61–70 of 282 posts
On that topic: why Russian tanks are so vulnerable to these missiles and explode spectacularly [1]. Basically the canon auto-loads shells, and the shell storage is not in a different compartment than the turret. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/04/01/why-do...
Perun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q Chieftain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 Bernard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY Extreme summary, blame me if I missed something obviously important - unsupported tanks will die to infantry or artillery and have done so since shortly after the inception of the tank. Tanks are actually pretty cheap compared to replacing a human, it costs quite…
I think people vastly underestimate the importance of infantry support. A single soldier with an ATGM can take out a tank, but a single soldier with a gun can take out that single soldier and their ATGM. It's easy to forget that reality isn't a third-person shooter. When you're sitting in a steel box with an engine in the back and a cannon on the top, situational awareness will inevitably suffer to some degree, and n…
Lighter wheeled gun armed vehicles can be cheaper, but they don't have the survivability. They also can't go everywhere a tracked tank can go, such as jungle busting or just driving right through many kinds of buildings or cover. Missile have much longer flight times to target than gun rounds. A tank can move into position, fire, destroy it's target and be back in cover before a missile gets anywhere near it's target. The missiles are also vastly more expensive than tank rounds.
Yes tanks are vulnerable when not properly integrated with air support, artillery and infantry. They're still a lot more survivable than pretty much anything else that can provide the same capabilities though. One tank in the second Gulf War shrugged off 14 RPG hits, and overall tanks in that conflict amply proved their value, when used effectively.
I think we will see the tanks in future battlefields still but rather than cannons they will be using more electronic warfare and will be providing indirect fire with "smart" weapons. Essentially they will be multi role armoured vehicles with high manoeuvrability e.g. (British Ajax Scout Vehicle) Or my sci-fi'ish theory of a "drone tank" Why? * Governments have high demands from defence and at the same time want low…
Quoted post unavailable.
The "bs from western media" was so accurate that I could pinpoint when the invasion would start, and I consequently left my home in Odessa in the evening on February 23rd, hours before the invasion started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of independent folks doing great work analyzing (and in many cases geolocating) photos of equipment losses. Oryx is great: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... Basically yes: this war has been a disaster for Russian armor.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of these articles seem to mention WHY the tanks are designed this way (although I admit I just searched for keywords). As far as I know, it is because the current gen of Russian tanks were designed for how they envisioned WW3 40 years ago [1]. Basically the tanks would follow nuclear strikes, and making humans load the ammunition would make them die a lot quicker from radiation, so they made an autoloader. [1] h…
How does loading ammunition make humans die quicker from radiation?
According to the wiki, an autoloader also improves smoke removal, which would also help maintain a safe NBC-isolated interior space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike in Russia, there is no singular "media" in the west. There are "western media s ", plural, and you have the luxury of choosing your bias. There are plenty of idiots in the west who will sell you re-furbished Russian propaganda, if that's what you want. (Is CNN stupid? Yes, it is, it's the same crap hysterical entertainment-news it has always been, mostly laughable to non-Americans and Americans alike. But ther…
Quoted post unavailable.
Well yeah, they provide opinions about facts. They all select subjects from a given pool of "content" (ie. world/local events) and spin it their way. It's not like some greater entity force them to talk about a restricted set of "content"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
There is no "general western media" in this era, because coverage is no longer centralized. There are dominant ideologies, which the "western media" reflects because the population has that bias already . You can stare at CNN or MSNBC and see a bias, of course. They largely repeat Pentagon or White House talking points. But that is no longer where people get the bulk of their information. Spend 20 minutes clicking th…
And even if it was: the media should impartially cover events. It should not manipulate numbers in favor of cherry picked narratives.
edit replying your edit: But then; again, we should not create media based in wishful thinking. Instead, media should be based in facts. It disappoints me very much that so many people just accepts this blatant propaganda and sell these as if they are true.