Russian special military operation in Ukraine #40

ZOKA Retweeted
@Pataramesh
Tap into the vast 100mm HE shell depot
Genius move in an artillery-dominated/trench war of attrition
Now add 1PN96MT thermal sight + maintain safe distance to the very front-line and you get a notable firepower increase
Oh yeah and add a prayer for the ammunition to work...

The vast 100mm HE shell depot is going to be pushing 60 y/o at this point. Shells don't last that long, correct me if I'm wrong.

There will have been ammo produced later on, but that's a different story.

Maybe North Korea produces that ammo
Or the Syrians

Whats accordingly? Mean words?

Erk wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the human impact of depleted uranium weapons debris.
For each person that claims x,y,z disease, there is one that will say they were exposed to it and nothing happened.

Very few research papers on it.

I think it's going to be political rather than scientific debate/response.

Thankfully we don't have to rely on 'consensus' when we can just analyze the evidence for ourselves.
And the evidence is overwhelming - tens if not hundreds of thousands of deformed births, stricken civilians and even their own troops populate the hospitals from diseases caused by exposure to DU.
No amount of obfuscation can refute that.

mnztr wrote:
Col. McGregor said he saw a video where a whole Ukrainian battalion was caught out in the open by artillery and wipe out. Has anyone seen this vid?

The Colonel has access to military intelligence sources most casual observers wouldn't have. You just have to take his word for it.

The Ukrainians are betting on some kind of miracle when it comes to holding onto Bakhmut it seems. Mercouris mentioned it. Forgot which one, but it was something entirely preposterous as I recall. Was it the promised counter-offensive, or maybe full-scale NATO intervention?

Really these fellas are outdoing the original Nazis when it comes to full-scale delusions and ever more absurd self-rationalizations about the promised victory, in reality just a bid to delay the inevitable by a smidgen longer and have more people killed in the process.

Couldn't read the whole thread, sorry if it's been already discussed: I am getting more and more convinced that there won't be any Russian offensive. There will be (maybe soon) an Ukranian one, the Russians will just wait and grind, only after it they will push forward west.
Not sure I can call it an offensive, it will be more almost like a walk in the park with no opposition.

When Kiev pronounces to the west that their spring offensive will have them regain all their lost territories including the Crimea then the Russians find themselves in the same position as the Soviets did just before the battle of Kursk, except with the balance of power rather more on their side with air control and artillery superiority and armour superiority in numbers.

This should be fairly one sided and Kiev seems to be throwing everything they have left into this so when it fails Bagration follows...

Or not.

Why is Russia downloading the T-55 when the production of the T-90M is really booming? Plus repairs to the T-72B.

I am surprised they haven't filmed a batch of icecream vans being moved somewhere so they can claim that Putin is getting desperate...

Guys, as we can see a lot of older tanks being brought back to service, what do you think will it be possible to do similar with old decommissioned warplanes like Mig-27s and Su-17s ?

not to forget about Mig-29s which is still useful bird.

The effort required to get those old single engined aircraft operational would not be worth it and their antiquated EW equipment and targeting systems just would not make financial sense... the MiG-29s could be given a quick and cheap SMT upgrade to make them useful enough, but what they really need is something cheap and simple and affordable.

In the 1990s MiG actually developed a straight winged ground attack aircraft that used the two engines used on Hip and Havoc and Hokum helicopters to drive two turboprop propellers that didn't go anywhere because of a lack of funding. They were intended to be cheap and simple aircraft that would be easy to keep operational in the field and use easy to get parts and engines and components and were intended to be a modular system that could be used for a range of light roles, but as I said they did not enter serial production.

The armoured model had 12 external hard points and was intended to use a targeting pod to keep the aircraft itself simple and cheap, while being able to perform most of the roles the Su-25 performs. The speed requirement was reduced to allow a cheaper design.

T55 will probably be updated to T62M standard which received sights, reactive armor, and other goodies

They were being moved on trains... who knows where they were going and why?

PS why can't I say c-u-n-t for Sunak?

