The picture shows an empty cage with thin bars, far apart. You would want sandbags or steel plating on the cage, so that it works properly.
The idea is that it reduces the effectiveness of two stage anti-tank weapons. Where the weapon first has a sacrificial payload that gets any reactive armor to explode...then the real payload to penetrate the normal armor. The cage is supposed to get the first, sacrificial, payload to explode without setting off the reactive armor.
They do supposedly work (at least some reduced effectiveness of the weapon, in some way) if they are done right. That is, that they are wide enough to cover the incoming attack angle of the anti-tank weapon...and dense enough to keep the reactive armor from going off on the first payload.
From a search of top views of T-90s it looks like they do have some panels of reactive armour on top of the turret - but there are a lot of areas (sensors, hatches) that don't seem to be covered.
The reactive armour and cope cages cannot be helping too much, the Russians have lost 214 tanks so far in barely 3 weeks, of which 16 where T-90's, and this is only visually so the actual number is likely much higher.
I also expect the purpose is to act as spaced armor. Though I don't know how much spaced armor helps against things like Javelin missiles, but anything to slightly change the angle of the projectile should help increase effective armor thickness.
It's not really the same thing as spaced armor. The hope with statistical slat armor is that the tip of an RPG, where the detonator is, passes between the slats but the rest of the wider warhead behind that detonator is destroyed by the slats, which are too narrow for the warhead to thread through. The aim is to destroy the shaped charge warhead before the detonator has a chance to set it off; it only works some of the time, hence 'statistical'.
It doesn't do much good against javelins, TOWs, improvised EFPs, etc. These sort of weapons aren't impact fused, the slat armor never has a chance to disable these warheads before they go off and the slats themselves won't do much to stop or deflect the penetrating jet created by the detonation of such warheads.
That's not first stage armor, roflmao. These are molotov guards. Most of the bottles will bounce off this and break open elsewhere and keep the upper crew hatch clear of fire.
If that is the goal why would you use such wide cable routes? Something like chickenwire would seem to accomplish the same goal much better and its a widely available material.
That assumes you have time to stop at home depot and the foresight to plan what your building. I imagine many crews grab whatever they can find when they stop for the night or while refueling. And being away from your tank, in enemy territory (at night?) is usually minimised.
why would a glass bottle bounce off a steel frame? imho it would shatter on impact and spill all over and underneath it? we need Mythbusters set on this one.
If they hit the bars, yes (similar to the slat armour discussed in the article). But if they hit the wire they’ll probably bounce off. And most of the surface area is wire.
'Cope' has been a meme word on 4chan for a while now (along with 'seethe' and another that I won't repeat.) I believe 'cope cage' originally came from 4chan's /k/. 4chan culture bleeds out into the rest of the internet though, so it's hard to say for sure.
I don't know the show, but I believe it's set in the US, and the last American tank I know of with a belly hatch was the M60 that left frontline service a few years after I was born. Abrams don't have them, and after recent decades' experiences with IEDs and development of hull designs to reduce or defeat their effects, I suspect it'll likely be a while before they turn up again.
>They have indeed been mockingly dubbed by Western analysts as “emotional support armour” or “cope cages”.
Really, Economist? I know they are a blend of news and perspective, but this is cheap and uninformed. @daedlanth here mentions it is a Molotov deflector, and the Economist has a "related story" on that very page about breweries in Ukraine making Molotovs! Goodness.
The Economist is not misinformed. Those western analysts might be misinformed, but the Economist isn't. The cages are being called cope cages.
Incidental to that, I'm not so sure the analyists are actually wrong. Most of the cope cages look a lot like statistical slat armor to me; e.g. designed to disable AT shaped charges, but utterly ineffective at stopping burning petrol from covering the top of the turret. Molotovs break open on these slats, they don't bounce off. Furthermore, at least some of the cope cages have been augmented with sandbags piled up on top. If they were meant to shield the tank and crew from burning petrol, they'd get more mileage out of sheet metal than sandbags. If anything, these cope cages turn into BBQ grills for Russian tankers trying to bail out.
Not to mention so far most causes of Russian armor loss was not caused by motolovs but by actual AT weaponry. Not one case of Molotov damaged tank that I am aware of. Related to statistical armor, it only woks on RPG fired and I picked off of some subreddit the following article that explains how it is supposed to work: https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour
> The last possibility, then, is that the gibes about the cages being emotional support armour are actually correct, and that they have been added simply to improve morale by convincing the troops inside that they are safe. As Dr Benham-Crosswell notes, soldiers often take the view that every little helps.
Once again, the general point of the article is "Russian army is soooo imcompetent, of course Putin is going to loose".
I would not mind reading that into a cheap "troop-morale-boosting" stand-up act.
However, even though I understand the Economist stands against pretty much everything Putin stands for - shouldn't we expect a little less blatant wishfull thinking and propaganda ?
As an alternative, what would a _relevant_ source for info about the current warfare (a decent primer on who has what weapons, what they can do, etc...) be ? One that would aknowledge that _maybe_, the Russian army is not entirely made of clowns ?
The war won't be won on the battlefield, it will be won by all the multinationals leaving the country. For the best context, look up Russians on social media and see what is going on inside.
I've never been in favour of multinationals and subscription based services, but it seems these are what really are making the change now. Software like AutoCAD, Photoshop, etc etc, all stopped working in the last 48h.
Russians begin to wonder why the whole world is against them. NAVO Sanctions alone couldn't do that. The Russian media jokes that they don't need western companies suddenly all stopped.
It's like COVID. Russians only joked COVID won't reach them because vodka, but when the first case hit Moscow, all the jokes stopped.
Same happening now. Companies leaving Russia seemed to hit hard on the people.
> Software like AutoCAD, Photoshop, etc etc, all stopped working in the last 48h.
Do you have a source for that ? Unless those apps are now systematically "phoning home" and the servers are setup to refuse requests from Russia, it's not obvious how they would "stop working".
- They destroyed their own secret comms system by accident, used civilian phones and general was killed based on the geolocation from the call. Amount of high rank leadershipo KIA would be embarassing even if they fought on-paper much stronger opponent than Ukraine opponent. Even visually confirmed losses from satellite imagery or 1/3 of reported losses by Ukraine is very embarrassing.
- With the advantage in air they have not being able to establish air superiority is a clownery of it's own. Photos of planes with civilian GPS taped in. Stingers shouldn't be so effective against planes.
- Many photos of Russian soldiers (even photos released by Russians) with cheap walkie takies from aliexpress that are easily jammed
- Lots of photos of expensive equipment that got abandoned without standard procedure of sabotaging it
- Supposedly elite units (especially VDV) getting massacred by barely trained territorial groups
There are good reasons for clownery: Massive corruption. Nepotism. Army is intentionally crippled to not present threat to Putin. They never fought a real war. Nukes, submarines and navy are a huge resource drain. They didn't prepare for what happened. Outdated doctrine not adapted to modern war.
An alternative version for the "clownery" is that, well, it's not actually happening as bad as western press want to tell, and we have to navigate propaganda from both side ? (I'm interested in your sources, though, as usual.)
I know, "Hanlon's razor" and everything. But, still. I'll err on the side of "not underestimating the side that's bringing cities to dust" for a little more.
Genuinely, I wish there was unbiased reports. I know it's a war, so troop movements and outcomes from skirmishes and battles are not going to be a thing, but.
I want an overview of what is happening and how it's going. Again, so do they, and I get that. But the propaganda is hard to sift through.
That being said, the 'Russians are so incompetent' memes are very amusing.
A common problem I've seen with Russian tanks is that they're supposed to be protected by soldiers on the ground. Tanks are vulnerable as we've seen. They aren't supposed to be driven in by themselves, infantry is supposed to go in first and check there is no threat before the tanks arrive. Of course this feels more risky.
This is pretty much all tanks, as I understand it. Tanks have very limited situational awareness for obvious reasons, and similarly limited means to engage nearby threats.
They've improved leaps and bounds in the last 20yr (360deg cameras, infrared, automated ATGM detection/countermeasures) but yeah, it's still fundamentally a box without windows.
That’s not just Russian tanks. You’re right about the reasons. Tanks without infantry support are highly vulnerable to enemy infantry with antitank weapons, particularly in an environment where the enemy infantry has a lot of cover and concealment to operate from.
It's just incredible how people who are seeing pictures and lack the imagination to understand what purpose they serve then assume it must be no real purpose and that the folks who are doing it are just absolute morons.
Perhaps it's not there for when you're out and about and actively being seen by the enemy. Perhaps it's there for when you're hiding in the woods and you want to hold a tarp off of the top of your tank so that you can get in and out easily. Perhaps it's there to hold up camo netting for hiding the tank better while stopped in the woods. Perhaps the mesh on top is to hold up branches that you cut down to try and better hide your tank while you're in the woods, not moving.
I'm not saying that any of these reasons are THE reason. I'm suggesting that if some idiot on the internet (me) can come up with some reasons that aren't entirely moronic it's too bad that better informed folks aren't trying a little harder to imagine what they might be used for.
There’s an excellent YouTube video that I can’t find because it keeps thinking I want tank top t-shirts.
Anyway anti-tank rounds have two levels to them the first is a charge that explodes to weaken the armor and the second one goes through that to penetrate.
If the first part explodes prematurely in theory it will have a lot less penetrating force.
That's an Oshkosh M-ATV, and if it has camo netting on top, it's a much lighter/simpler structure than the big cage on the pictured tank. There are some versions of the Oshkosh with light armor on top, but just regular old armor plate...probably for overhead snipers.
Everyone has a tendency to engage in confirmation bias. Many of us (myself included) really want to see the Ukrainians win, so it's tempting to pick and interpret news in a way that makes the Ukrainians look smart and effective and the Russians look dumb. If you want to try and be somewhat objective, you have to be critical and fight against your own confirmation bias. It's something a lot of people are incapable or unwilling to do.
That being said, people (and organizations) make bad decisions all the time. It's possible that those cages are not a net win, but they're probably not the worst idea ever either. If they're a bad idea, ideally the troops on the ground tell you that and the cages stop being installed. Where that might fail though is that Russia has a much more authoritarian culture... Will your supervisors listen if you tell them something isn't working out?
> Many of us (myself included) really want to see the Ukrainians win, so it's tempting to pick and interpret news in a way that makes the Ukrainians look smart and effective and the Russians look dumb.
There are no winners in the war. Personally I am not siding with any side, I understand UA's right to defend themself (though it seems kinda pointless just wasting human lives and resources for some pride and borders on paper) and I would be their huge fan, if it weren't for their obvious propaganda uncritically parroted by western MSM calling anyone doubting it Putin sympathizer. With such propaganda it's difficult to side with any party. I can also see last 8 years and don't think the attack came out of nowhere without reason as they try to push.
pretty much on all borders, sadly it's not shared by most of the (world) population and politicians can always find idiots willing to fight to change those lines on map
I can't imagine myself fighting some politician's war, only thing I care about it's my own family and I couldn't care less what is the name of the country I am residing and whether it's gonna change if it won't really affect my day to day life.
I mean if richer more advanced country is going to conquer my country I am certainly not going to fight it as it's the case of poor Ukraine being attacked by slightly less poor Russia, now if Russia went to attack more developed western countries it would make sense to protect our way of life to not lower our living standards, but I still don't like the idea of wasting human lives over politicians. Every politician willing to go to war should be executed.
Soviet Russians perpetrated genocide in Ukraine in living memory. Ukrainians are not fighting for their politicians, they're fighting for themselves. They're fighting for their families and communities.
you mean the ones uncritically parroting Ukrainian propaganda without any verification which just switched from vaccine propaganda to UA war propaganda, that real news?
just because they have Jewish president doesn't mean Nazis can't play significant role in Ukrainian politics, same as just because US had black president US racism didn't go away
I don't dislike reading stalinist statements on HN, but for information, the deportation of Crimean tatars started before 36, and started being touted as antinazism barely prior to Barbarossa. And of course the survivors would help nazis.
>>I couldn't care less what is the name of the country I am residing and whether it's gonna change if it won't really affect my day to day life.
Except that you are absolutely wrong about this. If Ukraine surrendered tomorrow and got annexed to be part of Russia, lives of everyone within that country would change dramatically.
Take this from someone whose country wasn't even on the map of the world for almost 100 years(thanks to Russia, among others), and in many places speaking our language was an actual crime, as was teaching our culture and history. Yes, the country and its people still survived even though the borders were wiped off the map, but if you are assuming that nothing would change in your life other than the group of politicians in power, you are absolutely and gravely wrong.
>>I mean if richer more advanced country is going to conquer my country I am certainly not going to fight it
I literally have no words. What if the richer and more advanced country then makes you a second class citizen with fewer rights than you had before? What if they say you can continue to live there, but only in a special camp set up for you? What if speaking your own language becomes illegal? Ask Palestinians how the "richer and more advanced" Israel is treating them exactly.
Why would you not fight an invader? Do you have zero sense of self preservation?
Is it? In what kind of world? I don't believe for one second that this is what would happen. Russia won't pull out until they at the very least receive a written promises from Ukraine that it won't join NATO or EU, and I don't see why Ukraine should promise either thing, or that even promising that would stop Russia from taking the entire country anyway.
>Is it? In what kind of world? I don't believe for one second that this is what would happen. Russia won't pull out until they at the very least receive a written promises from Ukraine that it won't join NATO or EU
A written promise isn't an insurmountable barrier.
> I don't see why Ukraine should promise either thing
To save countless Ukrainian lives
>stop Russia from taking the entire country anyway.
Russia clearly would have a hard time taking and holding the country. The war is destroying their economy. They would be happy to get their objective and leave.
That sounds like something my mother says - Ukrainians should just surrender to save themselves. Forgetting that if we did that as a country at several points in our history in recent times neither one of us would be even alive. Resistance to invasion is the only way.
