1 ... 123 124 125 126 127 ... 148
aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
5/13/22 12:29 p.m.

Scholz: Three points from my long phone call with Putin today: There must be a ceasefire in Ukraine as quickly as possible. The claim that Nazis are in power there is false. And I also reminded him about Russia's responsibility for the global food situation

I find this a bit out of touch.  I mean does ANYONE really think Putin gives a flying F about starving people in other parts of the world!?  Does Scholz really think this will in any way shame him?   I am pretty sure it's more likely to make him demand concessions because of that!

I can only see that statement as a political move by Scholz to demonstrate that he tried to solve that issue but in reality its a reminder to Putin of a card he holds.

californiamilleghia
californiamilleghia UltraDork
5/13/22 12:49 p.m.

Sweden and Finland probably have some anti - Erdogon groups who he considers terrorists  , 

One way to go after his enemies !

llysgennad
llysgennad Reader
5/13/22 1:05 p.m.

My understanding is that Finland and Sweden (along with many others) support the Kurdish people in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. But Turkey considers them to be terrorists, so...

Noddaz
Noddaz GRM+ Memberand UberDork
5/13/22 2:32 p.m.

Don't try to cross a river in a hot zone zone they say.

So the Russians tried.  At least twice.  Maybe three times.

Stolen from the DailyMail.com

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/13/22 2:53 p.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

The original idea was to Zerg Rush so many tanks through the Fulda Gap that no defense could stop them.  Hence the autoloader, which in theory (but not practice) is faster than manual loading, and requires 25% less crew, presumably so they can field 33% more tanks.  And survivability is not really important because the tanks and crews are cheap expendables.

Also, while well-trained human loaders can be faster than an autoloader, the autoloader is faster than an untrained human.  The Soviets had an army of mostly conscript troops, so training levels were not as high as in western armies.

 

QuasiMofo (John Brown)
QuasiMofo (John Brown) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/13/22 3:04 p.m.

And let's not forget that a lot of their munitions have been sitting since the 1980s. That usually makes them a lot more stable and consistent,  right?

Mr_Asa
Mr_Asa GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/13/22 3:12 p.m.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Also, while well-trained human loaders can be faster than an autoloader, the autoloader is faster than an untrained human.  

I mean, maybe?

T-72 autoloader has a cycle time between 6.5-15 seconds.  About 3 years ago I got a chance to spend a couple days at Camp Lejeune while the tank teams were doing training,  we were allowed in the tank and used training rounds to load; my old, fat ass was able to get to under 10 seconds within 4-5 tries.  That was age 37ish, bad knees, bad shoulder, and badly overweight, even a conscript should be able to beat that handily.

As a reference, in the first Gulf War an M1A1 took out 3 enemy tanks in 5 seconds.

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/13/22 3:13 p.m.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

The original idea was to Zerg Rush so many tanks through the Fulda Gap that no defense could stop them.  Hence the autoloader, which in theory (but not practice) is faster than manual loading, and requires 25% less crew, presumably so they can field 33% more tanks.  And survivability is not really important because the tanks and crews are cheap expendables.

Also, while well-trained human loaders can be faster than an autoloader, the autoloader is faster than an untrained human.  The Soviets had an army of mostly conscript troops, so training levels were not as high as in western armies.

 

Plus most of the Russian troops are run by generals who pad the books about training. Plus  Feed the conscripts substandard food because it's cheaper, pocketing the difference. 

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/13/22 3:17 p.m.
aircooled said:

Scholz: Three points from my long phone call with Putin today: There must be a ceasefire in Ukraine as quickly as possible. The claim that Nazis are in power there is false. And I also reminded him about Russia's responsibility for the global food situation

I find this a bit out of touch.  I mean does ANYONE really think Putin gives a flying F about starving people in other parts of the world!?  Does Scholz really think this will in any way shame him?   I am pretty sure it's more likely to make him demand concessions because of that!

