Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Boo Khaki]

25 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

No.

Not 'bubble shaped'. 

Despite not being a helicopter pedant, I call shenanigans.

[Left Back]

24 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Not 'bubble shaped'. 

Despite not being a helicopter pedant, I call shenanigans.

I wouldn't call this bubble shaped either but I'd still call it a helicopter.

[Boo Khaki]

3 minutes ago, Left Back said:

I wouldn't call this bubble shaped either but I'd still call it a helicopter.

That's the 'noisy fucking b*****d that wakes me up every time it flies overhead'. Official designation that is.

[beefybake]

14 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Germany doesn't call the Gepard a 'tank', consider it a 'tank, nor does it look like a 'tank', but if you are insistent you know better, on you go.

Nowadays, my definition of a tank is a tracked vehicle, plus a turret lying several yards away.

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, beefybake said:

Nowadays, my definition of a tank is a tracked vehicle, plus a turret lying several yards away.

Tracked vehicle, minus turret using a tractor for propulsion surely.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, beefybake said:

Nowadays, my definition of a tank is a tracked vehicle, plus a turret lying several yards away.

The propensity for Soviet-era armour to go up like roman candle when hit, then have the turret shoot several dozen feet into the air a short time afterwards is an interesting discussion all in itself, but I doubt it's one that would interest many on a forum mainly preoccupied with Football, drinking, shagging, and hating Tories.

[falkirkthebigclub]

7 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

The propensity for Soviet-era armour to go up like roman candle when hit, then have the turret shoot several dozen feet into the air a short time afterwards is an interesting discussion all in itself

Seems relevant, would like to know more.

[Hedgecutter]

I think we're all in agreement here though...

THIS is a gun!

Edited April 27, 2022 by Hedgecutter

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

On tracks, must be a tank.

[Boo Khaki]

10 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said:

Seems relevant, would like to know more.

Jist of it is a fundamental design philosophy that doesn't place any premium on crew or vehicle survivability.

Mostly everyone is familiar with the Soviet concept of Quantity being a quality all of it's own, but an approach that focusses almost entirely on weight of numbers necessitates some cutting of corners, even in a nation with an enormous industrial capacity and no real shortage of materials.

If you look at Soviet tank designs with origins in the 60's and 70's, so mainly T-64, T-72 and their later developments, and compare them side-by-side with contemporaneous, and especially more modern Western MBT designs, you'll immediately notice how much smaller and compact the Soviet designs are. This is for a number of reasons. Russia and many Russophile satellite states use a narrower gauge of railway than that which is common in the West and the US. When armour was still commonly transported around by train, the Soviet MBT's had to be smaller to make this possible on Russian railways. There is also a line of thought that says 'smaller tank, smaller target to hit', but I don't believe that was really a big thing in Soviet designers' minds.

What was more important was that thing about economy of scale. Every tank you build requires resources, and every tank you produce requires a crew to operate it. As much as Russia, in particular, is a huge country, it is comparatively sparsely populated. Most Western MBT's have a crew of at least four, and frequently five, but these nations have far fewer tanks to crew in the first place. These crews also need trained, and that's not an area that the Soviets ever valued as much as Western counterparts. This lead to a fixation with reducing crew numbers in Soviet tanks, so much so that most of them only require a crew of three to operate. Generally, the Loader is omitted, and the tank makes use of an automatic mechanical loading system to carry out the duties normally executed by the loader. Western philosophy differs, in that it views smaller Soviet crews as being overly stressed due to increased duties, and this actively reduces the vehicles overall effectiveness.

So, you have a smaller tank, with a smaller crew, but one that also incorporates a mechanical loading device. Crew comfort was never a Soviet priority, which was just as well because for a while in the 50's and 60's they were obsessed with the ballistic properties of their turret designs. This lead to more and more 'rounded' turret designs with far thicker armour profiles in the front part, which in turn, lead to more and more cramped interiors in their tanks. That small space is reducing the distance between the fuel and the crew compartment and does not make it easy to incorporate bulkheads and other means of protecting the vehicle and crew from the effects of a penetrating hit. From what I understand of their autoloading system most of the rounds are stowed in totally unprotected bins. They don't wet-rack the rounds, and until recently I don't think the doors the rounds were stowed behind were blast-proof either. I also believe it's common practice to store unracked rounds on what is basically the floor of the turret basket, so, all of that together means that when a Soviet-era MBT takes a hit that penetrates the fighting compartment, or one that sets a fire, there is practically nothing to prevent a catastrophic ammunition cook-off, and the lack of protection and cramped space means the crew are far more vulnerable to being injured or killed by the projectile, and are also more likely to be injured or killed by the secondary effects.

This seems on the face of it to be a scandalous disregard for your fighting men, but in reality, if they are a trio of barely literate peasants from some Stan or Caspian backwater, and you already have a screed of replacement vehicles ready to go, why would you worry about them really? You can train another crew in a matter of days and throw a shiny, new 'bomb waiting to happen' into the grinder, and it even fits on your shitey narrow gauge railway!

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

This is for a number of reasons. Russia and many Russophile satellite states use a narrower gauge of railway than that which is common in the West and the US.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Got on an old train in Lithuania once and it was enormous.

[jagfox]

Ukraine not admitting to fuel depot and ammunition dump sabotage in Russia...

[RawB93]

57 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Football, drinking, shagging, and hating Tories.

[Boo Khaki]

26 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Got on an old train in Lithuania once and it was enormous.

Yes, you are correct. 1520mm compared to 1435mm.

Generally western tanks have to be stripped down, track and/or roadwheels removed to fit on railway cars, whereas with the Soviet stuff you pretty much drive it onto the bogey and you're good to go. Weight was also a consideration because of the poorer quality of Soviet rolling stock, poorer and lesser maintained lines, less stout bridges, and their tendency to have single tracks everywhere passing through narrow culverts and so on.

No idea where I got the impression the track gauge itself was narrower from, but the fact that the demands placed on, and more specifically the limitations of their railways impacted upon their tank design philosophy is still true enough.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[falkirkthebigclub]

49 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Jist of it is a fundamental design philosophy that doesn't place any premium on crew or vehicle survivability.

Mostly everyone is familiar with the Soviet concept of Quantity being a quality all of it's own, but an approach that focusses almost entirely on weight of numbers necessitates some cutting of corners, even in a nation with an enormous industrial capacity and no real shortage of materials.

If you look at Soviet tank designs with origins in the 60's and 70's, so mainly T-64, T-72 and their later developments, and compare them side-by-side with contemporaneous, and especially more modern Western MBT designs, you'll immediately notice how much smaller and compact the Soviet designs are. This is for a number of reasons. Russia and many Russophile satellite states use a narrower gauge of railway than that which is common in the West and the US. When armour was still commonly transported around by train, the Soviet MBT's had to be smaller to make this possible on Russian railways. There is also a line of thought that says 'smaller tank, smaller target to hit', but I don't believe that was really a big thing in Soviet designers' minds.

What was more important was that thing about economy of scale. Every tank you build requires resources, and every tank you produce requires a crew to operate it. As much as Russia, in particular, is a huge country, it is comparatively sparsely populated. Most Western MBT's have a crew of at least four, and frequently five, but these nations have far fewer tanks to crew in the first place. These crews also need trained, and that's not an area that the Soviets ever valued as much as Western counterparts. This lead to a fixation with reducing crew numbers in Soviet tanks, so much so that most of them only require a crew of three to operate. Generally, the Loader is omitted, and the tank makes use of an automatic mechanical loading system to carry out the duties normally executed by the loader. Western philosophy differs, in that it views smaller Soviet crews as being overly stressed due to increased duties, and this actively reduces the vehicles overall effectiveness.

