Kiev Is Burning

[urbanoid]

If you were wondering how are things in Kherson, the Russians are hunting civilians with FPV drones.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Adn you have it wrong. It was that additional ammo that ignites first and then causes 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.

BMP3.

 

I actually looked up on youtube for videos of exploding Bradleys. Surprisingly I couldnt find any.

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

BMP3.

 

I actually looked up on youtube for videos of exploding Bradleys. Surprisingly I couldn't find any.

??? I have not talked anything about BMP's. or IFV general (But I have seens video of Bradley catastofic destruction -> It is more of what they were carrying when hit).

Edited October 7 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

And another one...

 

[MiGG0]

Your point? Nobody has said T series wont have catastrophic destructions. All that has been pointed is that statistically T-series crew loss rate is not that bad and T-90M is better (close to western tanks) than rest of T series because it is first to have all ammo fully protected.

[sunday]

Quote

 Ive got too much to do other than argue endless points

That is new!

[MiGG0]

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

That is new!

And he still try to argue with some vague videos that misses the point what were are discussing about.

Edited October 7 by MiGG0

[sunday]

That is not new...

[seahawk]

4 hours 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.

And there is often some time between hit and the flying turret. Time the still able crew members can use to evacuate the tank.

[old_goat]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

Stuart, seriously. At least start looking at the basics! You have zero clue about what you are saying here. AZ and MZ are both FULL, every time, regardless of nation. You are confusing it with the additional ammo load, that is scattered around the hull, and sometimes in the turret. That is what crews remove. NOT the autoloader!

I seriously recommend the tankograd blog, and the site of Stefan Kotsch. You seem to know very little (or anything at all...) about soviet/russian tanks, except war stories from 1991...

Edited October 7 by old_goat

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

And he still try to argue with some vague videos that misses the point what were are discussing about.

Still trying to equate how you can possibly say that all western equipment is just as vulnerable as Soviet/Russian equipment when demonstrably looking at the evidence, it isnt true at all.

But not to worry, Im sure we will return to this in short order, we always do.

[bojan]

We have also seen C2 get hit by Lancet (with quite anemic warhead...), explode and it's turret fall apart. So I really miss your point about C2 being supperior:

- better armor - no. C2 has about same level of KE armor as T-72B w/o ERA and about same level of CE armor as T-72B with K-1 ERA. Side armor is noticeably worse, 38mm vs 70mm on T-90M. Heavy sideskirts are not standard issue for tanks, and even with them it will be behind CE protection of T-90M with ERA sideskirts (standard on that one). Top also has less armor (well, not much mess, but still relevant vs HE shells) and has no any kind of additional protection. Mine-protection is ~same for both tanks.

- better FCS - not even close. C2 does not have independent stabilization for thermal channel, never mind CITV.

- better gun - no. HESH has ~50% more dispersion than 125mm HE, APFSDS have comparable dispersion and performances. In addition C2 also has no HEAT which is useful for all sorts of targets other than armored vehicles.

- better post-penetration suvrivability - not enough C2s used in real war to judge, but judging by two in Ukraine... not really*

- better mobility - no, except reverse speed

- better crew comfort - yes

 

 

*1st one hit a mine cracking open a hull (so much about mine protection...), that produced fire from a raptured fuel tank that could not be extinguished, so it was abandoned and partially burned but fire stopped on it's own at some point before it reached ammo. Then it was hit by Kornet or Vikhr to the side which has produced ammo fire that has severe enough to remove turret from it's mounting and crack open front hull armor module.

Second exploded instantaneously from a single Lancet hit, ripping of turret from it's mounting and front turret with gun from the rear part of turret.

So 2/2 TWOs from what was effectively single hit, one from a drone with warhead with only 220mm of penetration capability.

[bojan]

35 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Still trying to equate how you can possibly say that all western equipment is just as vulnerable as Soviet/Russian equipment when demonstrably looking at the evidence, it isnt true at all.

But not to worry, Im sure we will return to this in short order, we always do.

Do you have any stats how many crew Ukrainians lost per KOd M1, C2 or Leo 2 to compare them to how many Russians lost per KOd T-90M? No, you don't? Then sorry, you don't have any kind of real evidence either.

[MiGG0]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Still trying to equate how you can possibly say that all western equipment is just as vulnerable as Soviet/Russian equipment when demonstrably looking at the evidence, it isnt true at all.

But not to worry, Im sure we will return to this in short order, we always do.

What you are talking about? Nobody has said that. I have said that T-90M is combarable to western tanks in survivability and you show videos of BMP-3 or random T-series tank except T-90M that was at discussion. Those videos has nothing to do what I was saying. All "evidence" (videos) points that T-90M is quite survivable. Most videos showin its destruction are already abandoned vehicles and we have also videos T-90M surviving multiple FPV drones until one hits engine and it is abandoned (and whole crew surives!). Later same tank is destroyed by granade dropped inside from hatch -> that is exaclty how most T-90M are destroyed and result would same for every western tank.

Edited October 7 by MiGG0

[Josh]

I cannot believe we are rehashing the “who has the better tank” arguments again. Just let it go people. It is not particularly relevant for this conflict; in fact even MBT numbers do not seem overly relevant for this type of conflict. Splitting hairs over one design versus another seems like an argument about as meaningful as comparing WWII rifles.

[ink]

8 minutes ago, Josh said:

I cannot believe we are rehashing the “who has the better tank” arguments again. Just let it go people. It is not particularly relevant for this conflict; in fact even MBT numbers do not seem overly relevant for this type of conflict. Splitting hairs over one design versus another seems like an argument about as meaningful as comparing WWII rifles.

If that's where we're at, I'll take an M1 Garand please 😎

(mostly because it's the only WWII rifle I've ever fired)

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, ink said:

If that's where we're at, I'll take an M1 Garand please 😎

(mostly because it's the only WWII rifle I've ever fired)

I’ve fired the Mosin; it was a beast. Shot it indoors and it would spark the backstop; I was surprised they would allow that cartridge on an indoor range. I think they changed their policy on 7.62x54mm and 12 gauge slugs solely because of his rifle and his model 1897.

 

ETA: yes to the M1, but wasn’t strategically significant, which was my point.

 

ETA2: I think the shotgun bruise my arm less…

Edited October 7 by Josh

[ink]

8 minutes ago, Josh said:

I’ve fired the Mosin; it was a beast. Shot it indoors and it would spark the backstop; I was surprised they would allow that cartridge on an indoor range. I think they changed their policy on 7.62x54mm and 12 gauge slugs solely because of his rifle and his model 1897.

Sorry to say I've never so much as held a Mosin, or a K98k. Though when I fired the Garand as a teenager, it felt like it was going to throw my shoulder out... In my defence, the instructor told me the kick would be "moderate". Which I took as an early lesson in classic British understatement.

8 minutes ago, Josh said:

ETA: yes to the M1, but wasn’t strategically significant, which was my point.

No, of course.

8 minutes ago, Josh said:

ETA2: I think the shotgun bruise my arm less…

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

46 minutes ago, Josh said:

I cannot believe we are rehashing the “who has the better tank” arguments again. Just let it go people. It is not particularly relevant for this conflict; in fact even MBT numbers do not seem overly relevant for this type of conflict. Splitting hairs over one design versus another seems like an argument about as meaningful as comparing WWII rifles.

No, not what I said. I was defying the trope that all military equipment is about the same degree of survivability. When the Ukrainians say even the M113 is more survivable than their soviet equivalents, this is self evidently ridiculous.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, bojan said:

Do you have any stats how many crew Ukrainians lost per KOd M1, C2 or Leo 2 to compare them to how many Russians lost per KOd T-90M? No, you don't? Then sorry, you don't have any kind of real evidence either.

Is this one of your 'well there is no evidence so how dare you come to any conclusions' tropes Bojan? Because sorry,  there is evidence, even if you choose to reject it because it's the wrong source.

https://kyivindependent.com/russian-t-90m-tank-losses-hit-100-and-they-only-had-67-to-begin-with/#:~:text=Russia lost at least 100,by Ukrainian forces%2C Oryx found.

Russia lost at least 100 T-90M tanks, according to the open-source investigative project Oryx. This includes those that have been completely destroyed, damaged and abandoned, and five incidents when they were captured by Ukrainian forces, Oryx found.

 How come Russia is finding it hard to crew its new tanks with well trained crewmen? I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that after having lost 3000 tanks over whats becoming a 3 year war, they probably are mostly dead.

And if that's a guess, looking at the loss rate the Iraqis had among their tank crews in 1991, and the loss rate of crewman in 1973 crewing soviet equipment, it's a highly plausible one.

I'm truly bored with this reactionary 'there is no truth' bullshit.

[Yama]

12 hours ago, urbanoid said:

If you were wondering how are things in Kherson, the Russians are hunting civilians with FPV drones.

Even giving we don't know the context of these strikes - Ukrainians use a lot of unmarked civilian vehicles, especially territorial troops and foreign volunteers - much of that seems very callous even by standards of this war. Items next to the first car in the video clearly are not anything of military significance, and the person who rolls out from the car (thankfully alive, it seems) is very obviously a civilian.

[old_goat]

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Russia lost at least 100 T-90M tanks, according to the open-source investigative project Oryx. This includes those that have been completely destroyed, damaged and abandoned, and five incidents when they were captured by Ukrainian forces, Oryx found.

And according to Oryx, ukrainians lost about 60 "far superior" western tanks, that are "significantly more survivable"... Despite that these are less numerous than T-90M... So what is your point then? 

[glenn239]

24 minutes ago, old_goat said:

So what is your point then? 

Stuart's point is that he thinks Western armor is more survivable for the crew than Russian designs.  

[seahawk]

Only Stewart thinks this.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, old_goat said:

And according to Oryx, ukrainians lost about 60 "far superior" western tanks, that are "significantly more survivable"... Despite that these are less numerous than T-90M... So what is your point then? 

Show me a picture of a leopard 2 blowing up like a T90M and taking its entire crew with it. Then post enough videos to show its actually a repeatable trend. Then I might be inclined to agree that yes, its equally as vulnerable. You will struggle to find that evidence. Even the much vaunted loss of Challenger 2 was under circumstances (the turret exploded) that lead me to believe it was bombed up incorrectly. You never, never stow HESH above the turret ring in a combat zone. That was supposed to be for range shoots in the UK.

A carousel is bad news as far as survivability. Even the Ukrainians say so, and its not even a new discovery that I just pulled out my ass. Lester Grau wrote an article for Red Thrust star in 1997 called 'Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability in Urban Combat: The Chechnya Experience', and the drawings they had showing the vulnerablity to RPGs, clearly demonstrate the carousel in T80 and T72was a weak area. Basically, nothing has really moved on here in 30 years, not even in T90M, and the apparent availablity of APS systems, which Russia after all pioneered the development of.

 

T90M and T80BVM has sights as good as a western tank, and probably has firepower almost as good. Its mobility, other than going rearwards, probably is as good.  Would I want to crew one compared to a Western tank after seeing how many of them have blown up, not to mention its forebear the T72? No thank you. People can extol the virtues of Soviet and Russian armour all they like, after having lost 1000 tanks a year for 3 years, and their tank corp left without experienced crews, I find this argument utterly unsupportable.