Ukraine crisis: T-72 tank shoots hole in Russian denial

. . . And why in the hell would BBC post an article like that & then say:

"Whilst date and location are unconfirmed"

I mean, WTF!? "we have proof BUT. . . neither DATE & LOCATION are confirmed"

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why cant Russia supply the separatists when the US is supporting and supplying the separatists against Assad?

Why is this only right and leagal for the US to do this but not for Russia?

There are more examples where the US have been supporting fractions who oppose its own government.

You have Libya, Egypt, Iran Yugoslavia and so on. The list is a lot longer.

You People dont see worng from right do you.

Off topic.

Russia claims they are not doing it. Why is Russia claiming they are not doing it if they are and there is no problem with it?

Well there is a problem With it. The US and Europe is against that Russia is supplying the pro-russians, and they are doing it With sanctions. Russia have to try and hide it as much as they can.

The Russian army has corrupt leadership some of them could be paid off to let a few of these tanks to "go missing" quite easily i imagine.

The power of money blinds people to the cause.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

Did you look at the video linked in the BBC report?

If its Ytube, could you please upload so i can watch it. I'm interested in it.


. . . However I can't get the OPs link to load. Stalling out. But other links load fine.





P.S. the BBC link FINALLY loaded - however NO video in the link. . .

I still can't past where this started.

Didn't a people elected leader get shoved ut by a group that didn't agree with him?

Didn't he then flee to Russia and ask for help?

So isn't the present group ruling the Ukraine an illegitimate coups?

So isn't Russia supporting the rightfully elected leader?

So isn't the west supporting an illegitimate group that are leading the Ukraine because they want to align with the EU where the original, people elected leader wanted to align with Russia?

So doesn't this come down to the west supporting an illegitimate government so that they get the Ukraine to follow their (the EU's) rules whereby if the original leader had his way, they would not be able to control the Ukraine?

Just a few uestions that I can't get past.

Flame away

They (the Ukraine) want to be a nato member.

probably unlikly, but that right there is a cry for help.

Plus is it true that Hungary gave 58 T-72 "junk" tanks to Ukie military?


Why?

Don't Ukraine use T-80s & T-84s?


Thats another thing I question as well.

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

The tank in question comes in at 1:40...flags and markings from the start

originally posted by: greatfriendbadfoe
I still can't past where this started.

Didn't a people elected leader get shoved ut by a group that didn't agree with him?

No, he was voted out because he was a Russian stooge and was corrupt. The elected leader is the one in Kiev, that Russia is fighting. In April a poll conducted showed less than 5% of the population wanted him to return.

Didn't he then flee to Russia and ask for help?

No, he fled to Russia because he was Russian all along. He is not part of the Rebels. He actually has said what Russia is doing is a travesty.

So isn't the present group ruling the Ukraine an illegitimate coups?

Nope, democratically elected by the people.

So isn't Russia supporting the rightfully elected leader?

No, and he does not support Russia's actions.

So isn't the west supporting an illegitimate group that are leading the Ukraine because they want to align with the EU where the original, people elected leader wanted to align with Russia?

The people wanted to align with Europe. The leader refused to listen to the people. They protested. He refused still. He was then ousted by Parliament and a new election was held where the people elected the current leader.

So doesn't this come down to the west supporting an illegitimate government so that they get the Ukraine to follow their (the EU's) rules whereby if the original leader had his way, they would not be able to control the Ukraine?

This has nothing to do with the West, it has to do with the people of Ukraine.

Just a few uestions that I can't get past.

Flame away

No flaming, just answers which you can choose to ignore.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thank you for the Ytube vid!



Is this inside of Russia or where?

originally posted by: Biigs
They (the Ukraine) want to be a nato member.

probably unlikly, but that right there is a cry for help.

