The Situation in the Ukraine. #10

Nikander wrote:
http://t.co/UdCyaGaIj6

Voentorg

Vann7 wrote:Any one with real knowledge i have 2 questions..

1)Can Ukraine produce and build 2S7 Pion artillery?  or theirs are only adquired after soviet collapse?

2)how about Toschka-U missiles ?
They have near 100 of them.. before the war.. wondering if they have the capabilities of mass produce them..?

"Moreover, the situation became much worse, and under conditions of full-scale hostilities in the South-East, the growing discontent of the population of Ukraine whose social benefits were cut, someone must be held responsible for it. The role of the "sacrificial lamb" was given to Petro Poroshenko".

According to available information, the structures close to Turchinov and Yatsenyuk, with direct support from the U.S. State Department are organizing "Narodnoye Veche" ("Popular Assembly"), which will gather at the initiative of the Council of Maidan. During the Assembly a vote of no confidence will be given to the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.

Oleg Tsarev:

"All this is confirmed by the fact that after the holidays on the initiative of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine an all-Ukrainian protest is planned in Kiev at the building of the Verkhovnaya Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

The organizers intend to remind the President and the government of Ukraine on the need to observe the pre-election promises to reform the socio-political and economic spheres, raising the standard of living of citizens in the country, and the like. The protesters will demand increased wages and compliance with the terms of collective agreements at industrial enterprises and institutions of Ukraine.

His interest in joining this protest was expressed by Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, who is trying to use it against Poroshenko. To this end, he instructed his supporters from the People's Front, using the capabilities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Avakov, to meet with leaders of trade unions and to agree on the future direction of the protest.

To counteract the intentions of the leadership of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine to picket the presidential administration, the Cabinet of Ministers and the Verkhovnaya Rada, the Minister of the Interior Avakov instructed to establish control over the activities of the heads of the Federation of trade unions, and, primarily, Chairman Drapyaty and his Deputy Saenkom, including, by visual surveillance and listening to phones.

Poroshenko was not smeared with the blood of Maidan, he did not participate in deciding to murder people so that Maidan would receive its sacrificial victims. During the Maidan he spent much more time in the administration of President Yanukovych, than on the square. In particular, he climbed on a tractor with an attempt to stop the coming protesters at the request of one of the most influential people close to Yanukovych.

Poroshenko turned out to be too independent, having, as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, many personal contacts abroad. He is not as obedient as the Western curators would like him to be. His peaceful rhetoric is caused by pragmatic interests. In the case of a military scenario the influence of the military battalions, coordinated by Avakov, Kolomoisky and others, will increase, which will contribute to the weakening of Poroshenko's power. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine will lose the war. As has happened before in history, the US can easily dump "the contractor". Let me remind you, war crimes have no statute of limitation. In addition, in Russia Poroshenko successfully operates a chocolate factory, which suggests that he has good connections in Moscow. All this can not please the Americans.

Whether the third Maidan will be successful, time will tell. In the meantime my friends from the Parliament are taking their families out of Ukraine in anticipation of disturbing events.

I know it's offtopic, but does not having full available load of ammo make tank less capable then say it's counterpart with full load? MBT are expected to provide fire and engage any target on battlefield. Having low ammo would onky work in low intensity warfare.
By the way had chance to speak with quite a few ex tankists on russian forums and they shrugged idea keeping all the ammo in AL.

Can you point to something that states the shield over the MZ had anything to do with protection, and not with auto-loader mechanics? I am not aware of it.

Clearly ammo load is considered more important than post-penetration safety in most scenarios.

As we discussed, when carrying full ammo load it makes no difference in either vehicle. When carrying ammo in just AZ or MZ, yes the T-72s is less vulnerable- but the difference is not massive. See T-80 and T-72 in Chechnya. Fron the front the turret is unlikely to be penetrated by RPGs in any case, so there AZ or MZ makes little difference. From the sides both are vulnerable as hell to hull hits.

That is a myth. Russian combat experience in Chechnya (in terms of armor) was analogous for both T-80 and T-72. The myth of ammo storage had nothing to do with T-80 being withdrawn.

Why could T-80s not do the same? If they stayed in theater.....they would have. And btw, far from all T-72 crews operated like this.

Yes, but we have one example of the Russian army using both types in combat (Chechnya). The Army and experience personell said the T-80 did about as well as the T-72. That is all we really have for comparison. In Donbass, T-64s have done poorly but they have been hit by all sorts of weaponry so making a good analysis will be hard for some time. T-72s have popped their turrets as well, in fact in large numbers out of all losses. So what does that say?

Obviously, and that applies to both T-64 and T-72 and T-80 now doesn't it? At the end of the day you have absolutely no scientific analysis for AZ auto-loaders being triggered significantly more in combat than analogous T-72 tanks.

Possible. Or it hits the autoloader and detonates the whole thing and kills the crew instantly. Everything is possible in the chaos of combat. Generally it takes some times yes. Taking only 22 rounds is a pretty crappy fact though.

They did. It was made in Ukraine, before the USSR collapsed, so was a non-option for Russia. Taking T-90 was cheaper and easier

A choice that had nothing to do with auto-loaders.

Regular wrote:Why Finland and Georgia is in blue? Afaik they didn't isolate Russia

Kimppis wrote:

Regular wrote:Why Finland and Georgia is in blue? Afaik they didn't isolate Russia

I think "we" voted against Mordor's (led by the devil Putler) evil annexation of Crimea.

And that is an excellent pic. It's interesting how the mainstream media potrays Russia's relations with countries outside the west here in Finland, or anywhere in the west for that matter. BRICS? What's that?

Vann7 wrote:Oh wow.. the next video will put an end to the controversy about the Airport.. just as
expected Kiev have been lying all the time.. to fool the ukies into entering the airport into
a suicide mission. hundreds of ukrainians died trying to capture the airport.. and some few surrender and they interviewed..  Amazing Report!!! by life news...





Zakharchenko interviews captive UAF soldiers on his presser 20/1/15




and here TSAREV claims there is information about a new coup happening in Kiev..
apparently sponsored again by USA.. to remove porosehnko from power..

Oleg Tsarev: Deputies are evacuating families ahead of the upcoming coup in Kiev

"Moreover, the situation became much worse, and under conditions of full-scale hostilities in the South-East, the growing discontent of the population of Ukraine whose social benefits were cut, someone must be held responsible for it. The role of the "sacrificial lamb" was given to Petro Poroshenko".

According to available information, the structures close to Turchinov and Yatsenyuk, with direct support from the U.S. State Department are organizing "Narodnoye Veche" ("Popular Assembly"), which will gather at the initiative of the Council of Maidan. During the Assembly a vote of no confidence will be given to the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.

Oleg Tsarev:

"All this is confirmed by the fact that after the holidays on the initiative of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine an all-Ukrainian protest is planned in Kiev at the building of the Verkhovnaya Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

The organizers intend to remind the President and the government of Ukraine on the need to observe the pre-election promises to reform the socio-political and economic spheres, raising the standard of living of citizens in the country, and the like. The protesters will demand increased wages and compliance with the terms of collective agreements at industrial enterprises and institutions of Ukraine.

His interest in joining this protest was expressed by Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, who is trying to use it against Poroshenko. To this end, he instructed his supporters from the People's Front, using the capabilities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Avakov, to meet with leaders of trade unions and to agree on the future direction of the protest.

To counteract the intentions of the leadership of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine to picket the presidential administration, the Cabinet of Ministers and the Verkhovnaya Rada, the Minister of the Interior Avakov instructed to establish control over the activities of the heads of the Federation of trade unions, and, primarily, Chairman Drapyaty and his Deputy Saenkom, including, by visual surveillance and listening to phones.

Poroshenko was not smeared with the blood of Maidan, he did not participate in deciding to murder people so that Maidan would receive its sacrificial victims. During the Maidan he spent much more time in the administration of President Yanukovych, than on the square. In particular, he climbed on a tractor with an attempt to stop the coming protesters at the request of one of the most influential people close to Yanukovych.

Poroshenko turned out to be too independent, having, as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, many personal contacts abroad. He is not as obedient as the Western curators would like him to be. His peaceful rhetoric is caused by pragmatic interests. In the case of a military scenario the influence of the military battalions, coordinated by Avakov, Kolomoisky and others, will increase, which will contribute to the weakening of Poroshenko's power. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine will lose the war. As has happened before in history, the US can easily dump "the contractor". Let me remind you, war crimes have no statute of limitation. In addition, in Russia Poroshenko successfully operates a chocolate factory, which suggests that he has good connections in Moscow. All this can not please the Americans.

Whether the third Maidan will be successful, time will tell. In the meantime my friends from the Parliament are taking their families out of Ukraine in anticipation of disturbing events.

http://fortruss.blogspot.se/2015/01/oleg-tsarev-deputies-are-evacuating.html

So there you see.. TR1's lovely USA is planning ANOTHER Coup in ukraine.. because Poroshenko
is too moderate and not as obedient and inconditional as anglozionist powers want him to be..

If that happens.. it will be a HUGE opportunity for the disbanding of Ukraine... for Kharkiv to split and Rebels finally take mariupol without a fight.. and ODessa to split too..
The major thing have me worried.. is The Criminal States of North America and its federal agencies could start false flags in Ukraine non stop ,blaming Russia. for it.. The major proble however is that if Poroshenko is removed ,the fanatics Right Sector will come to full power and will be ready to start a reign of terror in Ukraine.. much more than we have seen and with them of power , they for sure will attack Crimea to get Russia to invade ukraine... I have been saying this many times..  will repeat again..   Pay attention to Ukraine nuclear reactors... specially the ones closer to Donetsk.. and unexpected "accident". Later don't say you weren't told..  Anglozionist are so predictable.. that you can guess without much trouble what will next move will be.. they will not mind a false flag attack to blow up one of the nuclear reactors in Ukraine  to damage Donetsk territory and Crimea with radiation.

Is an economic war against Russia and Obama and its Republican senate will try to use Ukraine
as much as possible to slow Russia economy and split Russia from Europe.. So attacks on Crimea and Sochi to sabotage its tourism but also on nuclear reactors.. and or , attacks on Russia territory to force Russia to invade..  Russia needs to ironically try to avoid such coup against Poroshenko to happen.. because with Right Sector in full power it will be absolutely impossible for Russia to have ever any peace in their borders.

GarryB wrote:
Your argument is based on weak logic. An AK is very reliable... does that mean the dust cover on the rear receiver and the safety bar designed to fully enclose the mechanism and stop the entry of dirt and snow and ice was not intended to protect the mechanism from things dropped onto the rifle?

No, my argument is based on real world experience, not myths about blown up T-80s and supposedly spark vulnerable MZ autoloaders.

the plate on top of the autoloader is to stop material of all types falling into the mechanism... including the gunners and commanders feet and fingers.

the fact that it also stops hot fragments from easily coming into contact with highly flammable propellent stubs may or may not have been by design, but that is the advantage of designing something second... you can look at potential problems in the design and avoid them.

Right, we can safely assume it is safer. However what I am grinding at , is the difference is not nearly as drastic enough to make the claim that the T-64 is a deathtrap....while the T-72 is not. Let us summarize what I am saying ok? T-72 has a less vulnerable side carousel profile, though it can certainly still be hit. All of the tank types involved generally operate with full ammo capacity- I don't have exact breakdown of this for Chechnya 2.0 but I would bet my bank account there were no overwhelming majority of tanks with only carousel rounds loaded. If we only take carousel rounds however, while the T-72 is safer, I am questioning how much safer. There is no scientific analysis that takes into account most variables that shows the MZ is VASTLY more dangerous than the AZ in combat. The Russian armies Chechnya experience with T-80s and T-72s supports this. Donbass makes the T-64 look bad, but then again so does the T-72. Remember, I am allowing that carousel only T-72 is safer, I just don't think the difference is gigantic. And let's not forget one major point that you are leaving out- MZ has 28 round capacity in its carousel, the AZ only 22. That is a major advantage in a carousel only scenario (well, any scenario) for the T-64 and T-80. Rememeber, part of the Russian Army's choice of the 125mm 2A82 vs the 152mm 2A83 for Amrata is because of the former's ammunition load advantage. So clearly it is very important.

You already claimed the T-72 was no safer than other models because of experience in the Ukraine and georgia, now you say they ignored tactics developed to improve their safety... doesn't that negate the usefulness of the results?

No, I am saying the difference isn't gigantic. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a statistical difference, just not a huge one.

Sorry, lets not bring up American tanks... make that T-80Us.

Fuel consumption is an issue, no doubt about it. My point however was that going by pure performance, the T-90 never demonstrated its superiority over contemporary T-80U (which came before the T-90 by several years in any case). The Russian Army's choice of the cheaper and longer ranged vehicle may very well have been the right decision, but that is another story.

When fired at from the side even an Abrams is in trouble as its turret bustle is an easy target and the detonation of all that ammo would mean the crew would not survive.

No....the turret bustle blows off away from the crew compartment. Neither T-64/T-72 or their offshoots make such a design choice. These are old vehicles, no getting around it.
Also, the turret bustle isn't exactly an "easy target". From some angles yes it is a sore sport, but from those same angles the rear of a T-64/72 would be penetrated anyways and the crew likely screwed or ammo detonated. From sides the Abrams turret armor layout extends a "composite" array all the way down the turret side. The T-90A doesn't for example.....since it has a completely different turret geometry.

Ammo storage had everything to do with the T-80 being withdrawn... the low crew survival rate is the actual factor.

No it doesn't! I am not pulling this out of my ass, this is the consensus on the best Russian tank archive on the web, Otvaga. Head over there if you don't believe me. I also thought that myth about T-80 and MZ loader was true, well....apparently it is not. The withdrawal was because of fuel consumption. That is it. In terms of combat performance they performed about as well as T-72s given the tactics and situations they were employed in.