So, you have a smaller tank, with a smaller crew, but one that also incorporates a mechanical loading device. Crew comfort was never a Soviet priority, which was just as well because for a while in the 50's and 60's they were obsessed with the ballistic properties of their turret designs. This lead to more and more 'rounded' turret designs with far thicker armour profiles in the front part, which in turn, lead to more and more cramped interiors in their tanks. That small space is reducing the distance between the fuel and the crew compartment and does not make it easy to incorporate bulkheads and other means of protecting the vehicle and crew from the effects of a penetrating hit. From what I understand of their autoloading system most of the rounds are stowed in totally unprotected bins. They don't wet-rack the rounds, and until recently I don't think the doors the rounds were stowed behind were blast-proof either. I also believe it's common practice to store unracked rounds on what is basically the floor of the turret basket, so, all of that together means that when a Soviet-era MBT takes a hit that penetrates the fighting compartment, or one that sets a fire, there is practically nothing to prevent a catastrophic ammunition cook-off, and the lack of protection and cramped space means the crew are far more vulnerable to being injured or killed by the projectile, and are also more likely to be injured or killed by the secondary effects.

This seems on the face of it to be a scandalous disregard for your fighting men, but in reality, if they are a trio of barely literate peasants from some Stan or Caspian backwater, and you already have a screed of replacement vehicles ready to go, why would you worry about them really? You can train another crew in a matter of days and throw a shiny, new 'bomb waiting to happen' into the grinder, and it even fits on your shitey narrow gauge railway!

Fits in with the, "one million deaths is a statistic" ethos which they still appear to live (or die) by. 

[alta-pete]

It’s all going to kick off in Kaliningrad shortly IMO. Several military planes doing laps, this just the most obvious one….

 

 

[Boo Khaki]

2 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said:

Fits in with the, "one million deaths is a statistic" ethos which they still appear to live (or die) by. 

Yip.

The thing is, they really did/do have some genius ideas and design solutions, just unfortunate for the crews that hardly any of them relate to safety, comfort, or the overall quality of the finished product. If you'd voiced concerns about the welfare of the Soviet soldier, you'd have probably just been shot down with some flannel about Soviet patriots being extraordinarily brave and happy to lay down their lives, oh, and probably marched off to a gulag/shot on the suspicion that you were somewhat less than a wholehearted fan of Socialism yourself 

[Boo Khaki]

There's one other little thing that occurs to me which is relevant, and also gives some insight into Soviet thinking at it's most warped.

One of the other reasons Soviet tank philosophy moved away from extremely well-armoured behemoths was the changing nature of mechanized conflict, and the vast distances that had to be overcome within the Soviet Union. Another was a Stalin-era paranoia, that if you gave tank crews an enormously defensively capable vehicle, they'd be more inclined to just dig a hole and sit in it, rather than getting on with their patriotic duty of chasing fascists out of the beloved motherland ASAP. There was a commonly adhered to point of view that if you got killed while sitting still, it was your own fault for being a recalcitrant coward, and you really would be much safer actually moving full-tilt towards the evil imperialist fascist scum. This was true across all branches of the military, although the Soviet love for CAS and ground-attack did eventually lead to them addressing horrendous pilot losses by sitting them inside what was essentially a steel bathtub.

[dorlomin]

42 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

It’s all going to kick off in Kaliningrad shortly IMO. Several military planes doing laps, this just the most obvious one….

 

 

Russia has threatened to "nuclearise the Baltic", that was taken as a threat against Finland and Sweden, though both point out they have long assumed Kalinin Oblast had nuclear weapons deployed. Joint Rivet is a signals and other radio sources intelligence aircraft so its likely mapping out and listening to their radio communications and where their radars etc are. As Sweden and Finland move towards NATO Russia will try to act up so NATO will keep an especial eye on it. 

But on the whole Russia has little it can actually do here. 

