Look like oushing against defensive line in that war is searching for trouble resulting in a lot of loss. Ukrainian tasted it a lot, Most Russian fast advances was against retreating UKR and the same for fast Ukrainian advances... Opening a new front is probably the best way to gain gound for Russia.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
I'm generally not the type to compare numbers top trumps style because the real world doesn't work like that, but if you absolutely must, I'm pretty sure you are way, way off with those numbers. A quick search shows a penetration value of 490 mm for the 1983 M833 round, with various other newer rounds exceeding that number by quite a bit.
The Russian Ministry of Defence commented on Pavlovka, essentially saying the situation is under control and that Ukraine is suffering heavier casualties than Russian forces. To be fair, there are Russians in Pavlovka also saying on TG that yesterday's hysteria was unnecessary.
The Russian Defense Ministry denied claims that there were "high useless losses in manpower and equipment" in Pavlovka.
In addition, the Defense Ministry reported that the advance in the area of responsibility of the 155th Brigade of the Northern Fleet Marines is up to 5 km deep into the Ukrainian positions. Total losses of marines over the last 10 days do not exceed 1% of the combat personnel and 7% of the wounded, a significant part of which have already returned to service, the ministry specified.
Earlier, reports about the allegedly heavy losses were also denied by the governor of Primorye - he said that the commanders of the 155th Brigade had contacted him and reported that although there were losses, they were not as significant as had been previously written about them.
Oleg Kozhemyako said that there are heavy battles near Pavlovka - there are losses, but not as serious as previously reported
The Governor of Primorsky Krai said that there really are losses near Pavlovka, but they are not as serious as described in his appeal.
I see it as a very remote possibility for China to supply 105mm ammunition to Ukraine, unless it's something smuggled, which I think plausibly impossible, Pakistan is most likely. Pakistan is the most certain given the level of aid they offer Ukraine in terms of munitions, but I don't know how much of that aid could be sent to Ukraine in terms of APFSDS rounds and HEAT warheads. Do you know what's the problem with that? They will depend 100% on foreign supply.
The ironic thing is that of the many vehicles you mentioned, all were developed in the beginning of the second half of the 20th century.
The western bloc adopted the 105 mm caliber for tanks at the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, because in the triad of the armored balance: firepower, armored protection and mobility, this caliber offered enough arguments to face the Soviet equivalents. The mass emergence of the T-72 tank, with its 125 mm caliber, model 2A46, was a response to the increase in the NATO standard from 105 to 120 mm, leaving a message in the air that the smallest caliber had its days numbered. That is, you completely reversed the historical sequence here.
In the 50s of the last century, the British L7 cannon of 105 mm caliber appears, which will serve as a weapon or as a mold for every tank west of the Iron Curtain in the following two decades, lasting in some models until the present day. The placement of larger calibers in tanks is not a novelty nowadays, as the Soviet IS-3 tanks, developed in 1944, were already equipped with 122 mm guns.
As for the first M1 units to use the 105mm cannon, early productions only used the M68A1 because the ammunition for the M256 120mm smoothbore cannon had not yet been developed, later being released in 1984, 6 years after the M1 Abrams program. have been started. Furthermore, there were still a large number of M60s in service in the 1980s and a massive amount of 105mm ammunition, it was only a temporary solution until the effective replacement for the M256 120mm.
In addition, 105 mm gun concepts already operate at the limits, see the case of the MGS with the 105 mm M68A1E4 cannon, they operate strictly under the concept of infantry fire support, they are generally disused calibers by MBTs (90 mm or 105 mm) or 120 mm guns with a different recoil system to withstand the recoil, something that has reduced their robustness and these guns tend to operate in lower pressure ranges of the inner chamber. This is all to preserve the "lightness" and without this causing too much stress to an adapted chassis, which was not made for such a function, so it is adapted. The MPF foresaw a 120 mm cannon and had to reduce it to 105 mm and guess what the reason is;
That. And also, they have no means to arm and support them. They have problems with these current 200 000 professionals, not to mention 3 millions.
Physics does work with hard numbers, though. Muzzle velocity, armor thickness and angles, distances, materials and layout are known hard values that affect the performance of a round and the armor.
While the aproach might be wise for many other areas, like missile ranges, overall performance of a weapons systems and such, armor and tank rounds are mostly hard physics. Where manufacturers might toy with numbers is when it comes to RHA interpretations, armor angles and such.
Which is why real life test of operational tanks and round that I linked are valuable. This isn't a manufacturer toying with numbers but armies trying to understand if they anticipated the threats properly or not, to apply the required improvements.
In the case of NATO it validated the idea that 105mm guns weren't enough to deal with Soviet Armor of the late 1970s and 1980's.
Thats pretty much the average for most 105mm rounds out there without venturing into rounds Ukraine won't get.
You are using numbers from a video game that doesn't even quote the armor angle for that value, though it most likely comes from Bob McKenzie's book which never provided source for his claim.
M833 rod is 427mm in length. For the thing to be able to penetrate more than its lenght, it needs to achieve unrealistic impact velocities. Also the tip of the M833 is rounded unlike that of more modern penetrators which means its performance against slopped armor will be worse than that of flat tipped rounds.
According to a Rheimetall brochure, the M833 has 360mm of RHA penetration at 2000m, which would put the penetration at 1000m at under 400mm given the low deacceleration of the round.
And I just linked you a USMC test report that pointed out the M833 can only deal with a T-62 reliably and anything else can't really be penetrated.
The whole point of the development of the T-72 was to improve survivability of Soviet Tanks against NATO's 105mm and future threats
Last edited:
Why would you share an article with such low-level brain dead analysis? This is like a 5th grade-level knowledge of geopolitics.
Is not like western leadership nowdays is capable of understanding even that nowadays, though. The rise of the nepotistic failsons has seen to that.
EDIT: In restrospect, that stupidity is not that new. They ended up handing an staunchly anti-iranian Iraq, to Iran itself with the whole GWOT bullshit.
Last edited:
Even if that article is brain dead, I feel like I've seen "negotiations" mentioned a lot more in Newsfeeds relative to a couple months ago when Russia was pushed out of Kharkov. Entirely unscientific evidence, I I know. However, I think many journalists are feeling that domestic issues will impact the level of support going forward.
Adviser to the Head of the Office of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy: