***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]

7,679,191 Views | 47971 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by chickencoupe16
P.U.T.U
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to richardag • 12:46p, 2/5/24
AG
Here it is

I honestly never looked at the specs until now, yeah looks like a load of bull

Quote:
A team of Chinese scientists has concluded that a high-speed kinetic energy weapon can take out advanced armored vehicles, such as the US-operated M1 Abrams tank, in just one shot.
According to a South China Morning Post report, Huang Jie and fellow researchers at the China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center recently conducted simulations to determine the extent of damage of kinetic weapons.
They found that it is possible to neutralize heavily armored tanks in one shot without showing any external damage.
A 20-kilogram (44-pound) solid sphere traveling at over Mach 4 could generate kinetic energy of 25 megajoules or seven kilowatt-hours when converted to electrical energy.
Such power could cause severe internal damage to a tank while leaving its exterior intact and unscathed.
Reply Quote
2
richardag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:51p, 2/5/24
ABATTBQ11 & P.U.T.U.
Thanks for the replies, much appreciated.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Reply Quote
LMCane
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 1:33p, 2/5/24
no way are those new MBTs every month-

that would be 1200 main battle tanks built in a year

larger than the entire inventories of 90% of the countries on the planet.
Reply Quote
2
AgLA06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 1:39p, 2/5/24
AG
LMCane said:
no way are those new MBTs every month-

that would be 1200 main battle tanks built in a year

larger than the entire inventories of 90% of the countries on the planet.
It's amazing people buy that considering Russia has been cranking out T-90s since 2017 and only claims to have 270 (less than 50 a year). So they probably only have 150-200 operational and they've documented 100 destroyed in Ukraine. Allegedly they only received a little under 200 of that 270 order.

https://mil.in.ua/en/blogs/how-many-t-90m-tanks-did-russia-produced/

They probably claim to make 20 submarines a year too.

You don't dedicate line space to get T-55s operational (even as self propelled artillery) from junk storage if you're making an ungodly amount of new main battle tanks.

Edited: I missed where he said it comprised new and "rehauling of stockpiled units". My guess is most of their tanks entering service are stripping 10 tanks in junk / mothballed to get a working tank for the front lines.
Reply Quote
6
2 edits
aezmvp
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to P.U.T.U • 1:47p, 2/5/24
Okay but REALLY what isn't going to be taken out by a 44 lbs munition moving at Mach 4?
Reply Quote
9
USAFAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to P.U.T.U • 2:59p, 2/5/24
AG
Some thoughts:

References:

- Solid sphere warhead 4501 feet per second (Mach 4)

- Abrams 120mm w/ depleted uranium core 5167 feet per second (Mach 4.6)

- HESH/HEP warhead HE Squash Head Warhead

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The concept is nothing new and has already been employed in various forms for a long time (e.g. HESH/HEP - and while only effective against tanks without spaced armor or spall liners, the round is still favored for combat demolition purposes). The idea is to create spalling, thus creating a shrapnel/fragmentation effect in the inside of the vehicle's compartments without having to penetrate the armor.

This effect has been known ever since cannons/guns have been shooting at various surfaces (so, for a very long time). The improvements in armor elasticity, spalling protection, spaced armor etc. have necessitated a much higher velocity to try and get the same effect. The shock effect on electronics is also not a new effect and can happen with "regular" warhead hits that don't penetrate.

Seems more likely to disable a tank or crew rather than kill it. Not sure why that would be a preferred objective as its then possible for it to get back into action and I have doubts that a spherical round can effectively engage at the ranges a Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot Fin Stabilized (APFSDS) round can...otherwise we'd probably already be using it <shrug>




12thFan/Websider Since 2003
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:30p, 2/5/24
AG
Netherlands increase the number of F-16s it is donating.

JETS
Reply Quote
5
NoVAag91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLA06 • 9:27p, 2/5/24
AG
And even more amazing to consider that our B-52s are a late 1940s design and fielded in the 1950s.
Reply Quote
2
Waffledynamics
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:23p, 2/5/24
AG
Reply Quote
3
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aezmvp • 10:46a, 2/6/24
AG
aezmvp said:
Okay but REALLY what isn't going to be taken out by a 44 lbs munition moving at Mach 4?


No kidding. Took a team scientists to calculate the amount of raw energy needed to penetrate a static piece of armor…. This is literally physics 101 homework right here in a community college.

To the overall discussion of Russian vehicle losses, I fully believe that Russia from the tippity top are not thinking long term and simply don't care right now. With the premise that the losses, right now, are worth it for their immediate gains. Which I lend a fair amount of credence to, personally.

I don't think anyone can argue at this point that Putin, and the collective of yes men around him, are personally driving this war. Even the de-nazi'ing propaganda finally died aside from the staunchest low intelligence and gullible peasants. This is Putins war to gain assets for Russia and consequently cement his legacy as the modern Russian Czar to become legend in the coming centuries. I truly believe this to be the main driver of this conflict. That particular origin discussion aside though, Putin is absolutely looking to the immediate upcoming elections and like every politician to have ever existed, is scrambling to lock in a resounding "win" right before. And capturing another city blasted into oblivion that has been poking him in the eye, will do it for the majority of the people of Russia. Or at least he thinks that (granted, with a lot of precedent). So losing what is effectively an entire armies worth of armored vehicles once every month or so, is worth it if he can take a city or two more in the coming weeks. Like Adiivka.

All of this to say, no. Russia (on paper at least) should not be able to sustain this level of fighting for long. But also yes, if you look at it from just a few weeks/months of timeline. Which again, I think the Russians are largely doing right now.

Typical educated western minded logic trying to bend itself to Russian shenanigans is rough though. I wrestle with it constantly myself. "They should not be doing this!" As Russia does whatever it is they should not be doing over and over and over and over…. I have to CONSTANTLY remind myself when looking at this war that Russia is just straight up different than us in just about every geopolitical way possible. And that trying to rationalize motivations and decision making processes Russia undergoes from OUR perspective is often folly.
Reply Quote
14
Waffledynamics
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:51a, 2/6/24
AG
What air defense doing?

Reply Quote
9
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to P.U.T.U • 10:59a, 2/6/24
AG
P.U.T.U said:
Here it is

I honestly never looked at the specs until now, yeah looks like a load of bull

Quote:
A team of Chinese scientists has concluded that a high-speed kinetic energy weapon can take out advanced armored vehicles, such as the US-operated M1 Abrams tank, in just one shot.
According to a South China Morning Post report, Huang Jie and fellow researchers at the China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center recently conducted simulations to determine the extent of damage of kinetic weapons.
They found that it is possible to neutralize heavily armored tanks in one shot without showing any external damage.
A 20-kilogram (44-pound) solid sphere traveling at over Mach 4 could generate kinetic energy of 25 megajoules or seven kilowatt-hours when converted to electrical energy.
Such power could cause severe internal damage to a tank while leaving its exterior intact and unscathed.
I worked on the LOSAT program way back in the 90s. That was a hypersonic anti-tank missile that designed to overcome active armor of that time. It was based on using KE to do the damage.

It was an interesting concept that unfortunately got shelved. But, it was fun seeing tanks go boom. Would have hated to be inside a tank when it hit.
Reply Quote
1
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 11:12a, 2/6/24
AG
All of the armor/tanks employed by both/all sides are well understood in their basic layouts/armament/weaknesses, and I'm sure the CCP has all of the schematics of the first couple gen Abrams in good detail (as deployed in Ukraine).

Most anti-tank weapons are kinetic of course, not high explosive etc., going back at least as far as sabot round development in relatively modern times. The exception is basically mines that mostly are intended to cause damage from below/to tracks etc.

Some evolution of screens/reactive armor/active protection (as with the Israeli's more famously of late) is a little disruptive but large armor formations are generally not coming back any time soon. Shoot, communicate, and move out in small unit formations will likely continue to be much more dominant (with 'loyal wingman' anti-drone 'slave' drones likely controlled by armor commanders).
Reply Quote
2
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:58p, 2/6/24
AG
The Army's ramp up of 155mm ammunition production is proceeding apace but won't be able to reach the target rate of 100,000 shells a month without investment funding from a new Ukraine aid bill.

AMMO
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Waffledynamics • 1:00p, 2/6/24
AG
Guy laughing joyfully because his site wasn't the target?
Reply Quote
3
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:04p, 2/6/24
AG
Increasing speculation that Ukraine will also receive long-range strike missiles with its F-16s.

MISSILES
Reply Quote
3
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 1:06p, 2/6/24
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
Guy laughing joyfully because his site wasn't the target?
I think that was it. Happy to still be alive.
Reply Quote
2
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:13p, 2/6/24
AG
Ukraine busts Russian spy ring and other notes.

UPDATES
Reply Quote
2
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Waffledynamics • 1:38p, 2/6/24
AG
Waffledynamics said:
What air defense doing?

Are the Scalps just flying too low to be detected in time for a response? Or are they sending them down known "safe flight" corridors being used by orc aircraft? Or are they saving the S-400 missiles so be used against aircraft instead of single cruise missiles?
Reply Quote
1
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aezmvp • 1:40p, 2/6/24
AG
aezmvp said:
Okay but REALLY what isn't going to be taken out by a 44 lbs munition moving at Mach 4?
The trick for the Russians and Chinese is to get close enough to be able to accurately target an Abrams with a weapon system capable of sending a 44 pound warhead at Mach 4 without getting killed first. Figuring out the physics necessary to penetrate the armor is the easy PHYS 218 level problem. Actually hitting the tank with it is the hard part.
Reply Quote
1
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 1:45p, 2/6/24
AG
They are fairly low, which would limit the detection range. It's possible the battery was on the move for a periodic relocation and was not deployed and active at the time.
Reply Quote
1
2wealfth Man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 2:32p, 2/6/24
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
They are fairly low, which would limit the detection range. It's possible the battery was on the move for a periodic relocation and was not deployed and active at the time.
geolocate them sums-a-beetches……S-400 is a juicy target
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
AgLA06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 2wealfth Man • 2:37p, 2/6/24
AG
2wealfth Man said:
MouthBQ98 said:
They are fairly low, which would limit the detection range. It's possible the battery was on the move for a periodic relocation and was not deployed and active at the time.
geolocate them sums-a-beetches……S-400 is a juicy target
I imagine they can figure it fairly quickly (if still there) since it's on the known flight path.
Reply Quote
1
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 8:48p, 2/6/24
AG
txags92 said:
aezmvp said:
Okay but REALLY what isn't going to be taken out by a 44 lbs munition moving at Mach 4?
The trick for the Russians and Chinese is to get close enough to be able to accurately target an Abrams with a weapon system capable of sending a 44 pound warhead at Mach 4 without getting killed first. Figuring out the physics necessary to penetrate the armor is the easy PHYS 218 level problem. Actually hitting the tank with it is the hard part.
You're right.

The guidance system is the PhD level GNC guys job.
Reply Quote
1
Waffledynamics
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30a, 2/7/24
AG
LiveUAMap reported a fairly large missile attack last night, within the last 12 hours. Also interesting:

Quote:
Russian used North Korean Hvason 11GA(KN-23) missile today against Kharkiv


https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/7-february-russian-used-north-korean-hvason-11gakn23-missile
Reply Quote
2
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:37a, 2/7/24
AG
The fighting around Avdiivka reaches a critical point and other notes from the front.

Today's SITREP.
Reply Quote
1
Waffledynamics
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:48p, 2/7/24
AG


Modern war is insane. Dude can call from Avdiivka.
Reply Quote
1
Gilligan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 4:05p, 2/7/24
AG
txags92 said:
aezmvp said:
Okay but REALLY what isn't going to be taken out by a 44 lbs munition moving at Mach 4?
The trick for the Russians and Chinese is to get close enough to be able to accurately target an Abrams with a weapon system capable of sending a 44 pound warhead at Mach 4 without getting killed first. Figuring out the physics necessary to penetrate the armor is the easy PHYS 218 level problem. Actually hitting the tank with it is the hard part.
Time to break out the modern version of the Trebuchet!
Reply Quote
Waffledynamics
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28a, 2/8/24
AG
Quote:
Ukrainian military shot down Ka-52 helicopter with MANPADS at Avdiyivka direction
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-ukrainian-military-shot-down-ka52-helicopter-with
Reply Quote
5
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Waffledynamics • 9:36a, 2/8/24
AG
There's not much left to fight over but rubble. The defense was strategic, to bleed Russia until the defense was untenable, then withdraw to more defensible positions. Losing the territory will be a bit demoralizing but it is tactically and strategically necessary at some point. Shorter lines are easier to defend.
Reply Quote
2
LMCane
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 9:47a, 2/8/24
MouthBQ98 said:
There's not much left to fight over but rubble. The defense was strategic, to bleed Russia until the defense was untenable, then withdraw to more defensible positions. Losing the territory will be a bit demoralizing but it is tactically and strategically necessary at some point. Shorter lines are easier to defend.
I'm on the side of the Ukes but that is rationalization

as many of us here were positing last spring, it would have been better for the Ukes to husband and train up all that new NATO armor to use as a reaction force

rather than see it all blown to bits in Zaporizhe Oblast.
Reply Quote
1
2wealfth Man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 9:54a, 2/8/24
AG
maybe they are learning some things. Bleed them dry wherever they push next.
Reply Quote
1
Waffledynamics
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:56a, 2/8/24
AG
Quote:
President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:
President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
Reply Quote
2
ttu_85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Waffledynamics • 10:59a, 2/8/24
Waffledynamics said:
Quote:
President Zelensky has appointed colonel-general Oleksandr Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-has-appointed-colonelgeneral

Quote:
President Zelensky met with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, proposed him to continue to work in the team after the change of command
https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/8-february-president-zelensky-met-with-commanderinchief-of
I just hope this isn't a Johnston to Hood historical moment. See battle of Atlanta
Reply Quote
1
74OA
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:18a, 2/8/24
AG
Russia attacking Avdiivka en masse and other notes.

UPDATES
Reply Quote
1
First Page Last Page
Page 1260 of 1371 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.