I can only see that statement as a political move by Scholz to demonstrate that he tried to solve that issue but in reality its a reminder to Putin of a card he holds.

Assuming the rumor of Putin's cancer is true, Putin could care less about others.  That's the KGB training.  

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/13/22 3:33 p.m.
aircooled said:

Scholz: Three points from my long phone call with Putin today: There must be a ceasefire in Ukraine as quickly as possible. The claim that Nazis are in power there is false. And I also reminded him about Russia's responsibility for the global food situation

I find this a bit out of touch.  I mean does ANYONE really think Putin gives a flying F about starving people in other parts of the world!?  Does Scholz really think this will in any way shame him?   I am pretty sure it's more likely to make him demand concessions because of that!

I can only see that statement as a political move by Scholz to demonstrate that he tried to solve that issue but in reality its a reminder to Putin of a card he holds.

Any time a leader details their talking points publicly, they're doing it for domestic and/or allied consumption. Putin already knows what was said. The conversations that are not talked about publicly are usually the ones where things actually get done (and often in ways that are not exactly politically acceptable to a given leader's populace, such as the back-channel deal that made resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis possible but (if acknowledged) would have brought down a firestorm on Kennedy's head for trading away US missiles in Turkey).

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/13/22 4:33 p.m.
Mr_Asa said:

T-72 autoloader has a cycle time between 6.5-15 seconds.  About 3 years ago I got a chance to spend a couple days at Camp Lejeune while the tank teams were doing training,  we were allowed in the tank and used training rounds to load; my old, fat ass was able to get to under 10 seconds within 4-5 tries.  That was age 37ish, bad knees, bad shoulder, and badly overweight, even a conscript should be able to beat that handily.

As a reference, in the first Gulf War an M1A1 took out 3 enemy tanks in 5 seconds.

From what I have read, the M1 is very fast to load the first few times you do it.  Then you run out of rounds in the rack that's right there and have to start digging further into the magazine and it slows down a bunch.  The same article said that one of the main jobs of the gunner is to move ammo around all the time to make sure that the ready rack is topped up with the right mix of the 4 or 5 types that they carry.

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/13/22 5:19 p.m.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Mr_Asa said:

T-72 autoloader has a cycle time between 6.5-15 seconds.  About 3 years ago I got a chance to spend a couple days at Camp Lejeune while the tank teams were doing training,  we were allowed in the tank and used training rounds to load; my old, fat ass was able to get to under 10 seconds within 4-5 tries.  That was age 37ish, bad knees, bad shoulder, and badly overweight, even a conscript should be able to beat that handily.

As a reference, in the first Gulf War an M1A1 took out 3 enemy tanks in 5 seconds.

From what I have read, the M1 is very fast to load the first few times you do it.  Then you run out of rounds in the rack that's right there and have to start digging further into the magazine and it slows down a bunch.  The same article said that one of the main jobs of the gunner is to move ammo around all the time to make sure that the ready rack is topped up with the right mix of the 4 or 5 types that they carry.

On the subject of autoloaders, I have a vague recollection of reading something years ago suggesting that the Soviet/Russian autoloaders would occasionally rip the right arm off of the gunner if they weren't careful. No idea how correct it is, but if true it might certainly slow down the process of aiming and shooting, especially after the first round.

Mr_Asa
Mr_Asa GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/13/22 6:16 p.m.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Mr_Asa said:

T-72 autoloader has a cycle time between 6.5-15 seconds.  About 3 years ago I got a chance to spend a couple days at Camp Lejeune while the tank teams were doing training,  we were allowed in the tank and used training rounds to load; my old, fat ass was able to get to under 10 seconds within 4-5 tries.  That was age 37ish, bad knees, bad shoulder, and badly overweight, even a conscript should be able to beat that handily.

As a reference, in the first Gulf War an M1A1 took out 3 enemy tanks in 5 seconds.

From what I have read, the M1 is very fast to load the first few times you do it.  Then you run out of rounds in the rack that's right there and have to start digging further into the magazine and it slows down a bunch.  The same article said that one of the main jobs of the gunner is to move ammo around all the time to make sure that the ready rack is topped up with the right mix of the 4 or 5 types that they carry.

Well, kinda, yes and no.  There's not really anything that isn't "right there" as the inside of a tank is pretty cramped.  Might mean twisting a little further to get something that's at your 3 o'clock as opposed to your 1 o'clock, or a little bending to get something at waist level instead of shoulder, but everything is pretty much right there. 

Here's a cutaway model, behind the commander's position on the right is your secondary ammo rack.  I forget if you can have the primary rack fall away and have that one slide over, or if they have to move it over manually at a stop.  In the thumbnail for the first video below the loader is looking at the commander, then to the left-bottom is the gunner.
M1A1 Abrams w/Full Interior (2in1) (Plastic model) Color 2 | Tanks  military, Model tanks, Army tanks

This vid gives a decent view from the loader's position.  4:34 in particular shows the blast door opening and where the rounds are.  The GoPro filming this is likely on the loader's helmet.

 

 

As for the ammo types, you've got the M1028 (shotgun round, basically,) your various Kinetic Energy rounds (discarding sabot around either a tungsten or depleted uranium rod,) the HEAT M830A1 round and its cousin the the M908 (both large explosive warheads with different uses)
So that sounds like a lot, but the tanks are usually loaded out with what is going to be expected during the engagement, with a small scattering of everything else as a just-in-case.  Usually KEW and M830A1 I think.  Happily though, the AMP round should be approaching the end of its development phase and will replace everything but the Kinetic Energy rounds.  Basically it has a fuse that you can set where you want it to go off so it can be anti-personnel (M1028,) explosive (M830A1,) or a penetrating explosive so it goes through obstacles and blows up on the other side (M908, IM HE-T, and others)

 

..... I miss working with tanks.   I need to see if my old job has any openings.

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/13/22 7:31 p.m.

Some analysis of Russian tank design in this piece from RUSI.

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/14/22 1:24 a.m.

I hear from a few sources the Russian Military isn't happy with Putin right now. Nor are all of the formerly loyal Oligarchs as supportive as in the past.  
    Perhaps that's just wishful thinking or maybe rumors of his cancer are making some bolder than they would otherwise be.   
  I know the Russian Media is pretty tight lipped. But if 20,000 kids aren't writing home anymore and another 60,000 are talking about their wounds , injuries, & amputations. to family back home, the word is getting out anyhow?  

NOHOME
NOHOME MegaDork
5/14/22 8:38 a.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

Russians are pretty much pre-programed to absorb these ( and much worse) loses in war. The more they lose the more they double down. To good effect historically against the Germans. Call back when the loses get over one million.

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/14/22 9:07 a.m.
NOHOME said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Russians are pretty much pre-programed to absorb these ( and much worse) loses in war. The more they lose the more they double down. To good effect historically against the Germans. Call back when the loses get over one million.

That was generations ago. Look at what they did in Afghanistan when they hit 14,500 they scurried  back across the border.  
     Russia is a country of only 145 million  about 40% of the United States 330 million.  
In addition their country is still in decline  due to really lousy health services,  rampant AIDS and TB. Not to mention alcoholism ( more than 1/5th of all deaths)  and drugs. 
     Tech savvy  and well educated Russians have left and are leaving In droves for greater opportunities in the west. 
If only 1/2 of the Ukraine' s claim of 9 Generals killed is correct I'm surprised they have any more to send.  

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/14/22 9:58 a.m.

Here's an interesting discussion from FPRI that spends a lot of time on current Russian force status and considers the difficult choices that lie ahead.

 

 

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
5/14/22 10:11 a.m.

From what I hear, one of the primary reason Russia got out of Afghanistan was the mounting looses and the public realizing it was just grinding up Russians.  That was around 14,000 over 10 years.  They are well beyond that in Ukraine of course and they have only been at it for a few months!

