ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

This fall, rumors began circulating that Afghan commandos in Iran were being recruited to fight alongside the Russian military in Ukraine. Media reports citing former Afghan officers suggested that the Wagner Group, a private military contractor with close ties to the Kremlin, was behind the recruitment campaign.

Besides dire economic conditions, another motivation for volunteering seems to be a sense of betrayal. One commando who agreed to fight in Ukraine told a member of my team:

It was the Americans and the Europeans who handed us over to the Taliban. Believe me, one of my reasons for going to fight against Ukraine is that I understand that Americans and European countries are involved in the war, and for revenge I am going to fight against Ukraine to tell the Americans and Europeans that with your military training I am going to make you fail in the war in Ukraine.
It's unclear, however, how widespread these feelings are. Another Afghan commando, for instance, expressed resentment toward Russia because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Many of the commandos are also likely to be influenced — and misinformed — by the Iranian media's pro-Russian reporting on the conflict. As one told the team:

Some people, including myself, joined the Russian side because there is less danger fighting for Russia than fighting for Ukraine, because Russia has more modern weapons and their casualties are much less then Ukrainian casualties.
It remains difficult to determine with certainty how successful the Russian recruitment effort has really been. Those volunteering seem to have the impression that many of their colleagues are also doing so.

 
To be hair anything written by “Salon” should be taken with zero grains of salt because it’s absolute trash journalism
They have had some decent reporting on the war.
Chomsky, however, for some reason, keeps getting paid to write. He's intellectually sloppy and lacks cohesive logic in his arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
From what I've read they become the tip of the offensive spear. Ukraine will have over 1,000 APCs and AFVs with artillery support but need the tanks to break the Russian lines. (It would probably help if they had more helicopters or fighter bombers for air support though some experts say that the Russians are good at defending against those.)
Once the lines are broken, all that mobility the West has supplied should help Ukraine move much faster than Russia can and hopefully break open the fronts and capture and move back the Russians.
This. Form units based on Western tanks, supported by the Soviet era stuff, with Bradleys and M-113s coming behind to smash their way to the Sea of Azov to cut Crimea off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk
One of these times I hope they are right. (Just for the headlines-I don't have access to the article.)

CNN has a guy on who used to work on Putin's team. A speechwriter I think. Again, not sure on how close he was physically to Putin at times, but last night he said he thinks Putin looks better right now. A few months ago he said he was looking very ragged.
The other thing is, just like Kim Jong Un, it's unknown when footage of Putin was taken. Everything about his movements and public appearances is highly scripted and controlled. Russia, I think, is putting out old footage of Putin as new.
 
US drone mfgs totally blew it by not having any stealthy attack drones available at the start of this. All our stealth drones are dedicated to recon and air refueling. Bayraktar has eaten their lunch in sales and I suppose they are now desperate for any publicity they can get to sell their now-obsolete designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk
Fn3IWP6XoAASTtp
 
Is the United States and our Allies going to let Putin win this war? It appears that way.

 
I laid this out by the year the tank started production. It is crazy how high the risk of catastrophic failure is and how little they have improved the flaw over time. Maybe they really do like a good turret toss.

Or maybe they are just inhumane assholes.

1962 T62: 16% risk
1967: T64A 32% risk
1978: T72A 59% risk
1985: T72B 62% risk
1985: T80U 68% risk
2005: T-90A 62.5% risk
2010: T72B3 57% risk
2017: T80BVM 59% risk
 
I laid this out by the year the tank started production. It is crazy how high the risk of catastrophic failure is and how little they have improved the flaw over time. Maybe they really do like a good turret toss.

Or maybe they are just inhumane assholes.

1962 T62: 16% risk
1967: T64A 32% risk
1978: T72A 59% risk
1985: T72B 62% risk
1985: T80U 68% risk
2005: T-90A 62.5% risk
2010: T72B3 57% risk
2017: T80BVM 59% risk

The T-72 is basically a upgrade of the T-62. Same chassis and basic design....very old technology.
 
I wonder if the introduction of the autoloader (which I don’t believe the T-62 has) causes a design issue…is the ammo stored in a different way that makes it more susceptible to cooking off?
Somebody posted many pages ago :) that the ammunition is stored directly under the turret. Which explains the turret tosses we repeatedly see.

It's a ok MBT with some flaws....easy to maintain but has it's obvious weaknesses. Leopard 2/Challengers are huge upgrades. Much better survivability.....rather be in one of those :)

The Leopard 2/challenger are more lethal on the move. T-72 is supposed to have that capability but it seems to be not as good as the Western tanks in that regard.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT