Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 17 hours agoit’s just an irrigation canal. A BMP could cross that without having to slow down, it can’t be more than 3m and has such beautiful ramped sides. The biggest threat might be getting stuck in the loose dirt of the spoil berm, but really there’s not enough there to trouble a hilux let alone an AFV or true tank.
There is no stopping a tank force that’s determined by obstacle alone, countries in WW2 spent millions and lots of resources into complex anti tank setups and the lesson learned is nothing stops them. You just invest the least to be the most annoying and by that I mean time consuming.
At the very least you have to slow and turn your turret away from the place you want to go which is problematic if there’s people on the other side who don’t have to turn their guns away.
At the very least you have to slow and turn your turret away from the place you want to go
You don’t, though, not in this case - because this isn’t an anti-tank ditch. You might have to elevate to prevent sticking your snoot in the berm, but (and not to go all war-thunder here) it’s two button presses and at most a second’s delay in motion to get back on sight, and thanks to the stabilization the turret is still tracking the entire time you’re doing that. And that’s just if you don’t blast the berm out of the way. And this doesn’t apply to most AFV’s, since they don’t have protruding barrels that might foul while crossing this.
There’s lots more here about the way static defenses factor into defense in depth and how modern improvements to the strategy incorporate information warfare to improve the cost/effect ratio, but I’m lazy - if you want to learn more look up Ukraine and Russia’s current anti-tank policy or Russia’s counter-counter-strike preparations from last year. At the very least though it’ll give you some photos of what a legit anti-tank barrier looks like, which isn’t this goofy thing designed just to deter the so horrible “migration offensive”.
Yes you do physics exists and gun barrels aren’t super into impacts or being filled with mud.
You’re article supports me not you. It never says it is or isn’t a anti tank ditch, it does imply it’s anti vehicle though with tanks being a vehicle.
… Right, which is why I said you’d need to elevate the barrel, my point being that such a maneuver is not a tactical disadvantage.
A small stone wall will stop a Cupra and this ditch sure would be annoying to cross with a bicycle, but while all ditches could be anti-vehicle ditches, very few ditches are anti-tank ditches.
Really though, I’m trying to figure out how to phrase ‘how does physics factor into this’ in a more useful way, because obviously molecules stay together and gravity works, but do you have anything more than that? You can poke a tank barrel through a cinderblock wall without taking it out of battery, it’s a massive tempered steel bar, and barrel obstructions are extremely difficult to get In modern modern tanks, tho iirc not on the T-72, soft barrel obstructions like dirt/mud/water/gravel/etc. can be cleared automatically from the breach controls by diverting pressure from the pneumatics. IIRC the T-72 had to use a squib to achieve the same result, which was stupid dangerous for russian-engineering reasons.
::: spoiler Ps
Buddy that was only evidence for not having to slow, not having to turn the turret. This is starting to feel like you’re just lashing out because your preconceptions are being challenged, not you having a genuine intellectual objection to what I’m saying. You’re clearly unfamiliar with the topic, and you’re butting up against the big dunning-kruger trench (which ironically would make a much more effective tank defense than what’s picture in the OP).
Please just go do a little bit of your own research instead of lashing out with random objections like this, then come back. Even on it’s own it’s a potentially important topic to be familiar with, what with the rise of far right nationalism the world over, and it’s getting clear you don’t have much theoretical (let alone practical) familiarity with the capabilities of AFVs.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 hours ago
I wouldn’t want to be the people in the tank. If you tried to hit that at full speed it wouldn’t be pleasant plus you would tear up your tank.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Riding in any AFV isn’t comfortable, Russian tanks especially. This sure wouldn’t be pleasant, but it’d be a great deal more fun than being hit with an AT round because you stopped in the middle of an empty field.