I mean, every other German armored vehicle is considered ABC proof because they can overpressure the cabins. What makes this vehicle so special? Or is it just a lead-coated transport without overpressure capabilities?
Because it is a tank. They are talking about reconnaissance vehicles based on (turretless) tanks, the ladoga. The in flight refueling does not make sense.
AWACS and NEACP are two different types of aircraft. AWACS is a general search and control aircraft built in fairly large numbers. NEACP is a nuclear command and control post with only about a dozen of all types ever built (for the US).
The Ladoga is based on the T-80. It’s a vehicle from the 80’s. And while 80’s era coms aren’t great, the Soviets knew enough about EMP shielding to design radios that could function in a nuclear environment, especially for this vehicle as it is specifically designed for that environment.
Nuclear bombs don't really release that much EMP radiation, contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe. The only real scenario where an EMP form a nuclear blast would be a real problem is outside the atmosphere, in orbit. It doesn't take much to shield something from EMP radiation, and they've known how to do it effectively since the 60s. This tank is primarily designed to protect the occupants from chemical/biological attacks, and radioactive smoke or dust.
Older coms systems may actually be better, as it's smaller chip-based electronics that are more susceptiple to EMP damage.
But like most things when it comes to nuclear, nothing at ground zero is suriving, I'm talking about things hit as collateral damage to the actual strike.
Oh that makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying. I still have my doubts about this armor’s capabilities. The article said there are maybe three left and they are a C&C unit. Also without viable officers they simply seem like hardened recon units to call in defensive positions. With the extra armor (even without the transverse/turret) it seems like a less capable stryker.
Aren't most of the Soviet era equipment built this way? With the assumption that if war was going to break out it would be in a nuclear or chemical environment.
The T-55 was the first Soviet main battle tank with full NBC protection and its NBC systems were one of the key differences/upgrades between T-54 and T-55. However it was 1960 roughly before the majority of Soviet armor had NBC protection but everything prior to that had little or no NBC protection, particularly amongst IFVs, Light Tanks and self propelled guns.
“[this was] not just any nuclear reconnaissance and command vehicle, but the best protected, most comfortable nuke vehicle imaginable. A sealed, self-contained and thickly armored turretless tank with remote cameras and its own oxygen supply.”
If you would have stopped after sink proof, this comment would have done a lot better.
My 8 year old is still learning this too. After an obvious joke/comment, insisting on explaining the obvious just kills all momentum.
Russia is so desperate for armor vehicle that they bring about extremely rare nuclear proof command vehicle in non-nuclear battlefield and get blown up.
Pretty pathetic.
Alternatively, they might have concluded that nowadays Russia can't compete in an all-out war against any atomic peer enemy anyway (apart from MAD revenge strikes).
Thus strategically switching to only trying to beat up inferior-perceived countries -> less reason to keep an ABC-adapted inventory.
My bet is it was never nuclear proof. This is Russia we're talking about. They were made with the "promise" they'd work in a post apocalyptic world of fallout radiation. That they would cruise through with ease through the battlefield "as nato nukes rained down"
But, as we clearly all saw, they crumbled.
Maybe those oligarchs in charge of production thought, "If the world goes to shit after nukes, how can they come after me when they're in their tanks smoldering?"
There's a video of a Russian soldier picking up a ball of cobalt from there with his bare hands. There's a really good chance he died of cancer already.
Youd be surprised, I was when I watched Chernobyl and read up more into the incident. There were only 30ish acute deaths from that incident (from touching reactive material). And some dudes that I thought were really cooked... are not. The 3 guys that waded through radiated water under the plant. One died of a heart attack but the other 2 live.
Now your Russian soldier might have had a good dosage and is currently developing a myriad of concerns, but unlikely to be actually dead from a cute radiation poisoning.
Radiation is over rated in media.
Yeah, he would have had to get a fair amount of it in his system to kill him. Cobalt itself isn't necessarily radioactive, though if it's from Chernobyl the likelihood is much higher. But it would take a lot of it to kill. Just holding it in his bare hands for a few seconds is probably not a problem, or even a few hours unless it was a big ball.
The Russians were very tight handed about any info. Watch Chernobyl on HBO. Great docuseries.
The United Nations report on the Chernobyl disaster (look it up) lists only a small number of acute deaths. Now long term chronic cancers and other conditions possibly indirectly caused by the disaster is another story and the counts go into the tens of thousands.
But yes, acute deaths were very limited. This tracks with how radiation would work on the body.
Didn't seem to have a picture or video of the specific incident, but does mention it in the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/08/world/europe/ukraine-chernobyl.html
It doesn't work that way. Alpha- and beta-particles are absorbed by skin quite effectively, and x-ray/gamma radiation requires significantly higher exposition times to trigger cancer. If you pick a piece of cobalt-60 for a short time and won't bite or lick it, the maximum you'll get is severe skin / cornea / eye lens burns.
The major cause of radiation cancer is radioactive micro-dust particles — which, if breathed in or ingested, can enter lungs/intenstines and even bloodstream from there, which makes them "body-incorporated", irradiating internal tissue directly. However, according to IAEA reports, the dust disturbance by Russian military activity has been low enough to require *at least three months of constant ingestion* for any cancer probability to emerge noticeably.
Maybe Russia wanted to clear out it's Soviet-era surplus, but it was too expensive to properly dispose of it so they started a war; now Ukraine has to clean it up instead.
Makes you wonder what the hell will happen to Russia after the war when they're weakened because they've blown most of their armament stockpile and can't afford to replace it.
Granted, they've still got a lot, but it makes things a bit more iffy.
Anyone who has been to the former Soviet Union/CIS knows that much of the stockpile was over-engineered against sketchy specifications, with poor oversight and quality control, and further impacted by endemic corruption that placed delivery over quality and usefulness. This especially applies to armor and artillery, and naval assets. This is the reason we see Franken-units being deployed and often destroyed.
Well I'd say it did it's job, I doubt it was designed to survive a tank shell or atgm, more like the shockwave and subsequent fallout from a nuclear blast.
Many cold war era vehicles at the time are NBC protected lol. I don't understand the point of saying its "nuclear proof".
The noteworthy part of it is that its old AF, like 50 years old, and not what 2022 Russia would field.
Except this isn't just another cold war vehicle that happens to be NBC-proof. This is a tank that was specifically designed for two roles: evacuation of high ranking officials from the Kremlin to the airport in case of a nuclear attack, and to act as a command post in a nuclear environment. As the article states, it is fully sealed with its own oxygen supply.
Which makes this even funnier. This thing is basically just a slower Ural command post that costs way more and probably belongs in a museum.
Yeah, i mean the important point is that its older than what they *should* be fielding in frontline units. Anything else is missing the forest for the trees.
The rest of its capabilities relevant for its doctrinal use are likely better represented by its pre-invasion command vehicle inventory or even late cold war inventory.
Without a doubt. This thing is not only extremely limited in its operational applications, but is, as you said, very, very dated.
Then again, I think the question of "what they should be fielding" has gone out the window a while ago. I don't think there's anything they could field at this point that would surprise me. If a Ukrainian UAV picked up an entire column of IS-3s, I'd just sort of raise my eyebrow a little. But not even that much.
Actually they have specifically one. It was used in parades and things in Moscow. Except it was built in Hungary, and sold to Laos. Then later on Russia bought it from Laos to use in the parades lol.
> This thing is basically just a slower Ural command post that costs way more and probably belongs in a museum.
You are overdoing it. The article doesn't mention crew casualties. The thing did its job, museum or not. Ukrainians fly Yak-52s to hunt drones. So what. The only notable thing is Russian armored vehicles shortage.
Every vehicle is liable to get blown up in war. Nothing is invincible in the battlefields of Ukraine.
Command tanks in particular are likely high priority targets if spotted.
> Moves around
> Protects crew
> Provides communications
> Gets hit a few times
> Does none of the above anymore
> Crew unprotected and immobile, communications cut
Whether the failure was that of the vehicle itself or of the army it was attached to is the only thing that stands for debate
Losses are expected, it's war. What would constitute a failure is losing more than planned or expecting no losses at all.
The vehicle certainly has failed as in "became nonoperational". Whether it has failed as in "hasn't achieved assigned goals" is unknown.
Well, it was on its way to somewhere, right? Becoming nonoperational before the end of a war is failing, since the big objectives (offenses, etc.) require an amount of equipment and soldiers, which is then assigned to smaller objectives that serve achieving the greater objective and not being able to count as a part of that amount for long is a failure. Tanks are NOT supposed to be single-use.
> Tanks are NOT supposed to be single-use.
And the other side tries everything possible to make them single-use. LAWs, NLAWs, drones, loitering munitions, you name it.
In the absence of air superiority losses are unavoidable. In its presence too. Look for US army tank losses in the Gulf and Iraq wars. They are dramatically lower, but present.
Sir, you argued against the statement that this tank was an inept and outdated piece only fit for a museum.
Modern tanks with their ERA, jamming systems, hope cages and limited anti-drone systems are at least a bit self-sufficient in surviving attacks. This tank failed to keep up with that due to being subpar compared to modern standards, making it a museum piece.
And yes, if the tank’s outdated design makes it’s loss more likely, the eventual loss IS the tank’s failure.
But i saw an Italian reportage implying that Russia is at least one step ahead by adapting to the war with these smart conventional and simple designs, how come ? It is almost like the reportage was Russia bootlicker
Pretty interesting when the vehicle is basically ground based air force one in a nuclear attack
Classic shitty clickbait title we love to see when people post about the war
Here is a non paywall version
https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-cold-war-vehicle-destroyed-ukraine
Via wiki : Ladoga – Initially called Debut, this APC is designed for evacuation of Soviet government from Kremlin to airport under nuclear/chemical/biological attack. Ladoga uses tracks from the T-80U as well as suspension system and gas-turbine powerplant. The crew is 2 soldiers. It also has a four-seat cab equipped with a crew life-support facilities to protect the passengers against the radiological, chemical and bacteriological contamination of the environment.[15]
People dont even try anymore on reddit
Axe actually wrote this:
"Imagine Soviet leaders speeding to safety inside of a Ladoga, directing their own nuclear forces as NATO nukes rain down. Now imagine some Russian colonel commanding his battalion from a Ladoga’s cozy interior during an attack on Ukrainian forces around Kreminna."
Instead of something like this:
"Imagine their using comms equipment with aged wiring and outdated technology that isn't proof against EMP. Imagine that somehow despite the lag time between the language going sideways and the missiles flying they left just minutes before impact. Imagine trying to give orders to troops who have no radios and are lying shot up in a muddy ditch while their driver tries to explain the brakes and motor don't work because the coolant and brake fluid were put through a still to make alcohol. (no, I'm no writer or journalist that's for sure. lol)
this is why forbes should never comment on anything related to war. they have no fucking idea what they are talking about. i think the karma whore that posted this here shouldnt be allowed to post here. almost all modern tanks have this ability.
Still waiting on western "military experts" to come out and finally write "we got Russia all wrong! Their equipment is third rate and troops suck due to poor if any at all, training". The only weapon they have that is still deadly is the Kalashnikov.
They have already said it out loud. But Soviet doctrine of quantity is a quality of its own (and still lethal). Western coverage, such as Forbes, is one-sided and do not talk about Ukrainian losses… for obvious reasons. This war has not dragged on since 2/24/2022 because Russia has only AKs and is not lethal. For those who have not gotten close and personal with war, imagine the worst, then imagine 1000 times worse. Even a random low quality unguided artillary shell, from 1960s stockpile, can kill and mame.
It is nuclear proof, just not conventional proof.
Nuclear *fallout* (And Chemical/Biological) proof. Drop a nuke on it and it will vaporize the the rest of them.
I mean, every other German armored vehicle is considered ABC proof because they can overpressure the cabins. What makes this vehicle so special? Or is it just a lead-coated transport without overpressure capabilities?
[удалено]
The photo is of a tank, so for a second I was going to question the logistics of an in-flight refueling!
Because it is a tank. They are talking about reconnaissance vehicles based on (turretless) tanks, the ladoga. The in flight refueling does not make sense.
They also do not communicate directly with submerged subs. That part is also wrong. Their whole comment is wrong.
They probably confused it with an airborne nuclear command center like the US National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP).
AWACS but otherwise yes
AWACS and NEACP are two different types of aircraft. AWACS is a general search and control aircraft built in fairly large numbers. NEACP is a nuclear command and control post with only about a dozen of all types ever built (for the US).
What did they use for NEACP before the E-4B? They only built 4 of those.
Maybe the "in flight" part refers to fleeing.
Lol is this a joke about “flying turrets”?
this made my day.
Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? No... They're trying to fly that tank.
This one isn't
Not anymore
How does this Russian tank get to be “in flight” when it doesn’t have a turret?
That thing can fly? For 15 seconds maybe.
Any tank can fly. Once.
I'd love to see one of these get refueled in flight.
Wouldnt a nuke still knock out their electronics? I seriously doubt they have full EMP shielding on their 60’s era com systems
The Ladoga is based on the T-80. It’s a vehicle from the 80’s. And while 80’s era coms aren’t great, the Soviets knew enough about EMP shielding to design radios that could function in a nuclear environment, especially for this vehicle as it is specifically designed for that environment.
Nuclear bombs don't really release that much EMP radiation, contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe. The only real scenario where an EMP form a nuclear blast would be a real problem is outside the atmosphere, in orbit. It doesn't take much to shield something from EMP radiation, and they've known how to do it effectively since the 60s. This tank is primarily designed to protect the occupants from chemical/biological attacks, and radioactive smoke or dust.
Older coms systems may actually be better, as it's smaller chip-based electronics that are more susceptiple to EMP damage. But like most things when it comes to nuclear, nothing at ground zero is suriving, I'm talking about things hit as collateral damage to the actual strike.
Oh that makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying. I still have my doubts about this armor’s capabilities. The article said there are maybe three left and they are a C&C unit. Also without viable officers they simply seem like hardened recon units to call in defensive positions. With the extra armor (even without the transverse/turret) it seems like a less capable stryker.
Aren't most of the Soviet era equipment built this way? With the assumption that if war was going to break out it would be in a nuclear or chemical environment.
My understanding was that that was more or less standard for a lot of countries in the Cold War
The T-55 was the first Soviet main battle tank with full NBC protection and its NBC systems were one of the key differences/upgrades between T-54 and T-55. However it was 1960 roughly before the majority of Soviet armor had NBC protection but everything prior to that had little or no NBC protection, particularly amongst IFVs, Light Tanks and self propelled guns.
“[this was] not just any nuclear reconnaissance and command vehicle, but the best protected, most comfortable nuke vehicle imaginable. A sealed, self-contained and thickly armored turretless tank with remote cameras and its own oxygen supply.”
Can take a 6 megaton blast, no more, no less.
The Prince Rupert’s Drop of vehicle armor
This, a vehicle purpose built as a mobile nuclear shelter is going to be constructed much differently than a conventional tank.
Did they take it thru the car wash and void the warrantee? Rookie mistake.
The Titanic was Sink Proof... Then, first time out to sea.. it sunk.. the irony
If you would have stopped after sink proof, this comment would have done a lot better. My 8 year old is still learning this too. After an obvious joke/comment, insisting on explaining the obvious just kills all momentum.
This is true. It's meant to survive a much more diffuse blast aimed at a city, not a bomb on its skin.
A shaped charge, designed to piece armor no less. Why are they even using these things in Ukraine? Running out of normal APCs? Good. Fuck Russia.
Forbes likes their shitty click-bait headlines.
Good point!
makes sense really, i mean you can’t put foil in the microwave and you probably shouldn’t put paper in the oven
Fish don’t fry in the kitchen
Beans don't burn on the grill
Russia is so desperate for armor vehicle that they bring about extremely rare nuclear proof command vehicle in non-nuclear battlefield and get blown up. Pretty pathetic.
It's very cool! I didn't have this one on my bingo card of pulverised Soviet junk yet!! THANKS UKRAINE! 🫶💛💙
And this wasn't even the first.
Lindsay Graham is that you?
“Behold my bullet proof vest! Wait why are you bringing out a knife?”
"Little does he know I'm wearing my ~~Disintegration~~ Nuclear-proof vest. Go ahead. *Take your best shot*."
Alternatively, they might have concluded that nowadays Russia can't compete in an all-out war against any atomic peer enemy anyway (apart from MAD revenge strikes). Thus strategically switching to only trying to beat up inferior-perceived countries -> less reason to keep an ABC-adapted inventory.
Nah you didn't know they're actually winning? Just disregard that they've resorted to conscript prisoners and foreign workers in their ranks.
And begging one of the poorest, most backward countries of all time for weapons, supplies and now soldiers.
If trump gets elected all us aid to Ukraine will stop and it might get harder for them. Europe is going to have to fill that void.
That's soooooo Russia!
Sometime next year - government armored limos.
My bet is it was never nuclear proof. This is Russia we're talking about. They were made with the "promise" they'd work in a post apocalyptic world of fallout radiation. That they would cruise through with ease through the battlefield "as nato nukes rained down" But, as we clearly all saw, they crumbled. Maybe those oligarchs in charge of production thought, "If the world goes to shit after nukes, how can they come after me when they're in their tanks smoldering?"
"You are not supposed to attack like that!!!!" - Russia
I’m telling! Mooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmm
How can Ukraine slap??
I often wonder what happened to the soldiers and equipment that drove over the irradiated forests/fields to take over Chernobyl!
There's a video of a Russian soldier picking up a ball of cobalt from there with his bare hands. There's a really good chance he died of cancer already.
Probably died of some secondary infection after the cobalt razed his immune system.
Youd be surprised, I was when I watched Chernobyl and read up more into the incident. There were only 30ish acute deaths from that incident (from touching reactive material). And some dudes that I thought were really cooked... are not. The 3 guys that waded through radiated water under the plant. One died of a heart attack but the other 2 live. Now your Russian soldier might have had a good dosage and is currently developing a myriad of concerns, but unlikely to be actually dead from a cute radiation poisoning. Radiation is over rated in media.
Yeah, he would have had to get a fair amount of it in his system to kill him. Cobalt itself isn't necessarily radioactive, though if it's from Chernobyl the likelihood is much higher. But it would take a lot of it to kill. Just holding it in his bare hands for a few seconds is probably not a problem, or even a few hours unless it was a big ball.
☢️☢️☢️😳
* allegedly if you mean Russian news sources
Allegedly what?
That there were only 30 dead people. Assuming the news source is russian, they have no interest in revealing the truth.
The Russians were very tight handed about any info. Watch Chernobyl on HBO. Great docuseries. The United Nations report on the Chernobyl disaster (look it up) lists only a small number of acute deaths. Now long term chronic cancers and other conditions possibly indirectly caused by the disaster is another story and the counts go into the tens of thousands. But yes, acute deaths were very limited. This tracks with how radiation would work on the body.
You have a link?
Didn't seem to have a picture or video of the specific incident, but does mention it in the article. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/08/world/europe/ukraine-chernobyl.html
Thanks! So insane. You'd think he know better especially given her was from a specialized unit
Common sense is…well…not that common.
Maybe that guy licking the ground in Star Wars isn't as out of place as I initially thought.
It doesn't work that way. Alpha- and beta-particles are absorbed by skin quite effectively, and x-ray/gamma radiation requires significantly higher exposition times to trigger cancer. If you pick a piece of cobalt-60 for a short time and won't bite or lick it, the maximum you'll get is severe skin / cornea / eye lens burns. The major cause of radiation cancer is radioactive micro-dust particles — which, if breathed in or ingested, can enter lungs/intenstines and even bloodstream from there, which makes them "body-incorporated", irradiating internal tissue directly. However, according to IAEA reports, the dust disturbance by Russian military activity has been low enough to require *at least three months of constant ingestion* for any cancer probability to emerge noticeably.
Considering how the wars been going, might have been shot before he died with cancer.
Sauce?
No problem as Russian army units and equipments have a half life of 7 days in Ukraine.
They figured out where they were and left like a day or two later. It was basically a non-story.
Maybe Russia wanted to clear out it's Soviet-era surplus, but it was too expensive to properly dispose of it so they started a war; now Ukraine has to clean it up instead.
Makes you wonder what the hell will happen to Russia after the war when they're weakened because they've blown most of their armament stockpile and can't afford to replace it. Granted, they've still got a lot, but it makes things a bit more iffy.
Well killing all of their 20 something males wont be great for long term success either.
China with massive gender imbalance towards males looking over like "ladies..."
"They're saving their best equipment for later!" - some MAGA tossbag on X probably
Reminds me of my favorite Futurama quote: Amy: "We're trying our best." Bender: "Your best is an idiot!"
Why go to Twitter? We have some here too. I remember seeing something similar a few months ago when their ship sunk or something.
Anyone who has been to the former Soviet Union/CIS knows that much of the stockpile was over-engineered against sketchy specifications, with poor oversight and quality control, and further impacted by endemic corruption that placed delivery over quality and usefulness. This especially applies to armor and artillery, and naval assets. This is the reason we see Franken-units being deployed and often destroyed.
Well I'd say it did it's job, I doubt it was designed to survive a tank shell or atgm, more like the shockwave and subsequent fallout from a nuclear blast.
The "Titanic" of Tanks
Tanktanic
Titankic
# Now, this baby is called the 'Withstandinator'. It can take a six-megaton blast. No more, no less.
More? Straight to jail. Less? Believe it or not, also jail.
World more sanctions, protests and banning towards terrorist Russia. Russia invaded a democratic country of 40 million people.
Many cold war era vehicles at the time are NBC protected lol. I don't understand the point of saying its "nuclear proof". The noteworthy part of it is that its old AF, like 50 years old, and not what 2022 Russia would field.
Except this isn't just another cold war vehicle that happens to be NBC-proof. This is a tank that was specifically designed for two roles: evacuation of high ranking officials from the Kremlin to the airport in case of a nuclear attack, and to act as a command post in a nuclear environment. As the article states, it is fully sealed with its own oxygen supply. Which makes this even funnier. This thing is basically just a slower Ural command post that costs way more and probably belongs in a museum.
Yeah, i mean the important point is that its older than what they *should* be fielding in frontline units. Anything else is missing the forest for the trees. The rest of its capabilities relevant for its doctrinal use are likely better represented by its pre-invasion command vehicle inventory or even late cold war inventory.
Without a doubt. This thing is not only extremely limited in its operational applications, but is, as you said, very, very dated. Then again, I think the question of "what they should be fielding" has gone out the window a while ago. I don't think there's anything they could field at this point that would surprise me. If a Ukrainian UAV picked up an entire column of IS-3s, I'd just sort of raise my eyebrow a little. But not even that much.
T-34s on the battlefield fucking when?
Russia has many old generations of tanks in deep storage. But T-34s are so old that Russia actually have none, they have presumably been recycled.
Actually they have specifically one. It was used in parades and things in Moscow. Except it was built in Hungary, and sold to Laos. Then later on Russia bought it from Laos to use in the parades lol.
There **is one** in a museum already.
> This thing is basically just a slower Ural command post that costs way more and probably belongs in a museum. You are overdoing it. The article doesn't mention crew casualties. The thing did its job, museum or not. Ukrainians fly Yak-52s to hunt drones. So what. The only notable thing is Russian armored vehicles shortage.
It...got blown up, though, didn't it? That's hardly doing its job.
Every vehicle is liable to get blown up in war. Nothing is invincible in the battlefields of Ukraine. Command tanks in particular are likely high priority targets if spotted.
Its job is to move around, protect the crew, and provide communications. Being indestructible is not part of it.
> Moves around > Protects crew > Provides communications > Gets hit a few times > Does none of the above anymore > Crew unprotected and immobile, communications cut Whether the failure was that of the vehicle itself or of the army it was attached to is the only thing that stands for debate
Losses are expected, it's war. What would constitute a failure is losing more than planned or expecting no losses at all. The vehicle certainly has failed as in "became nonoperational". Whether it has failed as in "hasn't achieved assigned goals" is unknown.
Well, it was on its way to somewhere, right? Becoming nonoperational before the end of a war is failing, since the big objectives (offenses, etc.) require an amount of equipment and soldiers, which is then assigned to smaller objectives that serve achieving the greater objective and not being able to count as a part of that amount for long is a failure. Tanks are NOT supposed to be single-use.
> Tanks are NOT supposed to be single-use. And the other side tries everything possible to make them single-use. LAWs, NLAWs, drones, loitering munitions, you name it. In the absence of air superiority losses are unavoidable. In its presence too. Look for US army tank losses in the Gulf and Iraq wars. They are dramatically lower, but present.
Sir, you argued against the statement that this tank was an inept and outdated piece only fit for a museum. Modern tanks with their ERA, jamming systems, hope cages and limited anti-drone systems are at least a bit self-sufficient in surviving attacks. This tank failed to keep up with that due to being subpar compared to modern standards, making it a museum piece. And yes, if the tank’s outdated design makes it’s loss more likely, the eventual loss IS the tank’s failure.
> not what 2022 Russia would field But 2024 Russia has become desperate.
Hahahaha You've clearly missed some of the shite they've been sending out.
The point is to bait clicks. It's click bait.
Nuclear poof ?
Nuclear fallout-proof but with added clickbait.
To be fair, it was only nuclear-proof.
Impervious to everything but water. Its value is... beyond estimation.
Same engineer as the deathstar?
But i saw an Italian reportage implying that Russia is at least one step ahead by adapting to the war with these smart conventional and simple designs, how come ? It is almost like the reportage was Russia bootlicker
> — "Titanium Blades. They cut through diamonds." > — "I'm not wearing any diamonds."
Clickbait by invoking nuclear in a silly way and getting it wrong so it's not even technically correct.
Slava Ukraini! Heroiam Slava! 💙💛💙
Call a spade a spade, that’s what they are.
In the 1970s it was requested to have cameras for vision outside the tank. That is insane.
But did they blow it up with a nuclear weapon?
This is nuts
“Nuclear-Proof” but gets blown up lol
Does this tank kill aliens creatures or only humans or people or kids? help me understand thank you
Pretty interesting when the vehicle is basically ground based air force one in a nuclear attack Classic shitty clickbait title we love to see when people post about the war
Shoulda bought German made tanks.
I bet it works wonders on the Russian military morale
russia designed all of it’s armor assuming that nuclear weapons would be used tactically in the conflicts in which they’re deployed.
Another fine Russian product brought to you by Putin & Sons industries...
Here is a non paywall version https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-cold-war-vehicle-destroyed-ukraine Via wiki : Ladoga – Initially called Debut, this APC is designed for evacuation of Soviet government from Kremlin to airport under nuclear/chemical/biological attack. Ladoga uses tracks from the T-80U as well as suspension system and gas-turbine powerplant. The crew is 2 soldiers. It also has a four-seat cab equipped with a crew life-support facilities to protect the passengers against the radiological, chemical and bacteriological contamination of the environment.[15] People dont even try anymore on reddit
It may be nuclear-proof, but it's not drone grenade-proof
Is this an indication for the power of the nukes Putin is threatening us with? 🤣🤣🤣
When do you think they will send in the government armored limos?
Also noted here - https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-appears-destroyed-rare-soviet-091201046.html?guccounter=1
So this whole war is just orchestrated by Soviet era collectors trying to drive up prices on their collections?
Russian tech is 50+ years behind.
Yes!!!!!!
ha. ha.
It's a shame it wasn't also full of high ranking Russian government members as it was designed to be.
Is that a Tesla Cybertruck?
Axe actually wrote this: "Imagine Soviet leaders speeding to safety inside of a Ladoga, directing their own nuclear forces as NATO nukes rain down. Now imagine some Russian colonel commanding his battalion from a Ladoga’s cozy interior during an attack on Ukrainian forces around Kreminna." Instead of something like this: "Imagine their using comms equipment with aged wiring and outdated technology that isn't proof against EMP. Imagine that somehow despite the lag time between the language going sideways and the missiles flying they left just minutes before impact. Imagine trying to give orders to troops who have no radios and are lying shot up in a muddy ditch while their driver tries to explain the brakes and motor don't work because the coolant and brake fluid were put through a still to make alcohol. (no, I'm no writer or journalist that's for sure. lol)
Maybe it was just a Cybertruck
Built by the best slave labor that Putin can dig up.
Also not idiot proof! Ukraine have no nukes, they gave them up, remember? Lol.
In other words: prettier turtle tank
Russia building some strange stuff
Why are these vehicles in Ukraine now? Is a nuke from Russia being seriously considered?
Because they’re running out of normal vehicles
Ukraine has some of the most fertile lands on the planet, if Russia were to detonate a nuke they would only harm themselves
this is why forbes should never comment on anything related to war. they have no fucking idea what they are talking about. i think the karma whore that posted this here shouldnt be allowed to post here. almost all modern tanks have this ability.
Still waiting on western "military experts" to come out and finally write "we got Russia all wrong! Their equipment is third rate and troops suck due to poor if any at all, training". The only weapon they have that is still deadly is the Kalashnikov.
They have already said it out loud. But Soviet doctrine of quantity is a quality of its own (and still lethal). Western coverage, such as Forbes, is one-sided and do not talk about Ukrainian losses… for obvious reasons. This war has not dragged on since 2/24/2022 because Russia has only AKs and is not lethal. For those who have not gotten close and personal with war, imagine the worst, then imagine 1000 times worse. Even a random low quality unguided artillary shell, from 1960s stockpile, can kill and mame.
How many of those takes and planes that Ukraine was clamoring for for two years , going blown up in their bases by Russian missiles and suicide drones
It's a war. Things get blown up. Even your stuff. If you expect this to look like a no-hit speedrun you're delusional.
Going blown up in their bases