Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4
Discussion
isaldiri said:
sisu said:
Depleted means it does not have any more Radioactivity. It is a very dense metal one and a half more than than lead, they used it in F1 as ballast. Yes if you ingest it you will get sick, much like eating a remote control battery will kill you. But so will lead.
depleted uranium has less radioactivity not that it does not have any more radioactivity....Plus, it spontaneously ignites on contact with air.
DrDeAtH said:
He's back.. and threatening nuclear attack again.. Solovyov the comedian
https://youtu.be/l6fSSYDrhFU
Hmm, are we all being arrested first or nuked, and how does that fit in with talking to us for a long time ?https://youtu.be/l6fSSYDrhFU
HM-2 said:
isaldiri said:
sisu said:
Depleted means it does not have any more Radioactivity. It is a very dense metal one and a half more than than lead, they used it in F1 as ballast. Yes if you ingest it you will get sick, much like eating a remote control battery will kill you. But so will lead.
depleted uranium has less radioactivity not that it does not have any more radioactivity....Plus, it spontaneously ignites on contact with air.
It's not the soldiers in the tank that are the concern, but the effects of DU entering the environment and ground water surrounding a hit vehicle.
I'm personally quite surprised we're sending the ammunition. It's controversial enough that I wouldn't have expected it to be necessary for what Russia is fielding. However, non-DU rounds also contain lots of Cobalt and other metals you don't want in the environment too.
Evanivitch said:
It doesn't spontaneously ignite, it's the element of heating due to army penetration that causes it to ignite when it reaches the interior.
It's not the soldiers in the tank that are the concern, but the effects of DU entering the environment and ground water surrounding a hit vehicle.
I'm personally quite surprised we're sending the ammunition. It's controversial enough that I wouldn't have expected it to be necessary for what Russia is fielding. However, non-DU rounds also contain lots of Cobalt and other metals you don't want in the environment too.
You don't want Russians in the environment either.It's not the soldiers in the tank that are the concern, but the effects of DU entering the environment and ground water surrounding a hit vehicle.
I'm personally quite surprised we're sending the ammunition. It's controversial enough that I wouldn't have expected it to be necessary for what Russia is fielding. However, non-DU rounds also contain lots of Cobalt and other metals you don't want in the environment too.
HM-2 said:
Evanivitch said:
It doesn't spontaneously ignite, it's the element of heating due to army penetration that causes it to ignite when it reaches the interior.
...that's still spontaneous ignition. “SUMMARY
Uranium metal is pyrophoric and is capable of self-ignition in air provided conditions are favorable.”
HM-2 said:
Evanivitch said:
It doesn't spontaneously ignite, it's the element of heating due to army penetration that causes it to ignite when it reaches the interior.
...that's still spontaneous ignition. catso said:
Ammunition/war, bad for the environment - who knew? 
All this driving less, turning your heating down etc. pales into insignificance against all the fire & brimstone that Putin's unleashed.
It is comical isnt it, they threaten us with Armageddon every few days and then get concerned about the environment, hundreds of thousands killed, cities flattened, rapes, murders, pillaging but get upset when we send a slightly different type of shell ?All this driving less, turning your heating down etc. pales into insignificance against all the fire & brimstone that Putin's unleashed.
I think its just something to moan about and another red line for us to cross, and I think we are perhaps sending them as stocks may be running a bit low ?
Maybe this is like a party where you run out of the good stuff you want to drink, but want to keep going and root out that weird bottle of Liqueur you bought at a tourist trap in Mexico which is like lightly spiced 20/50 Engine oil laced with rubbing alcohol ?
J4CKO said:
catso said:
Ammunition/war, bad for the environment - who knew?
All this driving less, turning your heating down etc. pales into insignificance against all the fire & brimstone that Putin's unleashed.
It is comical isnt it, they threaten us with Armageddon every few days and then get concerned about the environment, hundreds of thousands killed, cities flattened, rapes, murders, pillaging but get upset when we send a slightly different type of shell ?All this driving less, turning your heating down etc. pales into insignificance against all the fire & brimstone that Putin's unleashed.
I think its just something to moan about and another red line for us to cross, and I think we are perhaps sending them as stocks may be running a bit low ?
Maybe this is like a party where you run out of the good stuff you want to drink, but want to keep going and root out that weird bottle of Liqueur you bought at a tourist trap in Mexico which is like lightly spiced 20/50 Engine oil laced with rubbing alcohol ?
vaud said:
Would they present any threat to a modern battle tank? Or more just useful against infantry (without anti tank weapons)
What use are they? Decoys to draw fire and attention / consume enemy ammo?
they wouldn't be much cop against a modern tank, however like you suggest they would still be 'a big problem' for any infantry units that don't have dedicated anti tank weapons, and would likely become priority #1 even for an infantry company that does have AT weapons, thus taking the pressure off the infantry and light armour (that should be) accompanying the tanks when assaulting a dug in defensive positions.What use are they? Decoys to draw fire and attention / consume enemy ammo?
So pretty much what you said, although calling them a decoy is a bit of a disservice as, unlike a decoy, they would still most definitely f
k you up if you ignore them.ETA: not an expert, no first hand experience of tank warfare, others who know more may well tell you differently and I gladly defer to their knowledge.
Edited by deadtom on Thursday 23 March 09:43
deadtom said:
they wouldn't be much cop against a modern tank, however like you suggest they would still be 'a big problem' for any infantry units that don't have dedicated anti tank weapons, and would likely become priority #1 even for an infantry company that does have AT weapons, thus taking the pressure off the infantry and light armour (that should be) accompanying the tanks when assaulting a dug in defensive positions.
So pretty much what you said, although calling them a decoy is a bit of a disservice as, unlike a decoy, they would still most definitely fk you up if you ignore them.
Yeah. I'd burst into tears and run if someone came at me with a big stick. Defending against a tank is never going to be good news. Mind you, I wouldn't want to be in the tank either.So pretty much what you said, although calling them a decoy is a bit of a disservice as, unlike a decoy, they would still most definitely f
k you up if you ignore them.BikeBikeBIke said:
Talksteer said:
The KIA rate for the British Army was ~10% over the 4 years of WWI. The Red Army lost about 8 million out of 34 million who served in WWII which again was a much longer conflict and the numbers are skewed by the Germans killing most of the POWs.
There is also a sampling bias in that the Wagner soldiers we hear about are the ones doing recon by force missions in Bakhmut which have met heavy resistance.
We don't hear about the people manning sections of the defensive lines, doing force protection for other support units. We don't see videos of the attacks which were successful because the Ukrainians didn't deploy a drone and get artillery down (no videos). We don't see the guys who weren't in the open when the shooting started who returned fired and then slipped away to fight another day.
I've got no doubt that Wagner convicts suffer high casualty rates but we do have to question certain elements of the story about them being used as cannon fodder.
They are still people, they are crims and they are equipped with guns. Ergo you can get them to do dangerous things but you still have to use the same physiological tricks (group cohesion, "fair" sharing of the risks, some hope of getting out alive) that get regular soldiers to fighter. Otherwise the non convict Wagner personnel are going to be living day to day with armed desperados with poor impulse control.
If you actually are going to send people on pure suicide missions then you need to supervise them at max security prison staff to prisoner ratios which will again actually limit how many of them you can send to their deaths at any one time.
No quarrel with any of that. I got the impression the prisoners were used as disposable assault troops while the safer support jobs went to others. I guess we don't know that as a fact.There is also a sampling bias in that the Wagner soldiers we hear about are the ones doing recon by force missions in Bakhmut which have met heavy resistance.
We don't hear about the people manning sections of the defensive lines, doing force protection for other support units. We don't see videos of the attacks which were successful because the Ukrainians didn't deploy a drone and get artillery down (no videos). We don't see the guys who weren't in the open when the shooting started who returned fired and then slipped away to fight another day.
I've got no doubt that Wagner convicts suffer high casualty rates but we do have to question certain elements of the story about them being used as cannon fodder.
They are still people, they are crims and they are equipped with guns. Ergo you can get them to do dangerous things but you still have to use the same physiological tricks (group cohesion, "fair" sharing of the risks, some hope of getting out alive) that get regular soldiers to fighter. Otherwise the non convict Wagner personnel are going to be living day to day with armed desperados with poor impulse control.
If you actually are going to send people on pure suicide missions then you need to supervise them at max security prison staff to prisoner ratios which will again actually limit how many of them you can send to their deaths at any one time.
A quick Google suggests less than 50pc casualties within prisoners within Wagner, so seems you're likely right. Large numbers of violent nutters have been turbo charged and then released onto the streets of Russia.
sisu said:
. It is a very dense metal one and a half more than than lead, they used it in F1 as ballast. .
Do they? According to the periodic table on my phone uranium has a density of 19.1, something widely available and relatively cheap like tungsten is 19.3. I'm sure other dense options are out there like platinum, but it seems odd they would pick uranium as a sensible ballast.
Jhonno said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Talksteer said:
The KIA rate for the British Army was ~10% over the 4 years of WWI. The Red Army lost about 8 million out of 34 million who served in WWII which again was a much longer conflict and the numbers are skewed by the Germans killing most of the POWs.
There is also a sampling bias in that the Wagner soldiers we hear about are the ones doing recon by force missions in Bakhmut which have met heavy resistance.
We don't hear about the people manning sections of the defensive lines, doing force protection for other support units. We don't see videos of the attacks which were successful because the Ukrainians didn't deploy a drone and get artillery down (no videos). We don't see the guys who weren't in the open when the shooting started who returned fired and then slipped away to fight another day.
I've got no doubt that Wagner convicts suffer high casualty rates but we do have to question certain elements of the story about them being used as cannon fodder.
They are still people, they are crims and they are equipped with guns. Ergo you can get them to do dangerous things but you still have to use the same physiological tricks (group cohesion, "fair" sharing of the risks, some hope of getting out alive) that get regular soldiers to fighter. Otherwise the non convict Wagner personnel are going to be living day to day with armed desperados with poor impulse control.
If you actually are going to send people on pure suicide missions then you need to supervise them at max security prison staff to prisoner ratios which will again actually limit how many of them you can send to their deaths at any one time.
No quarrel with any of that. I got the impression the prisoners were used as disposable assault troops while the safer support jobs went to others. I guess we don't know that as a fact.There is also a sampling bias in that the Wagner soldiers we hear about are the ones doing recon by force missions in Bakhmut which have met heavy resistance.
We don't hear about the people manning sections of the defensive lines, doing force protection for other support units. We don't see videos of the attacks which were successful because the Ukrainians didn't deploy a drone and get artillery down (no videos). We don't see the guys who weren't in the open when the shooting started who returned fired and then slipped away to fight another day.
I've got no doubt that Wagner convicts suffer high casualty rates but we do have to question certain elements of the story about them being used as cannon fodder.
They are still people, they are crims and they are equipped with guns. Ergo you can get them to do dangerous things but you still have to use the same physiological tricks (group cohesion, "fair" sharing of the risks, some hope of getting out alive) that get regular soldiers to fighter. Otherwise the non convict Wagner personnel are going to be living day to day with armed desperados with poor impulse control.
If you actually are going to send people on pure suicide missions then you need to supervise them at max security prison staff to prisoner ratios which will again actually limit how many of them you can send to their deaths at any one time.
A quick Google suggests less than 50pc casualties within prisoners within Wagner, so seems you're likely right. Large numbers of violent nutters have been turbo charged and then released onto the streets of Russia.
Looks like overall it's actually much lower. (All estimated, obvs.)
TTmonkey said:
PRTVR said:
I am sure a risk assessment will have been done before handing over the DU ammunition, then it’s the Ukrainians choice to use them, remember Russia had no problem using nerve agents on British soil.
That too should be Called out. t forever about it being nothing to do with them.However, WRT China, might not be a bad reminder to them - we've put up with a lot of s
t from Russia. Don't tell us to put up with any more.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff