Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
They use a lot of the same equipment ranging from tanks to armoured personnel carriers (APCs) to big tracked guns to field artillery - and they can read the instructions too.monkimark said:How much use is all of the captured Russian kit to the Ukranian army - could the average Ukranian tank driver/artillary man jump into an abandonned Russian tank/big gun and get to work?
I've seen red letter day type 'drive a tank' experiences so I guess that the basics of getting around can be taught quite quickly but presumably it gets a bit more tricky if you want to use the gun or avoid getting blown up by the enemy?0 -
80% of it - the really sosphisticated stuff obvs not, but the rest of it is sll pretty similar - we're not talking about sophisticated warfare here.monkimark said:How much use is all of the captured Russian kit to the Ukranian army - could the average Ukranian tank driver/artillary man jump into an abandonned Russian tank/big gun and get to work?
I've seen red letter day type 'drive a tank' experiences so I guess that the basics of getting around can be taught quite quickly but presumably it gets a bit more tricky if you want to use the gun or avoid getting blown up by the enemy?
the fact they are using the same weapons, kit, variants on tanks, trucks, etc is both pretty confusing when trying to avoid blue on blue but pretty useful for the Ukrainians tbh.
remember - its all designed for squaddies..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
there may also be, errrr, advisors popping in and out of country to help them as well.thegreatdivide said:
They use a lot of the same equipment ranging from tanks to armoured personnel carriers (APCs) to big tracked guns to field artillery - and they can read the instructions too.monkimark said:How much use is all of the captured Russian kit to the Ukranian army - could the average Ukranian tank driver/artillary man jump into an abandonned Russian tank/big gun and get to work?
I've seen red letter day type 'drive a tank' experiences so I guess that the basics of getting around can be taught quite quickly but presumably it gets a bit more tricky if you want to use the gun or avoid getting blown up by the enemy?
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
For a bit of perspective if NATO was to enter the fight with modern satellite images and the weapons the west has there would be nothing left of any russian assets on Ukrainian soil in a week.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
0 -
that is interesting that they don't think they can evolve tanks enough to keep them relevant.MattFalle said:
tbh, theres not a lot of point to them anymore which is why they aren't being developed any more.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
IMHO the tanks heyday was WW2 but even then needed air support but is this the first war when they have been so comprehensively beaten.
The handheld anti-aircraft devices are probably important in making the tanks vulnerable0 -
Me also I recently seen a tank blown up what weapon could do something like that.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
So Far!0 -
Last decent tank engagement was back in Gulf 1 when everyone was cutting around in them.surrey_commuter said:
that is interesting that they don't think they can evolve tanks enough to keep them relevant.MattFalle said:
tbh, theres not a lot of point to them anymore which is why they aren't being developed any more.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
IMHO the tanks heyday was WW2 but even then needed air support but is this the first war when they have been so comprehensively beaten.
The handheld anti-aircraft devices are probably important in making the tanks vulnerable
HERRICK - just the Danish and Germans, tbh.
Since then, nothing of real note.
To big to fly anywhere
Sizing restricted by railway width
Liable to weaponry as we've seen
Need huge logistic support - fuel, spares, mechanics, etc
Very expensive
Too heavy for normal bridges
just abitshit really..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
John 80 spouts a lot of tripe but this is a fair assessment.john80 said:
For a bit of perspective if NATO was to enter the fight with modern satellite images and the weapons the west has there would be nothing left of any russian assets on Ukrainian soil in a week.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
Tbh, their ground troops are, as I've said before, a bitshit as well.
Looking at what the Ukrainians are doing to them it would be scary to, to paraphrase an Argentinian General during the Falklands, to see what a bunch of Paras and Booties would do to them, let alone Poole and Hereford and Lichfield..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Didn't they end trench warfare in WWI?surrey_commuter said:
that is interesting that they don't think they can evolve tanks enough to keep them relevant.MattFalle said:
tbh, theres not a lot of point to them anymore which is why they aren't being developed any more.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
IMHO the tanks heyday was WW2 but even then needed air support but is this the first war when they have been so comprehensively beaten.
The handheld anti-aircraft devices are probably important in making the tanks vulnerable0 -
To be fair - Russia is pretty much perpetually skint.
