Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 8 hours agoAight so that was sad enough I figured I’d do a couple physical sims just to answer the question definitively:
turns out a T72 would need +35° of elevation to clear this if you approached at 1kph
But at +14° elevation, it'll just barely clip the top at 30kph
And only needs to be going ~46.02kph to clear the berm
But to cross at 30mph, you’d only need to rotate the barrel ~20° off center-line to clear the berm (which if Warthunder is to be believed (hehe), will take 5/8^ths^ of a second to return to axial - this is as close as I could get to the actual figure but it’s probably closer to a full second, I couldn’t find acceleration curves for the T-72 turret traversal (go figure)).
So you’re right, most likely a T-72 crew would have to rotate the turret some to clear this berm unless they’re going flat-out across that field, which is possible for them to achieve but the offroad speed of the T-72 isn’t super reliably reported (again go figure) so lets just go with you’re right.
And with that side topic settled, back to my point: this ditch ain’t going to force an AFV to slow down. Like at all.
Disclosures:
I used the absolute shortest value for ground support length which is only 5.5m, used the common 106" ditch crossing value for ease instead of calculating it custom as soil dynamics sucks to define, used the most generous estimate I could for ditch dimensions (4m wide w/ 90° slopes) and just traced the outline of a T72 where I couldn’t find specific dimensions in the manual I’ll pretend I have sitting on my desk but which I just googled around to find, and I also just totally ignored ground compression for the same reason (but eyeballing it, it should roughly even out)
Madison420@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Correct me if I’m wrong but you’ve just admitted you were wrong.
No when people say tank they mean MBT, if you drive a Bradley and call it a tank Abraham’s crews will straight up laugh at you. The phrase you used doesn’t matter, the question is will that actually stop a tank. My response was no but it will slow them, your answer was “Nuh uh!”. Now you’ve proved visually by yourself that you are wrong and probably shouldn’t have “uhm actually” your way into the conversation.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
My god, you’ve broken my secret code.
I’ve quite exhaustively shown that yes, at some speeds a T-72 would impact the berm without rotating the turret. I’m not… I literally drew you diagrams dude, I don’t think I could be more explicit about how this works out. But If they don’t slow down this won’t be the case. They will clear it without having to rotate the turret. They also, as you’ve claimed, will not have to turn the turret “away from the berm”. I couldn’t be more clear than this without a lego set and a mallet. I was provisionally wrong about the turret, unless you take it in the context of my earlier thing about not slowing down, where I would correct.
But I don’t really care enough, so have the win about the turret. It’s my little gift to you.
The issue is more complicated than you seem to present it, and I did my best to clarify that. Also, yes, I already acknowledged how the misclassification of things as MBTs is the source of popular Tanker drinking games. It’s common enough there’s a billion articles like this out there, clarifying things. It’s not a phantom phenomenon, are you really trying to turn that into the issue to litigate while glossing over the slow-down-an-attack aspects now?
Madison420@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
So we’re done, you admit you’re wrong and also that you’re just being tedious. Neat.
Ego much? Also that ignores the fact that was the entire argument but sure get snippy about it bud.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Whait, when did it become about just the one issue you brought up? Are you really trying to leverage a single small concession into an ideological victory over an entire discussion, but playing it off like nobody could notice that?
This is… interesting behavior. And has nothing to do with the part where the initial claim was demonstrated to be correct. Why aren’t we talking about that part?