4 ms·

An armor officer can answer this better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 If you're watching

by chiph 4y ago

An armor officer can answer this better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 If you're watching the videos from Ukraine - the Russians are pretty much doing it all wrong. You do not send tanks into cities unless they're following infantry who are clearing houses & rooftops. You do not leave your tanks parked in a nice neat line on a country road. When your unit comes under fire, you do not just sit there. Why are the Russians doing these things when they know it's bad for their health? They don't have much of an NCO cadre. In a modern military, the NCOs have the experience and the authority to make sure stuff happens rapidly and correctly. They will have made sure the junior enlisted know how to operate and maintain their weapon & gear, and are able to do the mission without fucking up.

deepsun 4y ago
They move in lines because that's a mine-cleared path. And they move on roads at the north because other terrain is mud that even tanks get stuck on.
- Taniwha 4y ago
  They're also sticking to higher roads in many areas because the fields around them have been flooded by the defenders
  - lupire 4y ago
    Are the tanks useful or should they just not bring tanks at all? Or are the tanks the best choice now because they utterly failed at preparing useful vehicles?
    - Taniwha 4y ago
      they shouldn't be there at all, I'm not going to provide advice on how they could be any more evil
    - topspin 4y ago
      Yes, tanks are useful; a well integrated force can use them to great effect. But Russia's military has no concept of how to do that. They're doomed whether they bring tanks or not. Putin is pulling Russian troops out of Syria[1], and obviously those troops are going to Ukraine. That's one of several signs that Russia is committed; they aren't going to stop. I expect to see large scale Russian mobilization soon, possibly starting in earnest on Monday with "victory" day. It's going to take between 1-2 months for that mobilization to yield men in the lines. By then much of the advanced heavy weaponry that Ukraine is receiving will be operational with trained crews and ample ammunition. The scale of Russian casualties will be catastrophic. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal...
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Based on what I've seen Ukraine doing, Russia is forced to use tanks. Ukraine is well dug in, and has been building out concrete-bunkers for the last 8 years (ever since Russia annexed Crimea and started to invade the Donbas region, Ukraine has been preparing). That's THICK concrete walls, well dug in sniper spots all over the place, underground networks, etc. etc. Going into those areas without any armor will just get you sniped. Furthermore, going in by foot means walking and/or running, which is really slow. -------------- So you go in with say, an APC (20mm thick armor), right? Since APCs are vehicles, they can run at 30mph to 50mph, so they're actually fast enough to go in. Well, wrong. Ukraine has 50-cal machine guns and 50-cal sniper-rifles that shreads right through that armor. So even with an armored personnel carrier, they just die. Cheaper anti-tank rounds (AT4) also blow them up no problem. Well... how about going in with an IFV? (less armor than APC, but more gun). Still the same problem, IFVs lose to that heavy machine-gun fire, and the 30mm autocannon of IFVs (BMP-2 and other such platforms) isn't big enough to punch through the concrete-bunkers the Ukrainians are hiding behind. -------- So what does Russia do? They send in the tanks. 200mm+ thick armor with advanced geometry and anti-CE protection systems (reactive armor). (A sideways shot against a tank needs 500+mm penetration to harm the tank, thanks to the "geometry" of the tank). That thick armor is immune to sniper-fire and enemy machine-guns, even large machine guns and even 30mm autocannons. And that's when the Ukrainians pull out Javelins and NLAWs and then blow up the tank (tandem-charge, blowing up the reactive armor with a "fake explosion" and then hitting the tank with a 600mm+ penetrating shot near simultaneously) But still, the tank at least has a 120mm cannon to blow up bunkers while they're on the frontlines, so the tank actually made progress against the enemy bunker.
mcv 4y ago
I've heard this before. How can an army function without NCOs? Do they really have no sergeants or equivalent at all?

by chiph 4y ago

deepsun 4y ago

They move in lines because that's a mine-cleared path. And they move on roads at the north because other terrain is mud that even tanks get stuck on.

Taniwha 4y ago
They're also sticking to higher roads in many areas because the fields around them have been flooded by the defenders
- lupire 4y ago
  Are the tanks useful or should they just not bring tanks at all? Or are the tanks the best choice now because they utterly failed at preparing useful vehicles?
  - Taniwha 4y ago
    they shouldn't be there at all, I'm not going to provide advice on how they could be any more evil
  - topspin 4y ago
    Yes, tanks are useful; a well integrated force can use them to great effect. But Russia's military has no concept of how to do that. They're doomed whether they bring tanks or not. Putin is pulling Russian troops out of Syria[1], and obviously those troops are going to Ukraine. That's one of several signs that Russia is committed; they aren't going to stop. I expect to see large scale Russian mobilization soon, possibly starting in earnest on Monday with "victory" day. It's going to take between 1-2 months for that mobilization to yield men in the lines. By then much of the advanced heavy weaponry that Ukraine is receiving will be operational with trained crews and ample ammunition. The scale of Russian casualties will be catastrophic. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal...
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Based on what I've seen Ukraine doing, Russia is forced to use tanks. Ukraine is well dug in, and has been building out concrete-bunkers for the last 8 years (ever since Russia annexed Crimea and started to invade the Donbas region, Ukraine has been preparing). That's THICK concrete walls, well dug in sniper spots all over the place, underground networks, etc. etc. Going into those areas without any armor will just get you sniped. Furthermore, going in by foot means walking and/or running, which is really slow. -------------- So you go in with say, an APC (20mm thick armor), right? Since APCs are vehicles, they can run at 30mph to 50mph, so they're actually fast enough to go in. Well, wrong. Ukraine has 50-cal machine guns and 50-cal sniper-rifles that shreads right through that armor. So even with an armored personnel carrier, they just die. Cheaper anti-tank rounds (AT4) also blow them up no problem. Well... how about going in with an IFV? (less armor than APC, but more gun). Still the same problem, IFVs lose to that heavy machine-gun fire, and the 30mm autocannon of IFVs (BMP-2 and other such platforms) isn't big enough to punch through the concrete-bunkers the Ukrainians are hiding behind. -------- So what does Russia do? They send in the tanks. 200mm+ thick armor with advanced geometry and anti-CE protection systems (reactive armor). (A sideways shot against a tank needs 500+mm penetration to harm the tank, thanks to the "geometry" of the tank). That thick armor is immune to sniper-fire and enemy machine-guns, even large machine guns and even 30mm autocannons. And that's when the Ukrainians pull out Javelins and NLAWs and then blow up the tank (tandem-charge, blowing up the reactive armor with a "fake explosion" and then hitting the tank with a 600mm+ penetrating shot near simultaneously) But still, the tank at least has a 120mm cannon to blow up bunkers while they're on the frontlines, so the tank actually made progress against the enemy bunker.

mcv 4y ago

I've heard this before. How can an army function without NCOs? Do they really have no sergeants or equivalent at all?