Of course, the longer timeframe allows it to sink it better.  I would suspect the current rate of lose (lots of loses early of course) is at least similar to Afghanistan.

If the Russian hunker down, defend and reduce looses, will opinion still work against them?  They at least have some gain to show, but it really is not that much..

 

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/14/22 10:44 a.m.

In reply to aircooled :

The differences here are that 1) the Soviets were dealing with broader Cold War pressures, and 2) that they had very few options for pressuring Afghan guerrillas other than direct military action. Ukraine is a sovereign state with a government and an economy; there are many options for trying to apply pressure in the long-term. The Russians could go defensive, annex their currently-held territory, and blockade Ukraine's remaining ports (mainly Odessa). They could hold this position indefinitely without too much difficulty, and it would strangle Ukraine's economy.

frenchyd
frenchyd MegaDork
5/14/22 11:38 a.m.

In reply to 02Pilot :

The prime difference is the success Ukraine is having against Russia.  They have an excellent chance to kick Russia out which will destroy  Putin. 

84FSP
84FSP UberDork
5/14/22 11:45 a.m.

Apparently they are making some progress 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61441664

  1. Kharkiv's mayor tells the BBC that Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian troops "far out" from Ukraine's second city
  2. "Now it is calm and people are gradually coming back to the city," Mayor Ihor Terekhov says
  3. The comments came after a respected military think tank said Ukraine has "likely won the battle" for Kharkiv
DarkMonohue
DarkMonohue HalfDork
5/14/22 11:55 a.m.
frenchyd said:

Russia is a country of only 145 million  about 40% of the United States 330 million.  
In addition their country is still in decline  due to really lousy health services,  rampant AIDS and TB. Not to mention alcoholism ( more than 1/5th of all deaths)  and drugs. 

This is the third or fourth time you've said exactly the same thing. Your point has been made. Let's move on.

02Pilot
02Pilot UberDork
5/14/22 12:13 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

I disagree. First, Ukrainian military success is fairly heavily dependent on both Western support and Russian tactics. If the Russians move to the defensive, and especially if they start making noises about peace talks again, the long-term underpinnings of Western support will be undermined, albeit slowly. In other words, it's far from assured that the US and other Western countries will continue showering Ukraine with billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons if it looks like the war could be ended sooner rather than later. As it stands, the Russians are making it very easy for the West to support Ukraine, but there's nothing that says they have to keep making the same mistakes.

Now, let's consider the other piece of it. If Ukraine does gain back all or most of the territory lost in the current situation, once again Russia still has plenty of options. As long as they hold Crimea (and arguably even if they don't), they can blockade Ukrainian commercial shipping, causing huge economic damage, and the chances of Ukraine clawing back Crimea militarily are pretty low. They can keep lobbing long range munitions at Ukrainian infrastructure targets. And as long as they present any military threat, Ukraine will be forced to maintain a large standing force, and every person in the military is a person not contributing to the productive economy.

Hey, if Ukraine succeeds and that causes Putin's downfall, that's great, but it strikes me as a best-case scenario that relies on a lot of pieces falling into place.

 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/14/22 1:15 p.m.
NOHOME said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Russians are pretty much pre-programed to absorb these ( and much worse) loses in war. The more they lose the more they double down. To good effect historically against the Germans. Call back when the loses get over one million.

In the second world war (err, the Great Patriotic War) the Soviet defense was to keep falling back, backing up their defenses while increasing the length of German supply lines.  Stalin eventually went "Whoa guys, you're getting the war front awful close to important infrastructure!" 

Which was the reason for the famous "Not one step back" order.  It was not meant to literally mean charge forward or die as depicted in Enemy at the Gates, it meant that retreat was no longer acceptable as a defense strategy.

1 ... 123 124 125 126 127 ... 148
Our Preferred Partners
NjhGvrLcxdAHcXS8hxVPsAwQxsf73RoNix4NCMruUiTWNFzWRFnJiIvtx0qSNHT5