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.

    oze

    Mow Ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 26, 2018
    3,024
    113
    Fort Wayne
    USA strategy is to bleed Russia dry. Send enough weapons to keep things churning and the conflict in Ukrainian space. Test weapons and tactics in real time without American casualties at this moment. See how Russia reacts to this And that. hopefully not burn though all stockpiles of old munitions before Russia runs out of their stockpile of old munitions.

    Ukrainian strategy is to survive the onslaught and outlast the advance. This to me is more an east verses west battle than the press releases would or will state. Poland has claims in Ukrainian land in the past and seems like they think of the area as valuable in Ukrainian hands or polish hands. Norway/finland have a distrust of Russia as they have been invaded in the past. This could be a second front in the future but that would require some further escalation in that sphere of influence.

    Russian strategy is to gain valuable resources and population while making a semi communist socials states like they had pre 1990. In the process if they can weaken or kill the petro dollar they bleed out USA influence worldwide. Ukrainian has very valuable resources and farm land which they are attempting to control. Russia in history does not do well at the start of a war. They gain traction as time goes on. Russia has some friends showing some support as they can in Iran North Korea and Syria. Some fence jumping support in Saudi Arabia and turkey. Belarus has an army of like 10 k active soldiers so other than logistic base I see no real threat in their for es

    If Russia wins. The war will spill over into the Baltic states. Bric’s states increase influence financially. India China and Russia massed into at basic area together should partner up or could conflict up. Russia Into Poland and it most likely means WW3. ( maybe nukes)

    if Ukrainian forces win Russia faces an extensive amount of internal conflict and external conflict thus is likely to use whatever means at it disposal to silence that conflict. Thus maybe nukes.

    Best outcome would be some type of peace talks splitting Ukrainian up but neither side seems to want that outcome. Second best is that the meat grinder of a war continues grinding meat and armaments until both sides are spent and a WW1 trench style war takes hold.

    I still feel that other conflicts will take hold. Arminian conflict. Israel/Syria Israel/Iran Iran/Iraq Pakistan/ India ( a simmering powderkeg) African internal conflicts maybe an Asian conflict in Korea or south China seas. I do not see a Chinese invasion of Taiwan as China does not have enough ships. Taiwan needs anti Ship capabilities and if they quit buying tanks they can stop things themselves.

    rambled on but 2 cents and a nickel. Been reading much commentary little
    If it was my country that was invaded I don't think that "splitting it up " would be an acceptable outcome to me.
     

    Epoxyfun

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2022
    18
    3
    New Albany
    USA strategy is to bleed Russia dry. Send enough weapons to keep things churning and the conflict in Ukrainian space. Test weapons and tactics in real time without American casualties at this moment. See how Russia reacts to this And that. hopefully not burn though all stockpiles of old munitions before Russia runs out of their stockpile of old munitions.

    Ukrainian strategy is to survive the onslaught and outlast the advance. This to me is more an east verses west battle than the press releases would or will state. Poland has claims in Ukrainian land in the past and seems like they think of the area as valuable in Ukrainian hands or polish hands. Norway/finland have a distrust of Russia as they have been invaded in the past. This could be a second front in the future but that would require some further escalation in that sphere of influence.

    Russian strategy is to gain valuable resources and population while making a semi communist socials states like they had pre 1990. In the process if they can weaken or kill the petro dollar they bleed out USA influence worldwide. Ukrainian has very valuable resources and farm land which they are attempting to control. Russia in history does not do well at the start of a war. They gain traction as time goes on. Russia has some friends showing some support as they can in Iran North Korea and Syria. Some fence jumping support in Saudi Arabia and turkey. Belarus has an army of like 10 k active soldiers so other than logistic base I see no real threat in their for es

    If Russia wins. The war will spill over into the Baltic states. Bric’s states increase influence financially. India China and Russia massed into at basic area together should partner up or could conflict up. Russia Into Poland and it most likely means WW3. ( maybe nukes)

    if Ukrainian forces win Russia faces an extensive amount of internal conflict and external conflict thus is likely to use whatever means at it disposal to silence that conflict. Thus maybe nukes.

    Best outcome would be some type of peace talks splitting Ukrainian up but neither side seems to want that outcome. Second best is that the meat grinder of a war continues grinding meat and armaments until both sides are spent and a WW1 trench style war takes hold.

    I still feel that other conflicts will take hold. Arminian conflict. Israel/Syria Israel/Iran Iran/Iraq Pakistan/ India ( a simmering powderkeg) African internal conflicts maybe an Asian conflict in Korea or south China seas. I do not see a Chinese invasion of Taiwan as China does not have enough ships. Taiwan needs anti Ship capabilities and if they quit buying tanks they can stop things themselves.

    rambled on but 2 cents and a nickel. Been reading much commentary little

    I think there is no real "win" scenario for Russia here. At most they can hope to save the tiniest bit of face by getting peace and keeping a few pieces of Ukraine. Even if a Russian miracle occurred and Ukraine fell entirely at this point, I think Russia would struggle against sabotage and guerrillas funded by the west, suffering a continual bloodying and damage to their economy.