So it's OK for the Ukraine coups people to cry for help but it wasn't OK for the eastern Ukraine people who supported the original elected leader to fight back against the usurpers (sorry if spelling is wrong)

And what about those in the Ukraine that didn't want to be part of the EU? You know, the ones that initially supported the proper leader, not those that overthrew him. Just saying, how do you knw that "the Ukraine" wanted to support the EU? As far as I can see, there are some that did and some that didn't. Why didn't they wait until the next democratic election instead of overthrowing a legitimate government? If they did wait, then none of this garbage would be going on. If they won, then the original leader wouldn't have a reason to ask Russia for help, there would not be a group called separatists (sorry for bad spelling) there would not be a need for Russia to "help" them, the west would not have to get involved

a reply to: greatfriendbadfoe

So basically your last post where you asked for clarification was you pretending to want to know, but not actually caring about facts. Got it.

All of Eastern Ukraine voted for the current President except the parts where Rebels refused to let people vote.

OccamsRazor04:

please ... stop ... before you lose all credibility as a poster.

Um.

I'm NOT the one creating WW3 threads under UNCONFIRMED reports.

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

Translated title: August 26 Sverdlovsk column of military terrorists

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

Translated title: August 26 Sverdlovsk column of military terrorists

Ok, got all of that already. Thank you though.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I agree. It's not me saying it's a T-72BM, it's a Research Analyst from IISS who specializes in this.

www.iiss.org...

We need more of these specialists. The T-72BM doesn't have Kontakt-5 ERA. It has Relikt ERA which apparently provides twice the protection of Kontakt-5 ERA.

originally posted by: veubiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I agree. It's not me saying it's a T-72BM, it's a Research Analyst from IISS who specializes in this.

www.iiss.org...

We need more of these specialists. The T-72BM doesn't have Kontakt-5 ERA. It has Relikt ERA which apparently provides twice the protection of Kontakt-5 ERA.

We need more people like you who just post without comprehending. The article writer is the one who talks about the armor, there are no quotes from the specialist saying it's Kontakt-5 ERA. You also have no source whatsoever. Let me guess, Russiandefence.net forum? Here is a newsflash, just because the tank can be outfitted with Relikt-ERA does not mean it can't be using Kontakt-5 ERA.

All you are doing is repeating the same logical fallacy as others, the ERA is not what makes it a T-72BM, it's a T-72BM with or without the ERA.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: veubiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I agree. It's not me saying it's a T-72BM, it's a Research Analyst from IISS who specializes in this.

www.iiss.org...

We need more of these specialists. The T-72BM doesn't have Kontakt-5 ERA. It has Relikt ERA which apparently provides twice the protection of Kontakt-5 ERA.

We need more people like you who just post without comprehending. The article writer is the one who talks about the armor, there are no quotes from the specialist saying it's Kontakt-5 ERA. You also have no source whatsoever. Let me guess, Russiandefence.net forum?

The BBC article is actually paraphrasing the IISS analyst from her e

The mixed convoy includes at least three T-72B1 MBTs but it is the appearance (01:40–01:53) of a lone, more modern T-72 variant that is of particular significance. This variant, distinguished by the prominent Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) arrangement on the turret front, is commonly referred to by Western sources as the T-72BM. It is operated by the Russian Army in large numbers, but crucially it is not known to have been exported or operated outside of Russia. The presence of this variant in Ukraine therefore strongly supports the contention that Russia is supplying arms to separatist forces.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

My main point is whether the tank currently has KONTAKT-5 ERA or RELIKT ERA is simply a meaningless logical fallacy. It can have no ERA on it currently, it would not change what it is. I bet you $10 his "source" is russiandefense.net, which is just a forum.

Many times older defense tech is put on platforms because it's cheaper. It's a Red Herring.

a reply to: veubiah

We need more of these specialists. The T-72BM doesn't have Kontakt-5 ERA. It has Relikt ERA which apparently provides twice the protection of Kontakt-5 ERA.

And that is where your wrong...

T-72BM Rogatka. Upgraded version of the T-72B tanks. It is fitted with Relikt third generation explosive reactive armor, that is much more effective than the previous Kontakt-5.

www.military-today.com...

Upgraded versions don't use the Kontakt-5 armor, but the older versions do.