Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Aussie news is going by Russias "truck bomb" caused it explanation:
Truck explosion collapses Kerch Bridge linking Russia to Crimea, causing Ukraine to poke fun
Ukrainian officials are poking fun at Russia over an explosion on a bridge linking the country to the Crimean Peninsula, with the defence council secretary referencing Vladimir Putin's birthday in a Twitter post showing the burning bridge and a video of Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday Mr...www.abc.net.au
I am loving that article.
I wish there was more news. I'm not buying the truck bomb theory here.
If you look at the image here https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...howing-attacks-similar.18582449/post-35906734 truck bomb makes no sense. Something with enough punch to bring either of those sections down, unless extremely well designed shaped blast, would not leave the second bit that relatively unscathed.
Truck bomb would not leave that kind of neat damage either if it had enough power to bring those sections down - it would be an absolute mess.
EDIT: Though the strength of the wind might be significantly distorting the visual side of the explosion - can see in the image just how powerful the air current is there, making the footage misleading but seems quite odd for a truck bomb.
Last edited:
No matter what option russia agrees to its an utter embarrassment and failure of their so called 20 step defence system
if it's bombs planted under the bridge, then it can be an inside job- someone didn't check the cameras either out of stupidity or purposefully. Radar turned off again, someone didn't notice an undeclared boat coming up? Or inside job, bridge security set bombs working as partisans or for ukraine?
If it's a missile then the question is: what air defence doing? Radar Turned off again? Russian SAMs unable to defend against sea skimming missiles? Russian anti missile tracking defences failing?
if it's bombs planted under the bridge, then it can be an inside job- someone didn't check the cameras either out of stupidity or purposefully. Radar turned off again, someone didn't notice an undeclared boat coming up? Or inside job, bridge security set bombs working as partisans or for ukraine?
If it's a missile then the question is: what air defence doing? Radar Turned off again? Russian SAMs unable to defend against sea skimming missiles? Russian anti missile tracking defences failing?
Last edited:
Be interesting to see what actually happened if the facts ever come to light - not much about it makes sense from any similar kind of events to match up against.
EDIT: For example a truck exploding on a bridge in Italy here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5kAh4gieII
EDIT: For example a truck exploding on a bridge in Italy here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5kAh4gieII
Last edited:
Here is a fantastic quote from retired general Ben Hodges on why he believes Ukraine will win, when he was interviewed today by Perun:
"When Ukraine announced mobilization on February 23, the #1 search on Google in Ukraine was how to make a Molotov cocktail. On September 21 when mobilization was announced in Russia the #1 search was how to book flights out of Russia."
"When Ukraine announced mobilization on February 23, the #1 search on Google in Ukraine was how to make a Molotov cocktail. On September 21 when mobilization was announced in Russia the #1 search was how to book flights out of Russia."
Last edited:
This just goes to show how well planned it was, and how far ahead that planning took place. You can't produce brand new stamps in a few hours, the postal service clearly knew well in advance. But nobody leaked. Now that's impressive.
I still want to know how they did it.
Last edited:
I can’t imagine any next gen tank not having storage/docking/recharge for a small fleet of drones which it could used for reconnaissance, target acquisition, anti personnel etc. I’d envision them working in unison with the drones from other vehicles to form ever larger nets to give overwatch etc.
similarly the tank would need to ensure it’s got an anti drone weapon of some kind. Maybe some shotgun/chaff style for smaller and lower and then the machine gun for bigger and higher.
Every tank would turn into a mini awacs for ground targets then.
Last edited:
I'd imagine the targetting package can use the sensors such as the 2 camera pods to track a variety of drones with the top mounted gun.
Though I dunno why in this day and age a similar sized pod sort of like an automated sentry turret couldn't be mounted to deal with a variety of small and medium size drones - triple barrel Gatling firing even something like a hotted up .22 Creedmoor round in rapid bursts could deal with the most common drone threats - albeit that is another logistic layer to add in (EDIT: With an advanced enough sensor suite it could probably deal with most top attack munitions, etc. as well).
Last edited:
After doing a bit of reading, while GD is calling this a next Gen tank, it's actually seen by the US military as a temporary gap filler until a full next Gen tank arrives in the 2030s
But this new tank is built to support their next Gen communications systems and AI and even with future tanks this one can still slot in working perhaps as a command vehicle (because the US's full next Gen tank May end up not having any crew at all and just be AI controlled or remote controlled and be half the size of a current Abrams).
The US does seem to have a doctrine of preferring to build do it all, Jack in the box systems so the AbramsX can do different things in the future if required and it's 120mm gun uses their new do it all shell, the XM1147
Last edited:
Jesus wept.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
Saw a post on Reddit the other day with a photo for a proposed upgrade to the commander’s weapon station on an Abram’s, which currently consists of a remote weapon station with an M2 .50cal heavy machine gun. They’re replacing the .50cal with an M230, which is the 30mm chain gun made famous by the AH-64 Apache. That would make an absolute beast of a secondary weapon.
No. Russian armour/mechanised doctrine is obsolete, tanks are still an important asset on the battlefield.I thought tanks were obsolete
I took it more as a reference to Johnson saying we'd not see tanks rolling across Europe just before we saw tanks roll across Europe.
One of many genius insights by the oaf.
I thought tanks were obsolete
Despite blowing up lots of Russian tanks, Ukraine keeps saying it wants more tanks for itself
That should tell you all you need to know; having a tank is still better than not having a tank no matter how old the tank is or how poor your tactics are and it's the same for Russia - despite losing 2000 tanks so far, they're still putting soldiers into 50 year old tanks because they believe it's better than nothing.
Tanks are still seen by both sides in this war as a desirable vehicle for doing attacking pushes against well defended positions
Last edited:
We have not seen tanks roll across Europe as in the Soviet style war plans during the cold war. The use of tanks in Ukraine has largely been inhibited by the courage of Ukraine and the supply of anti tank weaponry. Your point is as invalid as usual and just a personal attack on a politician you dislike.
Also off topic.
- Status