Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 12 hours agoCorrect me if I’m wrong but you’ve just admitted you were wrong.
so lets just go with you’re right
My god, you’ve broken my secret code.
Now you’ve proved visually by yourself that you are wrong
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 10 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 10 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?
Madison420@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
It’s literally the point.
Would a tank have to stop? We both agree no.
Would it slow down a tank? We both agree yes unless you’re implying they not only would throw themselves at max speed across a scarp counter scarp and embankment and that somehow would not slow down the tank.
We just don’t agree on your looney toons tactics which your own evidentiary video doesn’t even support.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
I explained the context of the video, though - and my whole point has been “but why would they slow down”. Its not because of the trench, we’ve both accepted the evidence that it’s actively detrimental to them to do that. You keep saying they would slow, but not establishing a reason why they’d ever do that, instead lashing out at me.
I’ve demonstrated to both our satisfactions that this little ditch isn’t a notable obstacle to a modern AFV, and is only a minor one to the lowest-profile and longest-snooted MBT I know of. I’ve even laid out why this style of ditch is an important facet of a defense in depth strategy (easy for AFVs to cross, difficult for support, separates the two very nicely esp. if the tanks are moving at speed to avoid making targets of themselves).
So… what’s the issue? Is it just that I’ve expressed my position, that you’re intelligent but very unfamiliar with the topic? I really doubt that one, but I am curious about what your motivation is here.