UK Joint Rivets have been pretty active along the Ukraine border over the past couple of months (together with USAF ones). Likely have some small part to play in the number of dead Russian generals. 

 

[Hillonearth]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Jist of it is a fundamental design philosophy that doesn't place any premium on crew or vehicle survivability.

Mostly everyone is familiar with the Soviet concept of Quantity being a quality all of it's own, but an approach that focusses almost entirely on weight of numbers necessitates some cutting of corners, even in a nation with an enormous industrial capacity and no real shortage of materials.

If you look at Soviet tank designs with origins in the 60's and 70's, so mainly T-64, T-72 and their later developments, and compare them side-by-side with contemporaneous, and especially more modern Western MBT designs, you'll immediately notice how much smaller and compact the Soviet designs are. This is for a number of reasons. Russia and many Russophile satellite states use a narrower gauge of railway than that which is common in the West and the US. When armour was still commonly transported around by train, the Soviet MBT's had to be smaller to make this possible on Russian railways. There is also a line of thought that says 'smaller tank, smaller target to hit', but I don't believe that was really a big thing in Soviet designers' minds.

What was more important was that thing about economy of scale. Every tank you build requires resources, and every tank you produce requires a crew to operate it. As much as Russia, in particular, is a huge country, it is comparatively sparsely populated. Most Western MBT's have a crew of at least four, and frequently five, but these nations have far fewer tanks to crew in the first place. These crews also need trained, and that's not an area that the Soviets ever valued as much as Western counterparts. This lead to a fixation with reducing crew numbers in Soviet tanks, so much so that most of them only require a crew of three to operate. Generally, the Loader is omitted, and the tank makes use of an automatic mechanical loading system to carry out the duties normally executed by the loader. Western philosophy differs, in that it views smaller Soviet crews as being overly stressed due to increased duties, and this actively reduces the vehicles overall effectiveness.

So, you have a smaller tank, with a smaller crew, but one that also incorporates a mechanical loading device. Crew comfort was never a Soviet priority, which was just as well because for a while in the 50's and 60's they were obsessed with the ballistic properties of their turret designs. This lead to more and more 'rounded' turret designs with far thicker armour profiles in the front part, which in turn, lead to more and more cramped interiors in their tanks. That small space is reducing the distance between the fuel and the crew compartment and does not make it easy to incorporate bulkheads and other means of protecting the vehicle and crew from the effects of a penetrating hit. From what I understand of their autoloading system most of the rounds are stowed in totally unprotected bins. They don't wet-rack the rounds, and until recently I don't think the doors the rounds were stowed behind were blast-proof either. I also believe it's common practice to store unracked rounds on what is basically the floor of the turret basket, so, all of that together means that when a Soviet-era MBT takes a hit that penetrates the fighting compartment, or one that sets a fire, there is practically nothing to prevent a catastrophic ammunition cook-off, and the lack of protection and cramped space means the crew are far more vulnerable to being injured or killed by the projectile, and are also more likely to be injured or killed by the secondary effects.

This seems on the face of it to be a scandalous disregard for your fighting men, but in reality, if they are a trio of barely literate peasants from some Stan or Caspian backwater, and you already have a screed of replacement vehicles ready to go, why would you worry about them really? You can train another crew in a matter of days and throw a shiny, new 'bomb waiting to happen' into the grinder, and it even fits on your shitey narrow gauge railway!

Complete disregard for the safety of the crews can often favourably affect performance of military equipment - the one that I remember reading about is Japan's main WW2 bomber, the Mitsubishi Betty. They classed it as a heavy bomber although it was barely a medium bomber by Allied standards, but it was fast and had a long range. These characteristics were down to the fact that it was extremely light due to having absolutely no protection for the crew whatsover in terms of armour and not even self-sealing fuel tanks in the earlier models.

The Allies came to know it as The Flying Zippo as it took only a hit or two to catch fire - there were even occasions where they were brought down by rifle fire from the ground.