Russia-Ukraine War

[Alan Phipps]

The iconic ground attack aircraft Warthog A10 would not have been quite as effective in the anti-armour role without firing DU rounds from its 30mm gatling cannon. In delivering kinetic energy penetration, the bullet velocity, mass/density, and shape retention/integrity are all important.

DU has some quite nasty internal effects for its armoured target as passage through the protective armour strips a thin layer of DU and delivers it as a hot pyrophoric vapour expanding inside the target hull. That is why the destroyed target hulks remain somewhat hazardous post-battle, but the spent DU rounds or those that missed are much less so.

[abisha1980]

what i kind of wonder, what do the tanks contribute to the war russians almost lost it's "operation" because they thought tanks matters.
why would Abrahams or Leopards matter on the battlefield anyway. same go's for airplanes

i think we in a special age when boots on the ground matters more then we used to think.

[mr.WHO]

what i kind of wonder, what do the tanks contribute to the war russians almost lost it's "operation" because they thought tanks matters.
why would Abrahams or Leopards matter on the battlefield anyway. same go's for airplanes

i think we in a special age when boots on the ground matters more then we used to think.

Tank is an important, but not sole piece of combine warfare puzzle, especially when the lines are broken and it becomes mobile warfare.
Russia isn't good indicator as they sux at combined warfare.

You don't need tanks, if you are on the defense and dig up well, but you definetly need tanks for the offense (or in Ukraine situation counter-offense).

If anything should be considered obsolete after this war, it won't be a tank, but manned gunships - whatever gunship can do can be done easier and safer by drone and if you need stand-off missile platform, you can as well convert cheap black hawk to this role.
At best attack gunships will be morphing into local drone command and control node, like local mini-awacs. Apache Guardian is already chalk full loaded with eletronics to do this.

[Observe]

Russia isn't good indicator as they sux at combined warfare.

I'm not sure I buy that entirely. Seems to me, Russia sucks at defending their tanks against drones and shoulder-mounted missiles that attack from above and that will be true whichever side is in the driving seat. I think we are seeing a decline in the importance and suitability of tanks on the battlefield. That's not saying that tanks are worthless, just that they have a diminishing role by themselves. In combination with other weapons and used smartly, they still remain a powerful but declining value.

[mr.WHO]

I'm not sure I buy that entirely. Seems to me, Russia sucks at defending their tanks against drones and shoulder-mounted missiles that attack from above and that will be true whichever side is in the driving seat. I think we are seeing a decline in the importance and suitability of tanks on the battlefield. That's not saying that tanks are worthless, just that they have a diminishing role by themselves. In combination with other weapons and used smartly, they still remain a powerful but declining value.

Both drones and shoulder-mounted missiles efficiency can be greatly diminished with active-protection systems and combined warfare (infantry and AAA suport).
The irony is that Russia was among first who invented and deployed active-ptorection systems for tanks, yet they failed to make them standard issue.

With active-protection systems, it's just cost-effect-flexibility ratio:
You can mount active-protection on both tanks and IVFs, so the moment they are introduced as standard issue, the opposition switch from missiles/drones to more kinetic approach.
Most western tanks can endure tanks shell to the front armor.
Most IFVs don't.

Therefore tanks will still retain their assault niche.

Tanks are to stay as they are for decades to come - they might have less crew or maybe even dronified, but it will still be rolling hunk of armor with a big gun.
So far most IFVs are morphing into light tank (Bradley, Puma), rather than tanks morphing into IFVs (Merkava seems to be the sole and very peculiar case).

I could quite confidently bet money that tanks of 2050s or even 2100s will still be reckognized as a tank when compared to Renault FT-17 from 1910s (I'd argue that Brits Mark I, female and male one should rather be the APC and IFV ancestors).

[Vertigo 7]

Yet another escalation - apparently UK ponders about providing Ukraine with depleted uranium rounds.

@source: theguardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... 1cb7e9aa62

Not sure if I'd use that in my very own country... Best not to use them at all...

Mk 15 CIWS uses Depleted Uranium 20mm rounds, as well as Tungsten. They can be safely handled without PPE. It's just a heavy metal that makes for a good penetrator.

[EGO_Aut]

Russia isn't good indicator as they sux at combined warfare.

I'm not sure I buy that entirely. Seems to me, Russia sucks at defending their tanks against drones and shoulder-mounted missiles that attack from above and that will be true whichever side is in the driving seat. I think we are seeing a decline in the importance and suitability of tanks on the battlefield. That's not saying that tanks are worthless, just that they have a diminishing role by themselves. In combination with other weapons and used smartly, they still remain a powerful but declining value.

As far as I know, you can penetrate the tank of an Abrams/Leopard from above, for example, with a simple 25mm calibre or even disable the engine from behind.
But the Ammo storage on RU tanks is suboptimal, thanks to their autoloading system the entire crew gets barbecued.

[mr.WHO]

But the Ammo storage on RU tanks is suboptimal, thanks to their autoloading system the entire crew gets barbecued.

Interesting thing is that if you put Russian tanks next to Western tanks, you'll notice they are much smaller.
Smaller volume means Russians had much less options (thus going with autoloader in that configuration), much less buffer for armor (T-72 engine is notorius for not having power reserve to pull additional weight) and when you're hit, because you're smaller, there is higher chance something critical/fatal is hit.

What is even more interesting is that T-14 Armata is still relatively smaller, so to some extend it carry over similar issues.
It improved whereever it could, but some limitations are simply because you can't bent space and physics.

[abisha1980]

But the Ammo storage on RU tanks is suboptimal, thanks to their autoloading system the entire crew gets barbecued.

Interesting thing is that if you put Russian tanks next to Western tanks, you'll notice they are much smaller.
Smaller volume means Russians had much less options (thus going with autoloader in that configuration), much less buffer for armor (T-72 engine is notorius for not having power reserve to pull additional weight) and when you're hit, because you're smaller, there is higher chance something critical/fatal is hit.

What is even more interesting is that T-14 Armata is still relatively smaller, so to some extend it carry over similar issues.
It improved whereever it could, but some limitations are simply because you can't bent space and physics.

there is also a problem with " Western tanks" they might be superior to russian tanks but they need lot of maintains and are to heavy in weight to be useful on the front line.
i think those tanks are only useful in deserts, roads etc where the weight do not matters so much.

what i do notice Russians not used them superior tank they made few years ago. don't know it's name but it also have adaptive armor etc. i guess they are to complicated to make and to expensive.

[mr.WHO]

there is also a problem with " Western tanks" they might be superior to russian tanks but they need lot of maintains and are to heavy in weight to be useful on the front line.
i think those tanks are only useful in deserts, roads etc where the weight do not matters so much.

Soon we'll see how well Western tanks fare in Ukraine mud.
Plus Western tanks might be heavier, but they are also bigger, with bigger and wider tracks, so actual ground pressure is not that different from russian tanks.

[clakclak]

But the Ammo storage on RU tanks is suboptimal, thanks to their autoloading system the entire crew gets barbecued.

Interesting thing is that if you put Russian tanks next to Western tanks, you'll notice they are much smaller.
Smaller volume means Russians had much less options (thus going with autoloader in that configuration), much less buffer for armor (T-72 engine is notorius for not having power reserve to pull additional weight) and when you're hit, because you're smaller, there is higher chance something critical/fatal is hit.

What is even more interesting is that T-14 Armata is still relatively smaller, so to some extend it carry over similar issues.
It improved whereever it could, but some limitations are simply because you can't bent space and physics.

there is also a problem with " Western tanks" they might be superior to russian tanks but they need lot of maintains and are to heavy in weight to be useful on the front line.
i think those tanks are only useful in deserts, roads etc where the weight do not matters so much.[...]

Yes this is what Russian propaganda claims. The video shown here is from a Swedish exercise years ago in which they specifically did this to train the recovery process. The reality is probably very different. Tanks like the Leopard 2 were build with the single purpose in mind to fight Russian tanks in Europe, I somehow doubt that they did not think about the weight when building and upgrading the tanks.

[Falcrack]

But the Ammo storage on RU tanks is suboptimal, thanks to their autoloading system the entire crew gets barbecued.

Interesting thing is that if you put Russian tanks next to Western tanks, you'll notice they are much smaller.
Smaller volume means Russians had much less options (thus going with autoloader in that configuration), much less buffer for armor (T-72 engine is notorius for not having power reserve to pull additional weight) and when you're hit, because you're smaller, there is higher chance something critical/fatal is hit.

What is even more interesting is that T-14 Armata is still relatively smaller, so to some extend it carry over similar issues.
It improved whereever it could, but some limitations are simply because you can't bent space and physics.

there is also a problem with " Western tanks" they might be superior to russian tanks but they need lot of maintains and are to heavy in weight to be useful on the front line.
i think those tanks are only useful in deserts, roads etc where the weight do not matters so much.

what i do notice Russians not used them superior tank they made few years ago. don't know it's name but it also have adaptive armor etc. i guess they are to complicated to make and to expensive.

The use of Abrams in deserts is incidental to their original design. They were designed to fight in Europe, in exactly the sort of terrain that Ukraine has.

[Tamina]

At the end all of those Leos will end up destroyed in the mud. The only questions is how long they will last. War is not something that is won.

I am wondering if it makes sense to even compare them to Russian equivalents. We all have seen how most Russian tanks demise was infantry.

[mr.WHO]

Russia starts pulling T-54 from the stockpiles:
https://twitter.com/Military_oO/status/ ... 6212706306

Little known fact is that Russia has a lot of working T-34s in most tank units as Honor Guard / Parade.
What are the odds we'll see them eventually in action?

T-34 with modern kit and reactive armor would be crazy sight

[felter]

Russia starts pulling T-54 from the stockpiles:
https://twitter.com/Military_oO/status/ ... 6212706306

Little known fact is that Russia has a lot of working T-34s in most tank units as Honor Guard / Parade.
What are the odds we'll see them eventually in action?

T-34 with modern kit and reactive armor would be crazy sight

The modern definition of cannon fodder.

[mr.WHO]

US should respond by sending M60s, so Ukraine still could have an edge even in Early Cold War segment

I recall Turkey also had loads of moderately well modernized M60s as well.


Note that Russian T-54 were smacked by Israeli Shermans during Six Days War.

[notaterran]

Here come the planes:

The first four of 13 Soviet-era MiG-29 fighter jets that Slovakia decided to give Ukraine have been safely handed over to the Ukrainian air force, the Slovak Defense Ministry said on Thursday.

Link

It's not much but every little bit helps, I hope that Ukrainian pilots are already training on F-16s.

The Slovak Defense Ministry said Wednesday the United States has offered Slovakia 12 new military helicopters as compensation for the fighter jets the European country is giving to Ukraine. Under the offer, Slovakia would pay $340 million for the Bell AH-1Z attack choppers in a deal worth about $1 billion. U.S. foreign military financing would cover the other $660 million

Not a bad deal, right? Tanks, planes... when will we see long-range missiles in the hands of the Ukrainians?

[mr.WHO]

It's not much but every little bit helps, I hope that Ukrainian pilots are already training on F-16s.

4 more will come from Poland within days and about 30 from both Poland and Slovakia in 1-2 months.
I think there are also Mig-29s in Bulgaria that might be going on tourist trip soon as well.

[chew-ie]

A lot of trembling on the Russian side about the upcoming Ukraine offensive - they even sent Medvedev again to throw out some doomsday threats again. This time they will go all in once they loose Crimea.

@source theguardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... y-medvedev

[notaterran]

We cannot know for sure but Russia so far has been consistent in issuing empty threats of nuclear war.