What happens in Lichfield? Google says medics? (I know Poole and Hereford)MattFalle said:
John 80 spouts a lot of tripe but this is a fair assessment.john80 said:
For a bit of perspective if NATO was to enter the fight with modern satellite images and the weapons the west has there would be nothing left of any russian assets on Ukrainian soil in a week.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
Tbh, their ground troops are, as I've said before, a bitshit as well.
Looking at what the Ukrainians are doing to them it would be scary to, to paraphrase an Argentinian General during the Falklands, to see what a bunch of Paras and Booties would do to them, let alone Poole and Hereford and Lichfield.0 -
Right, hetes one for some of you:
If Russia defaults on loans and bonds, what, in the real actual world, does it mean?
what will actually happen?
I mean its not like Fat Les and two lads from the boozer will go and kick Mad Vlad's door down threaten his wife and take his tv, so actually what happens?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
What happens in Lichfield stays in Lichfield my friend....shirley_basso said:To be fair - Russia is pretty much perpetually skint.
What happens in Lichfield? Google says medics? (I know Poole and Hereford)MattFalle said:
John 80 spouts a lot of tripe but this is a fair assessment.john80 said:
For a bit of perspective if NATO was to enter the fight with modern satellite images and the weapons the west has there would be nothing left of any russian assets on Ukrainian soil in a week.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
Tbh, their ground troops are, as I've said before, a bitshit as well.
Looking at what the Ukrainians are doing to them it would be scary to, to paraphrase an Argentinian General during the Falklands, to see what a bunch of Paras and Booties would do to them, let alone Poole and Hereford and Lichfield.
#don'tfuckwithpeopleatLichfield.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Well other than the investors losing some money (and this includes the people running all of our pensions), the main thing is they will struggle to raise any international debt and even if there are buyers it will be so prohibitively expensive.MattFalle said:Right, hetes one for some of you:
If Russia defaults on loans and bonds, what, in the real actual world, does it mean?
what will actually happen?
I mean its not like Fat Les and two lads from the boozer will go and kick Mad Vlad's door down threaten his wife and take his tv, so actually what happens?
Basically, the gov't will really really struggle to borrow money.1 -
No. They kept breaking down and the Germans soon found ways of dealing with them once they lost their initial shock value.TheBigBean said:
Didn't they end trench warfare in WWI?surrey_commuter said:
that is interesting that they don't think they can evolve tanks enough to keep them relevant.MattFalle said:
tbh, theres not a lot of point to them anymore which is why they aren't being developed any more.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
IMHO the tanks heyday was WW2 but even then needed air support but is this the first war when they have been so comprehensively beaten.
The handheld anti-aircraft devices are probably important in making the tanks vulnerable
WW1 end because of the naval bloackade starving them of food an materials and then the Americans joined in.0 -
gotcha - grazie..
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Not an expert, but I was always under the impression tanks are like boats on land.
Good on big flat terrain like you get on the steppe or in the desert, but when it gets either hilly or urban they're not really what you need.
0 -
or muddy or snowy or icy or too sandyrick_chasey said:Not an expert, but I was always under the impression tanks are like boats on land.
Good on big flat terrain like you get on the steppe or in the desert, but when it gets either hilly or urban they're not really what you need..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Not really. They were far too heavy, mechanically unreliable, drank fuel and got stuck often. So nothings changed really.TheBigBean said:
Didn't they end trench warfare in WWI?surrey_commuter said:
that is interesting that they don't think they can evolve tanks enough to keep them relevant.MattFalle said:
tbh, theres not a lot of point to them anymore which is why they aren't being developed any more.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
IMHO the tanks heyday was WW2 but even then needed air support but is this the first war when they have been so comprehensively beaten.
The handheld anti-aircraft devices are probably important in making the tanks vulnerable
My ex REME friend said that the Chieftain tank needed new tracks every 60 miles if driven on tarmac.
The thing that ended WW1 more than anything was the Naval blockade. Tragic really when you think of the lives lost in the trenches.
I saw a military video of a air-to-surface (guided) missile fired from an Apache from about 3 miles. The tank started moving but the missile wiped it out. Jaw dropping.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9CW6fYbT6Y seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Introducing the new columnist for the Telegraph...
