Blyatskrieg

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:54 pm

Le Figaro is reporting that France is giving "accelerated training" to 30 Ukrainian pilots on Mirage 2000s

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/l ... lefigarov3
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Martin Y
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin Y » Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:00 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:27 pm
There's a problem with specific weapon bans - it gives a military advantage to the people that just ignore them. In a conflict between somebody that follows international treaties and someone that ignores them, it's more common for former to be the more ethical side, and thus the side we want to win, but when they follow the treaty and their adversary ignores it, it puts them at a disadvantage, and gives an advantage to the side that ignores the laws and customs of war - more likely to be the less ethical side overall.

...
Granted, the advantage handed away by not matching a class of weapon the other guy feels free to use would be dangerous but, as with poison gas in WW2 or WMD right now, you can have the means but still stick to no first use. I don't believe it's foreseeable that DU rounds will have a ban on production or stockpiling agreed, but a treaty on no first use might happen eventually.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bjn » Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:19 am

Oryx has pics and videos of T-54/55s on trains being shipped to Ukrainian. These are tanks that first went into service in 1948!!!! 75 years ago!!!!. That’s like fielding a 1917 Mark I tank in the first Gulf War. The USSR built of 60,000 of them, but only the FSM only knows how many are in storage that still vaguely work. That’s madness.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am

bjn wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:19 am
Oryx has pics and videos of T-54/55s on trains being shipped to Ukrainian. These are tanks that first went into service in 1948!!!! 75 years ago!!!!. That’s like fielding a 1917 Mark I tank in the first Gulf War. The USSR built of 60,000 of them, but only the FSM only knows how many are in storage that still vaguely work. That’s madness.
I mentioned that upthread, but it got drowned in flapping about DU rounds. Heavily derived from the T-34M, the development of which was put on hold due to the small issue of the Nazis invading the Soviet Union. It's a big step back from T-62s, in turn a big step back from T-72s and T-80s. Don't expect them to show up in their current condition, they were heading for reconditioning, but if you are going to the effort of putting effort of putting thermal imagers and reactive armour on T-54s, it really does show how much you are short of better hulls more worthy of the effort. It's not that T-55s can't be heavily modernised - Ukraine's received a couple of dozen such tanks from Slovenia - but to get them up to scratch, they needed completely new powertrain, optics, armour package and a new main gun.

As for the discourse on DU, my view is that if there is a situation where "our" tanks need to defeat heavy armour, I'd much rather they had effective ammunition, and DU and tungsten alloy both have the same issues with toxicity. I realise that sounds bad, and, well, war is bad. There's no "one neat trick" to make war not hellish. The answer is to not have a war, but unfortunately that's not solely our decision. So long as the likes of Putin and his Russia exist, I'm happier with our tanks having DU rounds than not. Another way to view it would be like worrying about the lead content in bullets. That's actually a real concern, and copper's replacing lead in the USA's arsenal, but when you are hit by gunfire, lead poisoning's not your big concern. Likewise if you are in a vehicle that's been penetrated by a DU round - that's when you'll encounter the pyrophoric dust - your big concern is being in a cramped metal box into which, at velocities of Mach 4 or greater, are flying bits of the penetrator dart and all the armour it had to push out of the way. In addition, you're in there with a whole bunch of fuel and explosives, which will generally respond to these hot fragments - the friction of armour penetration alone is enough to make them glowing hot regardless of the pyrophoric effect - by exploding with enough force to send many tonnes of turret flying into the air. I remember someone asking about a week into the full scale invasion why there's never any sign of the crew in these tanks where the turrets have been thrown off, and it rather stuck with me. DU isn't the main problem, war is, avoiding it should be a priority, but to avoid it, one often needs to deter or directly thwart those seeking it.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:10 am

jimbob wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:54 pm
Le Figaro is reporting that France is giving "accelerated training" to 30 Ukrainian pilots on Mirage 2000s

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/l ... lefigarov3
Which Ukrainian sources appear to be denying. I think I mentioned this one earlier, too. It's not the first report on it. Could be that its simulator training, like the attempts with A-10s previously reported, I've seen some suggestions it's about allowing France to sell the Mirages to Ukraine quicker at some point in the future. f.ck knows, really.

Mirage 2000s would be a great option for Ukraine, though. Depending on the version, they can also carry Storm Shadow and other really useful long range munitions.

Imrael
Snowbonk
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Imrael » Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:49 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am


I mentioned that upthread, but it got drowned in flapping about DU rounds. Heavily derived from the T-34M, the development of which was put on hold due to the small issue of the Nazis invading the Soviet Union. It's a big step back from T-62s, in turn a big step back from T-72s and T-80s. Don't expect them to show up in their current condition, they were heading for reconditioning, but if you are going to the effort of putting effort of putting thermal imagers and reactive armour on T-54s, it really does show how much you are short of better hulls more worthy of the effort. It's not that T-55s can't be heavily modernised - Ukraine's received a couple of dozen such tanks from Slovenia - but to get them up to scratch, they needed completely new powertrain, optics, armour package and a new main gun.

......
Casually wikki-ing about upgraded T54/55's found me the Ramses II - T54's upgraded by Teledyne of the US for Egyptian service. The upgrade was pretty extensive though - new turret and gun, armour, stretched hull for engine change. Not sure how much was actually left.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:05 am

Imrael wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:49 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am


I mentioned that upthread, but it got drowned in flapping about DU rounds. Heavily derived from the T-34M, the development of which was put on hold due to the small issue of the Nazis invading the Soviet Union. It's a big step back from T-62s, in turn a big step back from T-72s and T-80s. Don't expect them to show up in their current condition, they were heading for reconditioning, but if you are going to the effort of putting effort of putting thermal imagers and reactive armour on T-54s, it really does show how much you are short of better hulls more worthy of the effort. It's not that T-55s can't be heavily modernised - Ukraine's received a couple of dozen such tanks from Slovenia - but to get them up to scratch, they needed completely new powertrain, optics, armour package and a new main gun.

......
Casually wikki-ing about upgraded T54/55's found me the Ramses II - T54's upgraded by Teledyne of the US for Egyptian service. The upgrade was pretty extensive though - new turret and gun, armour, stretched hull for engine change. Not sure how much was actually left.
That's the kind of work that was done to create the M-55S. I don't think any hull stretching was involved, and the engine is a little less powerful than the one fitted to the Ramses II, but then speed is more critical in desert warfare. The end result is actually a vehicle that, aside from being cramped, is pretty similar to the sort of thing the US were after with their new "light" infantry support tank project, but a good ten tonnes lighter. It's not a bad vehicle if one doesn't consider it to be a main battle tank, but instead an assault gun, or, to revive an even older term, an infantry tank.

Fundamentally, though, there are very few scenarios where given a choice between putting the work in to upgrade a T-72 and putting the work in to upgrade a T-55, you'd choose the T-55. It's possible they are planning to try and dig them in as bunkers, but it's more likely they are just running short on hulls to modernise. That doesn't mean they'll run out of tanks that soon, but visually verified losses on the Russian side are up to one thousand eight hundred and seventy one, which would suggest real losses upward of two thousand three hundred.

As for their combat effectiveness, any armoured vehicle with armour you can't penetrate is a nightmare. I've seen footage of M113s - armoured personnel carriers with aluminium armour that is tissue-thin by the standards of AFVs - tearing up Russian positions at close range with machine gun fire as the Russians evidently had no anti-armour weapons available to them in that position. The T-55 will struggle, though, as without upgrade to their armour, any shoulder fired anti-armour weapon in service today, including the ubiquitous and venerable RPG-7, can defeat it on any facing. Against tanks armoured vehicles, they proved vulnerable to autocannon in the Gulf War, where they made up a significant proportion of Iraqi tank losses, and also things like HESH rounds used by Challenger 2s (and potentially Leopard 1s). It's quite likely they'll cover the things in Kontakt-1 reactive armour, which would given them a chance against older HEAT warheads, but still leave them vulnerable against any more modern warheads designed to defeat reactive armour and vulnerable to any Kinetic Energy Penetrator fired by any tank in Ukrainian service.

Imrael
Snowbonk
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Imrael » Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:18 am

I think the Israelis did some APC/AFV conversions? And of course recovery and engineering vehicle conversions are a fairly routine fate for pensioned-off tank hulls.

If I have a point with this, its that we've seen a small sample and there could be all sorts of reasons. Even range targets for improved Manpad development (or just improved training, which is also definitely a Russian shortfall). The idea that they are headed for battle as tanks is far from proven.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:52 am

Imrael wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:18 am
I think the Israelis did some APC/AFV conversions? And of course recovery and engineering vehicle conversions are a fairly routine fate for pensioned-off tank hulls.
They did, creating the Achzarit, and they did similar with Centurions to create the Nagmashot. The Israeli situation is very specific, though. They needed a vehicle to offer extremely good protection, but not strategic mobility as they had no plans on using them for expeditionary warfare, a situation that we also see reflected in the more modern Merkava derived Namer. As for engineering and recovery vehicles, that's what the Ukrainians are doing with captured T-62s.
If I have a point with this, its that we've seen a small sample and there could be all sorts of reasons. Even range targets for improved Manpad development (or just improved training, which is also definitely a Russian shortfall). The idea that they are headed for battle as tanks is far from proven.
Indeed. They might also end up serving as training vehicles for T-62s, as they have similar crew positions. That would be the most sensible thing to do, but Russian decisions have not always been the most sensible. We had this kind of discussion when they re-activated T-62s, as well, and not only have they been used as combat tanks a fair bit, supposedly elite formations are reportedly currently reforming on them to replace their lost 72s/80s.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:44 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am

As for the discourse on DU, my view is that if there is a situation where "our" tanks need to defeat heavy armour, I'd much rather they had effective ammunition, and DU and tungsten alloy both have the same issues with toxicity. I realise that sounds bad, and, well, war is bad. There's no "one neat trick" to make war not hellish. The answer is to not have a war, but unfortunately that's not solely our decision. So long as the likes of Putin and his Russia exist, I'm happier with our tanks having DU rounds than not. Another way to view it would be like worrying about the lead content in bullets. That's actually a real concern, and copper's replacing lead in the USA's arsenal, but when you are hit by gunfire, lead poisoning's not your big concern. Likewise if you are in a vehicle that's been penetrated by a DU round - that's when you'll encounter the pyrophoric dust - your big concern is being in a cramped metal box into which, at velocities of Mach 4 or greater, are flying bits of the penetrator dart and all the armour it had to push out of the way. In addition, you're in there with a whole bunch of fuel and explosives, which will generally respond to these hot fragments - the friction of armour penetration alone is enough to make them glowing hot regardless of the pyrophoric effect - by exploding with enough force to send many tonnes of turret flying into the air. I remember someone asking about a week into the full scale invasion why there's never any sign of the crew in these tanks where the turrets have been thrown off, and it rather stuck with me. DU isn't the main problem, war is, avoiding it should be a priority, but to avoid it, one often needs to deter or directly thwart those seeking it.
Yes, the main concerns about DU, or lead for that matter, aren't to do with the people being shot at, but the potential harm to others, especially civilians. There is a risk as vehicles may be entered by people searching for parts, trophies or scrap metal, or just out of interest, and they could breathe in dust or even ingest it (eg if they don't wash their hands).

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8241
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by shpalman » Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:55 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:44 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am

As for the discourse on DU, my view is that if there is a situation where "our" tanks need to defeat heavy armour, I'd much rather they had effective ammunition, and DU and tungsten alloy both have the same issues with toxicity. I realise that sounds bad, and, well, war is bad. There's no "one neat trick" to make war not hellish. The answer is to not have a war, but unfortunately that's not solely our decision. So long as the likes of Putin and his Russia exist, I'm happier with our tanks having DU rounds than not. Another way to view it would be like worrying about the lead content in bullets. That's actually a real concern, and copper's replacing lead in the USA's arsenal, but when you are hit by gunfire, lead poisoning's not your big concern. Likewise if you are in a vehicle that's been penetrated by a DU round - that's when you'll encounter the pyrophoric dust - your big concern is being in a cramped metal box into which, at velocities of Mach 4 or greater, are flying bits of the penetrator dart and all the armour it had to push out of the way. In addition, you're in there with a whole bunch of fuel and explosives, which will generally respond to these hot fragments - the friction of armour penetration alone is enough to make them glowing hot regardless of the pyrophoric effect - by exploding with enough force to send many tonnes of turret flying into the air. I remember someone asking about a week into the full scale invasion why there's never any sign of the crew in these tanks where the turrets have been thrown off, and it rather stuck with me. DU isn't the main problem, war is, avoiding it should be a priority, but to avoid it, one often needs to deter or directly thwart those seeking it.
Yes, the main concerns about DU, or lead for that matter, aren't to do with the people being shot at, but the potential harm to others, especially civilians. There is a risk as vehicles may be entered by people searching for parts, trophies or scrap metal, or just out of interest, and they could breathe in dust or even ingest it (eg if they don't wash their hands).
Which would be bad because it's toxic.

Earlier I saw someone on facebook post something like "let's not complain if we get as far as the atomic bomb. To support Ukraine, England will send depleted uranium bombs. I really live in a continent full of imbeciles."

Imbeciles who don't understand what depleted uranium actually is then.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Mar 23, 2023 2:07 pm

shpalman wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:55 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:44 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am

As for the discourse on DU, my view is that if there is a situation where "our" tanks need to defeat heavy armour, I'd much rather they had effective ammunition, and DU and tungsten alloy both have the same issues with toxicity. I realise that sounds bad, and, well, war is bad. There's no "one neat trick" to make war not hellish. The answer is to not have a war, but unfortunately that's not solely our decision. So long as the likes of Putin and his Russia exist, I'm happier with our tanks having DU rounds than not. Another way to view it would be like worrying about the lead content in bullets. That's actually a real concern, and copper's replacing lead in the USA's arsenal, but when you are hit by gunfire, lead poisoning's not your big concern. Likewise if you are in a vehicle that's been penetrated by a DU round - that's when you'll encounter the pyrophoric dust - your big concern is being in a cramped metal box into which, at velocities of Mach 4 or greater, are flying bits of the penetrator dart and all the armour it had to push out of the way. In addition, you're in there with a whole bunch of fuel and explosives, which will generally respond to these hot fragments - the friction of armour penetration alone is enough to make them glowing hot regardless of the pyrophoric effect - by exploding with enough force to send many tonnes of turret flying into the air. I remember someone asking about a week into the full scale invasion why there's never any sign of the crew in these tanks where the turrets have been thrown off, and it rather stuck with me. DU isn't the main problem, war is, avoiding it should be a priority, but to avoid it, one often needs to deter or directly thwart those seeking it.
Yes, the main concerns about DU, or lead for that matter, aren't to do with the people being shot at, but the potential harm to others, especially civilians. There is a risk as vehicles may be entered by people searching for parts, trophies or scrap metal, or just out of interest, and they could breathe in dust or even ingest it (eg if they don't wash their hands).
Which would be bad because it's toxic.

Earlier I saw someone on facebook post something like "let's not complain if we get as far as the atomic bomb. To support Ukraine, England will send depleted uranium bombs. I really live in a continent full of imbeciles."

Imbeciles who don't understand what depleted uranium actually is then.
Yes, there's nothing like someone reveling their own ignorance while trying to criticize others.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:30 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am
bjn wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:19 am
Oryx has pics and videos of T-54/55s on trains being shipped to Ukrainian. These are tanks that first went into service in 1948!!!! 75 years ago!!!!. That’s like fielding a 1917 Mark I tank in the first Gulf War. The USSR built of 60,000 of them, but only the FSM only knows how many are in storage that still vaguely work. That’s madness.
I mentioned that upthread, but it got drowned in flapping about DU rounds. Heavily derived from the T-34M, the development of which was put on hold due to the small issue of the Nazis invading the Soviet Union. It's a big step back from T-62s, in turn a big step back from T-72s and T-80s. Don't expect them to show up in their current condition, they were heading for reconditioning, but if you are going to the effort of putting effort of putting thermal imagers and reactive armour on T-54s, it really does show how much you are short of better hulls more worthy of the effort. It's not that T-55s can't be heavily modernised - Ukraine's received a couple of dozen such tanks from Slovenia - but to get them up to scratch, they needed completely new powertrain, optics, armour package and a new main gun.

As for the discourse on DU, my view is that if there is a situation where "our" tanks need to defeat heavy armour, I'd much rather they had effective ammunition, and DU and tungsten alloy both have the same issues with toxicity. I realise that sounds bad, and, well, war is bad. There's no "one neat trick" to make war not hellish. The answer is to not have a war, but unfortunately that's not solely our decision. So long as the likes of Putin and his Russia exist, I'm happier with our tanks having DU rounds than not. Another way to view it would be like worrying about the lead content in bullets. That's actually a real concern, and copper's replacing lead in the USA's arsenal, but when you are hit by gunfire, lead poisoning's not your big concern. Likewise if you are in a vehicle that's been penetrated by a DU round - that's when you'll encounter the pyrophoric dust - your big concern is being in a cramped metal box into which, at velocities of Mach 4 or greater, are flying bits of the penetrator dart and all the armour it had to push out of the way. In addition, you're in there with a whole bunch of fuel and explosives, which will generally respond to these hot fragments - the friction of armour penetration alone is enough to make them glowing hot regardless of the pyrophoric effect - by exploding with enough force to send many tonnes of turret flying into the air. I remember someone asking about a week into the full scale invasion why there's never any sign of the crew in these tanks where the turrets have been thrown off, and it rather stuck with me. DU isn't the main problem, war is, avoiding it should be a priority, but to avoid it, one often needs to deter or directly thwart those seeking it.
If you want to see an hilariously bad take on this.

Chuck Pfarrer saw footage of parade T34s and drew the wrong conclusion*

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status ... 85346?s=20


*Which is a bit of a common theme
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:07 pm

jimbob wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:30 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:36 am
bjn wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:19 am
Oryx has pics and videos of T-54/55s on trains being shipped to Ukrainian. These are tanks that first went into service in 1948!!!! 75 years ago!!!!. That’s like fielding a 1917 Mark I tank in the first Gulf War. The USSR built of 60,000 of them, but only the FSM only knows how many are in storage that still vaguely work. That’s madness.
I mentioned that upthread, but it got drowned in flapping about DU rounds. Heavily derived from the T-34M, the development of which was put on hold due to the small issue of the Nazis invading the Soviet Union. It's a big step back from T-62s, in turn a big step back from T-72s and T-80s. Don't expect them to show up in their current condition, they were heading for reconditioning, but if you are going to the effort of putting effort of putting thermal imagers and reactive armour on T-54s, it really does show how much you are short of better hulls more worthy of the effort. It's not that T-55s can't be heavily modernised - Ukraine's received a couple of dozen such tanks from Slovenia - but to get them up to scratch, they needed completely new powertrain, optics, armour package and a new main gun.

As for the discourse on DU, my view is that if there is a situation where "our" tanks need to defeat heavy armour, I'd much rather they had effective ammunition, and DU and tungsten alloy both have the same issues with toxicity. I realise that sounds bad, and, well, war is bad. There's no "one neat trick" to make war not hellish. The answer is to not have a war, but unfortunately that's not solely our decision. So long as the likes of Putin and his Russia exist, I'm happier with our tanks having DU rounds than not. Another way to view it would be like worrying about the lead content in bullets. That's actually a real concern, and copper's replacing lead in the USA's arsenal, but when you are hit by gunfire, lead poisoning's not your big concern. Likewise if you are in a vehicle that's been penetrated by a DU round - that's when you'll encounter the pyrophoric dust - your big concern is being in a cramped metal box into which, at velocities of Mach 4 or greater, are flying bits of the penetrator dart and all the armour it had to push out of the way. In addition, you're in there with a whole bunch of fuel and explosives, which will generally respond to these hot fragments - the friction of armour penetration alone is enough to make them glowing hot regardless of the pyrophoric effect - by exploding with enough force to send many tonnes of turret flying into the air. I remember someone asking about a week into the full scale invasion why there's never any sign of the crew in these tanks where the turrets have been thrown off, and it rather stuck with me. DU isn't the main problem, war is, avoiding it should be a priority, but to avoid it, one often needs to deter or directly thwart those seeking it.
If you want to see an hilariously bad take on this.

Chuck Pfarrer saw footage of parade T34s and drew the wrong conclusion*

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status ... 85346?s=20


*Which is a bit of a common theme
We can be fairly confident we'll see no T-34s* in action as Russia bought those parade T-34s back from someone they'd exported them to in order to have parades, something they probably wouldn't have done if they had running ones of their own. The T-54 won't be the oldest tank captured in the war as a whole, though - Russians and/or their catspaws got a plinthed IS-3 running back in 2014, which was subsequently captured by the Ukrainians near Kramatorsk. And IS-3 is probably the oldest tank that would be viable in this conflict as it uses ammunition in common with some of the howitzers used by both sides, though it's unlikely any non-plinthed ones are left in Russia or Ukraine.

T-34s are still in service in Vietnam on island garrisons, as, while they are dreadfully antiquated, they can be left long periods without maintenance or even battery charging and still be started and can still penetrate the armour of any invading Chinese amphibious vehicle.


*aside from perhaps local attempts to get a plinthed one moving again - they are remarkably resilient and don't rely on electric starters.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Mar 25, 2023 3:44 pm

Per Volyamedia, the T-54/T-55 issue relates to ease of reactivation, as the only thing that really degrades on them is rubber seals. Allegedly the plan is to use them to buy time to reactivate T-72s and T-80s and to build T-90s, but if they can't get the components at the moment, something will change before that becomes viable.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:11 am

More supply chain problems:

One of Europe’s largest manufacturers of ammunition is facing a roadblock to the planned expansion of its largest factory because a new data centre for TikTok is using up all the spare electricity in the area.

Nammo, which is co-owned by the Norwegian government and a Finnish state-controlled defence company, has been told there is no surplus energy for its Raufoss plant in central Norway as a data centre that counts the social media platform as its main customer is using up the electricity in the region.

“We are concerned because we see our future growth is challenged by the storage of cat videos,” Morten Brandtzæg, Nammo chief executive, told the Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/f85aa254-d45 ... 1171971ab0

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:18 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:11 am
More supply chain problems:

One of Europe’s largest manufacturers of ammunition is facing a roadblock to the planned expansion of its largest factory because a new data centre for TikTok is using up all the spare electricity in the area.

Nammo, which is co-owned by the Norwegian government and a Finnish state-controlled defence company, has been told there is no surplus energy for its Raufoss plant in central Norway as a data centre that counts the social media platform as its main customer is using up the electricity in the region.

“We are concerned because we see our future growth is challenged by the storage of cat videos,” Morten Brandtzæg, Nammo chief executive, told the Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/f85aa254-d45 ... 1171971ab0
Shutting down the dodgy PRC malware and upping ammo production would be a win-win, frankly.

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4746
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Grumble » Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:57 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:11 am
More supply chain problems:

One of Europe’s largest manufacturers of ammunition is facing a roadblock to the planned expansion of its largest factory because a new data centre for TikTok is using up all the spare electricity in the area.

Nammo, which is co-owned by the Norwegian government and a Finnish state-controlled defence company, has been told there is no surplus energy for its Raufoss plant in central Norway as a data centre that counts the social media platform as its main customer is using up the electricity in the region.

“We are concerned because we see our future growth is challenged by the storage of cat videos,” Morten Brandtzæg, Nammo chief executive, told the Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/f85aa254-d45 ... 1171971ab0
That can’t be a fundamental problem, just a delay while they get a new supply put in.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
Martin Y
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin Y » Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:47 am

We knew TikTok was a security threat, we just failed to spot how it was going to work.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by IvanV » Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:25 am

Grumble wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:57 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:11 am
More supply chain problems:

One of Europe’s largest manufacturers of ammunition is facing a roadblock to the planned expansion of its largest factory because a new data centre for TikTok is using up all the spare electricity in the area.

Nammo, which is co-owned by the Norwegian government and a Finnish state-controlled defence company, has been told there is no surplus energy for its Raufoss plant in central Norway as a data centre that counts the social media platform as its main customer is using up the electricity in the region.

“We are concerned because we see our future growth is challenged by the storage of cat videos,” Morten Brandtzæg, Nammo chief executive, told the Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/f85aa254-d45 ... 1171971ab0
That can’t be a fundamental problem, just a delay while they get a new supply put in.
Being scantily populated and mountainous, there are plenty of locations in Norway with local supply constraints that can be potentially costly to relieve, for all that Norway as a whole has a lot of electricity. Notoriously, there are locations where energy intensive industries have located close to major hydro stations, where hydro station and factory are essentially co-dependent, as there is not a large cable from there over the mountains to the main network.

Raufoss is a village about 100km N of Oslo, up a side-turn about 10km from the next town. I can't believe it is particularly expensive or difficult to relieve a supply constraint there. That there was spare capacity there for the data centre suggests that either they had substantially oversized its supply in the first place, or that there had been a local reduction in demand - a factory closed, or the arms factory downsized its energy-intensive activities. I bet they were initially rather grateful they got the data centre to use up the spare capacity.

Edit: I just had a closer look at Raufoss and there is a lot of heavy metal-bashing industry there. So I suspect that there is a local generation supplying that. (Foss means waterfall, but that might be a coincidence.) So possibly that might be part of why there was local capacity for data centre, but now capacity constrained.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:53 pm

Image

Image

Images from @reshetz. Five months of war, including the attempted Russian offensive, and you have to squint a bit to see the area they've advanced (you can see, in the top right corner of the Ukrainian held area, where the Russians have advanced to either side of Bakhmut, but it also puts into context the scale of that advance). The green areas are areas Ukraine liberated, almost entirely prior to the first map save for right-bank Kherson, as they effectively ended up with an operational pause after liberating Lyman and Kherson. Russian offensive attempts will have left the Russians with more severe attritional losses than the Ukrainians in this time period.

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TopBadger » Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:11 am

Not hearing much about Ukraine on the news these days... but then covering a stalemate is probably a bit, well, stale.

Looks like the Tanks have arrived. I did read Zelensky may try to hold Bakhmut for fear of losing the city totally leading to less support from it's allies. I hope that's a ruse and that he leaves the strategy to his Generals. What Ukraine needs is for Russia to spread it's defense thin... or mass it in the wrong place... before countering with power and speed to shatter some lines.

I still think driving south from Zaporizhzhia is the offensive to make...
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:19 am

TopBadger wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:11 am
Not hearing much about Ukraine on the news these days... but then covering a stalemate is probably a bit, well, stale.
Fighting's still ongoing. Russians have advanced a tiny bit round Avdiivka, very slightly in Bakhmut. They did launch an offensive over the winter, put more troops in the line, but other than Soledar and a bit of ground round Bakhmut (check out the maps I posted for what that is in context) they took very little ground
Looks like the Tanks have arrived.
Some of them at least, along with infantry fighting vehicles and APCs, and the first MiG-29s. Ukraine is trying to hold the front line as lightly as they can at the moment and use the time to train tens of thousands of troops in new formations. The tanks and IFVs and APCs are part of that, but the new brigades probably aren't quite ready to go yet.
I did read Zelensky may try to hold Bakhmut for fear of losing the city totally leading to less support from it's allies. I hope that's a ruse and that he leaves the strategy to his Generals.
War's complicated, because support from allies makes a tangible difference on the battlefield too. The dilemna with Bakhmut is whether or not to pull back to the high ground to the west and abandon the city. I discussed it in depth upthread. Part of it comes down to politics, but part of it comes down to attrition and urban terrain. The heights are a good place to defend, but so, perhaps more than anywhere, is a city. Russians have suffered terrible losses assaulting Bakhmut. On the other hand, the situation at present may not be quite as one sided as it was before the withdrawal from Soledar. The Russians suffered enormous losses in personnel and to a lesser extent materiel to partially encircle the city, and they could be put back to square one on that regard by withdrawing.

Currently, it looks like the Russians are on the verge of culminating unless they throw in more forces. The attritional losses the Russians suffered in the Battle of the Donbas last year paved the way for the Ukrainian counterattacks in late summer and autumn. We've once again had a period where Russia have attacked head on into fortified positions again and again, and this time with less of an advantage in artillery.
What Ukraine needs is for Russia to spread it's defense thin... or mass it in the wrong place... before countering with power and speed to shatter some lines.

I still think driving south from Zaporizhzhia is the offensive to make...
A lot of it comes down to where the lines are thin. It's likely we'll see feints and misdirections, as the later it is before the Russians realise where the offensive is coming, the better. Last autumn there was enormous media emphasis on Kherson. Then came the sudden breakthrough at Balakliya and in short order the advance to Kupyansk and liberation of Izium. To conceal forces is difficult, though, and until there are leaves on the trees, even more difficult. Zaporizhzhia is a tempting place to attack for a number of reasons; the ground is firm, Russians don't appear to be regarding it as their highest priority, and a determined offensive there could effectively cut the Crimean landbridge. The liberation of Melitopol would be very desirable politically, and moving south allows Ukraine's long range firepower to strike further into occupied Crimea and to shut down Russian use of the coast around Berdyansk and Mariupol as a place to skulk out of reach. The big downside is there's very little cover, so attackers will be exposed.

Russia have placed numerous concrete "dragons teeth", anti-tank ditches and mine belts. Contrary to some online claims, these do represent a meaningful obstacle. It's not that they can't be breached, it's that breaching them is complicated, and can be slow, which makes it harder to breakout into the operational depth and manoeuvre against the Russian lines of communication. One thing I am pleased to see is a significant commitment of mine-clearing tanks from western countries, and Ukraine's already made good use of their own mine-clearing tanks.

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TopBadger » Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:05 pm

Not sure if this has been verified but Reuters reporting Russian's have shot down GLSDB:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 023-03-28/

Which I didn't think was in service in Ukraine (or for that matter, anywhere) yet.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:00 pm

TopBadger wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:05 pm
Not sure if this has been verified but Reuters reporting Russian's have shot down GLSDB:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 023-03-28/

Which I didn't think was in service in Ukraine (or for that matter, anywhere) yet.
They claimed to have destroyed them previously, too, when it was definitely not in service. Reuters partnered with TASS for many years and still launder Russian b.llsh.t. Sometimes you really shouldn't go with "well X claims this, but Y, who lies constantly, says otherwise".

Post Reply