Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 12 hours agoI 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.
Madison420@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Because hitting a wall at 50 kph in a armored can is a solid fucking idea unless you’re currently being shot at, what any force would do is cross once carefully and push entering in and then they can just drive across.
I’m not sure where or why you have these cartoonish visions of how tanks go about things but it’s absurd and you’ve provided exactly nothing to say that anyone would do this or that it’s at all standard practice to just hurl yourselves barrel first into walls.
You agree! Stop arguing to argue guy.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
(Sorry slightly pressed for time this comment, I usually try to avoid quote-reliant responses)
Getting attached to armored regiments gives you a weird degree of insight as to how they do things, I’ll happily confess to that one.
You’re not quite understanding my argument, I fear. You can see in the vid I posted before that a tank will happily just shove it’s way through a berm of loose-packed dirt like this, it’s not like I’m trying to present that as a tank driving full on at a wall. I’ve also never presented that a tank would intentionally foul it’s barrel instead adjusting the gun lay to deflect damage (hell, turrets even have a system in place to allow free rotation in the event of strong impacts just to prevent damage to the barrel/sights/etc) because that’s the entire basis of my “just elevate over it” point from earlier.
No, what? Rapid thrusts through enemy defenses is fundamental to maneuver warfare - it’s the basis of Blitzkrieg, it’s the basis of modern Disorganization in Depth, it was the cornerstone of Ukraine’s counter-offensive. It’s what any armored force would do - exploitation through rapid maneuver, consolidation by following forces.
Here, don’t believe me? While Army forces consolidate gains throughout an operation, consolidating gains become the focus of operations after large-scale combat operations have concluded. It’s very literally textbook maneuver warfare - it’s so basic it’s publicly available on the US Army website.
Isn’t the point of having a bunker every 60 meters that you’ll have lots of locations to shoot at people trying to cross the tank barrier? That’s kinda fundamental to the premise here.
But… no, I don’t?
Madison420@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Ya huh then you should know you’re taking faff but more likely your just lying.
I understand your argument, I’m saying you’re being obtuse and egomaniacal.
You agree go away already.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
(Taking faff is one of the cutest aphorism’s I’ve run across, thank you for that)
Anyways, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated a deeply fundamental lack of familiarity with the topic being discussed here. And you asserting that I agree with you, despite repeatedly explaining the nuance of my position and detailing how we disagree, is a pretty transparent attempt to establish a victory condition that has nothing to do with the content of your argument and everything to do with the submission of your opponent
which, listen, usually I’m all for that, but man when you’re just trying to demand it like this it’s a real turn off.It’s even wildly off topic - you still have done nothing to actually establish that your position is founded on evidence, you’re just asserting that you’re correct and ignoring the mounting evidence for my own position.
So, seriously, why would they slow down when assaulting a pre-prepared defensive position? Ordinarily, that’s what we’d call suicide.