Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
- Status
T-14 is supposed to be a great tank. Too bad for the Russian military, they only seem to have a dozen or two available.
In terms of numbers, it's like the Nazis deploying a few King Tigers (of course the King Tiger outclassed anything on the battlefield while the T-14 is simply in the same class as top NATO tanks.
Trouble in Invader's Paradise. Who is going to kill who is the question?
ca.yahoo.com
‘Stop Deceiving the Population’: Russia’s Mercenary Boss Threatens Full-Blown Mutiny
ReutersWagner Group founder Yevgeny Prigozhin is back to humiliating the Kremlin and threatening to sabotage Vladimir Putin’s war effort.“Russia is on the brink of catastrophe,” he said in an interview with a pro-war military blogger on Saturday, openly calling B.S. on the Kremlin’s repeated...
So good that they are only sending them in after sending in refurbished T62/64s? and t54/55s.
Considering that Perun looking into claims that Russia was sending it's junk tanks in first early in the war but found out that losses were actually over represented among their newer gear. So actually they seem to be sending in their best that they can.
This would seem to imply that the T-14 despite how it looks on paper, in reality is so bad that it somehow ranks before the T54/55.
From what I've heard it has massive relability issues even ignoring it getting stuck on the parade ground and I'd bet dollars to sweet sweet donuts <homer slobber> that a lot of their other claims for the tank will not perform to claims in the real world, much like their claims about the cluster fuck that they call a military.
I also very much doubt they are a match for the top rank NATO tanks, probably better than the M-60 and the Leo 1, if they don't break down [another parallel to the King Tiger.
I am rather shocked that he hasn't taken a stroll off a top story building yet.
Sad you have to go to something like Remix news to find something to feel good about your bullshit, they seem to be the Orphans of the news world. I guess it's only lies when you don't want the story to be true/goes against your narrative
1: Poland has been already sending so much, it wouldn't be surprising if they were running out of spare gear.
2: The US still has plenty of shit to send
3: The rest of the EU seems to have stuff to send also.
4: The US and the EU have been increasing their production abilities as much as they can.
5: It's just one guy.
As for the Russians, they have been cutting back on their shelling showing that they are running low also. They have been reduced to digging 1950's era tanks out of storage. Last round some troops were getting rusted over AKs, I mean fuck it can't be that hard to keep an assault rifle oiled up and rust free and being made in huge numbers and easier to store I'd guess they would have metric fuck tons of them, but I guess not. Never mind the recent mobilized troops being told to supply themselves. But yeah let's just ignore that, because fuck honesty.
Some more questions, wouldn't Russians be better off if Poutine didn't go off to his dash of glory misadventure in the Ukraine. Oh yeah right, war mongering is only bad when the west does it.
It isn't battle proven though. But on paper it is great. And the top NATO tanks are just as overrated as the T90s.
AK rusts on the wet grass. It's the way they're made, that's the bad news. The good thing about the AK, even rusty it works just as well.
They have been in battle and performed poorly. I posted this back in Sept,22.
"Only 39 have been manufactured since 2015, two broke down during parades and were relegated to static displays at military showcases.
The original batch of twenty for testing purposes were used for field trials and destructive testing to measure among other things, crew survivability.
Of the other19 delivered 10 were sent to Syria to prove themselves in battle, 5 in one group and 5 in another, reports are that three in one group were taken out by TOW-2B anti-tank systems with one being totally destroyed.
Six others were destroyed by missiles fired from helicopters. Interesting to note though is that there were no reported crew fatalities.
Not sure what happened to the remaining tank but concensus was that it was removed from the combat theatre so it wouldn't be damaged as well.
The remaining 9 were held back for training and parade purposes.
The Afghanit protection system didn't seem to be effective in an urban environment.
Found this article reporting on the tow missile hits.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/...oyed-the-latest-russian-armata-tank-in-syria/ "
Okay did not know they have been in battle. But yes, the Russian tanks are usually much more lightly armored than western ones. And I can imagine why the APS may not work in an urban environment where a guy could popup from behind a building and fire an anti-tank missile, or multiple people could fire at the same time and the system does not have enough time to react. Also tanks in general are vulnerable to top attack missiles like the Javelin or missiles fired from the air. Again not sure if those are the actual limitations, but just spitballing based on my understanding of my reading. Tanks in general are overrated though. Same thing happened with the Israeli Merkava 4s where the Hezbollah guys destroyed a few in 2006, with the Kornet and Konkours anti-tank missiles, again in an urban environment.
Last edited:
I haven't noticed you being much of a military tech hardware expert, Kreal, I must have missed your sudden expertise.
I ain't an expert but its called reading Mandy. I mean other than Twitter. Try it.I haven't noticed you being much of a military tech hardware expert, Kreal, I must have missed your sudden expertise.
How do Russia's T-14 Armata tanks compare to Britain's Challengers
Russia's T-14 Armata tanks are rolling onto the battlefield, the Kremlin has announced, putting them head to head with Ukrainian forces who have been using tanks gifted by western nations.
British military intelligence previously reported that Russian forces did not want to receive the tanks because of their 'poor condition'.
It also said that any deployment of the T-14 would likely be 'a high-risk decision' for Russia, and one taken primarily for propaganda purposes.
'Production is probably only in the low tens, while commanders are unlikely to trust the vehicle in combat,' the British military said.
Eleven years in development, the programme has been dogged with delays, reduction in planned fleet size, and reports of manufacturing problems.'
It added that the T-14 could also pose a logistical headache for Russia as it is larger and heavier than other Russian tanks.
The Kremlin ordered production of 2,300 of the tanks - first unveiled in 2015 - by 2020, but this was later stretched to by 2025, according to Russian media reports.
The Interfax news agency reported in December, 2021, that the state conglomerate Rostec had started production of some 40 tanks, with an anticipated delivery after 2023.
The T-14 war machine was among the new vehicles unveiled by Putin at Russia's Victory Day parade in Moscow in 2015
This is a concise summary of the Armatas armor with some comparison to the M1 written by an armor specialist.
"The Armata is designed to maximize crew survival. To that end, the entire crew is housed in the hull. The unmanned turret is armored only against autocannon fire. The weight saved from the turret is used to add more armor to the hull.
The hull is supposedly armored to an equivalent of 900mm of RHA. T-14 Armata - Wikipedia
In addition, there is reactive armor as well as active protection systems.
While it is true that a MBT hit on the turret will destroy it and render the tank useless, it’s actually a relatively small target. Most of the turret is a shell housing electronics and sensors. The true turret and armor is underneath and is much smaller.
T-14 Armata Turret including outer shell.
T-14 Armata Turret without shell.
From the front, the size is not much bigger than the gun mantlet of western tanks:
M1A1 turret.
And it turns out, the mantlet on western tanks is not that well armored.
It won’t stop a modern APFSDS round either."
Ukraine war: More than 20,000 Russian troops killed since December, US says
Another 80,000 Russian soldiers have been wounded in fighting since December, the White House estimates.
www.bbc.com
The White House believes that more than 20,000 Russian combatants have died in the battle for the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut in the last five months.
A further 80,000 have been wounded, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said, citing newly declassified intelligence.
Half of the dead are from the Wagner private mercenary company, the US says.
If accurate, the number of Russian casualties outweighs the eastern city's pre-war population of about 70,000.
Moscow has been trying to take Bakhmut since last year in a grinding war of attrition.
The battle for the small city - where only a few thousand civilians remain - has taken on huge symbolic importance for both sides.
Ukrainian officials have also said they are using the battle to kill as many Russian troops as possible and wear down its reserves. However, Ukraine only now controls a small portion of the city.
"Russia's attempt at an offensive in the Donbas largely through Bakhmut has failed," Mr Kirby told reporters. "Russia has been unable to seize any real strategic and significant territory."
"We estimate that Russia has suffered more than 100,000 casualties, including over 20,000 killed in action," he added.
The toll in Bakhmut accounts for losses since the start of December, according to the US figures.
"The bottom line is that Russia's attempted offensive has backfired after months of fighting and extraordinary losses," Mr Kirby said.
He added he was not giving estimates of Ukrainian casualties because "they are the victims here. Russia is the aggressor".
The BBC is unable to independently verify the figures given and Moscow has not commented.
Image caption,
A local resident pushes his bicycle down a street in Bakhmut in January
The capture of the city would bring Russia slightly closer to its goal of controlling the whole of Donetsk region, one of four regions in eastern and southern Ukraine annexed by Russia last September following referendums widely condemned outside Russia as a sham.
Analysts say Bakhmut has little strategic value, but has become a focal point for Russian commanders who have struggled to deliver any positive news to the Kremlin.
The Wagner mercenary group - which has become notorious for its often inhumane methods - has taken centre stage in the Russian assault on Bakhmut.
Its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has staked his reputation, and that of his private army, on seizing the city.
But he recently threatened to pull his troops out of Bakhmut.
In a rare in-depth interview to a prominent Russian war blogger, he vowed to withdraw Wagner fighters if they are not provided with much-needed ammunition by the Russian defence ministry.
Wagner fighters could be redeployed to Mali, he warned.
He has often clashed with Russia's defence ministry during the war, accusing officials of not providing his fighters with enough support.
Prigozhin also called upon the Russian media and military leadership to "stop lying to the Russian population" ahead of an expected Ukrainian spring counteroffensive.
"We need to stop lying to the Russian population, telling them everything is all right," he said.
He praised the Ukrainian military's "good, correct military operations" and command.
A top Ukrainian general said on Monday that counterattacks have ousted Russian forces from some positions in Bakhmut but the situation remained "difficult".
New Russian units, including paratroopers and fighters from Wagner, are being "constantly thrown into battle" despite taking heavy losses, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, the commander of Ukraine's ground forces, said on Telegram.
"But the enemy is unable to take control of the city," he said.
Yeah I guess it is all a trade off. I suppose the days of a huge groups of tanks taking on another WW2 style is no longer applicable in modern day fighting.This is a concise summary of the Armatas armor with some comparison to the M1 written by an armor specialist.
"The Armata is designed to maximize crew survival. To that end, the entire crew is housed in the hull. The unmanned turret is armored only against autocannon fire. The weight saved from the turret is used to add more armor to the hull.
The hull is supposedly armored to an equivalent of 900mm of RHA. T-14 Armata - Wikipedia
In addition, there is reactive armor as well as active protection systems.
While it is true that a MBT hit on the turret will destroy it and render the tank useless, it’s actually a relatively small target. Most of the turret is a shell housing electronics and sensors. The true turret and armor is underneath and is much smaller.
T-14 Armata Turret including outer shell.
T-14 Armata Turret without shell.
From the front, the size is not much bigger than the gun mantlet of western tanks:
M1A1 turret.
And it turns out, the mantlet on western tanks is not that well armored.
It won’t stop a modern APFSDS round either."
- Status
