Ukraine counter offensive

[JohnD]

Corruption and dishonesty are everywhere, and need to be rooted out, not tolerated. As we've seen in our own country. Can you imagine a minister in charge of the tax system, trying to fiddle his own taxes? And a billionaire Prime Minister reluctant to sack him?

Here's an example of a dishonest politician shifting in the wind and saying whatever thinks will buy him support. One day pro-Putin, later, pro-Zelenskyy.

Always anti-EU.

Boris Johnson blamed EU for earlier Russia attacks on Ukraine in 2016 speech

Future prime minister was condemned for arguing Brussels had ‘caused real trouble’ in Ukraine – in stark contrast to current stance

www.independent.co.uk

 

[noseall]

I trust Austrians

They do a mean Groestl.

 

[JohnD]

Of course I trust foreigners I trust Austrians

It's over 30 years since they last had an ex-Nazi as president.

Probably.

 

[Vinty]

One of the terrible results of generations of domination by Russians.

There is hope that they are now escaping and able to aspire to better.

Hopefully more like the EU.Lol.

 

[Vinty]

One of the terrible results of generations of domination by Russians.

There is hope that they are now escaping and able to aspire to better.

Whats your excuse for EU corruption.

 

[Vinty]

It's over 30 years since they last had an ex-Nazi as president.

Probably.

Apparently Ukranian Nazis were a lot more cruel than their German employers.
Thats why the Germans used them to run the alleged gas camps.
Treblinka is one example.

 

[transam]

As the west is now supplying tanks to the Ukraine

The question is (?) if the Russians now deploy there most modern up
To date battle tank the T 14 Armatta

Russias most modern tank ?? It has automated features including remote controlled machine guns ?

The Russians claim ( or claimed) that it would form the basis of a robotic tank ?

The super tank (?) has been plagued with design problems and production problems with only a small number manufactured

Possibly in the low tens (?)

During a rehearsal for a victory parade in 2015 one of em broke down ???

Deployment would be a high risk decision for Russia

And if one is captured the tech boffins in nato will be crawling all over it ???

 

[Justin Passing]

As the west is now supplying tanks to the Ukraine

The question is (?) if the Russians now deploy there most modern up
To date battle tank the T 14 Armatta

Russias most modern tank ?? It has automated features including remote controlled machine guns ?

The Russians claim ( or claimed) that it would form the basis of a robotic tank ?

The super tank (?) has been plagued with design problems and production problems with only a small number manufactured

Possibly in the low tens (?)

During a rehearsal for a victory parade in 2015 one of em broke down ???

Deployment would be a high risk decision for Russia

And if one is captured the tech boffins in nato will be crawling all over it ???

It's something of a new battlefield with new combinations of satellites, drones, anti aircraft and anti aircraft weapons. I haven't read anything that says a small number of different tanks will make a significant difference. None of them are invincible.

 

[IT Minion]

If they had them available to use then they'd be using them. Right now the T14 is vapourware.

 

[Justin Passing]

They do have some, but reportedly not many.
" In December, T-14s were spotted on a training area in southern Russia, which has previously been associated with activity ahead of deploying weapons to Ukraine."
They may be able to match the paltry number of newer western tanks.

THis from Kyiv: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/11532

An interesting detail is that the Lepard tanks cannot use ammunition to relably knock out a T14. Without increasing from the current bore diameter, that would require the use of depleted uranium, and the Gerry politicos won't allow that. Brits and yanks do use it. Though the Abrams tanks dropped the US design of gun in favour of the one on the Lepard, it's thought that the tolerances - or something- preclude simply sticking the US DU sabot shell into the Lepard.

Briefly in case someone's interested, DU is the stuff you get left over when you enrich natural uranium, (which is approx 99.3% U238 and 0.7% U235), to make reactor fuel. The reactor fuel is "fissile", with about 5% U235. In the reactor the U235 fissions, and prods the "fertile" U238 into Plutonium 239 which is the main fissile bombmaking stuff. DU is only somewhat radioactive; there are hundreds of "contaminated" sites in Iraq needing £30m cleanup. Normal DU upper U235 limit is 0.3%; you can try harder and make it less fizzy.
It's used in missiles because it's among the densest of stuffs and therefore carries more KE. You can make it very hard, to penetrate 60 odd% thicker, or angled, armour than non-DU. It's also pyrophoric - burns in air - so a niggle if a bit gets under your helmet.
Not really a silver bullet though, 90% of occupants of US vehicles penetrated by DU in Iraq, survived.
Soz didn't spend long long enough to make it brief.

 

[Brigadier]

They do have some, but reportedly not many.
" In December, T-14s were spotted on a training area in southern Russia, which has previously been associated with activity ahead of deploying weapons to Ukraine."
They may be able to match the paltry number of newer western tanks.

THis from Kyiv: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/11532

An interesting detail is that the Lepard tanks cannot use ammunition to relably knock out a T14. Without increasing from the current bore diameter, that would require the use of depleted uranium, and the Gerry politicos won't allow that. Brits and yanks do use it. Though the Abrams tanks dropped the US design of gun in favour of the one on the Lepard, it's thought that the tolerances - or something- preclude simply sticking the US DU sabot shell into the Lepard.

Briefly in case someone's interested, DU is the stuff you get left over when you enrich natural uranium, (which is approx 99.3% U238 and 0.7% U235), to make reactor fuel. The reactor fuel is "fissile", with about 5% U235. In the reactor the U235 fissions, and prods the "fertile" U238 into Plutonium 239 which is the main fissile bombmaking stuff. DU is only somewhat radioactive; there are hundreds of "contaminated" sites in Iraq needing £30m cleanup. Normal DU upper U235 limit is 0.3%; you can try harder and make it less fizzy.
It's used in missiles because it's among the densest of stuffs and therefore carries more KE. You can make it very hard, to penetrate 60 odd% thicker, or angled, armour than non-DU. It's also pyrophoric - burns in air - so a niggle if a bit gets under your helmet.
Not really a silver bullet though, 90% of occupants of US vehicles penetrated by DU in Iraq, survived.
Soz didn't spend long long enough to make it brief.

DU burns in such a way the projectile self-sharpens as it penetrates the armour.
It then burns once inside the tank; not good for the occupants, via direct injury or through igniting ammo or fuel.....

 

[Justin Passing]

DU burns in such a way the projectile self-sharpens as it penetrates the armour.
It then burns once inside the tank; not good for the occupants, via direct injury or through igniting ammo or fuel.....

Pyrophoric, yes. here's a lot about it online. I was surprised that although all are keen to stress those qualities, casualties aren't as high as I expected - ref 90% survival quote.
Main point remains - Lepard tanks don't have it, and therefore can't penetrate a T14 Armata - surprising. Russia has claimed that Lepards might get DU armaments, which appears from all I've seen, to be a false claim.
OTOH, all the Russian tanks since the T64 can and have used DU shells. (also Challenger and Abrams)
I assume Russians aren't using them so far, that would look like a mini nuclear arms race.

DU really isn't very radioactive, it's used in the tank armour of Abrahms (close to the crew!), because it's dense and strong. There was an agreement/statement by someone (US?) that it wouldn't be used against civilians, only military targets. Not sure what that would actually mean, as DU doesn't vanish after it's exploded.

The Russians do have a tankbustng plane, the SU25 Frogfoot. It has a similar 30mm gatling gun to the US Warthog's which at something like 70 rounds per second (30mm, using DU), stops tanks. Its range is 750km, which reaches Moldova from inside Russia, so use would depend on A-A missiles on the ground. A Warthog carries anough ammo to knock out half a dozen or so tanks, so if the Russian version is similar, it would only take a small number getting through to account for an entire batallion (30 or so) of fancy western tanks. Obviously, there won't be that type of US air power for the foreseeable future.

Has anyone heard mention recently of the longer range/more accurate himars ammo?

 

[IT Minion]

I wouldn't put much faith in claims that tank <X> can't be killed because of <fancy feature>.

If you can't penetrate the front armour you can go around and hit the thinner flank and rear armour. Or break the tracks and then leave it for artillery strikes. Some tanks are harder to kill than others, but none is invulnerable.

 

[Doug99]

I wouldn't put much faith in claims that tank <X> can't be killed because of <fancy feature>.

If you can't penetrate the front armour you can go around and hit the thinner flank and rear armour. Or break the tracks and then leave it for artillery strikes. Some tanks are harder to kill than others, but none is invulnerable.

A well placed simple RPG round can split a link in any tank's running gear.

 

[Justin Passing]

A well placed simple RPG round can split a link in any tank's running gear.

Of course, the variable is how close you can get. You saw "Saving private Ryan"?!
Not much good if you're 2 miles away and being shot at, though.

And of course a specific shell isn't a game changer. But I bet the tankers all wish they had DU rounds, after seeing the success rates in Iraq. (A Challenger reportedly killed an Iraqi tank at 4000m). Being able to kill your enemy without him hitting you isn't a "fancy feature"
The "destruction" rates com with %ages.
There was a case of an Abrahms hit with 4 DU shells and not disabled.

If you haven't seen them , see the (German iirc) armour piercing finned hand grenades - you lob them so they come down on top. The Ukranians have been dropping them from "home made" drones. They have to make one wonder how long the manned tank will be a cost-effective weapon.