How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[LongLeftFlank]

@akd posted another snip from this thread earier, and it's worth reading in full for the broader context of this operation. 

(I've drunk my fill of the Great Amphibious Scrapyard Caper at this point personally, but by all means, carry on)

 

 

Any Peaky Blinders fans out there? A bit far fetched at times, of course, but some of the  acting was fantastic....

Alfie Solomons:  See, Oi'm guessing, right? That all the *bad* ideas 'round 'ere, they're you. Right? They're all you. Aren't they....

Edited May 14, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Found this site (link) that has all the stuff you have to prep to do a crossing deeper than 1.3 m but less than 1.8 m, so you can keep the hatch open and don't need snorkels.  There's a lot of stuff to do, and if they weren't well trained might have all missed the same thing or had the same thing fail (exhaust valves letting water in?)

The main problem with shallow water is the river bottom has to be pretty firm because there's not enough buoyancy to float.  If the bottom is mushy then the tank will sink into the bottom and become bogged like in a muddy field.  Functioning seals, snorkels, etc. don't matter if you are stuck.

The river bottom's conditions are what I alluded to in my previous post.  As the tanks went in they were carried mostly by their momentum and largely bogged at the same point because the conditions that caused one tank to bog are the same for the other tanks.  The variable is that some got a little further than others.  The one that's partially submerged under the bridge probably even managed to float a little bit and was swept downstream under the bridge.

As for the river bottom, it seems to be very sandy in this stretch.  See attached pictures of the exact and general area of the crossing (taken last year).  Exactly NOT the sort of thing you want for crossing.

This is the most logical explanation for what we're seeing.

Apparently they found driving over the sunken BLUE bridge wasn't viable through trial and error.  If you look at Mid picture in the previous post, there is a tank stuck in the water towards the near side in Mid and what looks like a vehicle helping it recover on the near bank.  If you look at the Late picture in my previous post, you'll see the sunken tank is no longer there.

Steve

[chrisl]

That's way shallower for way longer than I expected from the overhead pics.  Does it also drop off a bit as it gets muckier?  I suppose there are (or were) some Russian tankers who know the answer to that...

[FancyCat]

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research was notably one of the only IC agencies to dissent that Iraq had WMDs.

 

[chuckdyke]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If the bottom is mushy then the tank will sink into the bottom and become bogged like in a muddy field. 

They have almost a hundred years' experience at river crossings. 

[kraze]

 

[Offshoot]

Ukraine war: Military intelligence chief 'optimistic' of Russian defeat saying war 'will be over by end of year'

Major General Kyrylo Budanov spoke exclusively to Sky News and predicted the war will reach a turning point in August. He correctly predicted when Russia would invade earlier this year.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-military-intelligence-chief-optimistic-of-russian-defeat-saying-war-will-be-over-by-end-of-year-12612320?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter#

[Holien]

Interesting comments re the possibility of China sharing data with the Russian forces. Not sure if that is true, I guess possible and maybe there are other explanations of how quickly drone Operators have been targeted, such as Russian eyes on the ground and some quick thinking?

To get data from China back to the Russian units seems a stretch but who knows...

Also shows what we have all known that the youth playing computer games can help defend their country…..

 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Interesting, if true.... 

At #Izyum, the front has died down, artillery duels are underway, fighting continues NW from #Lyman. A lot of Russian equipment has been seen withdrawing towards #Donbas in #Borova. The Russians seem to have abandoned this line of attack. 

The Sviatohirsk monastery and wooded hills have taken a terrible pounding, but the Russians don't appear to have the wherewithal to assault it. 

 

 

Hmm, seems the Russians continue to bombard the perimeter of villages shielding the Sviatohirsk massif. But unclear how much ground game they're really putting into that or to Lyman.

Nothing further on that alleged crossing behind Lyman reported a few days back either.

[c3k]

The crossing fiasco and the tanks that bogged down: why do none of the pictured tanks have snorkels?

It could be as simple as, "the tanks WITH snorkels made it; those without, did not."

It could be maintenance or damage, or it could be there was no order to stop and prepare them.

Just one little piece of the entire fiasco.

[Cederic]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

As the tanks went in they were carried mostly by their momentum and largely bogged at the same point because the conditions that caused one tank to bog are the same for the other tanks.

Stupid question time: Are there any photographs since that confirm those tanks bogged down? How do we know the image getting all the analysis wasn't taken while they were crossing, and that they didn't complete that crossing?

(It's possible one's already been posted here, and that I've missed it - I fear I'm joining the left flank in river fatigue)

[Huba]

Great Game continues:

 

[Aragorn2002]

14 hours ago, Cederic said:

 

It's one reason I think that the moment Russia withdraws from Ukraine (almost certainly due to a change in leadership) sanctions will need to be relaxed and diplomatic relations rapidly rebuilt. That may well upset Ukraine but it's going to be key to a continued (well, return to) approximate world peace.

 

 

Couldn't disagree more. As often mentioned in the past weeks Russia has to be brought to it's knees and cleansed of all filth that makes her start wars and export misery to it's neighbours. Putin might be replaced by a more moderate and reasonable leader, but it will not take long before another dangerous bastard will grab power. It's not just Putin and his gamg, it's a country, a people, a culture and a way of thinking that has to be rooted out, before we're going back to 'business as usual', whatever that means with Russians...

[Pete Wenman]

More from "the bridge" site - not sure where this sites in the timeline, but no MBT in the water for sure

 

[Aragorn2002]

12 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Some news from the Black Sea.

So what does it mean?

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, FancyCat said:

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research was notably one of the only IC agencies to dissent that Iraq had WMDs.

 

They just need a transcript of this entire thread from Day 1.  

[Aragorn2002]

3 hours ago, Holien said:

Interesting comments re the possibility of China sharing data with the Russian forces. Not sure if that is true, I guess possible and maybe there are other explanations of how quickly drone Operators have been targeted, such as Russian eyes on the ground and some quick thinking?

 

To get data from China back to the Russian units seems a stretch but who knows...

 

Also shows what we have all known that the youth playing computer games can help defend their country…..

 

 

 

Talking about China. Came across this youtube post by one of my heroes, Jordan Peterson. Why China will fail.

https://youtu.be/Hf1D9-zSOME

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[chuckdyke]

9 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

'business as usual',

Without putin and without the United Russia Party. Like France was defeated Napoleon went to a nice resort in the South Atlantic. Hitler did the only decent thing, he killed himself. Treat him like a dog with rabies, humane method give him the needle. 

[kraze]

15 hours ago, Cederic said:

It's one reason I think that the moment Russia withdraws from Ukraine (almost certainly due to a change in leadership) sanctions will need to be relaxed and diplomatic relations rapidly rebuilt. That may well upset Ukraine but it's going to be key to a continued (well, return to) approximate world peace.

I mean why not - that's exactly how it worked in 1992 when Russia "withdrew" from Moldova. Then in 1994 when it "withdrew" from Ichkeriya. Then in 2008 it "withdrew" from Georgia and you even had Obama bringing his "reboot" button. Then in 2014 everybody decided "well Russia's in Ukraine now, but let's have good relationship with them - that will help with world peace, no need to even "withdraw" ".

And then it will be like "but listen - I think the moment Russia withdraws from Poland (almost certainly due to a change in leadership) sanctions will need to be relaxed and diplomatic relations rapidly rebuild".

Because surely not punishing russian nazis for evils they did will help with world peace. More than 400000 deported, dozens of thousands civilians dead, 1/3 of the country destroyed and you shake hands with them - I guess that will send a powerful signal. That's literally how it works. Right.

I mean - how far can they possible come? They certainly won't cross the Atlantic. They gotta get fed up with capturing territories at some point, right? The moment Lenin-Stalin-Khruschev-Brezhnev-Andropov-Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Putin-Ivanov-Petrov-Sidorov goes - there will be peace! Here, hold a white dove and an olive branch!

Edited May 14, 2022 by kraze

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, c3k said:

why do none of the pictured tanks have snorkels?

@akd @Battlefront.com

Russian source on LostArmoour wrote these tanks are remains of tank group on bridgehead. Russians couldn't transfer them back on own bank, so they drove them to the river and sunk them so they would not be captured. 

You can see trails of the tracks, when they drove into the water.

But on other hand, they could just set fire own tanks. So, strange version, but this is irrational Russia... 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[Holien]

11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

But on other hand, they could just set fire own tanks. So, strange version, but this is irrational Russia...

Surely at some point a decent tractor will pull them out...

Then a bit of drying and tidy up for some new owners. 

[AlsatianFelix]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The main problem with shallow water is the river bottom has to be pretty firm because there's not enough buoyancy to float.  If the bottom is mushy then the tank will sink into the bottom and become bogged like in a muddy field.  Functioning seals, snorkels, etc. don't matter if you are stuck.

The river bottom's conditions are what I alluded to in my previous post.  As the tanks went in they were carried mostly by their momentum and largely bogged at the same point because the conditions that caused one tank to bog are the same for the other tanks.  The variable is that some got a little further than others.  The one that's partially submerged under the bridge probably even managed to float a little bit and was swept downstream under the bridge.

As for the river bottom, it seems to be very sandy in this stretch.  See attached pictures of the exact and general area of the crossing (taken last year).  Exactly NOT the sort of thing you want for crossing.

This is the most logical explanation for what we're seeing.

Apparently they found driving over the sunken BLUE bridge wasn't viable through trial and error.  If you look at Mid picture in the previous post, there is a tank stuck in the water towards the near side in Mid and what looks like a vehicle helping it recover on the near bank.  If you look at the Late picture in my previous post, you'll see the sunken tank is no longer there.

Steve

Looks like a shallow, clear,  lazy river during a dry summer. I could walk across that. The river now in the Pontoon Kessel looks a bit higher, muddier, and faster due to seasonal rains. Sort of like how the Rapido looked like a fordable stream on the U.S. maps but when they tried to cross it in the wrong season of '43 it was a steep banked river flowing swiftly with runoff.  Debacle.

 

[c3k]

57 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@akd @Battlefront.com

Russian source on LostArmoour wrote these tanks are remains of tank group on bridgehead. Russians couldn't transfer them back on own bank, so they drove them to the river and sunk them so they would not be captured. 

You can see trails of the tracks, when they drove into the water.

But on other hand, they could just set fire own tanks. So, strange version, but this is irrational Russia... 

To purposely scuttle a tank (is "Moskva'ing" a verb yet?    ) takes a driver with balls.

Open the hatch, drive into the water, then swim out as the water comes over your head? 

Or, can the T72 be put in gear and then the driver can hop out while it just drives away with no one in it?

[Offshoot]

4 minutes ago, c3k said:

To purposely scuttle a tank (is "Moskva'ing" a verb yet?    ) takes a driver with balls.

Open the hatch, drive into the water, then swim out as the water comes over your head? 

Or, can the T72 be put in gear and then the driver can hop out while it just drives away with no one in it?

I asked similar questions when wondering why they were so particular about keeping the barrels out of the water if they were scuttling the tanks.
I don't know anything about the different types, but I just watched a video that said the T72 driver can remove their seat back and go out through the turret.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Offshoot

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

So what does it mean?

They need the cruise missiles for something because they are running out of land/air based ones? (pure speculation)

Dave