The Situation in the Ukraine. #10

BAsically Ukraine fights and will continue fighting until they continue receiving support ,and cheerleading
by USA and the baltics vassals..  THis war will have been over long time ago... if Ukraine received no military help
from NATO and financial help with the condition that they need to take control of eastern Ukraine..

This war can last up to 15 years (as lebanon civil war) and without Russia invading it with its army just limited proxy mercenary support. IF they take the airport.. they can be pushed back again.. because their artillery will not be able to attack the airport if their people are controlling some buildings...    So after all it might not be bad idea to have a few ukies in the airport as long their artillery is not there.

Im sure that americans exceptionals egos will finance Ukraine war ,as long they fight Russia..  
What is clear for me.. is that Ukraine is losing the world sympathy with their actions.. and even OSCE is demanding
them to stop attacking eastern ukraine..   Im sure Europe have the tools to Pressure kiev with sanctions and an economic blockade if they continue with the war...

Whatever it happens ,the conflict will never be resolved ,as long kiev believe they can win by force ,because Russia cannot allow Kiev to take control of eastern ukraine by force... because they understand rightly , that if Kiev takes control of eastern Ukraine they will move after that to Crimea and the fight will be taken against Russia. aside that the shelling on Russian border cities. this is no different with the west.. USA will never allow a hostile faction at US borders  to get in power and threaten their nation security.

arpakola wrote:http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/

20-13
Стешин и Коц на связи:
- АТОшники пытались сегодня взять аэропорт в клещи двумя бронегруппами, зашли в Донецк, но недалеко. Путиловского моста больше нет.
- На Панфилова метко накрыли три 17-этажки и фасад магазина детской одежды. Репортаж будет чуть позже. Повешу здесь. https://twitter.com/kp_steshin
- Работаю. Коц пытался снять меня смешно.Веселого мало - Донецк вернулся к августовскому состоянию по атмосфере.

20-11
Проснулись. А ведь об этом писали еще в сентябре-октрябе.
Аэропорт города Донецк в соответствии с минскими договорённостями должен быть передан под контроль ополченцев, заявили в воскресенье в МИД РФ.
«Аэропорт города Донецк в соответствии с минскими договоренностями должен быть передан под контроль ополченцев. Этот вопрос долго не мог разрешиться из-за споров вокруг некоторых других участков линии соприкосновения, а тем временем украинские силовики продолжали обстреливать из здания аэропорта Донецк и другие населённые пункты, в результате чего гибли мирные жители, включая женщин и детей, разрушались школы, жилые дома и другая гражданская инфраструктура», - говорится в заявлении МИД РФ, опубликованном на сайте ведомства. Подчеркивается, что «для пресечения этих преступных действий силы ДНР взяли аэропорт под свой контроль».
http://russian.rt.com/article/69616 - цинк
 

fu.. you Surkov

Wow! Is that a picture of a elementary school hit by a artillery shell? Kiev's leadership really are pieces of sh*t, but this is to be expected...we've seen them commit similar acts of criminal behavior before.

i have two questions..
1) first one is .. does ukraine have the capability to produce and manufacture TOSCHka-U missiles? or those they have were only part of Russia inventory ,that they never returned when Ukraine
declare its independence.. ?



2) Second question is what this women is saying?


She is a presidential candidate of POland.. elections ,a US vassal state and Rusophobic nation...and she mentions
Ukraine.. but no idea what she says.. however it will not be hard to imagine what kind of Propaganda crap she
claims.. but will be nice to be proven wrong and believe that nation have any hope.

Where are the rock stars and diplomats marching for the children of Donbass?

Voice of Russia in Portuguese says Porky stated Sunday during a speech at the crowd in Maidan that Uky authorities will briefly regain control of the whole Donbass territory.

We shall not give up one centimetre of Uky land. We'll assure the reclaim of Donbass...we'll show that our unity with you is the most crucial factor of our victory

The Fire Next Time: Mariupol


Militia Grad launchers strike Mariupol checkpoints

http://bloknot.ru/v-mire/grady-opolchentsev-udarili-po-blokpostam-mariupolya-147979.html

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

For the first time since September the positions of the Azov volunteer battalion came under rocket artillery fire.

The commander of the second sotnya of the Azov battalion, who goes by the call-sign Kirt, said that DPR took Azov positions near under Grad fire. The battalion returned fire.

DPR HQ reports that militia units by Mariupol struck a Ukrainian checkpoint with Grad rockets. One can hear both incoming and outgoing volleys in the city.

The zone of fighting included a number of villages located near Mariupol. CTO press officer Dmitriy Chaliy said that since 18:00 hours local time AFU positions near Talakovka have come under Grad fire.

Ukrainian forces near Chermalyk came under mortar fire. There was also artillery fire noted near Nikolayevka.

DPR head Aleksandr Zakharchenko announced that his forces are conducting heavy counter-offensive operations along the entire frontline, from Mariupol to Gorlovka.
http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-fire-next-time-mariupol.html

Novorussia SITREP: Intensive combat operation all over the line of contact in Novorussia
Things look very bad today and very intensive combat operations, in particular artillery strikes, are reported everywhere in Novorussia.  At the very least, in the following locations:

1) Donetsk Airport: the Ukrainians attacked with a fairly large concentration of armor and under heavy artillery fire.  As for tonight (local time) all of these attacks have been successfully repelled but intelligences sources are reporting a sharp rise in the number of tanks and armored vehicles all around the Donestk airport.  The Novorussians are expecting attacks from Peski and Avdeevka.

2) The Ukrainian artillery has opened for almost everywhere along the front.  The Ukrainian airforce has also dropped several 500kg bombs from high altitude on the city of Gorlovka.

3) Novorussian units are returning fire and the outskirts of Mariupol have come under Novorussian artillery attacks.

4) The Chairman of the Novorussian Parliament, Oleg Tsarev, has declared that his sources indicate that the Ukrainian plan submitted to Poroshenko looked at a spectrum of options: the best one was to totally free Novorussian from all Novorussians, the minimal one was to cut-off Donetsk from Luganks and both of these cities from the Russian border.

5) Plenty of US made weapons have been recovered in the New Terminal of the Donestk airport.

6) There are reports that the Ukrainian forces are attempting to encircle Debaltsevo.

7) Putin's spokesman Dmitrii Peskov has declared that the Ukrainian side had rejected all Russian offers and presented no counter-proposals.  He concluded that the Ukrainians have chose the option of going to war.

Please click here for an high res updated map of combats.

9) The Ukrainians are now accusing the Novorussians of using "super-weapons" in Peski.  No, no nuclear devices (as the Ukie defense minister claimed were used south of Lugansk), but heavy-flame throwers of the Buratino TOS-1 type.  The Ukies speak of a "bloodbath in Peski" which, as J.Hawk, the translator for ForRuss noticed, is a sure sign of panic.

10) Initial reports seem to indicate the the Novorussian military has entered the town of Peski.

11) The head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the NAF, General Petrov, has declared that the Ukrainians have resumed ballistic missile strikes and that several Tochka missiles were fired today.

12) Zakharchenko has declared that "we are now engaged in a heavy counter-attack operation from Mariupol to Gorlovka".  

Ukrainian media apparently report of a massacre of Kiev soldiers in Peski..
and that the anti kiev forces are using "Super  Weapons" ,they point to Burantino heavy flame  TOS-1 rockets
and that the entire village is on fire..

http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/01/bloodbath-at-peski-ukrainian-media.html


it definitively looks like will be a very long night.. and Russia have no option ,that to allow rebels to defend
themselves after kiev ordered a full scale attack. What is scary for me to think is what will happen
if the rebels take Slavyanks ,kramtors and Mariupol . Is so sad so many human lives lost because USA encourage
them to do it so.. Obama and US congress wants to completely separate Russia from Europe and they fueling the ukraine conflict for such purposes.

and best for the last.. Motorola and gimly are alive and kicking..
they even make jokes about the interviewer claims of offensive at the airport.. "what offensive he says"?
funny interview .. uploaded today by british journalist graham philips..


take a look at this a 17 year old girl in motorola unit..  



and now this one is really the best for the last..
Shows a review of motorola unit in combat during the entire conflict.. is a must see..
this people are having a lot of fun.. .

Journalist in kiev that came from the frontline and is pushing to boycott poroshenko
war and demand to stop the mobilization massacre of young ukrainians.

Mobilization or Coffinization? Opposition to military draft grows in Ukraine.

="A Ukrainian journalist working for TV channel 112, Ruslan Kotsaba, has asked Ukrainians to boycott military mobilization, describing the events on the Donbass as a civil war in which
“DPR supermen” are killing “VSU [Ukrainian army] supermen.”  

Kotsaba said that he is prepared to serve a prison term rather than go into the army.
“Don’t even bother sending me a draft notice,” said the journalist.

“It’s impossible for people to kill one another simply because they want to live separately. There are no regular Russian army units in the Donbass, there are only the local guys whom they call the ‘levy’,
or ‘separatists’, while they call us ‘dills’ [‘ukropy’].

All of this back and forth around the Donetsk airport is a massive cosmic injustice. Right now the best young guys are killing other best young guys. I am a frontline journalist and I know what I’m talking about.

All the while these f*****s are sitting at HQs and in the Verkhovna Rada, which is a major injustice” said the journalist.  He called on Ukrainians to refuse to be mobilized."]

the journalist other reports says was arrested..

http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/01/mobilization-or-coffinization.html


and more updates..

Militiaman Aleksandr Zhukovskiy described how the DNR army entered Peski and is fighting for this strategically important location.

“Russian militiamen have entered Peski. It’s not under complete control yet, but everything is going in the right direction, as Ukrainians are abandoning positions under militia pressure.”

“If we can hold Peski, artillery bombardments of Donetsk will slacken (though one can still fire from the direction of Avdeyevka, which is what’s happening right now). We, the Semyonovskiy Battalion are in battle readiness along the southern direction.”

“Our guys’ fingers are itching to continue the banquet in Mariupol. I hope that the September scenario will not be repeated, and that we’ll either carry out a victorious advance or a slow but sure ejection of the enemy from the city, including through encirclement.”

“I will be in the Russian Federation until Tuesday, to receive important cargo, buy equipment for the fighters, meet new recruits. So no ‘news from the field’ until after the 21st.”

“Incidentally, the flow of Russian volunteers has sharply increased since the holidays, I’m not keeping up with applications (just like the good old days during the summer).”

“What’s interesting is that the number of new arrivals with combat experience is growing.”

There are conflicting reports..the Guardian and  Kiev says they finally took control of the airport or part of the airport.. after massive commandos and tanks infiltrated in the new terminal ground.. But Novoriya is saying they repulsed 6 waves of attacks with tanks....

So either kiev lies or the contradiction is more a timing thing.. that anti kiev fighters repulsed the attacks..
in the night.. but hours later they try again and manage to enter?

Here is one video..of Donetsk leaders in the Airport.. this was nov 18 in the morning.. it seems..



in the night that day.. in nov 18 , Graham philips interview gimi and motorolla a they say Airport is good..and they
kicked the kiev offensive.. so apparently in nov 18 they had the airport but .. if it is true what kiev claims..then they took control of the airport in Nov 19.. 6-8 hours later? of graham interview?  all western media is running kiev story that they have taken control of the airport... if is not true.. then they are only saying that to not break the morale of their troops. and in other more interesting news Kiev is commenting about a possibility to continue minks agreement discussion on monday. so hopefully regardless who have the airport the cease of fire stay.

In not so positive news voice of sevastopol said..

Message from Alexander Zakharchenko, the head of DPR.
"Late in the afternoon Ukrainian bombers hit Gorlovka with 500-kilogram bombs. The bombing was carried out without aiming, from behind the clouds, just at the city. As a result of criminal actions of Ukrainian troops more than 30 people were killed and wounded in Donetsk, including children. For several weeks, we shouted and argued that the Ukrainian military using the truce conducted a large-scale rearrangement of their troops to prepare for offensive. But all our appeals to the OSCE and Joint Center for coordination and control have not been heard. Today representatives of JCCC themselves felt scale of Ukrainian artillery strikes, I mean shelling of representatives of the center at Gorlovka ".

on an interview today jan 19 2014 ..Zakharchenko says Ukraine failed in all their attemps to take the airport and enter in Donetsk city..  and that he hopes the minsk agreements negotiations to continue. interestingly he also mentions that OSCE positions where shelled by the Ukraine army..


NATO rifles found in the airport.


and something i was saying long time ago.. that i noticed and was complaining ,about the pathetic  eastern ukrainians male society that so many have preferred to flee the war and leave womens to do the fighting for them.  



and here Motorola the hollywood star.. and his autograph session in donetsk

TR1 wrote:If they had T-90s in that situation, the result would not have been much different honesty.

AFAIK the T-90s were only in combat once (apart from maybe on the Indo-Pakistan border); but when they were it was pretty much exactly that same situation - AFAIK a section of T-90s were cut-off in Dagestan by Chechen rebels and took to the advance and tore through Chechen lines. I don't think there was a single T-90 knocked out. 1 of them took something like 7 RPG hits but was still in operation. Presumably the others took some too but all the tanks tore through; none were knocked out or broke down.

T-64 is outdated, but then again so is the workhorse of the Russian army, the T-72B.

The T-72B, upgraded to T-72B3 standard is the equal of earlier modifications of the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams.. quite the equal to the Challenger II, Leclerc, Merkava III.
Inferior to the K2, Type 90, Merkava IV, later Leo 2s and M1s but the differences here are not huge.

The main difference is crew survivability in case of penetration - but then it has its own advantages too. Lower profile, greater manueverability, fording capability, lower weight.. at the end of the day the T-72B3 is in Russian service and only really needs to work well in Russian conditions. Export customers get their pick of T-90s instead.
If you attempted to put any of these other tanks into Russian conditions though - they'd break down, run out of fuel or get bogged down into the mud like Panthers in Operation Zitadelle.

TR1 wrote:The T-72 also has vulnerable ammunition from the side. Yes, it is smaller, no, it is not a giant difference.

Big difference. It's a small target, is protected by a lot of armor, and is seperated from the crew cabin with a metal shield, so sparks won't ignite the propellant.

I remember some pics of the T-80 insides.. it looked like the propellant/ammo wasn't actually seperated from the crew compartment at all.
The target is larger and because of that there is also a wider range angles to take a shot at it from, including some spots that will be protected with weaker armor. The chance of making such a shot intentionally is pretty small but when you take the statistics, it becomes clear - the T-80 propellant is easier to target and easier to penetrate through to.

In combat we have seen T-72s torn apart and blowing up left and right as well.

A lot more rarely. The main danger seems to be if they're hit from above. That way the chance of the round hitting the propellant is greater, as the ammo area is perpendicular to the angle of fire and thus represents a much larger target, from my understanding.
But really, hitting any tank from above is sure to cause mayhem.

T-72s in Chechnya 1.0 did fine. When without infantry, many were lost but they proved themselves survivable nontheless. They're doing well in Syria too - plenty of videos with them just soaking up rocket after rocket. Of course, the vids where a T-72 explodes are widely publiscized, but given the scale of the war and the amount of T-72s involved; it's bound to happen.

In the 2nd Chechen war, they were used methodically, with infantry support.. I don't think any were lost at all, or if they were then they were recovered and put back into operation later. Actually very few tanks were lost in Chechnya 2.0.

The difference in survivability is not nearly as great as you make it out to be. Do I really need to post photos from something as recent as Georgia, when T-72 turret flew dozens of yards away upon ammo detonation?

What's that supposed to prove? Yes it happens, just not very often.
BTW do we know how that Georgian T-72 got knocked out? It seemed to be parked in front of the Peacekeeper HQ. It probably got hit by their weapons, then from the weapons of the advance units of the Russian reinforcements.. it had a very bad day basically.
T-72s have been in dozens of conflicts. It should be easy to find popped-off turrets if they were that common. Yet I don't recall any pics; maybe only in Iraq, with their crappy Saddam knock-off of the T-72M1 (itself a knock-off of the T-72A), and the god-awful 'Asad Babil', which was a knock-off of the Saddam knock-off of a knock-off!!!
In fact that's how they told the difference between these deathtraps. The T-72M1s when they were knocked-out, were usually more or or less whole and could be put back into operation, even if the turret popped off. The Saddams were usually destroyed beyond all repair, turret miles away, all insides blown apart. And of the Asad Babils - there was basically nothing left of them at all.

Incidently - you'll see that T-64s we've been seeing are mostly on Saddam level - they're cooked and chared, nice and good. Won't be putting them back into operation. Although at least they didn't vaporize.

If the T-64 is a deathtrap, then so is the T-72, only slightly less so.

The T-64 has been getting involved in some serious carnage during the conflict - it always seems to come the worse off. Of course, when it comes to incompetent leaderships ordering full-steam ahead into some clever rebel ambushes with semi-modern ATGMs & RPGs and so on, any tank will have problems.. the Israeli Merkavas got their asses kicked in Lebanon by older weapons.
Any tank will also have problems if some Spetsnaz lads laser-designate them for some 152mms over the border to rain down nice thick shells onto their top armour. That sort of thing will wipe any column out.

But still, the amount of jack-in-the-box turrets with the T-64; just seems to me to be more than I've seen with the T-72; considerably more. Coupled with the stories of T-80 survivability in Chechnya (which has the same autoloader design as the T-64) - and I think some conclusions can be drawn. The T-72 for sure isn't perfect in crew survivability, but it's not bad really. At the very least, missing turrets and unrecoverable vehicles are rare.
The T-64 is not a bad tank (Soviets didn't make any genuinely bad tanks, they knew their stuff) - it just needs some upgrades, and to be used more carefully.

flamming_python wrote:

Big difference. It's a small target, is protected by a lot of armor, and is seperated from the crew cabin with a metal shield, so sparks won't ignite the propellant.

It really is not. Look at the profile views- The T-72 is smaller yes, but it still presents a target. Second, it is not protected by a lot of armor in T-72.
http://data.primeportal.net/tanks/marek_solar/t-72_int/t-72_int_15_of_32.JPG
There is the metal plate over the autloader- does it look like good protection to you? It is not even meant as armor, just for loader mechanics.

I remember some pics of the T-80 insides.. it looked like the propellant/ammo wasn't actually seperated from the crew compartment at all.

Neither is the T-72s. Look @ the pic above. Yes, there is marginally more protection by the shield, but anything serious will go right through it anwyays. Plus, I am not aware of Russian Army specifically reporting that AZ was more prone to explosions than MZ during Chechnya.

A lot more rarely. The main danger seems to be if they're hit from above. That way the chance of the round hitting the propellant is greater, as the ammo area is perpendicular to the angle of fire and thus represents a much larger target, from my understanding.

Not a lot more rarely- in every single conflict the T-72 has been in, it has suffered catastrophic detonations. In fact the Russian Army did not report it found the T-80 more vulnerable than the T-72 did : if they did not have an issue with it, when both tanks sufered losses, who are we to tell them they are wrong?

T-72s in Chechnya 1.0 did fine. When without infantry, many were lost but they proved themselves survivable nontheless. They're doing well in Syria too - plenty of videos with them just soaking up rocket after rocket. Of course, the vids where a T-72 explodes are widely publiscized, but given the scale of the war and the amount of T-72s involved; it's bound to happen.

T-80 and T-72 were both used. There was not found to be a difference in practical survivability.

What's that supposed to prove? Yes it happens, just not very often.

Often enough actually. One of the three Russian tanks lost in 8-8-8 as a T-72 that suffered ammo detonation upon being penetrated by an RPG in a Georgian Ambush.


BTW do we know how that Georgian T-72 got knocked out? It seemed to be parked in front of the Peacekeeper HQ. It probably got hit by their weapons, then from the weapons of the advance units of the Russian reinforcements.. it had a very bad day basically.
That is the T-72BM. It was burned by the Russians. The other T-72 however blew its ammo upon penetration.

T-72s have been in dozens of conflicts. It should be easy to find popped-off turrets if they were that common. Yet I don't recall any pics; maybe only in Iraq, with their crappy Lion of Babel, 'Saddam' knock-offs of the T-72M1.

Really? There are literally dozens of photos from just about every conflict it has been in.

But still, the amount of jack-in-the-box turrets with the T-64; just seems to me to be more than I've seen with the T-72; considerably more.

This is what I disagree with. The T-64 is less survivable, but the difference is not as huge as made out by Russia-strongers lately. First of all, it is an older tank that has thinner armor than T-72B from the start, so you can expect it to fare worse when hit. Second, we don't know what exactly hit these tanks- the hits might have blown the tank out to the point that ammo detonation made little to no difference in any case.
Plus- for the comparitively small numbers, we have seen a LOT of T-72s with blown off turrets IN DONBASS! So what does that say about the design? Nothing good, if we apply the same logic from the T-64. T-72B3s too, plenty were blown up, when you consider how few the losses were overall.

Coupled with the stories of T-80 survivability in Chechnya (which has the same autoloader design as the T-64) - and I think some conclusions can be drawn. The T-72 for sure isn't perfect in crew survivability, but it's not bad really. At the very least, missing turrets and unrecoverable vehicles are rare.

The T-80 stories about Chechnya are myths. The Russian army withdrew them because of gas turbine fuel consumption, nothing to do with autoloader design.
On Otvaga2004 (the best Russian armor forum) users discussed how they saw the T-80 fair comparitively much better than Ukranian T-64s in Chechnya- largely no different than T-72s did in the same conflict.
All we can really draw here is that those T-64s are old as fuck, and apparently have some welding issues, as their hulls tend to tear apart every time ammo is detonated- even more so than T-72 which typically has a clean turret seperation.

Not always though of course- see Georgian T-72s in Tskinval that detonated so hard a crater was left of the tank and the turret flew dozens of feet into the air and through the roof of another building!

Good answers.

Yes I do agree that the T-72 series has historically jacked-in-the-boxed; but I've been seeing less of it lately. Certainly, with anything like T-72Bs or above; it just hasn't happened much. The Kuwaiti M-84s (Bs basically); a couple knocked out in 1991 but with no casualties. The T-90s in Dagestan. The T-72s in Syria (which are mostly older M models but I think some are upgraded to B levels at least).
As for T-72s in the Donbass.. I must admit I haven't seen such pics; although I take your word for it.

One thing you should note is that the jack-in-the-box effect might often be due to hits against ammo stored directly in the crew compartment. Unfortunately there's no way of knowing which ones have all the ammo in the autoloader and which ones are more lax with this; so we can't tell how much of a role this factor plays.

As for the metal-plate - in no way shape or form did I mean to imply that it's supposed to serve as 'armour'. The armour is what's on the outside. I guess that's why the Bs might have less problems - they are just better armoured, including in vulnerable areas.
The metal-plate does prevent sparks and various molten metal dripping down onto the propellant though; which will cause instant ignition. As long as it fulfills that role then fine; the outside armor is meant to actually stop the round itself.

And one final thing. I already edited my previous post. Go and take a look at those T-64 pics again. All of them. That their turrets are blown off is not the only thing. Many T-72Ms had their turrets blown off but were otherwise intact and could be brought back into operation again. Including most of them T-72s from the Georgian war too - they were still salvagable.
Those T-64s on the other hand - are cooked like Christmass Turkey left in the oven for 12 hours too long. I mean they are completely black, burnt.. really only the hull and the turret frame themselves can be salvaged, everything else is fried. And this is another difference, as you hinted at; there's just something off with them - I can understand some Asad Babils burning like that but not Soviet-built MBTs.

TR1's lovely american tanks are the best.. thats his conclusion..
he is not aware of how easily they were penetrated in IRAQ by regular RPG-7s killing its crew inside..
Calling a T-72 a death trap is incredibly stupid ,and can only come from a fanboy and nothing more..
Syria have been using T-72s for 4 years and their tanks commanders when asked about their performance
says they are very good without any vacillation and they even explain in details what they like but also don't like..

