But if they are stuck... they are stuck. It's not the same pulling a 45 tons out of the mud than a 62t or 70 t depending of what variant of M1 they receive... the same with leopard tank. They will need some retrieval vehicles upgrades.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
They can try with 2 BREM's or 2 other tanks to pull any stuck tanks. Or just put Log in the rear side of leopard and when stuck.. tie the log to the tracks then move to give some traction.
The other option is just to abandon the tank completely.. blow the insides and let it there. Russians would have the same problem retrieving that stuck tank as the Ukrainian unless they fully occupy the area.
The other option is just to abandon the tank completely.. blow the insides and let it there. Russians would have the same problem retrieving that stuck tank as the Ukrainian unless they fully occupy the area.
Russia has plenty of choppers and aircraft for firing unguided rockets and footage can barely reach 1% of actual combat. if they are ordering square shape missile in largest ordered what makes you think they are ordering cylindrical shape missiles in smaller orders?
most of sorties are from platforms that has low altitude flight characteristics.
The coverage area on the T-80U is quite clearly much better, without leaving as many large gaps in between different modules. It's a much better implementation, and only marginally more complicated.
The T-90M also has a net on the turret to help protect the space between the turret and the chassis. Another low-cost solution that should be implemented. Though I noticed that not every T-90 tank has this net.
How do they "support" their armies? If anything, the performance of VKS in any kind of close support has been limited, AKA, poor. And it does matter. Production rates for these missiles matter, as they are one of the primary constraints on expenditure of these missiles.
Yes, there was some testing done in Syria.
I think my argument has been quite clear. The missile has been fairly rare on the battlefield. Both Russia and Ukrainians tend to report on what weapon was used to hit what target, and the use of LMUR has been a fairly rare occurrence despite, by all account, being a good missile.
Putting all the various factors together, it seems likely that RuAF don't have large stocks of these missiles.
This is from August, and "sorties" could mean anything. Including missile strikes done by LRA.
But yes, footage from the VKS especially, is unlikely to be common. There are other source of information for strikes however, and I try to keep my out for reports of Russian use of PGMs especially, because it's an interesting topic.
Unfortunately, reporting of Russian PGM use has been fairly rare and sporadic.
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier.
To be short, sure. I can't prove a negative, but what I can tell you is that the vast majority of helicopter strike missions that I've seen, were done at night. The only daytime operations that Ru helicopters have been spotted making are those portable MLRS ones, where they fire unguided rockets at a 30 degree angle.
Does that mean that daylight strike operations never happen? No, but I don't regularly see them. I think it's safe to say that they are done at night.
The MANPAD threat is ever present in Ukraine, it makes sense to do theses missions at night to reduce risk.
150 sorties per day is avg. The word tactical and army aviation does not include bombers but include attack choppers. how many sorties out of 150 per day you can see in videos?
I don't see the word "tactical" or "army" aviation in there. Ukrainians are also prone to over-exaggeration.
But I don't quite see your point. I don't need to see every sorties in order to tell which missions we see more or less of. Do I need to visually confirm every single T-72 in order to conclude that they are used more commonly than a T-90? Of course not. There are trends we can observe when we look at reporting and footage.
This is why I am not speaking in absolutes, and why I am using imprecise terms. It seems like there are far fewer of x than y. And these are the reasons why I am inclined to believe that, and so on.
If you think that Russia actually has a large stock of this or that, or that the RuAF are carrying out a lot more air support than what we see them do, let me know why.
you made statement that 305 missile is limited quantity when the larger missiles are not in limited quantity.. They have ordered 114 Ka-52M and they are going to upgrade the rest to that standard. The are ordering far complex X-69 square shape missile in largest quantity ordered to date. and that mean surpassing the thousands cruise missiles already fired. Every one is exaggerating and your baseless statement we can take at face value.
Abrams does have a nice post-penetration survival rate in part thanks to isolated ammo rack and blow-out panels. That said, if your turret front or sides penetrated, your crew will be liquefied anyway.
And if by any chance, a direct hit on the bustle compromises the blast door or the bulkhead, the ammo explosion will follow the path of least resistance as well.
The worse of the lot will certainly be the Challenger 2, with ammo being stored all over the fighting comparment
They do but they are shallower than the Abrams cleats as it doesn't sit on top of a rubber pad, though, offering more more contact area once it sinks into the ice.
Also the cleats on the Abrams aren't fitted to every track link but only every 5th link, so you are still dealing mostly with rubber pads. I guess it is impractical to put cleats on every link
Still the vulnerability of the gaps was likely considered not relevant enough to incur in the expense of redesigning the mounting points and speeds up the modernization process
They are hard to see and made of some sort of rubber so they might burn off. Also, they have to be removed to fit the Nakidka thermal cammo.