Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4

[TTmonkey]

The Russians have been busy building suitable graves at the front line. But they call them trenches. You just need to fill them back over. Saw on trench from a drone must have had 30 dead/dying soldiers in it, apparently Russian.

Some of the vids on Reddit etc will show you images with dozens of dead ‘Orcs’ as the Ukrainians call them. And those are the ones not reduced to molecules. Some bloody gruesome images.


Oh. And videos of local animals doing things. You know what.

[Hereward]

The troop casualty numbers are largely meaningless. If a drone drops a grenade next to a foxhole you may clearly see 2 guys neutralised but it's impossible to know how many casualties occur inside the foxhole out of sight of the drone camera, for example.

The vehicle / hardware tallies are easier to assess. As has been discussed many times Oryx record all kills that have definitive photographic evidence. I think their numbers are running between one half and two thirds of Ukraine's claimed numbers. I expect the US / NATO have a pretty good handle on the destroyed hardware numbers.

[Jhonno]

king arthur said:

pquinn said:

It seems to be part of the current regular round of 'glorious victory due in upcoming planned offensive/we've killed loads of Orcs while no problems on our side/this all be over tomorrow if you gift us more stuff' that the politicians & military commanders like to pump out in lieu of actual progress.

It's the same propaganda lines both sides learnt in the Soviet days. Everyone knows it's bullst but it serves a purpose.

Who is actually saying this? All the commentators I've watched or listened to recently are admitting that Ukraine is losing large numbers of soldiers too.

No one is saying this.. Ukrainian claims are generally fact checked, and verified with imagery. We are well aware the UA is losing men, it's just at a lot lower ratio than Russia.. We are aware they are being dragged back into a Soviet mindset over it to some extent, with Western influence trying to remind them to be "smarter" and use Western tactics.

[SpeckledJim]

Adam. said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

I presume even an elderly tank can survive a grenade? Or are there effective AT grenades that a drone can lift?

the UA are pretty good at it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPOlcuo7cXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ammic0GKbgA

Was it just me who got Dettol advertising at the front of that video?

[gotoPzero]

These drone boats are some next level stuff. They are fast, really fast and can turn really well too.
I was expecting chug, chug, chug type of thing that potters along at 10 kts but the latest video these things are *flying* along and getting good air over waves. One of them makes an S turn and given its carrying quite a heavy cargo it certainly is not a hindrance and moves really well.

No wonder the Russians were spraying the harbour with AA guns trying to get a hit.

[BikeBikeBIke]

gotoPzero said:

These drone boats are some next level stuff. They are fast, really fast and can turn really well too.
I was expecting chug, chug, chug type of thing that potters along at 10 kts but the latest video these things are *flying* along and getting good air over waves. One of them makes an S turn and given its carrying quite a heavy cargo it certainly is not a hindrance and moves really well.

No wonder the Russians were spraying the harbour with AA guns trying to get a hit.

Should be a real concern to any nation that had just spaffed it's entire defence budget on two really good ships. Oh... Wait....

[Talksteer]

spookly said:

Talksteer said:

TEKNOPUG said:

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?

This conflict has established that there are 2 sorts of armoured vehicles: those with IR Optics and those without.

Those without are of ever diminishing use on a battlefield and are experiencing increasingly short survival durations.

In the invasion of Northern Iraq in 2003 there was a story of a T54/5 (or a platoon of them more likely) having about 20 Javelins fired at it and being a serious nuisance that held up the US advance.

If a tank is used very cautiously with skillful use of cover and dead ground it can be very difficult to neutralise. Basically if exposes itself for only 4-8 seconds to fire an ATGM is unlikely to be able to hit it. If it moves every few minutes artillery is unlikely to be able to hit it either.

To a degree in daylight other parties like supporting infantry can feed it targets by radio so it makes quick shots and then moves.

Basically the best way to stop it is either "brilliant" munitions like Brimstone or Spike NLOS (if you can fire promptly) or another move advanced tank coming forward to hull down ready to pick it off as it pops up. This of course then exposes that vehicle to direct fire as it can't pop in and out of cover.

Ukraine have aptly demonstrated the counter to such tank use. Fly a drone over the top of it and drop grenades. Seems they've had a fair bit of success using this technique already.

Grenade drone usage is mostly used against stationary vehicles, quite often to finish off a vehicle immobilized by other means or to hit something at laagar. Using it against a tactically maneuvering vehicle which is frequently relocating is likely to be hard at best, not least because a quad copter isn't that much faster than a tank and its response time to fly out a few km is several minutes.

An aggressively handled tank is quite a sight to behold, they accelerate much faster than a load HGV

Additionally if one is undertaking a planned operation with an armored assault is it definitely worth bringing out the anti drone ECM and also having look outs on the radio net.

[Talksteer]

J4CKO said:

Adam. said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

I presume even an elderly tank can survive a grenade? Or are there effective AT grenades that a drone can lift?

the UA are pretty good at it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPOlcuo7cXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ammic0GKbgA

Yeah, the Reddit combat forum has loads of videos like that, it kind of reminds me of the Trench Run in Star Wars where the little X Wing piloted by Luke Skywalker, through skilful deployment of a small munition into a small aperture finds a weakness that starts a chain reaction and destroys the Death Star.

