"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I also wonder that in the case of T-72s. Arty ammo are more durable. IIRC Finns used their WWII stocks in arty training up to late 90s or early 2000s.
On the other hand at the end of one exercise our staff sgt said to me "We are not carrying those pre-war Italian propellant charge bags back to our base, are we? So take your section and do something to them." So I did. I was a sapper/combat engineer corporal. Because we were traditionally nearer to German Pionier than Anglo-American sapper/combat engineer our training was more combat and less engineering oriented, in fact our duties were very much same as those of 1944 British Army Assault Pionier. That happened mid 70s, so those propellant charge bags were some 40+ years old, still gave a bang but probably not as big bang as in early 40s.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
My brother in law is from Switzerland and lives in Zurich. When he did his compulsory service hid firearm and one box of ammo was in his closet at home.
Click to expand...
Switzerland should serve as an example to US Second Amendment fans how to have a proliferation of firearms and yet remain extremely gun safe. I wonder what direction Ukraine will go in arming its civilians once this war is over, or temporarily paused.
 
The gun nuts stop loving Switzerland when they find out how tightly regulated firearms and ammo are, how strict the licensing requirements are after mandatory service and how you can only take them back and forth to regulated ranges.

The rules in the Czech Republic would be perfectly legal under the 2nd Amendment while still allowing a very American style gun culture. But we're getting dangerously into political water here so this topic really should be dropped.
 
One thought about T-62. During the South Ossetian War 14 years ago, the Russian 58 Army used some T-62s, perhaps still a few units of the Russian Army have been equipped with them in some back-water areas, so more easily transferred to Ukraine than some T-72s from storage. In Ukraine, T-62Ms (so up-armoured so that their frontal sector is more or less immune to light A/T weapons of 1970s such as RPG-7 and early Carl Gustavs) and T-62MVs (reactive armor) have been observed in Kherson and Melitopol areas, that is, not in the areas of the fiercest fighting. In addition, it is probably the only tank used by the Russians with a 115 mm cannon and probably there are plenty of 115 mm ammunition in the magazines in Russia. Its APFSDS might still be useful and definitely I'd not like to be at the receiving end of 115 mm HE-FRAG fire.
 
Yes. The T-62 tanks are more likely to be used to try to cover quieter areas and protect lines of communication.
As far as taking on more modern tanks the T-62's best rating would be mediocre.
 
It would be better to send the weapons and not tell anyone. That way the Russians would have no idea as to what upgraded Ukrainian capabilties are when they have the weapons. Russia does not need to know what they are up against. It would far more satisfying to give them a really nasty surprise.
 
GrauGeist said:
I am a bit irritated at the media's clamoring for every last detail, as I've mentioned before
Click to expand...
The perpetual dilemma of a free society; balancing the public's need (and right) to know against the need for operational security and tactical flexibility. Faith in the competence and integrity of the powers that be is no longer the given that it once was. I wonder how WWII would have turned out if we had been blessed with today's intrusive and skeptical media back then.
 
President Biden told Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken in April to tone down their rhetoric in supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, NBC News reported Thursday.

The pushback reportedly came after the Pentagon chief said the Biden administration wanted Ukraine to win the war against the Kremlin and that the U.S. wanted a weakened Russia that could not launch another attack. Blinken then publicly aligned himself with Austin's comments, sparking a flurry of news reports.

"We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine," Austin said at the time after the Cabinet members visited Kyiv.

During a later conference call, Biden told the two officials he thought their remarks went too far and to tone them down, multiple current and former administration officials familiar with the call told NBC.

One unidentified official told the network that Biden was concerned that Austin's words could set unrealistic goals and up the chance Washington could get pulled into a direct conflict with Moscow.


While I understand Biden's concerns, I'm more of a damn-the-torpedoes kinda guy.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Sisu
S
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
834
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
491
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register