Russian special military operation in Ukraine #31

caveat emptor wrote:

JohninMK wrote:
The figures are crap, just look at them.

Gray circles represent actual inventories. This guy is probably trying to suggest that they can get much more, which is a wishful thinking. Blue circles represent what was sent. 

Latest US package:
The new package of US military military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of $400 million contains 250 M1117 armored personnel carriers, 40 armored boats, 1.1 thousand Phoenix Ghost drones, MIM-23 Hawk air defense systems and 45 T-72 tanks bought from the Czech Republic - Pentagon.

 @milinfolive

limb wrote:The ukrainians repaired and put their captured T-90M in service. It was left most likely by a guards division, and it shows that there was no sabotage

Is there a doctrinal reason that when russians abandon a tank, they don't sabotage it or scuttle it any any way, shape or form? I wonder if the russian army discussed giving russian tankers some explosives to just set inside.  Does it even go through their mind that they should throw a grenade inside(Russian tankers have always been given grenades AFAIK) or light a fire? Even if the ukrainians are in hot pursuit it would only take a few seconds. Also if a tank is isolated, its the fault of commander of the unit by extension for not having proper supply and scuttling means.

Were the crewmen given this tank too stupid or too cowardly to be tankers? This kind of reminds me of T-90A tanks being given to random syrian NDF militias, rather than elite units like the tiger forces(which only use T-55s) who due to stupidity abandoned one or two.

This connects to how Lapin's group, using unupgraded T-72Bs and BMP-1s abandoned less vehicles  than the 4th and 1st tank armies around kharkov. yet Lapin was criticized sharply , and O group only now is modern kit en masse.

A russian commenter mentioned if a guards unit abandons above a certain number of vehicles in working order, they should have their guards title removed. These units cant be riding off of the prestige of their members 80 years ago. Im inclined to agree.

https://t.me/historywarweaponmain/66967

Big_Gazza wrote:Lancets may not have a large warhead, but you can clearly see the jet from the shaped charge penetrating the FULL LENGTH of the vehicles they hit and emerging from the rear to strike the ground behind. The jet clearly sets the interior on fire as a consequence.

Hole wrote:

ucmvulcan wrote:Be better to have US weapons captured in Ukraine supplied to the Haitians by Russia.

Do you want the Haitians to loose? 

flamming_python wrote:
There is no reason other than a lack of training and instructions about doing so. It's not hard to disable a tank when you have access to the ammo or fuel compartment. A long cloth soaked in a little diesel at a minimum together with a lighter. Or even better a small timed explosive charge can be supplied to crews who could plant it next to the propellant on their way out

flamming_python wrote:
This is a serious oversight. Thanks to which NATO has all the information about the T-90M and T-80BVM, T-72B3M that it could ever want. And can use their technology in their own designs for reactive armour, ATGMs, etc..
The only thing worse would be if they got their hands on a T-14 armed with the Afghanit APS.

lancelot wrote:
Depending on the model the Lancet has either a 3 kg or a 5 kg warhead. For reference the Metis missile had a 2.5 kg warhead with a HEAT round with 460mm armor penetration. The Kornet missile has a 4.6 kg warhead with a tandem HEAT round with over 1000 mm armor penetration. The larger Lancet should be able to penetrate any tank from any direction.