A farty little off the shelf drone dropping a small grenade, which from most angles wouldnt even really damage a tank, never mind destroy it, dropped in the right place causes a chain reaction that ends up causing the much bigger munitions to explode and cook off and sometimes and entry to low earth orbit for the turret. Its not just getting it through a hatch, some of the vents and stuff on top seem to be vulnerable as well.

If it weren't all so horrific, it would be quite beautiful. I am guessing for the occupants of said tank, they dont know much about it before being simultaneously cooked and eviscerated. Might have said before, but I remember my granddad telling me of his wartime experiences (North Africa I think it was) happening upon tanks that had been hit and looking inside, he said something along the lines of the shell had enough energy to pierce the armour and then some left over, but not enough to get out again so it tended to bounce around, and explained quite graphically what that looked (and smelt) like to a ten year old J4CKO

A little OT but US data from the ETO put typical casualties at around 0.8 of a KIA per tank knocked out, Shermans with wet storage were quite resistant to going up in flames and the US also wore helmets inside the vehicle.

With modern vehicles with good spall liners, crews in body armour and fire suppression systems in GW I&II there were plenty of occasions where M1 and M2's were penetrated by friendly fire with most or all the crew getting out. In some case abandoned vehicles were re-crewed.

[trickywoo]

Talksteer said:

Shermans with wet storage were quite resistant to going up in flames

I thought the Germans called them Ronsons because they always lit first time.

[Puggit]

Rivet Joint patrolling south of Crimea, with some friends to ensure there are no accidental missile fires or fuel leaks...



https://twitter.com/space_osint/status/16392843432...

[velocemitch]

trickywoo said:

Talksteer said:

Shermans with wet storage were quite resistant to going up in flames

I thought the Germans called them Ronsons because they always lit first time.

That’s what I’ve read too, Tommy Cookers, was another unpleasant but accurate German nickname for the Sherman’s.

[FourWheelDrift]

velocemitch said:

trickywoo said:

Talksteer said:

Shermans with wet storage were quite resistant to going up in flames

I thought the Germans called them Ronsons because they always lit first time.

That’s what I’ve read too, Tommy Cookers, was another unpleasant but accurate German nickname for the Sherman’s.

They didn't burn any easier than other tanks. Tommy cooker was used on British Valentines and Crusaders in Africa before we even got the Sherman. And the Sherman didn't catch fire or burn any easier than any other tank and less so after they introduced wet stowage. There were so many Shermans around during the war especially after D-Day it would seem to the Germans that everything they were shooting at was a Sherman and anything lighting up was a Sherman.

[FourWheelDrift]

UK plan is to have Challenger 2 tanks in Ukraine by the end of March.... just 7 days away now.

[SlimJim16v]

velocemitch said:

That’s what I’ve read too, Tommy Cookers, was another unpleasant but accurate German nickname for the Sherman’s.

But Shermans would be filled with Yanks, Tommies are British.

[eharding]

SlimJim16v said:

velocemitch said:

That’s what I’ve read too, Tommy Cookers, was another unpleasant but accurate German nickname for the Sherman’s.

But Shermans would be filled with Yanks, Tommies are British.

Apart from the 17,000 or so Shermans the British & Empire forces received under Lend Lease, obviously.

[SlimJim16v]

eharding said:

Apart from the 17,000 or so Shermans the British & Empire forces received under Lend Lease, obviously.

[rovermorris999]

Castrol for a knave said:

Just had 2 Finnish F18s over the house. Apparently on exercise with the RAF.

In Lincolnshire by any chance? Big exercise finished today.

[deadtom]

velocemitch said:

That’s what I’ve read too, Tommy Cookers, was another unpleasant but accurate German nickname for the Sherman’s.

straying a bit O/T, but the Sherman does not really deserve this reputation. On a per capita basis the Sherman was no more prone to brewing up than its German counterparts, it's just that there were lots (and lots and lots) of them, so in absolute numbers then yes a lot of them burned. Also, while the earlier models of Sherman were outgunned by the Panther and Tiger, it didn't actually get into fights with them very often, nor was it ever designed to. Later models with the American 76 mm gun were more of a threat to the bigger German tanks, and those with the 17 pounder British gun were properly formidable.
It also had a lot of other innovative features (for example electric turret traverse and a stabilised gun) and was reliable and well made

[bmwmike]

17000.

Wow

[Talksteer]

trickywoo said:

Talksteer said:

Shermans with wet storage were quite resistant to going up in flames

I thought the Germans called them Ronsons because they always lit first time.

No, all that sort of thing was long ago debunked.

Most common German term for tanks, "our wagons", "their wagons".

Russian Txx tanks are a bit of an annomolly in their propensity to brew up due to combustible cases on the ammo strewn around the crew compartment. Even they are much less likely to brew with just the 20 rounds in the carousel loaded, which is why you are saying less catastrophic explosions.