grenades from 1970 ies era....
Modern anti tank missiles and shaped charge shells usually does have doubled tandem shaped charge and extended probe .....
Vs old type pre 1992 th era fin stabilised sub caliber armour piercing shells darts they aren't magic solution at all.
They just degrade till some % remaining penteration potential....

+ they are single use stuff....once plate had " worked " ....it will be simple steel wreck....plate...
Hit the same plate again and vuala will happen..

Even some top attack anti tank weapons does have doubled tandem type shaped charge...


While if about maintenance...I don't always agree.
In good military unit boxes are delivered already filled and are attached by technicians not random tank - mens....

Well yeah, I didn't mean the crew of the tank itself, but the mechanics that service the vehicles aren't always so readily available especially on combat deployments.

 

[ferrisjso]

Y'all mfers bitching about pre 1992 stuff realize that's half the US carriers. The current class of US destroyers the Burkes started in 1991.

Y'all acting as if 1991 is the stone age for military tech it really isn't.

I know much less about tanks tho maybe I'ma wrong.

 

[SandisLL]

IMHO if battle had started you anyway will not change plate....
If it is hit and detonated....it is done...
And it isn't super panacea therefore U.S and Germany didn't had sticked with them like Russia...


There are other developments like NeRA...
It is plates with gaps filled with different resins....
While it offers on paper lesser protection value, it can't be nulltified after 1 hit...
U might google up " reactive armour " and " non reactive armour " and read up something interesting....

 

[SandisLL]

Carriers and longer range missiles are different animals...
If missile is launched....will not matter was this from truck based launcher or old or new ship...

While tanks usually does have battle range like 400-2000-3000 meters and rare cases are used for targets in 5000 m or longer distance and then usually ....as self propelled guns to shell manpower, buildings etc....
Therefore as close range weapon tank is relativel vulnerable to get hits....and anti tank weapons and tanks armour is improved each day during decades cos this...


Also tanks aren't good for battle in cities at all.
Therefore for exampe Israel etc had made APC type machines on tank's base with different turrets....like with autocannon and machine guns + grenade lauchers on these turrets....

 

[SandisLL]

Ofc tank might be prepared with so called city package...
skirts to cover part of tracks line...
Made from different metals liners....might be filled with resin between them.
Skirt for each side weights 0,5-2,6 metric t.
Then bulldozer type tool might be attached in front...this weights 0,6-2 metric t.
Anti rpg type metal " skirts " from armature rods...
Again 0,3- 0,8 metric t to add...
Then ofc the same ERA or NERA plates...
In some cases tank's tracks too are used....as extra shield...

Added more tools for smoke screen ....
And more cameras ....+ distance guided machine guns, grenade launchers on turret's roof....

This ofc adds weight to already heavy tank
.....

 

[Rational Poster]

Y'all mfers bitching about pre 1992 stuff realize that's half the US carriers. The current class of US destroyers the Burkes started in 1991.

Y'all acting as if 1991 is the stone age for military tech it really isn't.

I know much less about tanks tho maybe I'ma wrong.

Naval vessels have a much longer shelf life than other military equipment. Ship design in general is hardcapped by the size of existing drydocks and canals. A new designed ship is not going to change much vs older models basically. Naval design has "peaked" basically, and if anything regressed. Massive battleships and heavy cruisers just aren't built anymore.

Most vessels are built to last at least 40 years or more. They also are constantly refit with new technology, which isn't really possible for most smaller vehicles and small arms, as that equipment is the technology. The Burkes that left the dock in 1991 aren't the same as the ones sailing today.

 

[Videer]

Poland will not purchase any tanks from Germany becaue Germany isn't their friend...
Germany just is considering them as 3 rd tier ppl, even lower tier than illegal immigrants from Africa...
Just as cheap resin buffer like " should not be too strong in order not to worry their buds in Russia and still usable like Ukraine now is...IF Russia will decide to deNazify East Germany, they most likely are dreaming that Poland just will be usable as cheap buffer...

While in reality they will default and France and Co will be full with cautious ppl from Germany...IF Russia will invade Poland..


---
K-2 from Korea aren't bad and most likely it is backup solution for case if " friends " from U.S will not deliver them Abrams tanks....

We can't trust France and Germany if there will be problems with Russia...

For a reason Finland and Estonia had opted for Korea as 155 mm self propelled guns supplier...not Germany....
For anti tank missiles...from Poland till Finland...Israel and U.S.

AHS Krab (K9 Thunder) is a perfect example of how Germany has sabotaged its own defence industry. Poland is free to transfer as many Krabs to Ukraine as they please AND they get lots of manufacturing and technology transfers.

 

[ferrisjso]

Naval vessels have a much longer shelf life than other military equipment. Ship design in general is hardcapped by the size of existing drydocks and canals. A new designed ship is not going to change much vs older models basically. Naval design has "peaked" basically, and if anything regressed. Massive battleships and heavy cruisers just aren't built anymore.

Most vessels are built to last at least 40 years or more. They also are constantly refit with new technology, which isn't really possible for most smaller vehicles and small arms, as that equipment is the technology. The Burkes that left the dock in 1991 aren't the same as the ones sailing today.

The idea of whether naval design has piqued is complicated and subject to change. And by subject to change I mean the DOD literally changed their minds 2 weeks ago for....reasons. And of course Russia already has the 3 battlecruisers. The tangible advantages of building big might not be as big as with gunned ships but i liken it more to age of sail where the first rates had somewhat bigger armanents of what the small ships had pretty much. They weren't many of them and the small ships were more cost effective but they still built the big ones too. Heavy cruisers were a little over 10k displacement btw they are still around there's just a taboo in using the word cruiser for some reason.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigh...cg-building-targets-for-2045/?sh=1dd70892179c

 

[SandisLL]

Naval vessels have a much longer shelf life than other military equipment. The Burkes that left the dock in 1991 aren't the same as the ones sailing today.

This.
Ships upgrades usually are: to install more modern pelengators and radars, replace missiles with more modern versions or next models....
Tendency to build huge number of battleships and very large frigates had exausted since 1945 th....
Except aircraft carries....ships aren't larger since these times.
Large battleships proved as relatively useless in WW2...
Aircraft carriers...as useful...

Even for Hitler...these largest battleships had huge price and appeared easy to spot...and didn't served well....
While submarines and fast destryoers and torpedo boats he had...created some problems even in april of 1945 th....

 

[Dalarna3]

I think the new troops Putin announced are going to be conscripts that will allow an increase in Russian troop numbers in Ukraine and increase the pool to recruit professional soldiers from since it’s practically a requirement to be a conscript in the Russian army first before getting professional status. I also think that Russia has had around 60,000 casualties so far with around 15,000 of those being KIA. The Ukrainians have probably lost double that amount.

 

[Denter]

Well yeah, I didn't mean the crew of the tank itself, but the mechanics that service the vehicles aren't always so readily available especially on combat deployments.

the way I think about it is that war is like a really, really big construction project. 90% of the effort is getting the right materials, right personnel, and moving them to the right places- which is extremely difficult and the main challenge. The work- in this case, the fighting- is almost an afterthought if you get the fundamentals correct.

 

[Rational Poster]

The idea of whether naval design has piqued is complicated and subject to change. And by subject to change I mean the DOD literally changed their minds 2 weeks ago for....reasons. And of course Russia already has the 3 battlecruisers. The tangible advantages of building big might not be as big as with gunned ships but i liken it more to age of sail where the first rates had somewhat bigger armanents of what the small ships had pretty much. They weren't many of them and the small ships were more cost effective but they still built the big ones too. Heavy cruisers were a little over 10k displacement btw they are still around there's just a taboo in using the word cruiser for some reason.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigh...cg-building-targets-for-2045/?sh=1dd70892179c

Building big in modern terms doesn't mean the same thing as it used to. A big ship today is still much smaller than a historical big ship, carriers being the obvious exception. Small ships also got bigger. A destroyer today is much bigger than a destroyer in the past. Today destroyers are what light cruisers used to be and frigates are what destroyers used to be.

Heavy cruisers of the past were well over 10K displacement, the Alaska class, reaching nearly 35,000 tons displacement fully loaded. Even earlier designs like the Baltimore were also larger than 10k, about 14-15k displacement. In general, naval classification is fairly arbitrary and changes constantly depending what country and who is in charge. Many early designs were also limited by treaty, so it's not quite that simple. Post Washington treaty ships got much more massive in every class.

So the navy wanting more big ships today means they want more missile cruisers and destroyers than frigates and patrol boats. The improvements would be propulsion system and other internals, but the shape and general characteristics will remain the same.

They tried experimenting with some radical designs, but it just didn't pan out. (Zumwalt class)

 

[Denter]

Building big in modern terms doesn't mean the same thing as it used to. A big ship today is still much smaller than a historical big ship, carriers being the obvious exception. Small ships also got bigger. A destroyer today is much bigger than a destroyer in the past. Today destroyers are what light cruisers used to be and frigates are what destroyers used to be.

Heavy cruisers of the past were well over 10K displacement, the Alaska class, reaching nearly 35,000 tons displacement fully loaded. Even earlier designs like the Baltimore were also larger than 10k, about 14-15k displacement. In general, naval classification is fairly arbitrary and changes constantly depending what country and who is in charge. Many early designs were also limited by treaty, so it's not quite that simple. Post Washington treaty ships got much more massive in every class.

So the navy wanting more big ships today means they want more missile cruisers and destroyers than frigates and patrol boats. The improvements would be propulsion system and other internals, but the shape and general characteristics will remain the same.

They tried experimenting with some radical designs, but it just didn't pan out. (Zumwalt class)

Looks like the USN has been transitioning for a long time from a navy that patrols the world's sea lanes to a navy that shows up to deliver devastating firepower. Very different mission, very different political implications.