Basically in Syria after years of use a tank commander of a T-72 told ,the tanks are really good for the job..to fight terrorist with rocket grenades.. he even showed to the camera his own tank being hit by several RPGs .. He told that the major problem they had was with mines.. that even though it was easy to repair T-72s from rpg attacks ,mines took their more time.. because they need to remove half of the tank parts to repair the damage.

Better ignore Fanboys opinions based on his google search experiences.. and listen the real tank commanders
experience after years using T-72s in Syrian war...  



and here T-72s taking several rocket grenades hits and keeps going like nothing happened.. 



So better to ignore the silly USA fanboys about western tanks being better for a warzone.. and Russian tanks
being a deathtrap.. an Not tanks can defend from airforce bombing ,neither Russians or Americans.. and no tanks either can defend from top attack by Rpgs hits  unless they armed with active protection defenses .

@Python

Yes that is true, we don't really know if crews (in Donbass for example, to go with most recent example) went to battle with ammo in turret or just auto-loader. Same can be said for Syrian T-72 crews.
Of course the same applies to Ukrainian crews.

However with only ammo in autoloader capacity is too low, so it is definitely a design compromise and weakness that needs addressing. At the end of the day, the tanks were designed for frontal, head on combat with no thought of crew survivability post-penetration- they can hardly be blamed when they perform as designed.

Armata will have an interesting take on the problem, crew being in an armored capsule. Wonder what they will do about side armor, but on the outset it can be designed to take heavy applique side armor.
Wonder how protected the sides of the un-manned turret will be though. It will be very safe for the crew...who should be able to drive the tank to safety even if turret is blown to shit.

Re. T-64s in Donbass, keep in mind many of them were hit by artillery. T-72s would not be much better in such a situation. Mind you, there is no way you are salvaging a de-turreted T-72- that thing is gooooone.
The one thing that has been consistent is Ukranian T-64s seem to have their hulls completely shorn apart during detonation.
THAT is weird, and seems to be much greater than in T-72s.

As for Vann, another useless post of crap. Hilarious since I said nothing about American tanks, and only about T-64 vs T-72. Also funny since I was shit talking the Abrams to that butt-hurt American guy in another thread.
Why don't you save the tank talk for people who have read more than youtube comments on the subject alright?

Oh and just for you: Yes, the Abrams is much safer than the T-72 as far as crew survivability is concerned. Deal with it.

TR1 wrote:

As for Vann, another useless post of crap. Hilarious since I said nothing about American tanks, and only about T-64 vs T-72. Also funny since I was shit talking the Abrams to that butt-hurt American guy in another thread.
Why don't you save the tank talk for people who have read more than youtube comments on the subject alright?

Oh and just for you: Yes, the Abrams is much safer than the T-72 as far as crew survivability is concerned. Deal with it.

Not thats total bullshit..

You told the Russian tanks are a death trap.. which is complete horse shit. i posted there a video
where a real tank commander not a FANBOY .. but Real Soldier.. with Tank experience in a real war.. not a google search hero.. says about the T-72 tanks.. He told that is rare when the tanks are penetrated by RPGs and people die inside. then i show you a video of a real T-72s being hits by a rain of rocket grenades and keep fighting..like nothing..   So in short i proved you are wrong..  Not a death trap.. they can be destroyed yes.. so like americans tanks can be destroyed too..

and no the abrahmas are not any better tanks than Russian comparable tanks..
In a duel of an M1a2 vs a T-90 duel neither one will penetrate each other in a frontal attack with their gun..but the T-90 will hit from 5km distance  the american tank from above with its AT missiles and disable it. and anyone in the turret killed. So is not better.. is actually worse.. Abrahams a bit better frontal protection will be meaningless in a real combat vs a T-90 tank. The T-90 will shoot first , with hit first and will disable first the american tank.  So in a dual with the T-90 is worse.. and in a duel vs terrorist rocket grenades will also be worse than a T-90. will not survive as well as Russian tanks when hit from the sides the most common place tanks are attacked... How can anyone be so silly and blind to western propaganda is beyond my understanding.

Point out where I said Russian tanks are deathtraps. Go. Now.

And the Abrams has an isolated crew. The T-72/64 series make no attempt at such a thing. How such a simple concept if beyond you I don't understand.

Yes, not every shot turns a T-72 into scrap. No shit. This was known decades ago.

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said Russian tanks are deathtraps. Go. Now.

you told the t-72 are a deathtrap.. and that..

If they had T-90s in that situation, the result would not have been much different honesty.

So see.. you believe the T-90 survibility is not really that different from a T-72 ..and at same time believe the T-72 is a death trap because is slighty better than a T-64. Then i show you the
real experience of Tank commanders with T-72 in Syria.. So unless you come with theories that he is blavantly lying about T-72.. and the video i linked of T-72s taking many hits and keep going.. was fake.. then i think you are really wrong. I even posted a video of many Abrahms tanks disable by RPG hits.. to proof you they are not immune as you think..

Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

In a duel a T-90 will own your lovely NATO tank at 5km distance and it will also do better against
RPG-7 attacks.. so means better for urban warfare.. you are only victim of western propaganda..

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

Well, in previous tests, T-90A was able to survive various RPG type rounds, more than T-80U.  I would figure that the T-90's are vastly superior in protection.

As for who uses them, of course the user will matter most.  Training is key importance as no vehicle is invulnerable. And from what I am hearing, it appears that Ukrainians are using their MBT's much like Russia used theirs in Chechnya. Not really ideal.

Vann7 wrote:

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

In a duel a T-90 will own your lovely NATO tank at 5km distance and it will also do better against
RPG-7 attacks.. so means better for urban warfare.. you are only victim of western propaganda..

What beloved NATO tank? When have I ever said I love NATO tanks? Stop being an idiot.


Nice way to evade btw.
Please don't waste my time in the future.

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

Well, in previous tests, T-90A was able to survive various RPG type rounds, more than T-80U.  I would figure that the T-90's are vastly superior in protection.

As for who uses them, of course the user will matter most.  Training is key importance as no vehicle is invulnerable.  And from what I am hearing, it appears that Ukrainians are using their MBT's much like Russia used theirs in Chechnya.  Not really ideal.

Those tests were of dubious quality, or rather the results were. That is why Fofanov removed them from his website. Also, that was T-90, not T-90A.

And they were fired on from the front, which is different from the kind of shots most tanks in Donbass have been subject to.

T-90 is certainly not vastly better than T-80U in terms of protection. T-80U was a monster for its time.

TR1 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:Point out where I said T-72s were deathtraps. Go. Let's see it.
The context matters, let's see if you can back up you claim.

Yes, the T-90 would not have done any better. It has largely similar protection post-penetration for the crew. And the way the Ukrainians used their tanks, the kind of artillery they were subject to, I don't think them having T-90s would have seen a COMPLETE reversal of fortunes. Corked up in the airport, on fire from all sides= burned out T-90s.

Well, in previous tests, T-90A was able to survive various RPG type rounds, more than T-80U.  I would figure that the T-90's are vastly superior in protection.

As for who uses them, of course the user will matter most.  Training is key importance as no vehicle is invulnerable.  And from what I am hearing, it appears that Ukrainians are using their MBT's much like Russia used theirs in Chechnya.  Not really ideal.

Those tests were of dubious quality, or rather the results were. That is why Fofanov removed them from his website. Also, that was T-90, not T-90A.

And they were fired on from the front, which is different from the kind of shots most tanks in Donbass have been subject to.

T-90 is certainly not vastly better than T-80U in terms of protection. T-80U was a monster for its time.

Well, the MoD must have viewed the T-90's to be something since they ordered them rather than T-72B upgrades back then.  Now with Armata around the corner, I suspect that no more T-90's.  But as well, India seems to be quite happy with their T-90S compared to the T-72's.  T-80U was a beast for its time, but apparently the T-90 in tests outdid it.  I would presume that the T-80 could have been equally upgraded like T-72B's were, but I guess standardizing the equipment mixed with the engines of T-80 being costly to operate, makes sense to remove it from service.

Edit: And when I said vastly superior, I was comparing it to the T-72B's. But yeah, obviously it was better than the T-80U's as well. But seeing as how a T-90 is a T-72B upgraded, I guess they can get to the same performance of the T-90's are without spending a fortune.