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
No, you've not been paying attention. Didn't you see the Turkish TB2 Drone in the Azerbaïdjan conflict? It basically destroyed the Armenian armour and won the war. Before that missiles were very effective against T72 tanks in Syria (the Russophile of course said "that's the export version dude, its no good - as if anyone buying Russian kit is going to want a dodgy export version).surrey_commuter said:
that is interesting that they don't think they can evolve tanks enough to keep them relevant.MattFalle said:
tbh, theres not a lot of point to them anymore which is why they aren't being developed any more.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
IMHO the tanks heyday was WW2 but even then needed air support but is this the first war when they have been so comprehensively beaten.
The handheld anti-aircraft devices are probably important in making the tanks vulnerable
https://youtu.be/97kDWNnJGN4 BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
Drone - an autonomous air vehicle
UAV - an unmanned aerial vehicle piloted remotely0 -
Asperger - is a pervasive developmental disorder that is characterized by an inability to understand how to interact socially.imposter2.0 said:Drone - an autonomous air vehicle
UAV - an unmanned aerial vehicle piloted remotelyBASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme1 -
If you say so, doctor. Just bear in mind the correct definition for future reference..davidof said:
Asperger - is a pervasive developmental disorder that is characterized by an inability to understand how to interact socially.imposter2.0 said:Drone - an autonomous air vehicle
UAV - an unmanned aerial vehicle piloted remotely
0 -
Anyway, I'm going to file this in the box marked "what an utter and total waste of time":
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I can see Mad Vlad right now:
"Fellas, fellas, right, we've been told to stop.
Ffs Oleg, you told me this kosher, now I get this letter through by fax, original to follow by separate cover, it says
You know after all that malarkey with the washibg machine warranty I wasn't interested in going to court anymore
Ffs Oleg, you're such abellend".The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I take it you’re referring to the drone footage of the tank in the snow that went off big time?loltoride said:
Me also I recently seen a tank blown up what weapon could do something like that.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
If you look at the top left of the video you can see a round exploding into the ground. I reckon the tank was hit right on the top of the hull by another artillery round and that went on to detonate the magazine (where the shells and charges are stored). In their infinite wisdom the Russians designed the T-72 or T-80 (or both) with the magazine stored underneath and around the turret by the gunner and commander.
There's also the option that it was hit by a Javelin - it's designed so that it flies straight towards the tank and at the last moment heads up and then straight down onto the top of the tank. It's a soft spot - that's why some Russian tanks try and use a thing called a 'cope cage' or as NATO mockingly like to call them 'the emotional support cage'. It's meant to make the missile explode before it hits the turret. It's a load of b0llocks.
I'm not sure about a mine. An anti-tank mine is really there to disable a tank - blow it's tracks or rolling wheels off - but it could have been a lucky one that penetrated the hull and set off that magazine.
1 -
depends how big the mine is tbh.thegreatdivide said:
I take it you’re referring to the drone footage of the tank in the snow that went off big time?loltoride said:
Me also I recently seen a tank blown up what weapon could do something like that.TheBigBean said:Could one of you explain the point of tanks to me? If the enemy has handheld devices that blow them up, they seem like sitting ducks to me.
If you look at the top left of the video you can see a round exploding into the ground. I reckon the tank was hit right on the top of the hull by another artillery round and that went on to detonate the magazine (where the shells and charges are stored). In their infinite wisdom the Russians designed the T-72 or T-80 (or both) with the magazine stored underneath and around the turret by the gunner and commander.
There's also the option that it was hit by a Javelin - it's designed so that it flies straight towards the tank and at the last moment heads up and then straight down onto the top of the tank. It's a soft spot - that's why some Russian tanks try and use a thing called a 'cope cage' or as NATO mockingly like to call them 'the emotional support cage'. It's meant to make the missile explode before it hits the turret. It's a load of b0llocks.
I'm not sure about a mine. An anti-tank mine is really there to disable a tank - blow it's tracks or rolling wheels off - but it could have been a lucky one that penetrated the hull and set off that magazine.
when i used to do more dems we would play around blowing things up with big eff off bar mines. see how high in the sky you could get a Land Rover or a bridge.
passes the time when you've finished your book..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Not many other options for round stowage if you're using an autoloader...thegreatdivide said:In their infinite wisdom the Russians designed the T-72 or T-80 (or both) with the magazine stored underneath and around the turret by the gunner and commander.
0 -
4 -
Jeez. Don't watch this past 0.50 if you're squeamish. Lordy knows why they are sending tanks down streets like this, but if you don't want Russian bodies flying through the air, it seems like a dumb move. Our resident medic ain't going to put that one together again.
0