    And I'd be hard-pressed to say the "best" solution is rewarding an aggressive war by handing chunks of a country to them. I think the best solution is the one we're headed towards: Russia gets ground down by increasingly sophisticated weapons and training, their logistics continue to deteriorate, they end up ceding their ill-gotten gains and get forced to peace negotiations.

    I also don't see war spreading even in best case scenario for Russia as they'll be very hesitant to fight another war in their battered state.

    I agree on China not being up to any Taiwan adventures. My understanding of Iran/Iraq is that Iran has largely influenced Iraqi government to the point that they're friendly, may be wrong on that.

    Anyways, just my take on things.
     

    Hawkeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2010
    5,409
    113
    Warsaw
    Their main problem is the auto loader they use for the main gun stores the ammo in the turret. One shot in a decent enough place cooks off those main gun rounds and we have a turret tossing competition. It’s one of the reasons I laugh when people talk about superior Russian equipment.
    The auto-loader wasn't on all Russian tanks. Not on the T-45/55 or T-62 series. I think it started with the T-72. The older Russian tanks had their own problem with ammunition cooking off with penetration.

    BTW, its not that the turret is a bad place for ammunition storage, per se. The M-1 stores its ammunition in the turret as well. Most tanks store at least part, if not all ammunition in the turret.

    Most of the crew is in the turret. If the turret is penetrated, bad things happen to them and the tank is dead. The on-board ammunition exploding just makes it a spectacular ride to Valhalla.
     

    bobzilla

    Mod in training (in my own mind)
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 1, 2010
    8,944
    113
    Brownswhitanon.
    The auto-loader wasn't on all Russian tanks. Not on the T-45/55 or T-62 series. I think it started with the T-72. The older Russian tanks had their own problem with ammunition cooking off with penetration.

    BTW, its not that the turret is a bad place for ammunition storage, per se. The M-1 stores its ammunition in the turret as well. Most tanks store at least part, if not all ammunition in the turret.

    Most of the crew is in the turret. If the turret is penetrated, bad things happen to them and the tank is dead. The on-board ammunition exploding just makes it a spectacular ride to Valhalla.
    T-72/80/90. The M1 has basically a blast cabinet the main gun ammo sits behind in case of penetration or fire. hence the reason no Abrams has had a fatalities.
     

    bobzilla

    Mod in training (in my own mind)
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 1, 2010
    8,944
    113
    Brownswhitanon.
    Honestly, I've read your post several times and don't understand it.
    the russian t72 and newer tanks do not have a 4th crew member to load the main gun. The main gun is fed by an autoloader and hte ammunition is stored open to the rest of the crew.
    The M1 has a door that opens and closes on the ammo storage so other than the single round getting loaded into the breech the rest is separate from the crew. When a T72 and newer get nailed and lit on fire the extra ammo cooks off quickly.

    The M1 has had 23 knocked out in action since they joined the US Military in 1980. Of those there have been no recorded crew deaths, injuries only. Shows that proper planning and execution saves crew lives.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    This just in: America is going to transfer longer range ground-to-ground rocket systems to Ukraine. This will allow them to reach much further behind the front lines and stretch the Russian supply chain out, almost doubling the length it will have to go.

    Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-new-weapon-will-force-russian-shift-2023-02-02/

    Should Ukraine then decide to target rail bridges after destroying supply depots it will make things extremely difficult for Russia to remain inside Ukrainian borders at all.

    Now Russia will, and is, whining like a little baby saying this will escalate things. However, seeing that Russia is already launching waves of drone attacks against civilian targets, including apartment complexes, I would say that Russia is already escalating things and this will just balance things out, but that's just me.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    Hawkeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2010
    5,409
    113
    Warsaw
    the russian t72 and newer tanks do not have a 4th crew member to load the main gun. The main gun is fed by an autoloader and hte ammunition is stored open to the rest of the crew.
    The M1 has a door that opens and closes on the ammo storage so other than the single round getting loaded into the breech the rest is separate from the crew. When a T72 and newer get nailed and lit on fire the extra ammo cooks off quickly.

    The M1 has had 23 knocked out in action since they joined the US Military in 1980. Of those there have been no recorded crew deaths, injuries only. Shows that proper planning and execution saves crew lives.
    Now that makes sense, but not the original post. And I'm well aware of what you posted.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Why bother with drone tanks? Just build a smaller platform with a diesel engine, a self-loading gun, aiming turret, and limited armour. Wheeled, not tracked. Radio controlled. Can carry a limited amount of ammo, maybe only 10 - 25 rounds. Range of maybe 200 miles tops. Maybe a 75mm or 90mm short barrel.

    Make them for about $100k - $250 a pop. Then send 500 of them at the enemy! A swarm of video game controlled mini-weapons with a limited range, lower firepower, but massive numbers for cost.

    They'd have a brain behind them that could think, an officer that could overwatch, and an unlimited supply of Zoomers signing up for the military to blow stuff up for real.

    They might not take a position but in trying they'll certainly reveal enemy positions, cause damage, and possibly disable larger MBTs without destroying them due to a smaller gun that can't penetrate armour but can sure blow a tread off.

    Heck, if they're light enough you could possibly air drop a bunch behind enemy lines! Imagine 50 of these cheap little things appearing 30 miles behind enemy lines where there are no defenses. Blow up bridges, rail lines, possibly air fields and supply depots. Line them with some thermite so that when the run out of juice they cannot be captured and reverse engineered.

    Put a stinger on each, cheap enough, that would give them a shot of taking out attacking enemy fighters or helicopters.

    Anyway, just a thought...

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    BigMoose

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 14, 2012
    5,102
    149
    Indianapolis
    Seems that tanks with crews should soon be a thing of the past. Drone tanks with video game players controlling them I am sure is where we are headed.
    Current thinking is to put them all in the Hull, with an empty automated turret.

    the T-14 Armata and the AbramsX use this concept.

    That way you can have an autoloader and not have the ammo in it to endanger the crew.
     
    Last edited:

    BigMoose

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 14, 2012
    5,102
    149
    Indianapolis
    There are two separate forks of current Soviet/Russian tanks..

    There is the T-64/T-80 branch.. (Originally developed in Soviet Ukraine)
    The other is the T-72/T-90 branch.. (Originally developed in Soviet Russia)

    Both branches have autoloaders, but both use a incompatible model.

    When the Soviet Union broke up, the Russians built a new plant in Russia for the T-80 series.. the Ukranians were able to keep the original plant operational to keep T-64s running.



    Weird situation with essentially two standard front line tank models.

    Its like if the US for the Abrams said. We like both the Chysler and the GM, build both in separate factories.
     

    1DOWN4UP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Mar 25, 2015
    6,418
    113
    North of 30
    February 03, 2023

    Ukraine SitRep: U.S.-Russia Talks, Bakhmut Retreat, Laughable Casualty Numbers​

    The Swiss paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung published a piece today (in German) which claimed that CIA boss William Burns had offered 20% of Ukraine to Russia in exchange for peace in Ukraine.

    As Newsweek summarizes:

    NZZ reported on Thursday, citing high-ranking German foreign politicians, that in mid-January, Burns presented Kyiv and Moscow with a peace plan that would put an end to the war, which began when Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
    According to the newspaper, the proposal offered "around 20 percent of Ukraine's territory"—about the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.
    The Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov, the White House and the CIA rejected the claim:

    A CIA official told Newsweekthat claims in the NZZ report that Burns took a secret trip to Moscow in January and that there was a peace proposal put forward by the director on behalf of the White House were "completely false."
    Last month, Burns traveled in secret to meet and brief Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, the Washington Post reported.
    The Neue Züricher says that Kiev as well as Moscow had rejected the U.S. plan.

    That everyone is denying that this happened means that the Züricher claims are likely true.

    We know that talks between Washington and Kiev are ongoing.

    Cont. reading: Ukraine SitRep: U.S.-Russia Talks, Bakhmut Retreat, Laughable Casualty Numbers



    Posted by b at 17:09 UTC | Comments (93)
     

    Wolfhound

    Hired Goon
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    45   0   0
    Apr 11, 2011
    3,966
    149
    Henry County
    Why bother with drone tanks? Just build a smaller platform with a diesel engine, a self-loading gun, aiming turret, and limited armour. Wheeled, not tracked. Radio controlled. Can carry a limited amount of ammo, maybe only 10 - 25 rounds. Range of maybe 200 miles tops. Maybe a 75mm or 90mm short barrel.

    Make them for about $100k - $250 a pop. Then send 500 of them at the enemy! A swarm of video game controlled mini-weapons with a limited range, lower firepower, but massive numbers for cost.

    They'd have a brain behind them that could think, an officer that could overwatch, and an unlimited supply of Zoomers signing up for the military to blow stuff up for real.

    They might not take a position but in trying they'll certainly reveal enemy positions, cause damage, and possibly disable larger MBTs without destroying them due to a smaller gun that can't penetrate armour but can sure blow a tread off.

    Heck, if they're light enough you could possibly air drop a bunch behind enemy lines! Imagine 50 of these cheap little things appearing 30 miles behind enemy lines where there are no defenses. Blow up bridges, rail lines, possibly air fields and supply depots. Line them with some thermite so that when the run out of juice they cannot be captured and reverse engineered.

    Put a stinger on each, cheap enough, that would give them a shot of taking out attacking enemy fighters or helicopters.

    Anyway, just a thought...

    Regards,

    Doug
    36000331965_1ce415939d_b.jpg
    Skynet is just around the corner.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,843
    113
    Merrillville
    New drone tanks come out
    Fight a large, industrialized country instead of a small country, or terrorists...
    Country figures out how to jam the signal... cause THAT'S never been done..
    Their country rolls through your stuff.

    I could see remote control needing more of a place, or as a supplement.
    But NOT as a replacement.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom