Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

[kingQamaR]

LOL,What pariah state? Since when the west is so obsessive about a group of indian? Russia have natural resource and china,india have huge needs,no western countries are needed for this trade. They will never become a "pariah state“ as western wish hard it to be.
If russia is so evil then US and your country UK is at least ten times more evil, US participate in 80% of wars happened after WWII and killed millions of civillians.

How's the Russian economy going Russian Trolls on here haha

Be honest russian trolls have RT news detailed all the sanctions by the EU, USA, Swiss!!!! (Yes even the Swiss have sanctioned russian assets) and UK etc detailing the Multimillion boats, villas, cash and assets frozen by the west? Come I bet they wouldnt dare publish a full list of trillions of US dollars worth of assets!

China seen how quickly the Sanctions on Russia bit in. China has not worked so hard to be the supplier to the world, to lose everything overnight due to Sanctions on them. They need the West more than Russia. On balance, China couldn't support Russia.

India haha if india doesnt do it, cancel 1,000 visas for starters

 

[jhungary]

Just on the topic

Just out of interest, how would an Abrams or a Challenger fare against the same type of attack?

Probably the same, there are no way you can reinforce deck armor on a tank, you can try to use a cage armor but that basically will just burn thru as many case with the Russian.

The only way you can defeat it is probably the active protection system, or be vigilante about infantry surrounding, on the other hand, it took some skill to put that NLAW on top of a tank, I mean, it's not really the easiest thing to do.

 

[jhungary]

I believe Izium would be the decisive battle to try to take control of the Donbas region on both sides while Russia is keeping some forces in the Northeast and West of Kiev to keep Ukrainian forces there busy. The Ukrainians will need to surround them and destroy or capture them quickly before they dig in around Kiev. Need those loitering munitions to help make a decisive blow. Also perfect opportunity to see how the loitering munitions perform against a near peer adversary and what lessons need to be learn like new tactics or improvements like better range, make it more stealthy, bigger warhead or more jam resistant, etc. Its no coincidence that Ukraine hit that arms depot in Belgorod since that's the supply point for any assault around in or near Izium.

Both Izyum and Mariupol are essential for the Russian to encircle the Ukrainian troop in Donbas region. You cannot attack Donbas defence head on, Russian don't have the number there, the only way they can do is to pin the Ukrainian defender in place and hammer them with both flank, To do that, you will need troop on either side of the Ukrainian flank, which mean they need to take Izyum and Mariupol.

On the other hand, I have no idea if Russia would have enough troop after they took Mariupol. Conventional wisdom would suggest a 3 to 1 ratio to overcome Mariupol defender, the Russian dont have that number and I can probably see around 40k troop were devoted into Mariupol Operation facing off 3 Ukrainian Brigade with TDF, roughly 20k in number, which mean that 40K troop will be involved in heavy fighting and I wonder if they still have a coherent force left after they took Mariupol.

On the other hand, Ukrainian have repel 3 incursion from Isyum already, and they counter attacked toward Sumy-Kharkiv area near the border and the entire Russia supply line to the North are now threatened, I don't see they can attack beyond Izyum, the troop repositioned from Kyiv would not be quick enough to unjam this situation. Which mean unless Russia is using their Strategic reserve (If they have any) I don't see how the Russia is able to flank both side of the Donbas defender, On top of that, the whole area have not been closed off since day 1, which mean supply and personnel are going to flow into the donbas region for the last 34 days, so the 60,000 strength in 6 Ukrainian Brigade would probably be outdated. Which mean the garrison is probably reinforced by now with regular troop or TDF.

In short, the situation is not good for the Russian in Donbas. This is gonna be a long grind.

 

[vizier]

Not if they have the Trophy system installed.

Defense World

View News at Defense World

www.defenseworld.net

https://www.rafael.co.il/press/rafaels-trophy-active-protection-system-selected-for-integration-on-the-uks-challenger-3-main-battle-tank/

Some hard kill systems work for top attack as well but top attack has some advantages in my opinion. You can install decoys more easily than horizontal flight(ex:rpg-29 has a decoy secondary rocket) as the missile has already burned out its engine and falling down for the hit almost ballistically. Some small reflective ball decoys can be released from the missile while falling down and can confuse the aps radar. Also missiles can do deliberate random maneuvers and recorrect themselves just before hitting the target and the aps projectiles are unguided and can miss in that case.
Soft kill however would still work to a degree releasing smoke(ir-visual-chaff) above the tank and blocking the missile sensor from acquiring the target from above.

 

[patero]

Probably the same, there are no way you can reinforce deck armor on a tank, you can try to use a cage armor but that basically will just burn thru as many case with the Russian.

The only way you can defeat it is probably the active protection system, or be vigilante about infantry surrounding, on the other hand, it took some skill to put that NLAW on top of a tank, I mean, it's not really the easiest thing to do.

Once the rocket or missle penetrates the top armor of an Abrams is it necesarily a kill? A lot has been made over the years about the death trap Russian tanks with the ammo bin exposed, footage from this conflict repeatedly shows ammo and fuel cooking off after missle strikes and often exploding. Would this happen as often on Western tanks given for example the Abrams armored ammo compartments and blow off panels?

 

[Paul2]

Probably the same, there are no way you can reinforce deck armor on a tank, you can try to use a cage armor but that basically will just burn thru as many case with the Russian.

The only way you can defeat it is probably the active protection system, or be vigilante about infantry surrounding, on the other hand, it took some skill to put that NLAW on top of a tank, I mean, it's not really the easiest thing to do.

The easiest way is just to not get within man-portable ATGM range.

Any missile bigger than man-portable one, will kill any tank anyways.

While tank guns easily have enough barrel length, and strengh to shoot a round to 5km, it's still impractical to use tank guns for 2km+ range.

Some proximity fuses may help, but ultimately, modern tanks suck at the original role of a tank — mobile frontline fire support.

The more tanks were used to fight other tanks, the worse they fared in their primary role. Americans, as I know, don't even have HE shells for M1A1 anymore. Huge guns to throw AP slugs got worse, and worse gun elevation with each generation. Some tanks today have elevation as small as 14°, which means it have to fear even tiniest hills, and buildings.

Giant increase in armour to withstand slugs also ate all of tank mobility. 75t last modifications of NATO MBTs can't even drive on weaker asphalt roads. Terrain was an enemy of tanks 80 years ago, but now it is like 10x of that.

If the enemy don't want to fight these tanks, they can just chose to go through a bit less favourable terrain for tanks, and be safe.

Tank mobility today is terrible. Tracks were a revolution in WW2 because they can go where wheeled vehicles cannot, but now it's a reverse.

Any tank today can be dispatched by a missile, using other tanks for that role at the cost of sapping their last usefulness at fire support is just stupid.

 

[thetutle]

Don't think there are anything to burn on a NLAW Projectile, it is not a rocket, it don't have fuel, it have an explosive warhead, it certainly would not catch fire when it bounce off.

Also, it does not explain why the burning is on the bottom of the turret. As I said, as weird as it was sounded, even if it did catch fire for some reason, the fire is does not exist on the outside, which only lead to one logical conclusion. That is the fire is happening on the inside.

Also if you have enough shape charge HE on that warhead, it can punch thru the top Armor of any tank, as it is around 10-20 mm RHA, and NLAW is designed to to an Armor piecing weapon, well, at least it was advertised as so.

So yes, in my opinion, the warhead punched thru the turret and exploded on the inside, and it start a fire in the crew compartment. I have seen enough AT missile hit a tank to come with this conclusion.

@thetutle Just realised I posted the wrong Youtube clip, I have edited to the correct one.

I hope you’re right, but. A shaped charge requires an explosion to penetrate armour. Did you see an explosion?

NLAW missile doesn’t have fuel? How does it travel 800m? What propels it? Surely something combustible.

Looks to me like it didn’t have time to arm was a dud

 

[Vergennes]

No "Z" or "V" signs. Those vehicles didn't belong to Russia, but as usual you can run with those photos that don't prove anything.

Russian vehicles aren't only marked with "Z" or "V",when will you understand that ?

A VDV BMD and its crew captured

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509083404201046016

Tunguska captured in Kharkiv

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509082635213156354

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1508927677855846401

 

[jhungary]

Once the rocket or missle penetrates the top armor of an Abrams is it necesarily a kill? A lot has been made over the years about the death trap Russian tanks with the ammo bin exposed, footage from this conflict repeatedly shows ammo and fuel cooking off after missle strikes and often exploding. Would this happen as often on Western tanks given for example the Abrams armored ammo compartments and blow off panels?

The problem of the Russian tank is their autoloader, which means rounds and charges (they use them separately instead of the one single thing like we do in western tank) Which mean their powder is on the floor and just about everywhere, and we took advantage on that and a penetrating hit would mean it will cook off those charges, which is why you seldom see the turret get separated form the hull when a western tank got destroyed, but you see that a lot in a Russian tank.