You can... Sunak is a

I'm curious tho whether the "Bastion" missile for BMP-3 is compatible with the T-55's.

The same missile is used for four different calibres... three are 100mm calibres and one is 115mm calibre for the T-62.

The three 100mm calibres are for the BMP-3 with the tiny stub shell case of the 100mm rifled gun on the BMP-3, while the other two versions are for the 100mm rifled gun on the T-55/54 and also the smoothbore 100mm gun of the MT-12 towed 100mm smoothbore gun... all of which can fire missiles of the same type.

The T-55 is obsolete as a tank. The 100mm rifled gun it uses cannot penetrate a T-64 properly.

How many tanks does Kiev still have?

For a protected vehicle with better armour than a BMP with a main gun they have plenty of ammo for, that is a very simple vehicle to operate and use with a gun that hits with the power of a 100mm gun in a direct fire mode that is accurate and most targets would not notice the difference from 125mm calibre ammo it can do a job.

Put thermals on it and for hunting terrorist groups in rear areas it would be just fine.

Put some BDD armour and an APS system and some ERA and most western anti armour weapons would struggle to deal with it most of the time.

Is it really more advanced when you don't have the C5ISR capabilities to make it as effective?

Looking at how it is made and how it works will make dealing with it easier.

1. How do we know where these tanks are being taken?

If they are not good for anything then why bother keeping them in storage and why bother keeping ammo for them... send them to Syria where they could be useful.

Yet all the footage from the theatre presents a huge supply of ammo for D-10T derivatives, so lack of ammo or disturbing the logistic chain is the last concern. Used for AT guns, but those are just same.
Seems that both sides are vastly using those. From Russkie perspective, republican units are the most obvious end users.

The MT-12 100mm smoothbore AT gun and the 100mm rifled gun of the T-55 are not the same and the ammo is not compatible, but if they have plenty of either or both then it would make sense to adopt the guns they have plenty of ammo for and use it in this conflict.

Troops in buildings and trenches wont know the difference between 125mm and 100mm shells direct fired through windows and openings.

Both T-55 and BMP-3 are using the same GLATGM, and it is the same as used for T-62. Requires the same laser beam riding emitter.

The missile being launched is the same, but the shell case is different...

Here is the BMP-3 fired missile (with tiny stub propellent case of 100mm rifled gun on BMP-3):



While here is the same missiles with the 100mm rifled and 100mm smoothbore shell cases from the T-54/55 and MT-12 guns respectively, which are different and not compatible.



The missile not shown is the 115mm for the smoothbore gun of the T-62 which has a very long necked shell case and a sabot for the 100mm calibre missile.

How easily they put a rifled gun missile to smoothbore one is another story of genie of Soviet engineering.
Unmatched.

Not magic... none of the missiles engage the rifling on any of the guns that launch them... HEAT warheads do not benefit from spin stabilisation, which is why most are fin stabilised anyway.

If it's 100mm ammo, wouldn't the ammo used in BMP-3 work in the T-55 or no?

No.

The 100mm ammo is high velocity tank gun ammo, the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 is more like a grenade launcher with a heavy bomb shell with a tiny propellent stub case.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the human impact of depleted uranium weapons debris.

There is, but the makers of the ammo are working hard to suppress all criticism of it.

I have three shell casings for a 25mm cannon from a LAV-III and four links holding them together, but there is no way I would be allowed to have live AP rounds... US specialists had 25mm DU rounds confiscated from them when they returned to the west and they were treated like they tried to smuggle WMDs.

I would suspect any Bradleys the Orcs use will also use DU ammo because that is their standard AP ammo type...

Its hilariuous reading that its ok for russia to send T-55s because "bbbbbbbbut the ukraine does too". The ukraine shuldnt be an equal to russia. Will you excuse T-34s, T-70s, IS-2s or T-26s being sent, ifthey are sent?

Maybe they are going to the scrapyard... they clearly have no upgrades applied yet... there is no value in storing vehicles if you never intend to use them.

Perhaps they are being sent to be upgraded to go to Syria.

Lancet

https://vk.com/video-123538639_456297102