>>The war is destroying their economy.
Oh no poor Russians and their economy. You say it like they were forced to invade. As someone else said - not invading Ukraine would have cost them exactly zero rubles.
>That sounds like something my mother says - Ukrainians should just surrender to save themselves. Forgetting that if we did that as a country at several points in our history in recent times neither one of us would be even alive. Resistance to invasion is the only way.
It is a simple matter of what Ukraine wants more, saving lives or being uncompromising.
>Oh no poor Russians and their economy. You say it like they were forced to invade.
You missed or simply ignored the point. The point was not poor Russia, but why they would agree to a peace deal and why they can't conquer and hold Ukraine.
>>It is a simple matter of what Ukraine wants more, saving lives or being uncompromising.
Yes, I think people should be "uncompromising" about saving their homeland from invasion.
If you excuse my comparison - your advice sounds like telling a person being raped to just stop struggling, it will end sooner that way. Ukraine is currently being invaded by Russia - they should fight with all their might to destroy the invader. I personally find the suggestion that "surrendering saves lives" offensive - if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died, not less. It's magical wishful thinking that belongs in fantasy books not in the real world.
>>>>I mean if richer more advanced country is going to conquer my country I am certainly not going to fight it
I will re-iterate that this statement can be only said by someone with absolutely no sense of self-preservation.
>Yes, I think people should be "uncompromising" about saving their homeland from invasion
Why, If you if your homeland is saved from invasion either way? A peace deal and withdraw saves the country, and a long war followed by withdraw saves the country.
>If you excuse my comparison - your advice sounds like telling a person being raped to just stop struggling, it will end sooner that way. Ukraine is currently being invaded by Russia - they should fight with all their might to destroy the invader.
I'm not talking about surrender. I'm talking about peace where Russia goes home and Ukraine is an independent country. This isn't not passively being raped, it is doing something to stop the rape immediately.
>if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died, not less.
IF that's true, then of course you shouldn't surrender! Again, the question is not of surrender, but a peace deal and Russian withdrawal. Is there no point were compromise is possible? Would you not give $1 to Russia to go home, end the war, and save countless lives?
>>Why, If you if your homeland is saved from invasion either way? A peace deal and withdraw saves the country, and a long war followed by withdraw saves the country.
My point is you don't know that and you have absolutely no way of knowing it to any degree of certainty. None of us do. The difference is that you think that's a likely scenario while I think that's the most unlikely one.
I will be the first to admit I dont know anything for certain.
What I do know is:
Russia has said for more than a decade it would invade Ukraine if NATO moved in.
It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
People can disagree over if it is a reasonable request, but I think it is at least very clear what Russia wants. I think there is a good chance that would would leave if Ukraine accepts the peace terms they have been offering.
> Russia has said for more than a decade it would invade Ukraine if NATO moved in.
NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
> It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past.
> And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
That's not the only Russian demand, no. And crucially, the demands mean Russia can just repeat the same thing again whenever it feels like trying again, against a Ukraine they forced to be less able to defend itself (because as you've established above, arming itself is violating neutrality if it obtains weapons from the west). Oops, again didn't elect a puppet in the next election and won't just turn into Belarus 2.0? How unfortunate, needs denazification again, sorry. But sure, you're "just pointing out that Ukraine can make Russia go home tomorrow.", and all will be fine. You're pretending a massive gamble is an obvious decision.
>NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
NATO/ Primarily the US has moved $billions of weapons and thousands of troops into Ukraine year after year and conducted joint war exercises for war with Russia.
>"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past
I totally agree that is a tough pill to swallow, but perhaps not insurmountable. I don't have the solutions, but perhaps with a demilitarization of the boarder or third party assurances.
> people should be "uncompromising" about saving their homeland from invasion.
you see there is difference between you and other people, many of us don't care about their "homeland", do you think I would return to my home countries to fight for it? do you think I would fight for country I'm living in? only thing I'd fight for is my own family, I see no reason to fight over some country concept, I'm flexible I can either adapt or leave for different country
>if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died
having plans and executing them are often two very different things
what we know is the countries which agreed to be Nazi states (Slovakia for instance) were pretty much unaffected by war until the very end (if they switched sides) and more people died during fights with allies/germans in last few months than during years of war
for instance there were pretty much no victims in my hometown from Nazis, while Allied bombing at the very end of war killed 1/3 of civilian population of my hometown, but s*t happens, right?
meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
>>having plans and executing them are often two very different things
I live right outside Auschwitz, I think the "execution" part worked out just fine for Nazis. Poland was very much on the agenda for total extermination by Hitler.
Either way, I can't believe anyone is actually suggesting that not fighting Nazis in WW2 might have been the better choice by anyone. It's truly shocking.
>>meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
Like, no personal offence, but it shows absolutely 0 understanding of 20th century history in Europe to even say such a statement. Nazi Germany was the loser. There is no question about it. Marshall plan was put in place to make sure WW2 won't happen again, as clearly the treatment of Germany post WW1 has contributed to the outbreak of another world war. Again, I'm truly shocked there can be even a discussion about "who really is the winner here". Not Germany. Not by a long shot.
Again, this is a conclusion that only someone who is completely ignorant of history can come to. I'm just baffled that there's people like this on a website as good as HN.
sure, sane person will resist until certain point when it's clear further resisting will get them killed
the problem with UA is they are resisting while they are more and more admitting they will agree to rape in the end anyway, but hey it's just some ordinary men dying, politicians sending them to death are safe and making video calls with standing ovations
Well, war against Nazis wasn't won by agreeing to their demands, it was won by killing a lot of them. Yes a lot of lives were also lost in the process. I'd still rather live in the world where that was the solution, not in one where appeasement was chosen instead.
Would you have agreed that Poland should have surrendered to Nazi Germany if it meant they stopped their conquest? France? How about UK? After all if you look at the terrifying number - 75 million people - any sacrifice of sovereignty is worth if it means you can prevent those deaths, no?
Let's make something very clear - there was literally nothing that any country could have done to just "make the Nazis march back to Germany" other than beating them to a bloody pulp, and I don't believe there's anything realistic that can be done right now to make Russia march back to where they came from, other than showing them we won't accept such aggression in modern day Europe. One of their demands at the start was that Poland and other Baltic countries that joined NATO most recently should leave it, they would call off the invasion then. That's not a reasonable request and it will not happen, and saying "but it would prevent all these deaths in Ukraine!" Is just dishonest and frankly quite offensive to Ukrainians. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I doubt that there was anything most WWII countries could do to make the Nazis march back, but if it were possible, while retaining their sovereignty, I Think it would have been wise to do so.
I agree WWII is a poor analogy for the Ukrainian war, which is quite different, but I did not pose the question.
>I don't believe there's anything realistic that can be done right now to make Russia march back to where they came from, other than showing them we won't accept such aggression in modern day Europe.
This is where we fundamentally differ. As in the other thread, I think that Russia would pack up their bags and go home if Ukraine agrees to stay neutral with respect to NATO, and perhaps cede Crimea and Donbas to Russia. I gather that you think this is not the case.
>One of their demands at the start was that Poland and other Baltic countries that joined NATO most recently should leave it, they would call the invasion then
Not that they should leave NATO, but that the US would reduce their troops there, in exchange for Russia drawing down troops from its boarder. This was proposed as a path to lowering tensions and avoid war in Ukraine.
In the 90's, Ukraine gave their nuclear weapons stock back to Russia, and in exchange, Russia would "defend" Ukraine as a sovereign country.
I'd be quite suprised if any half-brained ukrainian would take a deal like that.
I don't think their lives would change dramatically, instead corrupted president from Pandora papers that would have new corrupted president from Pandora papers
people make it like Zelensky is saint and completely ignore less than half year ago he was corrupted POS and I really fail to see what's in Ukraine better than in Russia, once again corrupted president destroying opposition and censoring news no matter on efficient side of border you are
let's not forget Ukraine was part of USSR just 30 years ago, so it would just returned where it was
but honestly it's unrealistic and I really doubt even Putin wants that, what he wants is reassurance they won't join NATO (see Cuban missile crisis to see parallel) which is making headlines right now as I write and he probably wants independence for those Eastern republics same as for Crimea to stop Nazis slaughtering there separatists
I'm not denying Palestine has very big issues, but it's apples and oranges, here Russia support autonomy of those Eastern provinces while EU countries do opposite trying to keep them within Ukraine with their support for one side, honestly this should be really business between Ukrainians and Russians and no other nation should meddle there, nothing good can come out of third party meddling
>>honestly this should be really business between Ukrainians and Russians and no other nation should meddle there, nothing good can come out of third party meddling
I guess you would have thought that Hitler should have been allowed to just take Poland, nothing good came out of third party meddling there after all.
>>people make it like Zelensky is saint and completely ignore less than half year ago he was corrupted POS and I really fail to see what's in Ukraine better than in Russia, once again corrupted president destroying opposition and censoring news no matter on efficient side of border you are
Literally none of that is relevant here, Russia invaded Ukraine and they need to be kicked out. Whether you like zelensky or not is literally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
It's not just about borders and pride. Look at what happened in Donetsk -- on the Russian side, everything was stolen by Putin's gangster state. Anyone who owned a business or anything of value had it taken.
...as opposed to Ukrainian not a gangster president who made world headlines just 5 months ago for widespread corruption involving even him
people have very short memory and suddenly he is savior of Ukraine, while months ago he was just corrupted thief for majority with no chance for reelection
There's a lot of pushback on your answer to my question already and I'm going to add my own:
I think you should travel more, if possible. I believe you will see significant differences in the way that national governments treat their people in different regions of the earth.
In some places, you cannot insult government members. In some countries, you cannot insult a religious figure. In some countries, you cannot do the same things that other people do because of your race, sex, or sexual orientation. By "cannot" , I mean "face execution or life imprisonment".
And that is only based upon what I know going on currently. If you go back historically, things do get much more diverse.
Predicting a response that these sorts of things only happen in extreme countries, my reply is that if there were no national borders other than the atmosphere, the leaders of that region would be the most ruthless and ambitious on the planet. I do not have fond hopes that they would somehow also be simultaneously the most compassionate and altruistic.
Most great men are not good men.
Or as someone put it: Power does not corrupt--it reveals.
The cages are probably useful for improvised explosives dropped by drone, but could be improved.
Improvised armor is usually created by people in the best position to know what the battlefield is like. However if nobody survives the most effective attacks, battlefield knowledge is less useful.
Would you be comfortable operating a Russian tank in this war? These things are getting destroyed almost indiscriminately by drone attacks and javelins. I can only speculate the true reason for this augmentation, but my hunch is, indeed, primarily for psychological reassurance... the logic being bombs from above hit the cage and explode several feet away from the hull, sparing the occupants from a direct hit. We've seen incredible evidence that the charges plastered all over these tanks are doing nothing to protect the occupants, so another strategy is needed. Maybe there's other uses like you described, but I'm not convinced they are the impetus for the cages.
Nobody who's the least bit well informed should want to be in a tank in any sort of war where the people you're fighting have rich western backers.
Look at Syria. It was ATGM city. And that's a "budget" conflict compared to the kind of stops that are being pulled out to get that kind of hardware into Ukrainian hands.
I completely agree, but solders have to follow orders whether they like it or not. Russian commanders may have a problem reassuring them that they are not going to the slaughter, so efforts like this may give some level of encouragement. Who knows for sure, but I'm pretty confident it's not to make covering with a tarp easier.
It's also incredible how this discussion is entirely uninformed by the posted article. The reading presents several thoughtful explanations for the armor, along with reasons they don't quite make sense. Many comments here are from folks who clearly didn't read that but have Very Valuable Opinions to share. As if being a software engineer also makes you an expert in military armor.
Yes, but the Economist paywall is quite generous. Also the top link here is an archive link to circumvent the paywall. Also extensions like Bypass Paywalls Clean work if for some reason you don't want to pay for the journalism you read.
The alternative we have here is a completely uninformed, speculative discussion.
>The alternative we have here is a completely uninformed, speculative discussion.
If you're talking about my other comments, they were paraphrasing similar articles I've read, rather than pure speculation. Keeping in mind that that any article is going to have speculation, as the Russians haven't said why they are doing it.
This is improvised slat armor[0]. It is intended as defense against projectiles that use shaped charges[1] which are most effective when detonated at a designed distance from the target. The slat armor is meant to detonate them at a larger than optimal distance.
It is not expected to defend against all weapons, rather it's part of defense in depth. Whether it's effective against shaped charge projectiles will largely depend on the construction and spacing of the slats. To dismiss it outright displays a pretty shocking level of ignorance or agenda on the part of TFA.
Edited to add:
I read T-entire-FA via the archive link up-thread. There is meaningful discussion of slat armor in it. I remain convinced that there's room in the taster portion of the article to suggest that the improvised armor isn't a purely ignorant addition to the tanks. I would further suspect that hinting at substantive analysis below the fold stands to sell more subscriptions to The Economist than what they've included, which is, at best, one-sided.
I read the part that was viewable without a subscription, which we can fairly safely guess is all that most people will read. I realize that they have limited space for content in the "free" part of the article, but to leave it as one-sided as that doesn't give me a lot of faith that the rest of the reporting is any more substantive.
Your explanation of how slat armor works is incorrect; the article's explanation is correct. It is not intended to detonate charges at a suboptimal distance. Indeed, when it does detonate charges, the distance can make the charge even more potent. Instead, it is intended to short the fuse of certain RPGs, preventing detonation.
Tanks with cages come from the southern districts. They are not intended against Javelins or NLAW. They are against UAV launched weapons and loitering munitions like Harop used in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and they probably work against those.
Slat armor is effective against HEAT rounds when the slat is the right size and right distance (slat must be hit before the warhead explodes). Those cages are too low for Javelins and probably against NLAW (top attack)
> Slat and bar add-on armours are a lighter and cheaper way to counter RPGs, though even if used correctly they are, literally, hit or miss protection. The spacing of the bars or slats is crucial. If a rocket hits a bar it makes little difference, for its warhead will detonate anyway. But if it gets trapped between bars it will probably be damaged in a way which means that the signal from the nose-mounted fuse cannot reach the detonator.
Is that correct? I thought the idea was the slats were supposed to trigger the warhead to detonate, but at an unexpected distance where it couldn't defeat the armor.
priort reading the article my first idea was it's base for camouflage netting to hide the shape of the tank and mask it/soldiers, it's odd to me it's not mentioned in the article at all
Perhaps it is as simple as a way to keep heads out with out being pelted with rocks by angry civies or a way to attach sun/rain cover. I imagine that it gets hot and stinky inside on long trips.
I would be very surprised if they were useless. Even if they were just racks for hanging chaff that disrupted FLIR targeting scopes, repelling hand thrown molotov cocktails, or as the article states, bouncing drone dropped IEDs and RPGs, and preventing blocks of rubble from covering the hatch when it pushed down walls and buildings, the cost/benefit of such a hack seems plausible. A lot of our western messaging about the invasion is not very powerful and "cope cages," and "useless," are weak and backbiting. Snide doesn't win, it's a loser attitude, and the staff at The Economist above all should understand this. It was the conceit that cost them their empire, I don't see how they should expect it will win any more wars.
Losing their lives is what those Russian tankers are doing. People laughing at dead Russian tankers on the internet aren't losing much of anything, except maybe their innocence.
> aren't losing much of anything, except maybe their innocence.
I'd say they're, and we're, losing much more than that, the current trend is kind of worrying, nothing better than 12 years old reddit users calling for the death of Russian soldiers and very often even Russian civilians.
It's funny how little time it takes to go from "never again" to "lmao kill them all" and the whole war porn surrounding the conflict, which seems unquestioned, is equally worrying. People, including kids, are sharing almost real time pictures and videos of charred and shredded bodies while cheering as if they were watching a soccer game
That's what I mean by losing their innocence. This war (probably not unlike any other war) is desensitizing a ton of people to violence. The ramifications of this will be felt for generations.
But this sort of harm needs to be considered in the context of all the other harm being done by the war. Reddit teenagers laughing at the charred corpses of conscripts their own age is saddening, but the people who are actually doing the dying are losing much more than just their innocence and dignity. The real losers are those that are dead, maimed, had their country invaded, etc.
An argument could be made that cultural fallout from the conflict may be much more damaging than the conflict itself - perhaps even in terms of death count.
It is a short step from laughing at charred Russian corpses, to charred BLM/alt-right corpses.
The saddest part is that all of this animal rage is entirely unnecessary. A decent argument can be made for the US support of Ukraine without resorting to base emotions.
Yeah I saw a tweet the other day that was something like "good thing my enemies are ontologically evil, so there's no action I can take against them that is wrong" and I think that's the dangerous place we're headed toward. Elimination rhetoric against our perceived enemies, rhetoric of mass dehumanization of our enemies, and so forth.
What's wrong with that? How is the killing going to stop without eliminating all invaders?
> and very often even Russian civilians.
Show me where you've seen that.
> It's funny how little time it takes to go from "never again" to "lmao kill them all"
"Never again" is about genocide. It's ridiculous to say we should care about the lives of invaders. Russians are bombing Holocaust memorials and you're pretending Russians are the victims. They are the nazis.
> videos of charred and shredded bodies while cheering as if they were watching a soccer game
Those orcs are bombing civilians and committing genocide. When you see innocent pregnant women and children being murdered by Russians you can't help but rejoice at the murderers getting their just rewards.
Arguably, NATO airstrikes and paratroopers win, but if they haven't acted yet, they're not going to act, and what's more likely is the western countries are more likely to keep the conflict drawn out, as the invasion is going to go on anyway, so they might as well use it for their domestic news cycle narratives. Russia is tolerating the resistance because it doesn't cost very much and it draws out volunteers now who would be more difficult to manage as a long term insurgency under a new government.
The only reason anyone in the west without family there cares about Ukraine is because it's far. This war is a circus. It is an issue between Russia and Ukraine, and while everyone likes something to be concerned about, it's wasted, and worse, a distraction from borderline existential domestic policy issues.
I think NATO would look the other way for a stray missile that could in any way be construed as an accident. Open war between NATO and Russia, weak as it is, could be disastrous for Europe, if not the whole world.
It's much safer to ruin Russia by giving weapons to Ukraine while skirting around open conflict. It's a way of depleting Russian resources (manpower, military hardware, money, mindshare, etc) while keeping the possibility of nukes to a relative minimum.
Wars by proxy only work when they arent on your backyard. What NATO seems to be doing is taking "military time" to prepare and reinforce their ranks, while ukrania depletes some russia's military resources. Meanwhile winter is almost over, and Moscow would be a nice tank ride from ukraine, if NATO actually lacked the capability of turning Moscow into a parking lot from afar (they dont). But for things to get back to the way they used to be, either Russia changes the regime or Russia changes size. It will happen one way or the other.
As I see it, the most realistic "good" resolution is Russia choosing to cut their losses and pull out of Ukraine. But I fear that is less likely than a long drawn out war, as you say. I think NATO likely has an intention to bleed Russia to death in Ukraine, which might take months or years. This would doubtlessly cause incredible suffering in Ukraine for some time to come.
I believe Ukrainians see that possibility too, but have still decided to fight. Who am I to tell them to surrender instead? Ukrainians decide the value of Ukraine's independence.
It's amazing/depressing how much ingenuity goes into killing people.
It reminds me of this:
"Ask a Soviet engineer to design a pair of shoes and he'll come up with something that looks like the boxes that the shoes came in; ask him to make something that will massacre Germans, and he turns into Thomas Fucking Edison."
147 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 232 ms ] threadThe idea is that it reduces the effectiveness of two stage anti-tank weapons. Where the weapon first has a sacrificial payload that gets any reactive armor to explode...then the real payload to penetrate the normal armor. The cage is supposed to get the first, sacrificial, payload to explode without setting off the reactive armor.
They do supposedly work (at least some reduced effectiveness of the weapon, in some way) if they are done right. That is, that they are wide enough to cover the incoming attack angle of the anti-tank weapon...and dense enough to keep the reactive armor from going off on the first payload.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
It doesn't do much good against javelins, TOWs, improvised EFPs, etc. These sort of weapons aren't impact fused, the slat armor never has a chance to disable these warheads before they go off and the slats themselves won't do much to stop or deflect the penetrating jet created by the detonation of such warheads.
a few example:
- https://postlmg.cc/9Drj9s6W
- https://postlmg.cc/XrMMp6Xq
- https://postlmg.cc/V06wB9cN
- https://postlmg.cc/NyJm63jJ
source: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... (you can find way more cope cages when opening the pictures for damaged, captured and abandoned russian tanks in the list).
That got a chuckle from me
It looks like these things would impair entry/exit.
Are there other ways to enter a tank? Walking dead S1E1 leads me to believe you can get in through the bottom?
Seems to work as that.
Really, Economist? I know they are a blend of news and perspective, but this is cheap and uninformed. @daedlanth here mentions it is a Molotov deflector, and the Economist has a "related story" on that very page about breweries in Ukraine making Molotovs! Goodness.
Incidental to that, I'm not so sure the analyists are actually wrong. Most of the cope cages look a lot like statistical slat armor to me; e.g. designed to disable AT shaped charges, but utterly ineffective at stopping burning petrol from covering the top of the turret. Molotovs break open on these slats, they don't bounce off. Furthermore, at least some of the cope cages have been augmented with sandbags piled up on top. If they were meant to shield the tank and crew from burning petrol, they'd get more mileage out of sheet metal than sandbags. If anything, these cope cages turn into BBQ grills for Russian tankers trying to bail out.
Once again, the general point of the article is "Russian army is soooo imcompetent, of course Putin is going to loose".
I would not mind reading that into a cheap "troop-morale-boosting" stand-up act.
However, even though I understand the Economist stands against pretty much everything Putin stands for - shouldn't we expect a little less blatant wishfull thinking and propaganda ?
As an alternative, what would a _relevant_ source for info about the current warfare (a decent primer on who has what weapons, what they can do, etc...) be ? One that would aknowledge that _maybe_, the Russian army is not entirely made of clowns ?
I've never been in favour of multinationals and subscription based services, but it seems these are what really are making the change now. Software like AutoCAD, Photoshop, etc etc, all stopped working in the last 48h.
Russians begin to wonder why the whole world is against them. NAVO Sanctions alone couldn't do that. The Russian media jokes that they don't need western companies suddenly all stopped.
It's like COVID. Russians only joked COVID won't reach them because vodka, but when the first case hit Moscow, all the jokes stopped.
Same happening now. Companies leaving Russia seemed to hit hard on the people.
Do you have a source for that ? Unless those apps are now systematically "phoning home" and the servers are setup to refuse requests from Russia, it's not obvious how they would "stop working".
- They destroyed their own secret comms system by accident, used civilian phones and general was killed based on the geolocation from the call. Amount of high rank leadershipo KIA would be embarassing even if they fought on-paper much stronger opponent than Ukraine opponent. Even visually confirmed losses from satellite imagery or 1/3 of reported losses by Ukraine is very embarrassing.
- With the advantage in air they have not being able to establish air superiority is a clownery of it's own. Photos of planes with civilian GPS taped in. Stingers shouldn't be so effective against planes.
- Many photos of Russian soldiers (even photos released by Russians) with cheap walkie takies from aliexpress that are easily jammed
- Lots of photos of expensive equipment that got abandoned without standard procedure of sabotaging it
- Supposedly elite units (especially VDV) getting massacred by barely trained territorial groups
There are good reasons for clownery: Massive corruption. Nepotism. Army is intentionally crippled to not present threat to Putin. They never fought a real war. Nukes, submarines and navy are a huge resource drain. They didn't prepare for what happened. Outdated doctrine not adapted to modern war.
I know, "Hanlon's razor" and everything. But, still. I'll err on the side of "not underestimating the side that's bringing cities to dust" for a little more.
I want an overview of what is happening and how it's going. Again, so do they, and I get that. But the propaganda is hard to sift through.
That being said, the 'Russians are so incompetent' memes are very amusing.
Perhaps it's not there for when you're out and about and actively being seen by the enemy. Perhaps it's there for when you're hiding in the woods and you want to hold a tarp off of the top of your tank so that you can get in and out easily. Perhaps it's there to hold up camo netting for hiding the tank better while stopped in the woods. Perhaps the mesh on top is to hold up branches that you cut down to try and better hide your tank while you're in the woods, not moving.
I'm not saying that any of these reasons are THE reason. I'm suggesting that if some idiot on the internet (me) can come up with some reasons that aren't entirely moronic it's too bad that better informed folks aren't trying a little harder to imagine what they might be used for.
Anyway anti-tank rounds have two levels to them the first is a charge that explodes to weaken the armor and the second one goes through that to penetrate.
If the first part explodes prematurely in theory it will have a lot less penetrating force.
That being said, people (and organizations) make bad decisions all the time. It's possible that those cages are not a net win, but they're probably not the worst idea ever either. If they're a bad idea, ideally the troops on the ground tell you that and the cages stop being installed. Where that might fail though is that Russia has a much more authoritarian culture... Will your supervisors listen if you tell them something isn't working out?
There are no winners in the war. Personally I am not siding with any side, I understand UA's right to defend themself (though it seems kinda pointless just wasting human lives and resources for some pride and borders on paper) and I would be their huge fan, if it weren't for their obvious propaganda uncritically parroted by western MSM calling anyone doubting it Putin sympathizer. With such propaganda it's difficult to side with any party. I can also see last 8 years and don't think the attack came out of nowhere without reason as they try to push.
Is that your position for all national borders, or just the one between Ukraine and Russia?
Likewise, do you believe that statement holds for all time, or do you believe it true only for specific periods in time (if so, which periods)?
I can't imagine myself fighting some politician's war, only thing I care about it's my own family and I couldn't care less what is the name of the country I am residing and whether it's gonna change if it won't really affect my day to day life.
I mean if richer more advanced country is going to conquer my country I am certainly not going to fight it as it's the case of poor Ukraine being attacked by slightly less poor Russia, now if Russia went to attack more developed western countries it would make sense to protect our way of life to not lower our living standards, but I still don't like the idea of wasting human lives over politicians. Every politician willing to go to war should be executed.
so did Nazi Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine in last 8 years
world ain't black and white
just because they have Jewish president doesn't mean Nazis can't play significant role in Ukrainian politics, same as just because US had black president US racism didn't go away
Except that you are absolutely wrong about this. If Ukraine surrendered tomorrow and got annexed to be part of Russia, lives of everyone within that country would change dramatically.
Take this from someone whose country wasn't even on the map of the world for almost 100 years(thanks to Russia, among others), and in many places speaking our language was an actual crime, as was teaching our culture and history. Yes, the country and its people still survived even though the borders were wiped off the map, but if you are assuming that nothing would change in your life other than the group of politicians in power, you are absolutely and gravely wrong.
>>I mean if richer more advanced country is going to conquer my country I am certainly not going to fight it
I literally have no words. What if the richer and more advanced country then makes you a second class citizen with fewer rights than you had before? What if they say you can continue to live there, but only in a special camp set up for you? What if speaking your own language becomes illegal? Ask Palestinians how the "richer and more advanced" Israel is treating them exactly.
Why would you not fight an invader? Do you have zero sense of self preservation?
What if Ukraine made a peace deal tomorrow and Russia withdrew from the country with the exception of Crimea and Donbas? This is an option.
Everyone dying in this conflict is fighting over the NATO alignment of Ukraine, not who governs their homes.
Is it? In what kind of world? I don't believe for one second that this is what would happen. Russia won't pull out until they at the very least receive a written promises from Ukraine that it won't join NATO or EU, and I don't see why Ukraine should promise either thing, or that even promising that would stop Russia from taking the entire country anyway.
A written promise isn't an insurmountable barrier.
> I don't see why Ukraine should promise either thing
To save countless Ukrainian lives
>stop Russia from taking the entire country anyway.
Russia clearly would have a hard time taking and holding the country. The war is destroying their economy. They would be happy to get their objective and leave.
That sounds like something my mother says - Ukrainians should just surrender to save themselves. Forgetting that if we did that as a country at several points in our history in recent times neither one of us would be even alive. Resistance to invasion is the only way.
>>The war is destroying their economy.
Oh no poor Russians and their economy. You say it like they were forced to invade. As someone else said - not invading Ukraine would have cost them exactly zero rubles.
It is a simple matter of what Ukraine wants more, saving lives or being uncompromising.
>Oh no poor Russians and their economy. You say it like they were forced to invade.
You missed or simply ignored the point. The point was not poor Russia, but why they would agree to a peace deal and why they can't conquer and hold Ukraine.
Yes, I think people should be "uncompromising" about saving their homeland from invasion.
If you excuse my comparison - your advice sounds like telling a person being raped to just stop struggling, it will end sooner that way. Ukraine is currently being invaded by Russia - they should fight with all their might to destroy the invader. I personally find the suggestion that "surrendering saves lives" offensive - if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died, not less. It's magical wishful thinking that belongs in fantasy books not in the real world.
>>>>I mean if richer more advanced country is going to conquer my country I am certainly not going to fight it
I will re-iterate that this statement can be only said by someone with absolutely no sense of self-preservation.
Why, If you if your homeland is saved from invasion either way? A peace deal and withdraw saves the country, and a long war followed by withdraw saves the country.
>If you excuse my comparison - your advice sounds like telling a person being raped to just stop struggling, it will end sooner that way. Ukraine is currently being invaded by Russia - they should fight with all their might to destroy the invader.
I'm not talking about surrender. I'm talking about peace where Russia goes home and Ukraine is an independent country. This isn't not passively being raped, it is doing something to stop the rape immediately.
>if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died, not less.
IF that's true, then of course you shouldn't surrender! Again, the question is not of surrender, but a peace deal and Russian withdrawal. Is there no point were compromise is possible? Would you not give $1 to Russia to go home, end the war, and save countless lives?
My point is you don't know that and you have absolutely no way of knowing it to any degree of certainty. None of us do. The difference is that you think that's a likely scenario while I think that's the most unlikely one.
What I do know is:
Russia has said for more than a decade it would invade Ukraine if NATO moved in.
It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
People can disagree over if it is a reasonable request, but I think it is at least very clear what Russia wants. I think there is a good chance that would would leave if Ukraine accepts the peace terms they have been offering.
NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
> It offered to call off the invasion in January if NATO stopped arming Ukraine.
"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past.
> And throughout the war, Russia has offered to leave if Ukraine said it will keep NATO out.
That's not the only Russian demand, no. And crucially, the demands mean Russia can just repeat the same thing again whenever it feels like trying again, against a Ukraine they forced to be less able to defend itself (because as you've established above, arming itself is violating neutrality if it obtains weapons from the west). Oops, again didn't elect a puppet in the next election and won't just turn into Belarus 2.0? How unfortunate, needs denazification again, sorry. But sure, you're "just pointing out that Ukraine can make Russia go home tomorrow.", and all will be fine. You're pretending a massive gamble is an obvious decision.
>NATO hasn't moved into Ukraine and Russia has attacked it nevertheless.
NATO/ Primarily the US has moved $billions of weapons and thousands of troops into Ukraine year after year and conducted joint war exercises for war with Russia.
>"We won't invade if you weaken your defenses" is ... not a very convincing "offer" from a country that has already invaded you in the recent past
I totally agree that is a tough pill to swallow, but perhaps not insurmountable. I don't have the solutions, but perhaps with a demilitarization of the boarder or third party assurances.
you see there is difference between you and other people, many of us don't care about their "homeland", do you think I would return to my home countries to fight for it? do you think I would fight for country I'm living in? only thing I'd fight for is my own family, I see no reason to fight over some country concept, I'm flexible I can either adapt or leave for different country
>if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died
you can't possibly know that
I think I can, because extermination of people of my nation was explicitly Hitler's goal.
what we know is the countries which agreed to be Nazi states (Slovakia for instance) were pretty much unaffected by war until the very end (if they switched sides) and more people died during fights with allies/germans in last few months than during years of war
for instance there were pretty much no victims in my hometown from Nazis, while Allied bombing at the very end of war killed 1/3 of civilian population of my hometown, but s*t happens, right?
meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
I live right outside Auschwitz, I think the "execution" part worked out just fine for Nazis. Poland was very much on the agenda for total extermination by Hitler.
Either way, I can't believe anyone is actually suggesting that not fighting Nazis in WW2 might have been the better choice by anyone. It's truly shocking.
>>meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
Like, no personal offence, but it shows absolutely 0 understanding of 20th century history in Europe to even say such a statement. Nazi Germany was the loser. There is no question about it. Marshall plan was put in place to make sure WW2 won't happen again, as clearly the treatment of Germany post WW1 has contributed to the outbreak of another world war. Again, I'm truly shocked there can be even a discussion about "who really is the winner here". Not Germany. Not by a long shot.
Germany lost WW2 - few decades later one of the strongest countries in Europe
yes, this really shows who is the winner and the loser of the war and will for sure discourage anyone from starting another war
What a trollish way of making it Ukraine's fault. "The victim wouldn't have been killed if she just didn't resist the rapist."
the problem with UA is they are resisting while they are more and more admitting they will agree to rape in the end anyway, but hey it's just some ordinary men dying, politicians sending them to death are safe and making video calls with standing ovations
The solution to that is for Russians to leave or get killed.
Let's make something very clear - there was literally nothing that any country could have done to just "make the Nazis march back to Germany" other than beating them to a bloody pulp, and I don't believe there's anything realistic that can be done right now to make Russia march back to where they came from, other than showing them we won't accept such aggression in modern day Europe. One of their demands at the start was that Poland and other Baltic countries that joined NATO most recently should leave it, they would call off the invasion then. That's not a reasonable request and it will not happen, and saying "but it would prevent all these deaths in Ukraine!" Is just dishonest and frankly quite offensive to Ukrainians. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I agree WWII is a poor analogy for the Ukrainian war, which is quite different, but I did not pose the question.
>I don't believe there's anything realistic that can be done right now to make Russia march back to where they came from, other than showing them we won't accept such aggression in modern day Europe.
This is where we fundamentally differ. As in the other thread, I think that Russia would pack up their bags and go home if Ukraine agrees to stay neutral with respect to NATO, and perhaps cede Crimea and Donbas to Russia. I gather that you think this is not the case.
>One of their demands at the start was that Poland and other Baltic countries that joined NATO most recently should leave it, they would call the invasion then
Not that they should leave NATO, but that the US would reduce their troops there, in exchange for Russia drawing down troops from its boarder. This was proposed as a path to lowering tensions and avoid war in Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guaran...
people make it like Zelensky is saint and completely ignore less than half year ago he was corrupted POS and I really fail to see what's in Ukraine better than in Russia, once again corrupted president destroying opposition and censoring news no matter on efficient side of border you are
let's not forget Ukraine was part of USSR just 30 years ago, so it would just returned where it was
but honestly it's unrealistic and I really doubt even Putin wants that, what he wants is reassurance they won't join NATO (see Cuban missile crisis to see parallel) which is making headlines right now as I write and he probably wants independence for those Eastern republics same as for Crimea to stop Nazis slaughtering there separatists
I'm not denying Palestine has very big issues, but it's apples and oranges, here Russia support autonomy of those Eastern provinces while EU countries do opposite trying to keep them within Ukraine with their support for one side, honestly this should be really business between Ukrainians and Russians and no other nation should meddle there, nothing good can come out of third party meddling
I guess you would have thought that Hitler should have been allowed to just take Poland, nothing good came out of third party meddling there after all.
>>people make it like Zelensky is saint and completely ignore less than half year ago he was corrupted POS and I really fail to see what's in Ukraine better than in Russia, once again corrupted president destroying opposition and censoring news no matter on efficient side of border you are
Literally none of that is relevant here, Russia invaded Ukraine and they need to be kicked out. Whether you like zelensky or not is literally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
people have very short memory and suddenly he is savior of Ukraine, while months ago he was just corrupted thief for majority with no chance for reelection
I think you should travel more, if possible. I believe you will see significant differences in the way that national governments treat their people in different regions of the earth.
In some places, you cannot insult government members. In some countries, you cannot insult a religious figure. In some countries, you cannot do the same things that other people do because of your race, sex, or sexual orientation. By "cannot" , I mean "face execution or life imprisonment".
And that is only based upon what I know going on currently. If you go back historically, things do get much more diverse.
Predicting a response that these sorts of things only happen in extreme countries, my reply is that if there were no national borders other than the atmosphere, the leaders of that region would be the most ruthless and ambitious on the planet. I do not have fond hopes that they would somehow also be simultaneously the most compassionate and altruistic.
Most great men are not good men.
Or as someone put it: Power does not corrupt--it reveals.
Look at Syria. It was ATGM city. And that's a "budget" conflict compared to the kind of stops that are being pulled out to get that kind of hardware into Ukrainian hands.
It is paywalled.
The alternative we have here is a completely uninformed, speculative discussion.
If you're talking about my other comments, they were paraphrasing similar articles I've read, rather than pure speculation. Keeping in mind that that any article is going to have speculation, as the Russians haven't said why they are doing it.
That "generous paywall" is showing me ~120 words.
It is not expected to defend against all weapons, rather it's part of defense in depth. Whether it's effective against shaped charge projectiles will largely depend on the construction and spacing of the slats. To dismiss it outright displays a pretty shocking level of ignorance or agenda on the part of TFA.
Edited to add:
I read T-entire-FA via the archive link up-thread. There is meaningful discussion of slat armor in it. I remain convinced that there's room in the taster portion of the article to suggest that the improvised armor isn't a purely ignorant addition to the tanks. I would further suspect that hinting at substantive analysis below the fold stands to sell more subscriptions to The Economist than what they've included, which is, at best, one-sided.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slat_armor
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
You can read more about statistical armor here: https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour
Slat armor is effective against HEAT rounds when the slat is the right size and right distance (slat must be hit before the warhead explodes). Those cages are too low for Javelins and probably against NLAW (top attack)
Is that correct? I thought the idea was the slats were supposed to trigger the warhead to detonate, but at an unexpected distance where it couldn't defeat the armor.
Javelins do.
> it's a losers attitude
Losing their lives is what those Russian tankers are doing. People laughing at dead Russian tankers on the internet aren't losing much of anything, except maybe their innocence.
I'd say they're, and we're, losing much more than that, the current trend is kind of worrying, nothing better than 12 years old reddit users calling for the death of Russian soldiers and very often even Russian civilians.
It's funny how little time it takes to go from "never again" to "lmao kill them all" and the whole war porn surrounding the conflict, which seems unquestioned, is equally worrying. People, including kids, are sharing almost real time pictures and videos of charred and shredded bodies while cheering as if they were watching a soccer game
But this sort of harm needs to be considered in the context of all the other harm being done by the war. Reddit teenagers laughing at the charred corpses of conscripts their own age is saddening, but the people who are actually doing the dying are losing much more than just their innocence and dignity. The real losers are those that are dead, maimed, had their country invaded, etc.
It is a short step from laughing at charred Russian corpses, to charred BLM/alt-right corpses.
The saddest part is that all of this animal rage is entirely unnecessary. A decent argument can be made for the US support of Ukraine without resorting to base emotions.
What's wrong with that? How is the killing going to stop without eliminating all invaders?
> and very often even Russian civilians.
Show me where you've seen that.
> It's funny how little time it takes to go from "never again" to "lmao kill them all"
"Never again" is about genocide. It's ridiculous to say we should care about the lives of invaders. Russians are bombing Holocaust memorials and you're pretending Russians are the victims. They are the nazis.
> videos of charred and shredded bodies while cheering as if they were watching a soccer game
Those orcs are bombing civilians and committing genocide. When you see innocent pregnant women and children being murdered by Russians you can't help but rejoice at the murderers getting their just rewards.
The only reason anyone in the west without family there cares about Ukraine is because it's far. This war is a circus. It is an issue between Russia and Ukraine, and while everyone likes something to be concerned about, it's wasted, and worse, a distraction from borderline existential domestic policy issues.
I'd be very suprised if anything is going to be drawn out as soon as a missle can invoke article 5.
It's much safer to ruin Russia by giving weapons to Ukraine while skirting around open conflict. It's a way of depleting Russian resources (manpower, military hardware, money, mindshare, etc) while keeping the possibility of nukes to a relative minimum.
Russia isn't a big dog on the global stage, it's trying to be a big bully against smaller countries though.
I believe Ukrainians see that possibility too, but have still decided to fight. Who am I to tell them to surrender instead? Ukrainians decide the value of Ukraine's independence.
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour
Two caveats though:
- This kind of armor is pretty much useless against modern weapons.
- They may not be intended as armor at all, but serve another purpose.
It reminds me of this:
"Ask a Soviet engineer to design a pair of shoes and he'll come up with something that looks like the boxes that the shoes came in; ask him to make something that will massacre Germans, and he turns into Thomas Fucking Edison."
-- "Cryptonomicon", Neal Stephenson
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hupsUq-fzq8