Even if they had the risk of penetration and hot fragments on combustable cardboard propellent stubs meant it would not make any difference whether they had 20 or 40 rounds on board except for the total energy of the explosion.

Well, what can I say. We can guess at that all day long, the combat result conclusions the Russian Army made were different. Hell, Russia used T-62s in Chechnya, so the T-80s withdrawal obviously had nothing to do with crew safety.

Sounds like you are already making conclusions when your own information says it is too early to make a conclusion...

I am making a conclusion available on the best possible info I have at my disposal from scrounging Russian forums.

I expect unless the final conclusion suits your position we will never hear it...  

No, I am flat out saying: if you have good scientific analysis of the respective tanks, their ammo loads, the type of hits they received in Donbass combat, by all means post it. I am going off available info, as in Chechnya...and the T-72s extensive combat history around the world.

We have gone over many times the arrangement of ammo in the T-64 and T-80 are flawed.

No, it is not "flawed". It was designed for a certain purpose and it has weaknesses. They were accpetae. You know they test these tanks out before acceptance right? Shoot them up, simulate ammo loads?
And once again, if you call the MZ flawed, then the AZ is at the very least "half-flawed"....since it is not invulnerable to being hit or sparked as a result of turret penetration.

If you can't accept that, then that is fine. Putin didn't design the T-72 BTW.

Putin has never desighned anything original, so no question there.

We have the fact that during the first chechen conflict several tanks were lost and in the second rather fewer were lost, where in the second conflict only autoloaders were loaded...

First of all, I am dubious that all or even most crews operated with only carousel loads. It has become accepted "history" but there is plenty of room for doubt. But, it is certainly possible.

Of course another factor would be the use of real ERA with explosive blocks fitted in the second conflict, but descriptions of multiple hits suggest better survivability too.

It was tactics + more competent personnel for the most part IMO.

Most tanks have to refuel and rearm during combat... it is not really that big a deal to only have 22 rounds of main gun ammo.

The Russian Army clearly disagrees, since it rejected 2A83 152mm gun on the ammo question. And it was supposed to have a standard ammo load in the low 20s....sounds similar.

I know about the T-80UD. Taking the T-72 would have been even cheaper and even easier.

The T-90 was initially essentially a T-72....it did not get anything fundamentally new (aside from sights to bring it up to T-80 parity) until the T-90A inherited Obj 187 features.

they tested the T-90 vs the T-80 and decided the T-90 was better.

NO THEY DID NOT. Show me these tests. There were no exhaustive tests that pitted the tanks against each other, and declared the T-90 was better. The T-90 was ordered because 1.) Fuel consumption 2.) cheaper 3.) UVZ lobbying. Not necessarily in that order. If you want my opinion on which is better, well, T-80U had clearly superior mobility, but at the expense of price and fuel consumption.

Hahaha... yes of course... they just picked the Russian tank... duh... and that is why you hate it so much.

What is that even supposed to mean? That is some Van7 level of argument. First of all, I am Russian. Second, the T-80 IS ALSO RUSSIAN. They picked UVZ over Omsk.

The strange thing is that they have picked the T-72 this time around over the T-90AM... most likely on cost grounds so it clearly must be a death trap....

The T-72B3 was supposed to be "as good as the T-90 or close" for 1/3rd the price, according to Serdykov. That turned out to be complete BS, and here we are today. And without the T-90AM the Russian army has not received a vehicle fundamentally better than the almost 30 year old T-80U, some modern thermals aside. Also a fact.

Poroshenko Says 9,000 Russian Troops in Ukraine, High-Tech Invisibility Cloaks Prevent Detection
Nearly 10,000 Russian troops are in Ukraine according to Ukraine's president, and yet there hasn't been a single reliable independent confirmation of this incredible claim.

Ukrainian chocolate sultan Petro Poroshenko told the World Economic Forum this [Wednesday] afternoon that there are currently 9,000 Russian troops in Ukraine, according to a breaking news report from Reuters.

Speaking in Switzerland, Poroshenko added that the sneaky Russian invaders were backed by a range of heavy weapons including tanks and artillery systems. Poroshenko provided no evidence to back up his claims: no photographs, satellite images, radio interceptions or even twitter messages.

"If this is not aggression, what is aggression?" Poroshenko asked the Forum attendees.

A baseless lie designed to garner sympathy with the international community? Or maybe Russia stole Harry Potter's invisibility cloak, stretched it out 10 km, and is marching an entire army under its invisible magic? Both hypotheses seem plausible.