Russia's War Against Ukraine

[JasonPratt]

Heck yeah SEATO returns! -- though RIMPAC sounds admittedly more awesome.

Now for Gus Team Seato.

[SirAndrewD]

I've been able to do a lot more studies into RIMPAC since my divorce, that's for sure.

[Gusington]

^Is that a euphemism?

I don't know if I can afford a deployment to the Pacific.

[SirAndrewD]

^Is that a euphemism?

Always. 

[Gusington]

 8)

[Uberhaus]

a darwin award contender. 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1544704505094217729

In Soviet Russia, rocket warheads and fuel destroy in place you.
May he succeed in his efforts next time.

[FarAway Sooner]

I can see it makes it hard to repair if there are secondary explosions but does anyone know the chances of crew survival after a penetration if there aren't secondaries?

I think it varies a lot depending on the tank and what destroyed it.  I don't really know which ammunition types are most in style for tank-killing weapons these days.  A lot of this knowledge might be outdated, but here's what I've read...

A simple AP round passing through the armor of a tank and entering the crew compartment will almost certainly kill somebody, but how many people it kills depends on how much it bounces around the inside of the tank and what it knocks loose to bounce around the inside of the tank.  A round that goes into the hull and knocks the engine out or catches the engine on fire without triggering an immediate explosion might give everybody time to get out.   Unless the impact of the weapon warped hatches or otherwise trapped crewmen inside the vehicle.

An HEAT round/missile that gets a clean kill shoots a jet of superheated plasma into the inside of the tank, where it almost certainly starts fires and burns everybody (likely cooking them alive, also triggering very quick secondary explosions).  An HEAT round that only penetrates the engine compartment might or might not do the same amount of damage to the crew, but the likelihood of fire is very high.  It's then a question of whether the tank blows up before the crew gets out.

Safe stowage of ammunition has been a huge factor in preventing tanks  from "brewing up" for a long time now.  While the Sherman didn't have the armor to withstand heavy anti-tank guns by June 1944, it did have much safer stowage practices for ammunition (shells stored in water, etc.).  So, while a lot of Shermans got shot apart, the crew was often more likely to survive than their German counterparts.

I forget the details, but I know that the Abrams also sacrifices some rate-of-fire for safer ammunition stowage.  This is a marked contrast to the Russian tanks.

The US did a much better job than the Wehrmacht at retrieving and repairing tanks, in part because the Sherman was a butt-simple tank (i.e., easy to fix and highly standardized) and in part because they allocated a lot more heavy-duty vehicles to tank retrieval and repair.  But also because they were a bit less likely to have catastrophic fires.  If you want a great book that provides some very detailed and autobiographical accounts of what happened when US and German tanks got knocked out in 1944-1945, I heartily recommend Adam Makos' Spearhead.

My sense is that the introduction of HEAT technology made tanks a lot more dangerous for the crews.

[matt3916]

That would be "Spearhead" by Adam Makos.   :)

[Uberhaus]

Spall liners are very important in modern afv.
https://custommaterials.com/what-are-spall-liners/

As to the M4 original ammo stowage was bad. http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/the-shermans-flaw-what-was-wrong-with-the-tank-and-stayed-wrong/

Yes, its early ammo storage was a flaw, storing ammo in the sponsons, and all around the base of the turret basket made it easy to brew the tank up with an ammo fire. They figured this out, and changed the ammo configuration and put it all in armored boxes. Most tanks already issued received these changes in kit form.  When the large hatch hull went into production, for the most part, these tanks got wet storage in the hull, under the turret basket, with water jackets. This location proved to be a very good place for the ammo, and fires in penetrated Shermans went down drastically. The location was far more important than the wet part of the storage, and it was dropped post-war.  Some crews objected to the changes in ammo storage, a pre quick fix Sherman with 12 to 14 ready rounds within easy reach of the loader could pump out a very large volume of fire for a fairly long time, the new ammo layout really slowed the rate of fire down in a sustained fight. Because of this, some crews ignored the new ammo regulations and stored as much loose ammo as they could in the turret basket.  These crews were willing to risk the higher chance of catastrophic fire, to keep that higher sustained rate of fire.

[JasonPratt]

Well, when you're desperate for a morale boost, why not go all the way...?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/alaska-is-ours-billboards-appear-in-russia-after-threat-to-reclaim-state/ar-AAZl7Bp?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=d2f4e96e29604a9790331022779fbf2d

"Let America always remember: there's a piece of territory, Alaska," Volodin said during a State Duma session, according to The Moscow Times. "When they try to manage our resources abroad, let them think before they act that we, too, have something to take back."

Pyotr Tolstoy, deputy speaker of the State Duma, also reportedly proposed that "referendum" be held for Alaskan residents to vote on joining Russia.

While Alaskan support for joining Russia is far from widespread, WhiteHouse.Gov petitions titled "Alaska Back to Russia" gained tens of thousands of signatures in 2014 and 2015.

When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy pointed Newsweek to a tweet made in response to the Russia threat to "take back" the state on Thursday.

"To the Russian politicians who believe they can take back Alaska: Good luck," the Republican governor tweeted.

The billboards appeared one day after this statement, put up as an advertisement by a trailer manufacturer named "Alaska" in Krasnoyarsk.

So on one hand: everything in Russia's despotism is so propagandized that it's easy to believe this was prepared beforehand in orchestration with the regime.

On the other hand: everything in Russia's government is so sloppy and inefficient that it's easy to believe some enterprising business got this done overnight without any governmental involvement.


So, if Russia starts a modern Thousand Mile War, will they get as far as Attu before declaring victory?  >:D

[GDS_Starfury]

they wont get past kamkatchka

[Gusington]

 :o

[Sir Slash]

Uh Oh! Better get the Caribou armed and on Alert Status.  :hide:

[FarAway Sooner]

That would be "Spearhead" by Adam Makos.   :)

LOL, that's a serious brain cramp!  I just finished that book last week, and it's still sitting on my car seat because I keep forgetting to return it to the library.  I appreciate the catch and have updated my post accordingly.    ;D

The greatest weapon of tyrants is fear.  That's what allows people like Putin to tap into our natural instincts for loyalty, respect for authority, and protecting our own.  That's also what allows for the repression of dissenters, the ignoring of laws, and eventually the subversion of courts.

In the absence of that fear, people might actually be focusing on his job performance.  Putin's needed to pick a fight with the West to keep his base mobilized.  The fight he's picked in Ukraine has proven to be a bit more costly to his people and his country than he'd anticipated, but it's done a remarkably good job of shoring up his base and solidifying his own position.

The Russians will continue with their redneck saber-rattling indefinitely.  If they think it's hard to keep troops in eastern Ukraine adequately supplied with a rich, industrial rail network, I wish them luck in getting boots on the ground in Alaska.  They hardly even have roads there!

[Pete Dero]

I wish them luck in getting boots on the ground in Alaska.  They hardly even have roads there!

If that's true the Russians should feel at home.