Russian Tank Unit Decimated

[prodigitalson]

Video changed to one with more analysis.

[msongs]

1. looks like a few wrecked but most getting away nt

[prodigitalson]

3. Their commander did not get away nt

[cinematicdiversions]

5. Well decimated is one out of 10. NT

[prodigitalson]

6. yeah. I started to point that out.

Thanks for doing so.

[mitch96]

18. To me it looked like two different film clips...nt

[doc03]

2. Saw the videos CNN showed a couple days ago here

on DU.

[gibraltar72]

4. Very interesting.

[mysteryowl]

7. Why did the russian military think they could just drive into the city?

They are ready for them in Kyiv

[prodigitalson]

8. They basically appear to suck

both strategically and tactically.

Edited to say, the retired US officer said these kinds of columns require infantry support that wasn't there.

[mysteryowl]

9. Look closely, there are people that run up to the left side of the tank

They most likely thought it was shelter. Wrong.

I think this video does not show the ground soldiers like other ones do.

[prodigitalson]

11. yeah I see them now. But those could be tank crews fleeing then maybe returning to save trapped

comrades. And I assume, though know nothing, that when the Gen. said close infantry support he meant large numbers spread out to engage javeline operators. But who knows what goes through the minds of theses modern day Spartans.

[jmowreader]

10. Or, they require more than they have

There are some infantry carriers in that formation. It looks like a quarter of the vehicles are APCs, which is right for a doctrinal Russian tank unit. At full strength a tank regiment should have 94 tanks and 31 APCs.

[prodigitalson]

12. but would the infantry be in the carriers or spread out at a reasonable distance around the tanks

to seek out and engage potential ambushers?

Edited to say I think you answered my question with they have them, just not enough.

[jmowreader]

14. They can go either way

In this column the infantry will fight from their vehicles…grunts can’t walk 70km/hr like the column is moving.

[prodigitalson]

17. I understand the walking limitations but

how do you locate and engage someone three blocks away under concealment and cover unless you are humping it on foot through the area? Or would the APCs break off from the column proper and search and destroy from the vehicles?

[jmowreader]

25. Since these guys are in a road March, they wouldn't

If they were to start getting shot at, they would go into defensive formations that involve dismounting. This looks like they’re going to where the war is, and that you want to do as fast as you can. Once they get to the war, they’ll start working on foot.

[uponit7771]

24. lol

[AntiFascist]

13. What happens if you fire a Javelin at a ship? n/t

[prodigitalson]

15. Dunno, but it sounds fun

Warships my have armor too thick for them to be effective. Maybe someone whose military experience exceeds by armchair service can answer.

Good question though.

[krispos42]

27. Modern warships are fairly lightly armored overall.

They pack Kevlar around critical areas, and of course the hull has to be strong enough to take tropical-storm force waves. But the era of the heavily-armored ship died out with the advances in missile technology in the 60's.

Ships are much larger than tanks, though, and thus harder to kill. A typical HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) round burns through a tank's armor and kills the crew... but the crew compartment is only a few cubic feet in size.

Warships are divided up into watertight compartments and have redundant systems, so while an anti-tank missile would definitely pierce the hull and destroy anything and anyone immediately behind the impact area, it would not penetrate deeply into the ship. And of course, warships weigh dozens of times what a tank does.

There are critical areas you could target... the bridge, combat electronics, helicopter hangers, missile launchers, the waterline, fuel systems, etc., but if you don't know where they are you're kind of shooting blind.

Anti-tank missiles aren't particularly fast and the close-in weapons systems of the ship might be able to engage and destroy an incoming missile, if the ship is equipped with such a system.

[jmowreader]

16. Nothing good, for the ship anyway

[mitch96]

19. If it's close enough....boom!.....nt

[Gore1FL]

20. I think the issue there is aim and range.

The ship would have to be about 1.5 miles away at max. I don't know remotely enough about the targeting or the warhead.

The Vasily Bykov was destroyed by some Multiple Launch Rocket System, which is pretty insane. The ship was supposed to be stealth, but that doesn't matter when you create field of destruction with raining rockets.

[Dial H For Hero]

22. Not much, it's far too small.

To put things in perspective, the AGM-119 Penguin anti-ship missile, (which is on the smaller side as such things go) has a warhead of roughly 300 pounds of explosives. The Javelin’s warhead is only 20 pounds.

[AntiFascist]

23. So I wonder if the Polish MIGs might be effective against the ship(s) now threatening Odessa? n/t

[Dial H For Hero]

26. It depends if they have anti-ship missiles for them such as the KH-31.

[mitch96]

21. In the vid we don't hear the comments by the russians in the column

The russias are talking about "Bactayar" which is a Turkish missile carrying drone.. Between the close air support by the Bactayar and the javalins it did the job.
m

[Calista241]

28. The other day the Pentagon said that 95% of Russian forces we're still 'intact'

I don't think people realize how much of a mauling 5% is. 5% losses in 2 weeks is flat out catastrophic for the Russians. It's horrifying from a military planning perspective. The Russians lost 15k troops KIA in Afghanistan during their 10 year war there, and they are approaching 1/2 that number in less than 2 weeks in Ukraine. And they haven't even tried to fight in the cities that are most prepared for them yet, which they will have to do to 'win' the war.

The US lost 4% of its military effectiveness during the entirety of WW2. The casualty rate during the height of COVID was less than 5%.