Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

pron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 268
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post09 May 2022, 16:34

Someone have made a very nice video of the russian MBT in the green field in David Attenborough style.
Make sure you have sound when you play the video. :D
https://twitter.com/ItsBorys/status/1523664324950036480
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4082
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 May 2022, 16:40

pron wrote:Someone have made a very nice video of the russian MBT in the green field in David Attenborough style.
Make sure you have sound when you play the video. :D
https://twitter.com/ItsBorys/status/1523664324950036480


LOL, that's one of the best/funniest video that I ever watched! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
(sound is indeed of utmost importance to watch this video!)
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4858
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 May 2022, 17:03

Great video! Original, engaging and funny as hell...

W/respect to the Russian air force and Mig-31, I wouldn't use it in Ukraine. If they do, it'll just be one more wonder weapon that gets exposed. As it stands, the Mig-31 and its radar/weapons has a fearsome reputation. If experience is anything to go by (Iraqi Mig-25's), it should be an absolute bear in air to air combat.

"Should be", being the operative words...

I have a feeling if they use it, the Ukranian Air Force will still be flying in some form or fashion. Then, a Mig-31 will be part of a high profile shootdown, much like the SU-30's, SU-34 and SU-35's that have been downed.

In fact, I'd pull every Mig-29 I could out of storage, and use those instead. It already has a reputation for being reduced to spare parts, so nothing lost. Oh well, maybe the Mig-31 will be in the May day parade. Good place for it, when you really think about it...
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 635
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post09 May 2022, 17:09

ricnunes wrote:Another "Super-Mega" T-90M destroyed in Ukraine and again the turret was ripped apart from the hull!


Looks like the same one shot from above. The turret is facing the same direction. The cover on transmission was ripped open just like the first one.
Offline

pron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 268
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post09 May 2022, 17:58

British intelligence reported that the Russian Federation is running out of high-precision missiles, and it sure looks like this when they start using very old Sovjet Kh-22 missiles from the early 1960s.

For strikes on the territory of Ukraine, Russia began to use Soviet Kh-22 cruise missiles. For the first time this happened on the night of Monday, May 9, in the Donetsk region, reports Defense Express.

Thus, the Russian military used up to six Kh-22 Kh-22 air-launched cruise missiles from strategic bombers of the Tu-22M3 type. They were sent to objects in the cities of the Donetsk region.
https://www.perild.com/2022/05/09/russi ... les-media/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4082
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 May 2022, 19:46

zhangmdev wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Another "Super-Mega" T-90M destroyed in Ukraine and again the turret was ripped apart from the hull!


Looks like the same one shot from above. The turret is facing the same direction. The cover on transmission was ripped open just like the first one.


Are you sure?
I'm asking this because if you look at the gun on both pictures they point at a somehow/slight different direction. At first glance it seems the turrets are pointing at the exact same spot/direction in both photos but again I don't think they are - for instance in the photos that I shared the gun is almost point straight back while in the photo that you shared it was pointing also backwards but more to the right. On top of this, in the pictures that I shared the gun seems to be pointing more or less upwards (or at best, more or less straight) while in your photo the gun is clearly pointed downwards.

Even more and while it cannot be seen in the photos that I shared and which were taken by my cell phone, I focused on the tank itself but the landspace around the tank looked almost "barren" or more precisely it was brownish with basically no grass. In the photo that you shared the landscape was apparently lush green (for instance full of grass and with trees in the background) which could/should indicate a different location and therefore possibly another destroyed tank.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

advance

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 09 May 2022, 21:18

Unread post09 May 2022, 21:38

ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote:...

So perhaps the USMC was right in ditching their tanks, at least in some scenarios...


I disagree. Or more precisely I tend to disagree with a good part of your post while agreeing with some other parts.

I agree when you say that modern anti-tank weapons like the Javelin or suicide drones are extremely dangerous to Main Battle Tanks (MBTs). But then again if those weapons are so dangerous to MBTs then imagine how much more dangerous would they be against lighter armored vehicles like IFVs or APCs?? Or even against dismounted infantry?

The thing is that in order to assault an enemy fortified position you'll need armored vehicles that can provide both cover and fire support to the infantry.
Are you going to send dismounted infantry to assault an enemy fortified position? History have been showing us that this would basically be a suicide tactic.

And here is where the importance of Main Battle Tanks, specially well armored and survivable tanks like the western designs (namely M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2) come up. They provide a way to assault enemy fortified positions head on while minimizing human loses since if one of those tanks is destroyed/mobilized by enemy modern anti-tank weapons or suicide drones the crew will have a much bigger chance to survive than being inside a more lightly armored IFV.

In the way, what Ukraine is showing us but in fact we already knew is that integration between several assets - the so called "combined arms" - and all of these assets being networked is absolutely vital for future success and survivability in the battlefield. And the Russian have been failing miserably at this and on top of this, their Tanks are poorly designed for crew survivability hence why (IMO, without surprise) we have been seeing their armored columns/tanks failing so miserably!

Resuming if you are about to be hit by a modern anti-tank weapons like the Javelin or a suicide drone would you rather be inside this:
Image

Or inside this:
Image

??

Have to agree with you here. You can't trot out a fleet of t72's, likely from storage, with the ERA side bags empty on many of the older t-72's. Also, the last second try at cage armor was a flop. Plus using Russian tanks as the reason the tank is dead is not a hard to point at poster child. The reality today is there are probably 3 or 4 potentially missiles that can hit an Abrams near the front with any shot of pentration; Most of the Russian models or like can't get through what an M1A2 is packing, and if it's an M1A2C, well, the rumors of what the armor equivalent are is immense in certain spots. even the side armor is very good, with thought that only the last two guns procured by the Russians can get through the side armor, let alone the front. The penalty is weight of course, with the estimates anywhere from high 70's to 83 tons when fully loaded up. But the immense armor, the ARAT ERA plus Trophy would make an Abrams very tough to kill. The thing I see alot from geniuses like the fool at Task & Purpose "NLAW's would kill an Abrams". Considering Trophy does have a protection ability for top attack rounds, that basically means right now the best way to attack an Abrams is with an IED that is not remote-controlled detonated or by a Sabot round from the latest guns through the side or rear. The losses you see from Saudi's using them or the Turks and their Leopard 2's are often rear shots, no APS, and it's a lose lose. Though these tanks then blow vented up and out the ammo, or get a new engine, and live to fight another day with a saved crew. They don't play cook up and blown out the jack in the box top. Honestly, my thought is you will see more attention given than even currently to APS systems and see what the NATO armies do best- add more armor where needed. Top attack ATGM are not like an ASM going from low altitude to a high last second approach to dive down the ship; Instead they shoot over a projectile from very close distance on the top armor. It probably has much less explosive equivalent than most Anti tank weapons. Put more armor on top of the tank and perhaps engine compartment and ball is back in court of the missile makers to figure out can they upgrade the kill ability or would the missile not be capable of that power output for top attack? If the US ever gave as much to its R&D to the Army as it did its Air Force they probably by now would have 140 mm guns on the tanks, needed or not, have put on hybrid drives for the engine but most importantly, fixed the Armor dilemma of the new magic material combination to drive the weight down by a third or half, which may be this foam metal (the look, not really foam) with the hollowed spaces with a combination of other materials over composite with even some advanced aluminum or such. But the advances have not kept as much pace as say Aircraft advances, and that's entirely due to the Russians slacking off on their armor and China being so, so far behind to begin with.
Offline

retchief70

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 07 May 2011, 20:54
  • Location: Panama City, Florida

Unread post10 May 2022, 01:53

Missing from the discussion of MBT survivability on modern battlefields is the lack of air assets dedicated to the antitank role in the current Ukraine conflict. Can you imagine the effect on Russian armor if the Ukrainians could field a couple battalions of AH-64 Apaches and a squadron or two of A-10s? Another reason why I'll let someone besides me man a tank.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 495
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post10 May 2022, 08:21

pron wrote:Someone have made a very nice video of the russian MBT in the green field in David Attenborough style.
Make sure you have sound when you play the video. :D
https://twitter.com/ItsBorys/status/1523664324950036480


Predators such as “farmers with tractors “.
I died.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4014
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post10 May 2022, 09:26

retchief70 wrote:Missing from the discussion of MBT survivability on modern battlefields is the lack of air assets dedicated to the antitank role in the current Ukraine conflict. Can you imagine the effect on Russian armor if the Ukrainians could field a couple battalions of AH-64 Apaches and a squadron or two of A-10s? Another reason why I'll let someone besides me man a tank.


There are air assets that have antitank capability to destroy tanks used by both sides. Su-25, Mi-28, Ka-50/52 and Mi-25/35 are all capable of doing that with antitank missiles, bombs and rockets (some of their rockets even have tandem-HEAT warheads). Of course Bayraktar drones have shown pretty good capabilities also and now there are those loitering munitions. Those are not as effective as current A-10s or AH-64s but real threats still. Of course there is also quite effective air defence systems there and especially those A-10s might have some trouble. AH-64 Apache Guardian with Spike-NLOS missiles would be really awesome as they could easily stay away from enemy systems and just fire those missiles at the enemy 20-30 km away and use outside targeting info.

Of course Ukraine itself has been pleading to get more tanks and IFVs themselves as they see the need for them on the battlefield. They'd definitely prefer Western designs but are happy to get even old and flammable tanks like T-72M1s and similar. It's still a tank with a lot of firepower and decent protection from direct and indirect fire. Offensive operations are rather difficult without tanks and IFVs especially if the enemy has them and has a lot of artillery.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4014
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post10 May 2022, 09:38

Here is the video of the destruction of that T-90M:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1523925065909342210

According to that, it was Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle that did the damage. From the video it seems that it was a relatively fast projectile (but not as fast as tank rounds) that hit the tank and it flew near the ground as it kicked up some dust. It also seemed to hit the back of the turret and was not a top-attack weapon like MBT-LAW. So Carl Gustaf is very possible weapon for that and penetration (>500mm after ERA) would be very sufficient for where it hit. Ammunition inside definitely detonated given how much smoke and flames was coming out and where.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 635
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post10 May 2022, 10:24

Look at the separated road wheel. Pretty sure it is the same one.

Edit: check the sequence of the event:

1. The turrent is at 9 o'clock position
2. The first flash is visible around the ammo box behind the turret
3. The ammo box blew up
4. Hull breach. Visible flame at the level of the road wheels
5. Looks like the turret popped and rotated. The main gun is no longer visible.

I guess having a separated ammo box doesn't help.
Attachments
t90mwreck.jpg
same T-90M
t90mdestruction.jpg
T-90M destruction
Last edited by zhangmdev on 10 May 2022, 10:56, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 635
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post10 May 2022, 10:52

Fired a RPG, then hit by an AT grenade.
Attachments
final_627a2ddd95703800805d662e_592311b.jpg
rpg grenade
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4082
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 May 2022, 11:29

zhangmdev wrote:Look at the separated road wheel. Pretty sure it is the same one.

Edit: check the sequence of the event:

1. The turrent is at 9 o'clock position
2. The first flash is visible around the ammo box behind the turret
3. The ammo box blew up
4. Hull breach. Visible flame at the level of the road wheels
5. Looks like the turret popped and rotated. The main gun is no longer visible.

I guess having a separated ammo box doesn't help.


Nice find about the wheel and it really seems to be in the same position!

However, I still think the gun is pointed differently and the turret is slightly more to the right in the in the last example versus the first.
The turret also seems to be dislocated more to the end of the hull in the second/last example where the back of the turret looks to be further away from the beginning of the hull compared to the first example, however this could be a perspective induced error on my part.
Anyway, I took the liberty of editing your image to show what I mentioned above with the gun position in yellow and the turret vs hull position in green:
Image
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5336
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post10 May 2022, 11:32

advance wrote:the best way to attack an Abrams is with an IED that is not remote-controlled detonated

And I've seen Abrams come back with multiple 6-8" EFP hits.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests