- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
no way they're that lazy though
it takes many hours to shred a large enough pile of documents, it takes only a few extra minutes to dump the pile of shredded paper in a fire pit and reduce it all to ashes
Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion
- Thread starter Bohdan Khmelnytsky
- Start date
it takes many hours to shred a large enough pile of documents, it takes only a few extra minutes to dump the pile of shredded paper in a fire pit and reduce it all to ashes
latinlover
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2024
You're forgetting this is the country of technological marvels such as the $1.5 million roundabout to nowhere and the $250k tree-top walkway without any trees.
They are comically incompetent and grew quite complacent during their 16 year long divine mandate where they genuinely believed they are invincible. That, and the pawns of the system are already getting rowdy and disloyal.
Lots of the lower level government workers are already 'compromised'. Magyar claims to have videos, voice recordings of the 'shredding operation', scans/photos of documents meant to be destroyed, etc, there's plenty of
TISZA basically created an entire internal department dealing with the investigation of the "shredding" crimes called the "Government Document Preservation Platform". They provide a tutorial on how you can report information/upload documents you were ordered to shred through TOR. The "stopdaralas" in the site name translates to "stoptheshred" lol.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2024
Although the engine people are talking about the Russians copying is an X configuration diesel like the Armata's, unfortunately that's a bit of wartime theory that snowballed into a bigger common misconception with the infamous lazerpig video about the T-14 being the end cap. Originally in 2022 Russian mil bloggers and OSINT fans were theorizing about how the Armata evolved and one idea was a captured factory and example of an experimental X-16 diesel engine that was being worked on by Porsche named the SLa 16 (sometimes called the Porsche Type 203 or Type 212). This was never corroborated and was contradicted but the cat was already out of the bag.
Porsche in a joint effort with Simmering Graz Pauker, an Austrian heavy was tasked with creating a more efficient engine for general German heavy tank use. From it's inception to the end of the war the Tiger II was powered by a liquid cooled V-12 Petrol engine named the Maybach HL 230 P30. Because of a combination of an over taxed engine with a lopsided power to weight ratio and transmission issues as well as gasoline shortages Hitler wanted a compact air cooled diesel engine in german tanks with this order being handed down as early as 41'. Porche prototyped and began initial production of a V-10 Diesel but it's performance was lackluster and lead to it being scrapped. Eventually Porche was ordered to design a new engine and have it made by SGP in Austria as they specialized in trains and diesel production. By the end of the war the new SLa X-16 was completed and had marginally better performance than the original Maybach 230 but it was far too late to make a meaningful difference and it was too big to fit into the Tiger II's engine bay without exhaust and engine deck modification. It was also complicated to produce with only a few prototypes being made and with pieces being built across late war German territory. Only one Jagdtiger and one Tiger II hull were fitted with the engine. The concept of a powerful but compact X shaped engine was tested before the SLa 16 by western nations, mostly the U.S and UK for aircraft and cars. For instance in the 1920s ford prototyped the X-8 but dropped it after complexity became an issue. Tooling and engines both ended up in Soviet hands but soon became dormant and little was done with them aside from the immediate post war studies.
The post war world saw multiple nations try to use an X shaped diesel engine usually 10-14 pistons but it saw no significant use in armored vehicles due to cost and complexity. Though the compact nature of post SLa 16 engines allowed for more power for the space it took up, reliability, maintanence and production became an issue. The largest western attempt was by the US Army's Detroit Arsenal under Operation Question Mark (launched 1952). This was a series of conceptual medium and heavy tank studies exploring radical layouts, including rear turrets, front engines, and compact powerpacks to improve ballistic protection and mobility. This study informed later tank projects like the M60 lineage but power packs largely evolved from diesel V12s in western nations, leaving the X shaped engine abandoned. Very shortly therafter NATO standarsized their engines.
The post war world saw multiple nations try to use an X shaped diesel engine usually 10-14 pistons but it saw no significant use in armored vehicles due to cost and complexity. Though the compact nature of post SLa 16 engines allowed for more power for the space it took up, reliability, maintanence and production became an issue. The largest western attempt was by the US Army's Detroit Arsenal under Operation Question Mark (launched 1952). This was a series of conceptual medium and heavy tank studies exploring radical layouts, including rear turrets, front engines, and compact powerpacks to improve ballistic protection and mobility. This study informed later tank projects like the M60 lineage but power packs largely evolved from diesel V12s in western nations, leaving the X shaped engine abandoned. Very shortly therafter NATO standarsized their engines.
The engine in the Armata uses is the A-85-3A or 2V-12-3A liquid-cooled, turbocharged X-configuration four-stroke diesel with it's design lineage going back to the 60s at Chelyabinsk Transdizel design bureau SKB-75 (now GSKB Transdiesel) under chief designer V.I. Butov, work began on a new family of diesels. This included an air-cooled X-16 prototype, a Four banks of four cylinders in an X layout, explicitly a reaction to Western air-cooled tank diesels like the U.S. Continental AVDS-1790. It did not enter production however and had vibration, cooling, and balancing challenges. This was the first documented Soviet X-engine effort for tanks and served as conceptual groundwork for compactness. The program was dropped and closed however things changed in 1970 with the Formal start of the 2V (or 2B) program at ChTZ/SKB-75. A modular family of X-layout diesels (two V6 or V8 banks joined in X for tanks) plus standalone V6/V8 variants for lighter vehicles (e.g., IFVs). Explicitly for next-generation tanks to surpass V-92 limits (the then in service V-12). It's important to note that this was not a "let's see what Germany did and try that" it was an agruable more confounding solution that was literally taking to V banks and putting them together to make an X as such ><. Because of this the prototypes were an X-12 and X-16 respectively. The first running prototypes were completed in 76'-77 and named the 2V-16-1 (16-cylinder X) and 12ChN (early 12-cylinder X). Both were tested on T-72 chassis and other platforms. The SKB continued it's work into the 90s with refined but not adopted evolutions of their X line. A-85-2 (16-cylinder essentially an early early A-85-3) tested on Object 187 (T-72 evolution with a radically different hull) and was considered for T-95 / Object 195. A 16-cylinder version was briefly pitched for civilian uses (compressors), but core work remained tank-focused. Post-Soviet funding delays slowed work, but the design matured as the 2V-12-3 an X-12, liquid-cooled, direct injection, twin turbo with intercoolers. It was renamed to the now A-85-3A and was selected for the Armata universal platform because it offered superior power density and compactness vs. V-92 derivatives. However like it's predecessors it has power, cooling and reliability issues.
What I want to emphesize here is not that Russia is actually super ingenious in it's selection of an indeginous engine that had been under development for decades, it's that X engines in general have more problems than they do advantages. Russia didn't copy a prototype German engine from the end of the war but instead poured tons of money and time into developing their own engine that in the end still has all the issues that previous X form engines had. It's hard to produce, complicated to maintain, has issues with balancing and cooling just like every attempt before. Yet the idea that they could in theory finally have a leg up over the west in a post collapse world pushed them to over promise and under deliver like they usually do.
What I want to emphesize here is not that Russia is actually super ingenious in it's selection of an indeginous engine that had been under development for decades, it's that X engines in general have more problems than they do advantages. Russia didn't copy a prototype German engine from the end of the war but instead poured tons of money and time into developing their own engine that in the end still has all the issues that previous X form engines had. It's hard to produce, complicated to maintain, has issues with balancing and cooling just like every attempt before. Yet the idea that they could in theory finally have a leg up over the west in a post collapse world pushed them to over promise and under deliver like they usually do.
Tl;dr: It's not a copy of the Tiger II's prototyped engine but it's not good regardless. Zisters will tear down your well made argument because you said the lazerpig meme so I wanted to post all about it so nobody falls into the trap.
I made a book again but I spoilered tons of it so mobile users don't have to scroll to death.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
So they didn't copy the Tiger II engine, they spend a decade and several millions arriving at the Tiger II's engine via convergent evolution.
I'm not sure if that's better or worse.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2024
English and American (aviation) engineers also tried to get X, H and other non turbine engine configurations to work before, during and after WWII. Which they didn't had much success beyond what the Germans and Soviet had achieved.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2020
I'm still stanning for some good old WW2 20mm, 30mm, or 40mm Bofors clones acking the bigger drones. They're slow and bad at maneuvering, proximity fuze old ass AA should have a field day with them, at least in daylight
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2018
The 12N360 is much closer to the V-2 family of engines than the X16. It's basically 2 halves of a V-92 laid on their side. The idea of making an X12 version of the standard V12 engine had been around since the 60s but the opposed piston engine designed for the T-64 solved the same packaging issues without the problems of running banks of 4 stroke cylinders upside down. Both the V-2 and the 5TD were Ukrainian designs.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
I've always been disappointed that nobody tried to mash a downscaled Napier deltic into a tank or a plane, just to see what would happen. It's a bloody good engine, if a bit high-strung. Sounds pretty as well.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
Fug. I thought we were done. And I guess bessent did too, lol. So I feel a little better.
My guess is the US is getting ready for more Spicy Times at the Straight of Homoz.
Honestly they need to deliver him kompromat on Winnie the Xi.
Trump seems to want a Russia able to counterweight China.
(Note: This is a pipedream. We all know its a pipe dream. And even if it wasn't, if yale-educated Georgemtri Washingtonski launches a successful campaign, unseats Putin, and declares Russia's new foreign policy is now "MAGA & Fuck China", 4 years and a dozen small towns have pretty well demonstrated Russia is useless would get mauled by even a paper tiger.)
I figure there is a plan, but I can't make sense of Trump's schizophrenic tsundere act with Russia. when they aren't paused he's put in place more and harsher sanctions on Russia and secondary sanctions as well, and is authorizing sales to Ukraine of anything they want to buy that's available to a "2nd Tier" ally, and unlike Biden isn't holding up things like the Dutch F-16 transfers, so he's far from a zigger.
But then he's slap fighitng with Z-man, acknowledging Putin's talking points, letting Putin clown on him by just ignoring ceasefires, and feeding intel (and weapons) to Iran.
You can argue not sending Ukraine Desert Storm hand-me-downs is an "America First" position of not directing American tax dollars to benefit a foreign nation, but continuing to act like Putin is anything other than deceitful snake doesn't save the US taxpayer a penny. So he's also not slapping Putin around like he would be any other leader, so there's a touch of ziggerism in there.
And zelensky, who is a difficult figure to work with, has clearly learned the lesson of who is in charge of this relationship; he's been wearing suits and saying thank you. So even ignoring Ukraine's aid to the GCC, Ukraine has been doing everything asked so you'd think it'd be time to apply the carrot instead of just the stick.
(though Just Trust Me Bro wonk says despite Trump's coolness, Ukraine's drone teams being sent to the gulf was coordinated/brokered by the US. But other than orders for Ukraine's drone defense system, Ukraine hasn't gotten any immediate, tangible benefit from that.)
I've seen it suggested Trump wants Russia to spook NATO in continuing to rearm, and I figure some of that factors in, but that doesn't cover the whole picture either. There is no point in letting Russia gain strength and izzat when even throttled to max Europe won't have turned the ship around on their defense industries until after he's out of office. There aren't any new massive US MIC contracts/joint ventures floating around or even proposed so its not like he's trying to get red tape cut for LockMart's latest venture.
I've seen people suggesting that Russia, and Iran, is supposed to fully illuminate the absolute levels of European incompetence and the depths of just how rotted out their forces and preparedness are.
Which would make sense when you are Trump 45 but makes much less sense for Trump 47; the average voter isn't watching nor do they care. "Europe = Faggots" helps undermine Democrats pushing socialism, but minimally, and again Europe course-correction doesn't happen on his watch. (and more importantly: once he's no longer whipping them into shape, very high odds they stop and go back to previous course out of spite; and Trump definitely understands spite)
Someone had suggested its "Daddy Trump" waiting for Europe to see how bad things truly are before begging the US to fix it... but that's pretty much already happened. NATO were spooked enough to give him his 3.5+1.5. It would make sense if Trump was asking for specifics instead of a generalized "Western Europe to stop sucking and stop pretending war isn't coming", but he's pretty much already got what he wanted that can be delivered during his time in office. So like above, you'd think it'd be time for the carrot and saying how great Macron is or something.
But I guess it goes back to something I was saying last year: we can't make the mistake of assuming Ukraine is any sort of priority for Trump.
Hell, taking my own advice it could be as simple Trump being a petty bish; he wants European leaders to stop pushing Orange Man Bad as a narrative and passing anti-free speech laws, and is attempting to buck break them via Russia. "The Russia advance continues at 50cm and 5000 dead mobliks per day until the Trump glazing improves".
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2024
And or kompromat on Joe Biden and Big Mike's cock holster.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2018
Napier Deltics are cool, but W engines run into packaging issues with armored vehicles. Flat opposed engines fit very nicely. Cummins and the last bits of Fairbanks Morse are working on a family of 3, 4, and 6 cylinder opposed piston engines for armored vehicles. They have at least one Bradley demonstrator running around.
I wish there was a video of the Napier Deltic powered FDNY Super Pumper working. NYC had a bad enough fire they let a naval architect build a fire truck.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2021
What did have success: 5 flathead family car engines mashed together
In this day and age you would think a hybrid configuration would solve a lot of packaging. problems - you could have two or three fairly standard turbo diesels with generators feeding track motors. That also gives redundancy.
Add a small battery to allow these to shut off for noise and heat signature reduction.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2024
Back in WWII the best engines were for the various air forces and navies aircraft. Then the various navies' submarines and motorboats, took up the bulk of the diesel engines. And the left over rejected engine models and what can be designed and cobbled together quickly was available for the armies vehicle fleets.
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
Tanks have proven fairly irrelevant on the battlefield, no matter what type or what type of engine
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2024
Tanks only appear irrelevant if you take drone videos as a metric of how useful they are. Though anti-tank warfare has evolved with drones and things like the javelin there will likely always be a need for protected fire platforms. Many successful assaults on both sides of the conflict used armor to displace enemy infantry or shell positions that things like artillery and drones couldn't respond to in a timely manner. Drone warfare will continue to evolve but so will drone counter measures and armor technologies. There's a niche for what a tank is and does that can't be easily replaced by things that aren't tanks. Unless you want that niche to be filled by several different systems.
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
Not really. Tanks just dont do anything in Ukraine. They cannot get to within firing range of the enemy begore they get knocked out. If either side had no tanks, nothing much would change in the current situation.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2024
If neither side had no tanks one side would build tanks and it would be a gap in capability. In mid March Ukrainian forces conducted two separate drives in southern Ukraine (Oleksandrivka and Hulyaipole directions), a little over 400 km² which was their largest territorial gains in Ukraine proper since the 2023 counteroffensive. These involved counterattacks that forced Russia to divert resources, with armor playing a supporting fire role in mobile operations alongside drones and infantry. Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi highlighted these as efforts to seize initiative by hitting weak points with armor supported by infantry. Some reports mention upgraded Abrams tanks contributing in southern counteroffensive actions, with modifications helping them operate more effectively against drone threats. I recommend you dig into how tanks contribute to the front. Nobody is doing massive armored assaults like WW2 but tanks provide extremely valuable protected firepower. Tanks do in fact often get in range of the enemy.
NKVD qt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
The easiest counter evidence to this is that both sides are trying to acquire tanks as fast as they can. Large armored column assaults have had disastrous results but probing armored attacks supported by infantry and drones have been responsible for a number of successes by both sides. Ukraine even before the invention of the drone was not exactly the ideal ground for armored warfare either due to the mud season.
Fundamentally the tank is here to stay though I suspect future tanks will have some sort of anti drone turret on the top and I think everyone has currently shown prototypes of this.
Tell me what other weapon system can achieve what a tank does. The combined mobility, firepower, and protection. I'm waiting.
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
Drones, obviously. For the price of one tank you can comfortably field 100.000 fpv drones.
David Petreus said recently, that western nations needs to scrap their armoured batallions