Polish Armed Forces: News

It appears you know about Poland much more than these silly Youtubers.

Rocks know more about Poland than Youtubers...

Yeah lots of vids and articles from the usual sources over recent months talking up the new upcoming European superpower Poland

At the same time as they've started to talk less about the previous European superpower the Ukraine

Operation meatshield moves from plan A to plan B...

The Ukrainians have failed us... what idiots would step up and volunteer to replace them in the meat grinder... who could be that stupid...

As Turkey becomes more unreliable perhaps Turkeys nukes might become Polands nukes in a tantrum because they are upset about Belarus nukes.

When Turkey does not get entry to the EU and therefore blocks Sweden from getting into HATO I rather suspect a few in the EU and HATO will suggest a Turkexit.

flamming_python wrote:

Odin of Ossetia wrote:You are correct.


But whole bunch of Youtube videos have already appeared showing Poland as some sort of next military superpower.

It appears you know about Poland much more than these silly Youtubers.

Yeah lots of vids and articles from the usual sources over recent months talking up the new upcoming European superpower Poland

At the same time as they've started to talk less about the previous European superpower the Ukraine

Do not really agree here, since shortly prior to the Special Military Operation there was lots of talk about Ukraine falling to the Russians only in a matter of days. Not a realistic assessment considering how heavily armed Ukraine was (and still is) combined with how few the Russian troops were used.


But in case of Poland it is precisely the opposite, a genuinely weak and foreign-controlled country is made into some sort of an "upcoming superpower."

These people have no idea about the situation in Poland, "Binkov" and the others.

The whole thing looks suspicious to me.

The K2 is probably the best tank in the West. Only Western tanks similar would be the Type 10, or the Leclerc. These are tanks designed in the 1990s or 2000s. All come with autoloader. Not like the 1970s tanks that Germany and the US still use.

But I would have to agree that all these tanks are highly vulnerable to the most recent drones.

Would suggest a lack of real combat experience for the last few decades, but if that was a genuine reason then the west has no excuse at all for having shit tanks.

Perhaps real combat experience against a competent enemy would be a better way of putting it.

The number of times the west has pitched in and helped those the Soviets or Russia was fighting, they actually have rather extensive experience fighting a near peer enemy in some aspects.

South Koreans better believe it. Especially after their government has chosen to supply the Ukraine

ALAMO wrote:It is a general proof that Soviet design school was much more effective.
K2 is very compact. General size is misleading, it is all add on all around making it look almost as bulky as L2A6.
It is about half a meter lower and about 1m shorter, and it is still including that all bells&whistles hanging around.
Weak point it a hull ammo magazine that is extremely vulnerable. It is not protected in any way other than the main armor - just a rack. And what made me even more speechless, is the fact that it is extremely high, occupying all the space of the hull, bottom up.

Now that you mention it, that kind of sounds like the T-80 with its combination of low profile and vertical ammo carousel.

Could it really be a coincidence keeping in mind that SK has fielded T-80s since Russia repaid debts by supplying them in the 90s?

ALAMO wrote:5 cm makes a difference, ask any girl!

LOL! Just stop.

The semi combustible 125mm propellent stubs are the problem... externally they are cardboard with a metal stub case, the core problem is that if you have the propellent stubs sitting vertically in an autoloader on the floor of the turret, then any turret penetration that leads to showers of sparks and burning hot bits of metal entering the turret will lead very rapidly to those propellent stubs catching fire and with them all stacked together if one goes then they all go in rapid succession.

The western 120mm rounds at least have a metal case around the propellent which protects it from sparks and embers.

The T-72/90 arrangement with the propellent stubs lying down reduces the horizontal area that a penetration could hit and reach the propellent stubs, but the arrangement of protection plate over the ammo in the autoloader prevents sparks from reaching the highly vulnerable propellent stubs, and of course the APFSDS rounds that are also lumps of propellent and sabot.

A design solution is to simply separate the ammo and fuel from the crew compartment in design terms, which is T-14 and the T-14 equivalent to the Boomerang and Kurganets vehicles, the short term solution for other vehicles is to not carry loose ammo in the crew compartment, and only under the sheet metal protected autoloader or other protected areas (ie in T-90 the turret bustle container and a small ammo container between the engine and the turret bustle).

Longer term I would think liquid propellent guns with a binary or even more separate propellent components that are stored separately in the vehicle and not mixed till they are put into the chamber would be the best solution for a chemical energy gun, while EM guns would remove the problems completely if they can be made to reach the necessary level of performance.

Of course no arrangement of ammo and fuel will ever make tanks safe on a battlefield... mines and drones and missiles and artillery and other tanks will always be a threat and thinking fixing this or that will make your tank invincible is just childish.