Russia vs. Ukraine Part 2

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    9,883
    149
    Indiana
    The third most popular political party in the EU lol. One currently trying a revolution in France.
    Meanwhile in our "ally" nation of Saudi Arabia.

    The LGBT,CRT,ESG,and wokeness of our diplomats is not going over well in most of the world.

    The list of African countries who have openly called for an end of US NGO and diplomats LGBT push is long. Egypt,Ghana,Kenya,Zambia,Uganda,Nigeria,and Tanzania. Yoweri Museveni(Uganda's president) has openly called for the USA to stop and is meeting with other leaders in Africa to form an economic and anti western push back because of LGBT(if he is not careful he could end up like a former Lybian president).
     
    Last edited:

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,018
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Regarding the Russians moving to put olde T54/55 battle tanks into the fight.

    I don't know a lot about armour. I understand they are olde and am also betting they haven't been serviced for decades. What replacement parts they do have probably has also been in storage for decades, so the quality will be poor to moderate at best.

    What I don't know is what are we sending that could effectively destroy one of these? Would a LAW rocket launcher have the power to punch their olde armour? What about the 25mm cannon on a Bradley? If either of these weapons platforms could take out a T54/55 then won't they be nothing more than mobile coffins...?

    Depending upon their reliability I don't believe they'll be better than nothing. If one stalls on a bridge or in a confined space they could screw an entire column or advance. Maybe...?

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,416
    113
    Indiana
    Regarding the Russians moving to put olde T54/55 battle tanks into the fight.

    I don't know a lot about armour. I understand they are olde and am also betting they haven't been serviced for decades. What replacement parts they do have probably has also been in storage for decades, so the quality will be poor to moderate at best.

    What I don't know is what are we sending that could effectively destroy one of these? Would a LAW rocket launcher have the power to punch their olde armour? What about the 25mm cannon on a Bradley? If either of these weapons platforms could take out a T54/55 then won't they be nothing more than mobile coffins...?

    Depending upon their reliability I don't believe they'll be better than nothing. If one stalls on a bridge or in a confined space they could screw an entire column or advance. Maybe...?

    Regards,

    Doug
    A LAW would take one out from the side or rear. Direct on frontal? Don't know. Facing the front I'd aim for where the turret joins the hull. These are old tanks and do little more than protect against small arms, i.e. rifle and light to medium machine gun fire. Tanks are problematic in urban areas with limited mobility and many opportunities to be ambushed from above.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,416
    113
    Indiana
    Regarding the Russians moving to put olde T54/55 battle tanks into the fight.

    I don't know a lot about armour. I understand they are olde and am also betting they haven't been serviced for decades. What replacement parts they do have probably has also been in storage for decades, so the quality will be poor to moderate at best.

    What I don't know is what are we sending that could effectively destroy one of these? Would a LAW rocket launcher have the power to punch their olde armour? What about the 25mm cannon on a Bradley? If either of these weapons platforms could take out a T54/55 then won't they be nothing more than mobile coffins...?

    Depending upon their reliability I don't believe they'll be better than nothing. If one stalls on a bridge or in a confined space they could screw an entire column or advance. Maybe...?

    Regards,

    Doug
    More on taking out tanks . . .
    Two primary aspects of dealing with a tank: mobility and primary weapons system. Take out its mobility and it's a pillbox that can be dealt with much easier. Take out the main weapon . . . the main gun . . . and you're down to one or two machine guns . . . if the turret or hull haven't blown out from ammunition storage lighting off, or fuel igniting. Light infantry going for a tank would probably want to ensure it no longer has any more mobility, then go after its main gun, which can traverse only so fast. Tanks are best employed with infantry for mutual support and protection. Even better if there's rotary gunship support. Much more vulnerable when there's no infantry with them, and when they're more isolated. One tank by itself is a destroyed tank and crew casualties waiting to happen. All that said, the former Soviet tanks have distinct vulnerabilities that the Russians haven't fixed. This is witnessed by how the Ukrainians have destroyed enormous numbers of Russian armor. These early Cold War relics will be even easier. Furthermore, the Russians obviously haven't learned how to use combined arms in the battle space that combines air support, armor, artillery and infantry together. I wouldn't want to be a Russian tanker.
     
    Last edited:

    Hawkeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2010
    5,446
    113
    Warsaw
    More on taking out tanks . . .
    Two primary aspects of dealing with a tank: mobility and primary weapons system. Take out its mobility and it's a pillbox that can be dealt with much easier. Take out the main weapon . . . the main gun . . . and you're down to one or two machine guns . . . if the turret or hull haven't blown out from ammunition storage lighting off, or fuel igniting. Light infantry going for a tank would probably want to ensure it no longer has any more mobility, then go after its main gun, which can traverse only so fast. Tanks are best employed with infantry for mutual support and protection. Even better if there's rotary gunship support. Much more vulnerable when there's no infantry with them, and when they're more isolated. One tank by itself is a destroyed tank and crew casualties waiting to happen. All that said, the former Soviet tanks have distinct vulnerabilities that the Russians haven't fixed. This is witnessed by how the Ukrainians have destroyed enormous numbers of Russian armor. These early Cold War relics will be even easier. Furthermore, the Russians obviously haven't learned how to use combined arms in the battle space that combines air support, armor, artillery and infantry together. I wouldn't want to be a Russian tanker.
    "Furthermore, the Russians obviously haven't learned how to use combined arms in the battle space that combines air support, armor, artillery and infantry together. I wouldn't want to be a Russian tanker."

    They have learned and understand combined arms. That's obvious from studying their doctrine from the old USSR days forward, and studying their unit organization. In fact their tank and infantry units are organized into combined arms teams down to the battalion and company level. The problem is employing those units effectively. It seems that the Ukrainians are pretty good at splitting off the infantry from the tanks and then dealing with each separately. That's actually pretty standard USA and NATO doctrine. Our National Guard seems to have done a good job of training the Ukrainians.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,416
    113
    Indiana
    "Furthermore, the Russians obviously haven't learned how to use combined arms in the battle space that combines air support, armor, artillery and infantry together. I wouldn't want to be a Russian tanker."

    They have learned and understand combined arms. That's obvious from studying their doctrine from the old USSR days forward, and studying their unit organization. In fact their tank and infantry units are organized into combined arms teams down to the battalion and company level. The problem is employing those units effectively. It seems that the Ukrainians are pretty good at splitting off the infantry from the tanks and then dealing with each separately. That's actually pretty standard USA and NATO doctrine. Our National Guard seems to have done a good job of training the Ukrainians.
    That's their failure. Their doctrine may tout it, but in practice they fail to carry it out in the battle space. I've watched Russian campaign strategy, their order of battle, with resets to "reorganize", including generals being killed and fired, and battles down to roughly regiment and battalion level below which one begins to lose resolution watching from afar. At every turn it's been cringeworthy. More than cringeworthy. Russian general staff has been a failure in campaign planning, and execution. They've failed in battle space command and control communications -- resulting in generals being killed when they resorted to using other means that were easily traced to their precise location. Their logistics for the battle space has been a failure. Their regimental and battalion combat "teams", if you can call them that, fail to execute as teams -- allowing themselves as you observed -- to be defeated in detail. On the other hand, also as you observed, the Ukrainians know how to fight a war. They've not been perfect at it, but they're running circles around the Russians. Yes, the training the Ukrainians received from the U.S. on how to fight a war, including an asymmetric and a semi-asymmetric one has paid off in spades. Some of the ambushes have been brilliantly executed, leaving me wondering at Russian command stupidity at setting themselves up to be exploited in that manner. The Ukrainians have also been ingenious and creative in how to wage a war with what they have at hand, and how to create useful weapons and combat support things from what they have. I can only wonder how well they'd be doing if they had all the weapons platforms and ammunition for them they want.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    37,412
    113
    .
    The poor use of combined arms by the russians in this war has made me wonder if there still is a Frunze Academy anymore. These are the heirs of Bagration, and Ukraine certainly isn't unfamiliar ground to them. At an army level the tactics really haven't changed since the time of Heinz Guderian. Infantry punches a hole in the line after an intensive artillery bombardment, motorized units go through the hole into the rear areas, air power helps protect the flanks of the armored penetration. Infantry follows to mop up encircled enemy.

    It looks to me like this is a combination of bad or no planning and really poor logistics. Maybe the russians just don't have the ability to fight conventionally any more at scale. More like the Iran Iraq war, a modern WW1.
     

    Wolfhound

    Hired Goon
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    47   0   0
    Apr 11, 2011
    4,078
    149
    Henry County
    Great points being made here but I would like to add that it all comes down to training. Honestly the “soldiers” the Russians are sending to fight now barely know how to fire a rifle. If combined arms had been possible from the Russians we should have seen it in the first few months of the war with their regular army troops. For whatever reason it just didn’t happen and those units are long gone now for the most part.
     

    Brad69

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 16, 2016
    5,392
    77
    Perry county
    @JAL is on point with his anti amour discussion!

    We faced the old T54/55 in Iraq they aren’t much of a threat. Decent front amour but they can’t shoot on the move.

    The LAW while still available has been replaced by the AT4. I do know the AT4 will penetrate a M48 which should be about the same as the old Russian stuff. A Bradley would shake up the crew I don’t think it would penetrate the frontal amour.

    Russian logistics are not good they try to make parts in the field and do not have a automatic ordering system. We order parts on a certain timeline because we know that they will be needed.

    The Russians attempted to copy our Brigade combat team concept. But they do not train at Division level to integrate the “teams”.
     
    Last edited:

    BigMoose

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 14, 2012
    5,430
    149
    Indianapolis
    @JAL is on point with his anti amour discussion!

    The LAW while still available has been replaced by the AT4. I do know the AT4 will penetrate a M48 which should be about the same as the old Russian stuff. A Bradley would shake up the crew I don’t think it would penetrate the frontal amour.
    The current LAW iteration gives up its anti armor warhead for various warheads designed for anti personnel and anti structure HE loads.

    it was realized it was 90 times cheaper to use a LAW rocket them to waste an AT4 or Javelin against your typical insurgent target.
     

    Hawkeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2010
    5,446
    113
    Warsaw
    @JAL is on point with his anti amour discussion!

    We faced the old T54/55 in Iraq they aren’t much of a threat. Decent front amour but they can’t shoot on the move.

    The LAW while still available has been replaced by the AT4. I do know the AT4 will penetrate a M48 which should be about the same as the old Russian stuff. A Bradley would shake up the crew I don’t think it would penetrate the frontal amour.

    Russian logistics are not good they try to make parts in the field and do not have a automatic ordering system. We order parts on a certain timeline because we know that they will be needed.

    The Russians attempted to copy our Brigade combat team concept. But they do not train at Division level to integrate the “teams”.
    " A Bradley would shake up the crew I don’t think it would penetrate the frontal amour."

    Agreed on the 25mm gun, but the TOW would do for at T-55 from any side. The autocannon MIGHT get a mobility or weapons kill, but the TOW would cause a brew-up. :)
     

    BigMoose

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 14, 2012
    5,430
    149
    Indianapolis


    Yippee! Yet another country to suck off the subsidies of the American taxpayer.
    Nope. The Finns are armed to the teeth and quite already self sufficient.

    And when I mean armed to the teeth, they have a confirmed million rifle stash.. among other things.

    Given Russias trouble with taking on Ukraine.. The Russians should be scared of the Finns, they are much better organized then Ukraine was at the start of it, and likely even -more- inclined to resist.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    7,081
    113
    Indy

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,539
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Nope. The Finns are armed to the teeth and quite already self sufficient.

    And when I mean armed to the teeth, they have a confirmed million rifle stash.. among other things.

    Given Russias trouble with taking on Ukraine.. The Russians should be scared of the Finns, they are much better organized then Ukraine was at the start of it, and likely even -more- inclined to resist.
    The Russians have tangled with the Finns before and regretted it
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom