The War in the Ukraine

Temstar said:

Regarding this video. I know that MRAP have V bottom design to deflect blast away from passenger cabins and run flat tires and bottom protection specifically designed with mines in mind, yet in this case AT mines seem to take them out just as well. Are their protection more intended for IED and not dedicated AT mine with shape charge warhead?

Click to expand...

The idea with MRAP tho is that it can protect the passangers in expense of the vehicle itself. It's not expected to retain mobility or "combat functionality" after getting such mine impact. As long as the hull intact and everyone inside alive it's already done a great job.

On the MRAP Rush tho they are like some sort of high speed APC's, with protection and speed bit better than BTR's.
-------

Also how's the "Free Russian Legion" attack so far ? like saw people hyping them taking towns etc.. but the Russians seems to work on them just fine.

tank3487 said:

Grain deal are mostly due to Turkey and that it retain neutral position despite being NATO member. With Edrogan being reelected it is unlikely that there would be any moves that can decrease mutual relationships between Turkey and Russia.

Click to expand...

But it keeps a large part of the Ukrainian economy afloat, mainly the villages in the west and east of Ukraine.

If it is cancelled, it jeopardises not only the Ukrainian economy, but also EU-Ukraine relations. Recall that many eastern EU countries have banned the import of Ukrainian grain.

I have to say that I was wrong. I said way back that Russia should have held to Kherson, but it was known even then that destruction of that hydropower plant by Ukraine was to be expected. In that case Russian forces in Kherson would have been split from the rest when the water rushed in. So kudos to Surovikin for preempting that from happening. This also explains why the Russians made such extensive defensive works, not just in the southern bank of the river south of Kherson, but also around Crimean peninsula itself. Even if Ukraine floods the lowlands of Kherson Oblast, the Russians have secondary defense works they can dig into.

As for the cut in water supply to Crimea, while it will be a problem, it won't manifest in years, and the Russians already had built extensive facilities to pump water from underground sources, with plans to build a water pipe from Russia if necessary. If the Russians could do without water from the canal to Crimea from late 2014 to 2022, they can also do it this time.

sheogorath said:

Guess the Russians blew the dam without even clearing their own lines first

View attachment 113978



Western analysts pointed out previously that should the dam be blown up, the flooding would be worse on the Russian side due to topography so Ukraine had a motive to do it

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665954431559675905

And in December, the Ukrainians admiting to conducting a test strike on the dam.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1666030961878790144

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1665970564899430406

The narrative being pushed by the west can only be described as pure cowardice. If you are going to do the deed, own up to it instead of doing this bs. This is why the west can't be trusted in any shape or form whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Beside energy capacity of the dam, the dam bridge was not able to be a supply road anymore. That kind of vital infrastructures is clearly not a target if you plan to win. It would have been an asset for both sides even if the conflict would stop at present borders. Maybe it was structural failure and Ukraine was trying to lower the river to ease crossing and bypassed the damaged dam capacity.

Irrigation will be long to restore and a Nuclear powerplant without cooling is no more an asset. Kherson city is destroyed even more and low lands are flooded. That's a huge long term waste. Turning uglier by the day...

Minefields on the banks are shuffled all over the place, will be an even bigger nightmare to find them after the war...

There are claims that the water reservoir of the dam is still holding. Plus four of the reactors were already in cold shutdown, with another two in hot shutdown mode. While lack of water supply to the reactors might pose an issue, at worst you would get something like a core meltdown in the remaining two reactors, it is not like the plants would explode in a nuclear blast. In the case of other nuclear materials which need water to be cooled down, at worst casings might crack due to excessive heating and radioactive materials would leak out.

gelgoog said:

There are claims that the water reservoir of the dam is still holding. Plus four of the reactors were already in cold shutdown, with another two in hot shutdown mode. While lack of water supply to the reactors might pose an issue, at worst you would get something like a core meltdown in the remaining two reactors, it is not like the plants would explode in a nuclear blast. In the case of other nuclear materials which need water to be cooled down, at worst casings might crack due to excessive heating and radioactive materials would leak out.

Click to expand...

In any case, energy production is compromised and the giant energy plant is a giant radioactive hulk...They will need to do new supply infrastructure to be sure that they can restore production and if the war settle with the Dnieper, it will be hard to do that kind of work if shelling continue.

gelgoog said:

There are claims that the water reservoir of the dam is still holding. Plus four of the reactors were already in cold shutdown, with another two in hot shutdown mode. While lack of water supply to the reactors might pose an issue, at worst you would get something like a core meltdown in the remaining two reactors, it is not like the plants would explode in a nuclear blast. In the case of other nuclear materials which need water to be cooled down, at worst casings might crack due to excessive heating and radioactive materials would leak out.

Click to expand...

Meltdown could happens in the first few days/weeks after the shutdown, afterwards the decay heat neglible. Require heat transport, but after few feeks it takes close to month for the decay heat to boil all the water from the reactor.

In practice, now it is possible to fill back the reactor with hand carried buckets,to keep it cool.

Atomicfrog said:

In any case, energy production is compromised and the giant energy plant is a giant radioactive hulk...They will need to do new supply infrastructure to be sure that they can restore production and if the war settle with the Dnieper, it will be hard to do that kind of work if shelling continue.

Click to expand...

Still water there , in worst case they have to decrease the efficiency of the power generation to increase the temperature of water and decrease the volume.

Not a big issue, condisering there is not so much population left in West ukraine.

Anlsvrthng said:

Still water there , in worst case they have to decrease the efficiency of the power generation to increase the temperature of water and decrease the volume.

Not a big issue, condisering there is not so much population left in West ukraine.

Click to expand...

The plant is on the east bank and would certainly be used for Russia in the future if they keep it. That plant would power Crimea big time. If water remain high enough and the lower dam structure is guaranteed to hold, they could restart it but incertainty means the plant is gone on paper for a long time.

Whoever destroyed this dam made a war crime. Period. Such things should be out of the pale.

Now, who knows, IMHO, it's possible that both parties might be responsible, both have for and against arguments.