Kiev Is Burning

[glenn239]

16 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

   Anyway, taking into account both S-70 and the plane that shot it were able to penetrate into frontline airspace on high altitude, it seems like Ukr AD in this region was not able to see them or not active for some reason....

Perhaps the radar return off rivet heads and minuscule ripples in the aircraft's skin are not sufficient to allow a missile battery to track these aircraft at any significant ranges.   

[mkenny]

3 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

I do not have the statistics, but it seems like the main danger for tank crew after landmine hit is not explosion itself, but miles and miles of grey zone they have to walk under drone and artillery attacks to reach safety. And this distance is not dependent on the type of tank they have abandoned.

 

For WW2 c. 50% of crew casualties were outside of/after they left the tank

[seahawk]

33 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Perhaps the radar return off rivet heads and minuscule ripples in the aircraft's skin are not sufficient to allow a missile battery to track these aircraft at any significant ranges.   

Western SAMs have proven useless under the constant Russian jamming.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Western SAMs have proven useless under the constant Russian jamming.

All kidding aside, it would more likely have been a Soviet vintage S300 than a western SAM responsible for the area, just going by numbers.

[Roman Alymov]

3 hours ago, mkenny said:

For WW2 c. 50% of crew casualties were outside of/after they left the tank

In WWII, it was enough for the crew to cross the hill or reach bearby bushes to be relatively safe. In this war, "dead zone" is at least 5-7 km from "contact line".

[Roman Alymov]

20 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

There is only two options: use it or donate to museum (as it is pre-production vehicle). We do not know how it was used  - at least, no combat load found in wreck, and flying in broad daylight is strange   - but if it was sent to "find SAM" then why it was shot down by RusAF fighter relatively deep inside potential enemy SAM kill zone? 

I was wrong about "at least, no combat load found in wreck" - part of UMBP D-30SN found in what was left of burned wreck  https://t.me/milinfolive/132246

Edited October 6, 2024 by Roman Alymov

[old_goat]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive looked at the bottom of Challenger 2, and its the same as all British tanks since Chieftain, its a V shape, to help protect against mines. T72 and the Soviet tanks that Ukraine uses do not.

Thats a VERY shallow "V" shape. Probably not more effective at all than a simple plate. But, as for soviet tanks, I suspect T-62M has better mine protection than CR2, since it genuinely has a reinforced part (front 1/3) against mines.

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

How fortunate for you that there isnt 140 Challenger 2's we sent, instead of the 14 we did. And no, its not been upgraded to be as good as the late pattern Leopard2's, but its still better than pretty much anything else either side can put on the battlefield, and thats the point.

Sorry but this is again silly. CR2 is significantly inferior to T-90M in every way except reverse speed. In my opinion it is also slightly inferior to T-80BVM, and about equal to the T-72B3 obr.2022 and T-90A. CR2 is not a modern tank at all. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 minutes ago, old_goat said:

Thats a VERY shallow "V" shape. Probably not more effective at all than a simple plate. But, as for soviet tanks, I suspect T-62M has better mine protection than CR2, since it genuinely has a reinforced part (front 1/3) against mines.

Sorry but this is again silly. CR2 is significantly inferior to T-90M in every way except reverse speed. In my opinion it is also slightly inferior to T-80BVM, and about equal to the T-72B3 obr.2022 and T-90A. CR2 is not a modern tank at all. 

If you are telling me they managed to squeeze Dorchester levels of protection in T90M, I'm just going to plain laugh at you. Inferior except in the ability to perform the second most important tactical move on the battlefield.

T80BVM, that has that big open area lacking any protection  around the gun?

I didn't say it was a modern tank. I said it was better than any other tank on the battlefield right now, other than the leopard2A5 (the Abrams is a monkey model).The main shortcomings are lack of auto track and latest generation thermal sights, although as Russia is still perfectly happy to field tanks that don't have any, It's not much of a complaint.

 

 

[old_goat]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you are telling me they managed to squeeze Dorchester levels of protection in T90M, I'm just going to plain laugh at you. Inferior except in the ability to perform the second most important tactical move on the battlefield.

CR2 is ancient. Its armor package remains at the level of early 90s. Its actual armor structure is of course still secret, but there are documents that indicate the required protection level, that was basically... base T-72B level on turret, and significantly weaker than T-72B on hull if I remember correctly... This was good in the early 90s but laughable today. The "world's best protected tank" is actually another myth that was busted a while ago, just like the "super accuracy" of the rifled 120. CR2 is old. Lets face it.

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

T80BVM, that has that big open area lacking any protection  around the gun?

Just like the big open area below the gun on CR2...

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I didn't say it was a modern tank. I said it was better than any other tank on the battlefield right now, other than the leopard2A5 (the Abrams is a monkey model).

I'd prefer that monkey model Abrams 1000 times than CR2. It is definitely better in every imaginable aspect than CR2.

29 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The main shortcomings are lack of auto track and latest generation thermal sights, although as Russia is still perfectly happy to field tanks that don't have any, It's not much of a complaint.

+ ancient armor package, obsolete rifled gun with obsolete ammo, lack of mobility especially in mud, obsolete FCS and stabilization system, no protected ammo storage, less than ideal reliability, no supply of spare parts. CR2 is the most overhyped modern tank, but in reality, it was effortlessly beaten by the Abrams, Leopard and Leclerc in most trials. Even T-80s performed better in some aspects in Greece.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh, you heard from your mate down the pub, so it's obviously true. How could I possibly doubt it?

[old_goat]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, you heard from your mate down the pub, so it's obviously true. How could I possibly doubt it?

Unfortunately for you, this was discussed here too... CR2 turret is more or less equivalent to base T-72B without Kontakt-5, hull is basically T-72M1 level vs KE... Also look for greek tank trials, where it was discovered that CR2 had the weakest protection of all tested tanks + many, many negative things...

But this isnt a place to talk about this, If you wish we can continue there:

 

[Roman Alymov]

Pro-Russians with M1 Abrams wreck with extra reactive armor somewhere on Pokrovsk direction https://t.me/UralArmor90/452

[Sikkiyn]

Is a tool that is inferior on paper superior when it succeeds?

Like saying ECM denies x,y,z. Understanding how it works, not what some paper says, renders that moot. It holds the same weight as the latest bloviated: game changer, war winner, insert nauseating overused troupe here.

 

Skill, chance, and luck are the galactic force multiplier, and Murphy is in charge.

[seahawk]

11 hours ago, old_goat said:

CR2 is ancient. Its armor package remains at the level of early 90s. Its actual armor structure is of course still secret, but there are documents that indicate the required protection level, that was basically... base T-72B level on turret, and significantly weaker than T-72B on hull if I remember correctly... This was good in the early 90s but laughable today. The "world's best protected tank" is actually another myth that was busted a while ago, just like the "super accuracy" of the rifled 120. CR2 is old. Lets face it.

Just like the big open area below the gun on CR2...

I'd prefer that monkey model Abrams 1000 times than CR2. It is definitely better in every imaginable aspect than CR2.

+ ancient armor package, obsolete rifled gun with obsolete ammo, lack of mobility especially in mud, obsolete FCS and stabilization system, no protected ammo storage, less than ideal reliability, no supply of spare parts. CR2 is the most overhyped modern tank, but in reality, it was effortlessly beaten by the Abrams, Leopard and Leclerc in most trials. Even T-80s performed better in some aspects in Greece.

Western tanks have shown to be overhyped and are nothing but targets when facing Russians. CR2 is about T-64M level of capability, but no western tanks matches a T-90.

[Stuart Galbraith]

All I can say then is, the T90M must have enough bad luck to have been cursed by a witch doctor. Or, just conceivably, its not a very good tank.

Over to Baron Samedi, Tanknets new armour expert.

 

 

[MiGG0]

T-90M so far has been showed to be pretty on par to Leo2 family, M1A1 and C2 in UKR, so it would be screcth to say it is not "good tank" -> It is good enough. Its survivability is much better to other T series, even if direct hit to carousel is still instakill. Most destroyed vehicles in videos has been already abandoned ones -> so armor has mostly done its work. Its weakest point still is its abysmal reverse speed, but then again FPV drones can hit your ass regardless which way you are driving...

Edited October 7, 2024 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

T-90M so far has been showed to be pretty on par to Leo2 family, M1A1 and C2 in UKR, so it would be screcth to say it is not "good tank" -> It is good enough. Its survivability is much better to other T series, even if direct hit to carousel is still instakill. Most destroyed vehicles in videos has been already abandoned ones -> so armor has mostly done its work. Its weakest point still is its abysmal reverse speed, but then again FPV drones can hit your ass regardless which way you are driving...

You will forgive me for pointing out, this is not such a high bar.

 

[urbanoid]

23 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

First, i'm not sure as if hull shape is significant when dealing not with amateur IEDs in Iraq but against factory-made modern HEAT/"cumulative" mines. 

Second, in tank design (as in any design) everything comes at a price, and having hull optimised to resist mines will increase weight/size, resulting in cost ->less vehicles produced->less tanks on the battlefield->less chances of success. Also, extra weight is reducing cross country opportunities, harder recovery etc. 

I do not have the statistics, but it seems like the main danger for tank crew after landmine hit is not explosion itself, but miles and miles of grey zone they have to walk under drone and artillery attacks to reach safety. And this distance is not dependent on the type of tank they have abandoned.

Your complains about your politicians failing to produce more tanks is like one of our Polish members pointing out it was "White" Russian command incompetence that led to Red victory and resulting troubles for Poland - ignoring the obvious fact that having the "White" forces being more competent, Poland would just stay part of Russian Empire. Your politicians in their incompetence and arrogance have convinced themselves they have "won the Cold War" and as result provoked them to all sorts of careless actions, and failure to meed genuene (may be naive) desire of former Soviet people to be integrated into what they believed was "family of civilized nations", combined with even more genuene desire of post-Soviet elites of Russia to be colonial administration for West. There was no need for tanks to finally destroy any chances of Russia resurrecting  - couple more decades of ruining education via implementing "best Western practicies", ruining healthcare via "Western-style reforms" etc, combined with integrating our elites and smoke screen of rethorics about "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" would have been enough. Note it was not only free  - but it was PAID BY RUSSIA"S OWN RESOURCES. But, luckily for us, your Governments and elites were not smart enough to play such long game.

It was NATO planners who decided pro-Ukrainisn got enough of everything, so you are complaining about performance of the same people who have failed in A-stan against tribal religeous militia....

The attitude of Whites ensured they got no support from Poland - and it was on the table, had the Whites simply recognized Polish independence instead of mumbling something about 'one indivisible Russia'.

Poland has made a correct decision at the time - to simply stay out of it. Those 20 years of independence between the wars were simply invaluable to the nation, they gave something to build on later.

[MiGG0]

23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You will forgive me for pointing out, this is not such a high bar.

 

Well, yes but it is comparable to Leo or C2 series (M1A1 is best in that category). -> Most destroyed T-90M in videos are already abandoned vehicles. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

Well, yes but it is comparable to Leo or C2 series (M1A1 is best in that category). -> Most destroyed T-90M in videos are already abandoned vehicles. 

No, it really isnt.

Ok, lets use an example. We assume Challenger 2 has the worst protection of its ammunition, since it has HESH rounds in the compartment. Yes? Well here is an example of it at work in Chieftain. I forget what the missile that hit it was, HOT I suspect.

 

Anyway, my point is, the system allows the tank to be evacuated. In this case, the driver (whom I believe was the guy being interviewed) was able to drive it out the way of the guys watching before it reached the ammunition.  No, the system doesnt save the tank, but it invariably saves the crew. Which frankly is far more important I would have thought.

Against that, there are accounts that both Russia and Ukraine have been going into combat with less than the full load in the carousel, because of the dramatic terminal effects of when the carousel is penetrated.  And in truth yes, that seems to work. But if you are going into combat with less than 15 main gun rounds, you have to ask what the point of the bloody carousel was. May as well have had a big armoured box of main gun rounds and employed a mongolian loader.

The Ukrainians say that western equipment is generally more survivable. Well, they are right. Whether its Leopard 2, Bradley, Abrams, M113 or yes, Challenger 2, your chances of walking away after a penetrating hit are far higher than any model of T90, T72, T64, BMP1 or 2 or, God help us, Mad Max conversions of the humble MTLB. At least as far as reinforcing that lesson, this war reinforces what every war for the last 30 years has told us, that Soviet equipment may have many virtues, but crew survivability is not one of them.

[Ssnake]

A while ago we discussed here that the crew survival rate of the T-xx tanks was actually not so terrible, about 1 crew member lost per tank destroyed. You wouldn't expect that from the skyrocketing turrets, but then again those tend to make the news while silent kills - whether they merely damage the equipment or also kill (parts of) the crew are visually boring, and therefore have a negative selection bias when it comes to representation in print, or social media.

[MiGG0]

12 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, it really isnt.

 

Yes, it is really. All T-90M ammo is protected. Other T-series tanks have ammo that is unprotected lyhing all around turret which cause huge problems after penetration (carousel itself is relatively protected, but if it goes then ytou get that huge boom aswell).

Also you have wrong info. Carousel is fully loaded most of times, it is that additional ammo lying all over the place that is removed rest of the T-series. In T-90M that additional ammo is stored back of turret (similar way as in M1A1) with blow out panels.

Edited October 7, 2024 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, so this is nonsensical, and Ive got too much to do other than argue endless points about carousel vulnerablity, which was illustrated perfectly well in 1991.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

A while ago we discussed here that the crew survival rate of the T-xx tanks was actually not so terrible, about 1 crew member lost per tank destroyed. You wouldn't expect that from the skyrocketing turrets, but then again those tend to make the news while silent kills - whether they merely damage the equipment or also kill (parts of) the crew are visually boring, and therefore have a negative selection bias when it comes to representation in print, or social media.

But as already said, the Ukrainians certainly are half loading their tanks to make the carousel less vulnerable. And despite what MIGGO here says, im willing to bet the Russians have already learned that lesson also. If thats the case, survival is based on an understanding of the situation which may well be incorrect.

 

[MiGG0]

19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ok, so this is nonsensical, and Ive got too much to do other than argue endless points about carousel vulnerablity, which was illustrated perfectly well in 1991.

 

And you have it wrong. It was that additional ammo that ignited first (fully loaded T series before T-90 you had almost impossible to penetrate it without hitting some ammo somewhere) and then caused carousel detonation. After you remove all that additional ammo laying in turret/fighting compartment, only direct hit to carousel can have total destruction. Later spreading fire ofcourse can also cause that, but that point crew have had time to abandon tank.

Also, Im not saying carousel is best system ever. Im saying it is not that bad you think it is. Next system probably is autoloader in non mannded turret and all ammo in separate compartment with blow out panels.

Edited October 7, 2024 by MiGG0