We don't have ammo cook off problem like the Russian tank, but if one of those NLAW hit a western tank, it is going to deal damage on the inside, Afterall, you are talking about a stream of molten steel over 2000C penetrate inside the turret or hull, anything it touches is going to get burn.

just because it won't cook off them rounds does not mean it will not do proper damage to the tank, it can range from taking it or the crew out of action, to completely destroy the inside..

I hope you’re right, but. A shaped charge requires an explosion to penetrate armour. Did you see an explosion?

NLAW missile doesn’t have fuel? How does it travel 800m? What propels it? Surely something combustible.

Looks to me like it didn’t have time to arm was a dud

Well, there may be an explosion? I don't know because it was covered with smoke in the video. I have seen penetration that comes without a big bang, in the end, all you need is that molten jacket, it got heated up to 2000C, it will penetrate inside a tank. Just like the first video I show you.

NLAW does not have fuel, it's not like a RPG, it's uses charges (IIRC it's shaped plastic explosive) inside the NLAW to set off the projectile, It's actually work like a gun, you have the charges on the bottom of the tube and you set off the primer to burn thru those charge to propel the projectile forward (Exactly like a firearms but with the charge on the outside instead of inside the casing of the projectile), that is why these missile are one-off, because you cannot reinsert the charges as they are sealed, which mean even if you insert a new NLAW Projectile in the tube, it won't work as there are nothing projecting it out.

 

[jhungary]

The easiest way is just to not get within man-portable ATGM range.

Any missile bigger than man-portable one, will kill any tank anyways.

While tank guns easily have enough barrel length, and strengh to shoot a round to 5km, it's still impractical to use tank guns for 2km+ range.

Some proximity fuses may help, but ultimately, modern tanks suck at the original role of a tank — mobile frontline fire support.

The more tanks were used to fight other tanks, the worse they fared in their primary role. Americans, as I know, don't even have HE shells for M1A1 anymore. Huge guns to throw AP slugs got worse, and worse gun elevation with each generation. Some tanks today have elevation as small as 14°, which means it have to fear even tiniest hills, and buildings.

Giant increase in armour to withstand slugs also ate all of tank mobility. 75t last modifications of NATO MBTs can't even drive on weaker asphalt roads. Terrain was an enemy of tanks 80 years ago, but now it is like 10x of that.

If the enemy don't want to fight these tanks, they can just chose to go through a bit less favourable terrain for tanks, and be safe.

Tank mobility today is terrible. Tracks were a revolution in WW2 because they can go where wheeled vehicles cannot, but now it's a reverse.

Any tank today can be dispatched by a missile, using other tanks for that role at the cost of sapping their last usefulness at fire support is just stupid.

Well, you can't always get outside AT team range tho, because they will not stand up and put up sign that said "AT Team here"

As I said, the biggest weapon on a tank against an AT team is not the big gun on your turret, but the engine in the back of your tank, because mobility is a key. As I said, putting those AT round on target is not exactly easy, it's hard enough to follow the tank at distant and it's even harder when the tank is moving around.

Almost all Anti-AT movement involve some kind of sudden change of direction and speed, the sagger drill I was talking about before involving launching smoke and then suddenly move back and do a J turn and get away from the Killzone. That is effective against most AT weapon.

On the other hand, if you take away the mobility, like how the Russian use them in Ukraine, that is basically asking for trouble. You run a tank on a limited environment and without speed and without room to manoeuvre, having infantry accompany or not is more or less suicide.

 

[thetutle]

So you dont offer any solution and just want the gas flow to stop like right now?

What is the contingency plan when 100s of thousands of unemployed people start rioting on the streets? Do you have any?

Those that are unemployed in Germany can just go back to their home countries.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Good video on the "Nazi's" battalions and how only 1,000 Nazis has got Putin so "hot and bothered"... so - basically all Russian/Kremlin propaganda as the Azov's are materially a non-issue .......

 

[RescueRanger]

Good video on the "Nazi's" battalions and how only 1,000 Nazis has got Putin so "hot and bothered"... so - basically all Russian/Kremlin propaganda as the Azov's are materially a non-issue .......

It’s not just a thousand we’ve talked about this, the figure is much smaller than some pro Russians push out but it’s not “1000”.

That said using the pretext of “denazification” is lame and was exposed early on as a thinly veiled farce by Russia as a pretext of an invasion of a peaceful country.

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509123270251057156

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509111667870810114