Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

An Irishman is never at peace except when he's fighting.


aus+uk / uk.current-events.terrorism / Re: Where Russian armor goes to die

SubjectAuthor
* Where Russian armor goes to dieJeSSe
`* Re: Where Russian armor goes to dieLoose Cannon
 `* Re: Where Russian armor goes to dieJeSSe
  `* Re: Where Russian armor goes to dieLoose Cannon
   `* Re: Where Russian armor goes to dieJeSSe
    `- Re: Where Russian armor goes to dieLoose Cannon

1
Where Russian armor goes to die

<9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4438&group=uk.current-events.terrorism#4438

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.easynews.com:119
From: zo...@so.org (JeSSe)
Subject: Where Russian armor goes to die
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/68.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.11.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:39:49 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2427
 by: JeSSe - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:39 UTC

Putin was warned that Ukraine would be a graveyard for all things
Russian, he chose not to listen ,,,,

Some might argue that these were old, obsolete designs anyhow, which in
many cases is true, and the only real loss was 3 Russians, but no, their
latest designs are getting mangled just as well.

[Soviets have a habit of making minor improvements to decades old
designs, and instead of keeping them in the same series with various
designators like M1A1, MIA1HA, M1A1 FEP ect like US and most western
nations they give them a whole new series name, as if they created an
entirely new weapons system]
For instance, the T-90 is a derivative of the decades old T-72, even
built on the same chassis - And much the same goes for their air fleet.

```````````````````````

Russia's tank graveyards: Incredible images of mangled armoured vehicles
dumped in streets and fields reveal the scale of Putin's military losses
in Ukraine

Drone images taken by Ukrainian intelligence 10 miles inside Russia
show a huge Russian military scrapheap
Previous satellite images show no military equipment dumped in the
field before Putin accrued huge losses
Ukraine claims it has destroyed 839 Kremlin tanks as Western
officials said Russia is being 'ritually humiliated'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10742425/Mangled-tanks-dumped-streets-fields-reveal-scale-Russias-military-losses.html
--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Re: Where Russian armor goes to die

<t3v30n$38t$1@pcls7.std.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4444&group=uk.current-events.terrorism#4444

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!news.imp.ch!usenet.csail.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: efbre...@gmx-x.comm (Loose Cannon)
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Subject: Re: Where Russian armor goes to die
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <t3v30n$38t$1@pcls7.std.com>
References: <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell02.theworld.com
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1650659159 3357 192.74.137.72 (22 Apr 2022 20:25:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: rjac@shell02.TheWorld.com (Roman the demented illiterate Grik Foreskin PEELER)
 by: Loose Cannon - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:25 UTC

In article <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> For instance, the T-90 is a derivative of the decades old T-72, even
> built on the same chassis - And much the same goes for their air fleet.

My dad knows something about this. He says that Soviet tanks were always
garbage, and that during the Arab-Israeli 1967 and 1973 wars, Israeli
tanks (British and American made) very often survived direct hits from
the Soviet tanks used by the Arabs, and even kept functioning, while
the T-series Soviet tanks used by the Arabs were typically destroyed by
one hit, even from long ranges.

And it's far worse for them now, with the anti-tank missiles. They are
really fighting this war like total idiots.

Re: Where Russian armor goes to die

<YJE8K.864007$aT3.727284@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4447&group=uk.current-events.terrorism#4447

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Where Russian armor goes to die
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
References: <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad> <t3v30n$38t$1@pcls7.std.com>
From: zo...@so.org (JeSSe)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/68.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.11.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <t3v30n$38t$1@pcls7.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <YJE8K.864007$aT3.727284@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:02:48 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2489
 by: JeSSe - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:02 UTC

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> For instance, the T-90 is a derivative of the decades old T-72, even
>> built on the same chassis - And much the same goes for their air fleet.
>
> My dad knows something about this. He says that Soviet tanks were always
> garbage, and that during the Arab-Israeli 1967 and 1973 wars, Israeli
> tanks (British and American made) very often survived direct hits from
> the Soviet tanks used by the Arabs, and even kept functioning, while
> the T-series Soviet tanks used by the Arabs were typically destroyed by
> one hit, even from long ranges.
>
> And it's far worse for them now, with the anti-tank missiles. They are
> really fighting this war like total idiots.
>

Hmm, so your dad was an Israeli tank commander ?

T series were made lightly armored and rather small in order to produce
swarms of them - Swarms that may have been effective in wide ranging
tank battles in eastern Europe, but woefully inadequate bunched up in
columns against highly motivated, well armed men with lots of cover.

US went more for the "king of the hill" concept, which produced less
units but vastly superior to Soviet designs, 1 on 1 anyhow.
Remains to be seen, or more likely forever left to the imagination, how
US tanks would do in such circumstances ,, Could not possibly be any
worse, that is certain.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Re: Where Russian armor goes to die

<t3v7v9$800$1@pcls7.std.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4448&group=uk.current-events.terrorism#4448

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!news.imp.ch!usenet.csail.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: efbre...@gmx-x.comm (Loose Cannon)
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Subject: Re: Where Russian armor goes to die
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:50:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <t3v7v9$800$1@pcls7.std.com>
References: <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad> <t3v30n$38t$1@pcls7.std.com> <YJE8K.864007$aT3.727284@fx09.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell02.theworld.com
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1650664233 8192 192.74.137.72 (22 Apr 2022 21:50:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:50:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: rjac@shell02.TheWorld.com (Roman the demented illiterate Grik Foreskin PEELER)
 by: Loose Cannon - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:50 UTC

In article <YJE8K.864007$aT3.727284@fx09.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Loose Cannon wrote:

>>> For instance, the T-90 is a derivative of the decades old T-72, even
>>> built on the same chassis - And much the same goes for their air fleet.

>> My dad knows something about this. He says that Soviet tanks were always
>> garbage, and that during the Arab-Israeli 1967 and 1973 wars, Israeli
>> tanks (British and American made) very often survived direct hits from
>> the Soviet tanks used by the Arabs, and even kept functioning, while
>> the T-series Soviet tanks used by the Arabs were typically destroyed by
>> one hit, even from long ranges.
>>
>> And it's far worse for them now, with the anti-tank missiles. They are
>> really fighting this war like total idiots.

> Hmm, so your dad was an Israeli tank commander ?

Rats, you got me!

For many years, dad (now retired) was employed by a large defense
company. I was too (as IIRC I posted here, w.r.t tank defense systems),
but for a relatively short period.

> T series were made lightly armored and rather small in order to produce
> swarms of them - Swarms that may have been effective in wide ranging
> tank battles in eastern Europe, but woefully inadequate bunched up in
> columns against highly motivated, well armed men with lots of cover.
>
> US went more for the "king of the hill" concept, which produced less
> units but vastly superior to Soviet designs, 1 on 1 anyhow.
> Remains to be seen, or more likely forever left to the imagination, how
> US tanks would do in such circumstances ,, Could not possibly be any
> worse, that is certain.

I wonder if tanks will become obsolete, unless a solution for
anti-tank missiles -- which keep improving -- is found. What's
the logic in using something that costs millions and requires four
soldiers to operate, when it can so easily be destroyed by one guy
with a USD 100K missile?

And that applies to APCs and what not.

My hunch is that we will begin to see more and more of these

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0037.html

possibly, even smaller ones, carrying one or two guys. It will
be difficult to put a lot of firepower on such a thing, but why
bother, when you can call in missile strikes from afar, or from
a drone.

Re: Where Russian armor goes to die

<OmG8K.608512$7F2.21978@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4449&group=uk.current-events.terrorism#4449

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Where Russian armor goes to die
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
References: <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad> <t3v30n$38t$1@pcls7.std.com>
<YJE8K.864007$aT3.727284@fx09.iad> <t3v7v9$800$1@pcls7.std.com>
From: zo...@so.org (JeSSe)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/68.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.11.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <t3v7v9$800$1@pcls7.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <OmG8K.608512$7F2.21978@fx12.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:54:37 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5550
 by: JeSSe - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:54 UTC

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <YJE8K.864007$aT3.727284@fx09.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> Loose Cannon wrote:
>
>>>> For instance, the T-90 is a derivative of the decades old T-72, even
>>>> built on the same chassis - And much the same goes for their air fleet.
>
>>> My dad knows something about this. He says that Soviet tanks were always
>>> garbage, and that during the Arab-Israeli 1967 and 1973 wars, Israeli
>>> tanks (British and American made) very often survived direct hits from
>>> the Soviet tanks used by the Arabs, and even kept functioning, while
>>> the T-series Soviet tanks used by the Arabs were typically destroyed by
>>> one hit, even from long ranges.
>>>
>>> And it's far worse for them now, with the anti-tank missiles. They are
>>> really fighting this war like total idiots.
>
>> Hmm, so your dad was an Israeli tank commander ?
>
> Rats, you got me!

Lt Barry Shein Sr, reporting for duty !
[I'm joking, c'mon now]

>
> For many years, dad (now retired) was employed by a large defense
> company. I was too (as IIRC I posted here, w.r.t tank defense systems),
> but for a relatively short period.
>
>> T series were made lightly armored and rather small in order to produce
>> swarms of them - Swarms that may have been effective in wide ranging
>> tank battles in eastern Europe, but woefully inadequate bunched up in
>> columns against highly motivated, well armed men with lots of cover.
>>
>> US went more for the "king of the hill" concept, which produced less
>> units but vastly superior to Soviet designs, 1 on 1 anyhow.
>> Remains to be seen, or more likely forever left to the imagination, how
>> US tanks would do in such circumstances ,, Could not possibly be any
>> worse, that is certain.
>
> I wonder if tanks will become obsolete, unless a solution for
> anti-tank missiles -- which keep improving -- is found. What's
> the logic in using something that costs millions and requires four
> soldiers to operate, when it can so easily be destroyed by one guy
> with a USD 100K missile?
>
> And that applies to APCs and what not.
>
> My hunch is that we will begin to see more and more of these
>
> http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0037.html
>
> possibly, even smaller ones, carrying one or two guys. It will
> be difficult to put a lot of firepower on such a thing, but why
> bother, when you can call in missile strikes from afar, or from
> a drone.
>
People predicted the demise of the battleship during and after WW2, they
turned out to be right, though it took decades for the last US examples
to retire.
There are predictions of the demise of the aircraft carrier, there have
been predictions of the demise of manned aircraft for decades now.

Just never know, these things take paths that take years and decades to
discern ,, But with the events in Ukraine these past couple months,
demise of heavy armor predictions will go into overdrive, and with
plenty of good arguments.

I think our tactics, countermeasures and equipment would prevent the
large scale mauling the Russians took [and are taking] in similar
circumstances, and that we'll never see a meaningful battlefield without
heavy US armor, certainly not in the next half century or so.
[For instance, I am wondering why the Russians seemed not to have
thought of scouting ahead of tank columns with helicopters equipped with
IR - Day or night, a warm body should be easy to spot and destroy]
True, they themselves would be vulnerable to short range AA missiles, so
it would take highly coordinated actions between ground and air to
reduce and eliminate these threats.
Russians never even tried, so far as I have heard, and this can only
points to a huge deficiency in tactics, operation, coordination,
communication and perhaps hardware as well - US lacks none of this.

We've had our share of cockups with long term nation building to be sure
but the US excels at actual tactical planning & fighting, so I'd like to
think that we wouldn't be dumb enough to get ourselves into such a
situation in the first place, and take far, far fewer losses if we did.

Militaries throughout history have often planned for one battle yet
fought another, the brute Soviet action in Ukraine, short and
contemporary though it may be, perhaps ranks already as the starkest
example of this.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Re: Where Russian armor goes to die

<t3vfk6$ku6$1@pcls7.std.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4451&group=uk.current-events.terrorism#4451

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!news.imp.ch!usenet.csail.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: efbre...@gmx-x.comm (Loose Cannon)
Newsgroups: uk.current-events.terrorism
Subject: Re: Where Russian armor goes to die
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:01:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <t3vfk6$ku6$1@pcls7.std.com>
References: <9wD8K.750942$oF2.423673@fx10.iad> <YJE8K.864007$aT3.727284@fx09.iad> <t3v7v9$800$1@pcls7.std.com> <OmG8K.608512$7F2.21978@fx12.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell02.theworld.com
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1650672070 21446 192.74.137.72 (23 Apr 2022 00:01:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:01:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: rjac@shell02.TheWorld.com (Roman the demented illiterate Grik Foreskin PEELER)
 by: Loose Cannon - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:01 UTC

In article <OmG8K.608512$7F2.21978@fx12.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

[...]

>>> Hmm, so your dad was an Israeli tank commander ?

>> Rats, you got me!

> Lt Barry Shein Sr, reporting for duty !
> [I'm joking, c'mon now]

OK, I won't complain to the ADL -- THIS time! :)

[...]

> People predicted the demise of the battleship during and after WW2, they
> turned out to be right, though it took decades for the last US examples
> to retire.
> There are predictions of the demise of the aircraft carrier, there have
> been predictions of the demise of manned aircraft for decades now.
>
> Just never know, these things take paths that take years and decades to
> discern ,, But with the events in Ukraine these past couple months,
> demise of heavy armor predictions will go into overdrive, and with
> plenty of good arguments.
>
> I think our tactics, countermeasures and equipment would prevent the
> large scale mauling the Russians took [and are taking] in similar
> circumstances, and that we'll never see a meaningful battlefield without
> heavy US armor, certainly not in the next half century or so.
> [For instance, I am wondering why the Russians seemed not to have
> thought of scouting ahead of tank columns with helicopters equipped with
> IR - Day or night, a warm body should be easy to spot and destroy]
> True, they themselves would be vulnerable to short range AA missiles, so
> it would take highly coordinated actions between ground and air to
> reduce and eliminate these threats.

Interesting, but how would that work against the anti-tank missile
crews? Do you mean they'll hunt them down? That's a small target,
isn't it? OTOH, the resolution of the IR cameras keeps improving,
and AI is being applied for detection (so as not to shoot missiles
at deers or bears... the motion patterns of humans are very distinct).

> Russians never even tried, so far as I have heard, and this can only
> points to a huge deficiency in tactics, operation, coordination,
> communication and perhaps hardware as well - US lacks none of this.
>
> We've had our share of cockups with long term nation building to be sure
> but the US excels at actual tactical planning & fighting, so I'd like to
> think that we wouldn't be dumb enough to get ourselves into such a
> situation in the first place, and take far, far fewer losses if we did.
>
> Militaries throughout history have often planned for one battle yet
> fought another, the brute Soviet action in Ukraine, short and
> contemporary though it may be, perhaps ranks already as the starkest
> example of this.

Thanks, your perspective on military affairs is definitely broader than
mine, and your comments very interesting.

It is indeed difficult to see where things are going. And you can
never be sure; who would have expected this war to develop as it
did? And then there are the priorities. Hitler for example gambled
on the V2, it was a fantastic scientific/technological success but
didn't change anything in the course of the war -- if all the
effort and funds were poured into manufacturing more ME-262s,
it would have had a far greater impact. But then, who knows,
maybe it would have led to Berlin being nuked. It's complicated.

And, speaking about the military: I guess you heard that the great
Chuck Yeager passed away at the age of 97. His good friend Bud Anderson
(16 1/4 kills, was never hit by enemy fire) is still around, 100 years
old! Have you read Yeager's autobiography, BTW? I loved it.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor