Is it me or are vehicles destroyed in modern Ukraine seem to be much more mangled than those from WWII? Some of the shots show vehicles mangled all the way down to the chassis which is itself twisted. Many I can’t tell what kind of vehicle it was. Has anyone else noticed this? I wonder if it the explosives hitting the vehicles are much more powerful. Maybe detonations of stored ammo where they have more rounds and more powerful ammo in the vehicles. Or maybe an observational bias because the more wrecked something is the more it gets shown.
2 Likes
There are several reasons for this but I am no expert so others can expand or refute my comments.
-
Russian tanks are built extremely well but like all modern tanks the armour up top is thinner than the sides and bottom of the tank and is easily penetrated by modern anti tank systems which exposes its Achilles heel. Unlike most western tanks where ammunition is stored in a separate compartment that is designed to explode outward protecting the crew Russian tanks have the ammunition stored in open racks right beside the crew and when it’s hit it’s game over.
-
BMPs, Armoured personnel carriers and other armoured vehicles the Russians use all have that same Achilles heel the Russian tanks do in that ammunition is stored in the open and when hit it is likely the reason many of these vehicles are virtually unrecognizable. Western vehicles focuses more on crew survivability Russian vehicles rely heavily on fire power and brute force.
-
A lot also has to do with the Training the Ukrainian forces received from Canadian, British and American trainers on the use of various anti tank systems. Whereas Russian systems are basic for the most part enabling anyone to be able to use with minimal training western weaponry tends to use technology and requires a certain amount of training to be effective. Add to that the Ukrainians have made extremely effective use of Drone technology to pinpoint targets.
There is a lot to be said but again I am by no means an expert or knowledgeable in weaponry
3 Likes
I’ve heard about that difference of how the modern western tanks store ammo. Probably some pretty neat engineering. But I thought in WWII that better ammo storage hadn’t yet developed. Maybe part of it is the new systems as you said hitting from the top more often. I have a feeling the explosives are a lot better now, but that’s just a guess.
The western mode of thought of keeping your crew alive so they can fight another day seems to have an advantage in WWII and now. Storing the ammo with the crew does simplify the training needed of what to do if you’re hit so badly the ammo starts to go off.
1 Like
Both sides use Russian tanks. Any idea whose side those destroyed vehicles are from? The Russians have depleted-uranium rounds (which just punch through better); the Ukrainians tungsten-carbide rounds. Also, the Russians have some anti-tank missiles (helicopter and vehicle-borne) that will definitely ruin your day. The Ukrainians have the previous generation, plus some recently-arrived foreign weapons.
And yes, I’ve seen the shoot-down of a Russian helicopter by a Ukrainian-fired ATGM. I’ve also noticed that the Russians have more than one helicopter.
1 Like
To give you an idea of the destruction that the Ukrainian military has wrought this web site verifies via photos and videos the destroyed equipment on both sides of the conflict.
It starts with Russian verified losses then about 2/3 down the page are the Ukrainian losses. It is very telling at how effective Ukrainian forces have been versus Russian forces
That is one blow-ed up and burned out tank, all right. Can’t tell whose it is, though. It looks to be a T-72, by my eye - both sides have those.
I notice a couple of things: the aircraft losses (in the Western Press), which we are led to believe has Russian aircraft raining out of the skies… aren’t. And the number of aircraft losses are actually pretty much even-up.
… but I wonder about all these numbers anyway. “oryxspioenkop.com” seems to be two dudes in the Netherlands. How exactly are they getting pictures of 467 destroyed/disabled Russian tanks? (for a start?).
But let’s say we believe those numbers. Ukraine’s losses in tanks are 98, out of 2500 - nearly 4 percent. Russian losses are 467 out of 10,000 - about 4 percent. What can we learn from this? That either everybody is lying about what’s going on, or nobody is doing any serious fighting, despite all these stories of strong-jawed Ukrainians fighting to save their homeland from strong-jawed Russians fighting for… uh, something.
3 Likes
This is relatively easy to answer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of pictures and videos taken of this war and is the most reported on war in history as being a technologically advanced country everybody and their dog has a cell phone. Sorting through it has been more complex though sorting through fact and fiction and the team at oryxspioenkop has been doing just that as they have a team sorting and verifying before posting.
It’s been stated the Ukrainian war has already produced more video and photos than the entire Afghanistan war as there are 44 million witnesses all with cell phones posting to social media and news services.
Also this is war it is common practice to overstate enemy losses and under report your own losses. However as already stated the figures aren’t hard to believe in the case of Russian losses as so many pictures and videos are posted showing the aftermath or attacks on Russian forces.
2 Likes
I would argue that losing 4 percent of your tanks can hardly be called marginal losses. Also, these are just the documented ones. It is likely higher on both sides.
Maybe. My point is that we don’t know much of anything of what’s really going on, because everybody who is reporting has an agenda. That’s to be expected by Russian and Ukrainian sources, but I can remember a time when the BBC could be relied on for unbiased coverage. But then again, I’m old.
2 Likes
Even considering age, I still recall seeing agenda-driven news even when I was a kid (and that was 35-40 years ago), even having to meet a few of those journalists years later.
You youngster! I remember seeing nightly news reporting the Vietnam War. Now, pardon me while I try and find my teeth…
4 Likes
Excuse me, but what are all these old people doing on an internet forum? With 26 years I must be on the young side for once
1 Like
Either missing out or just simple engagement, nothing really wrong with that. I’ve been using the internet for nearly 30 years now, around the same month this picture was posted on the internet, actually.
Your arrogance blinds you, Master Tijmen. Now you shall experience the full power of the dark side.
I am younger than you.
1 Like
Youngster, I can remember the days before the Internet, and all these jimmydangthunder thangs. I remember when the “usenet” was “the net”, except for about 10 schools. I remember when my school’s “internet connection” was a 9600 baud connection. I remember when fax machines didn’t exist. I remember when “long distance” was two cans and a very long string. I remember when a ‘flame war’ involved naphtha and an enemy ship. I remember when the “arms race” was to see if iron was better than bronze. I remember when that asteroid killed all them dinosaurs. I remember the days when the “Big Bang” did not involve a large member of the opposite sex.
Now, if I could only remember what I did yesterday…
2 Likes
I’ll stick with the New York Dolls for my cross dressing fun. They kicked ass.
1 Like
This adds on to what Chieftain has said.
1 Like
I never cross-dress. I was saying through that picture that “I started using the internet in the summer of 1992.”
My apologies. Replied too quickly.
1 Like