- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
ERR reports the Baltic defense line project is already reshaping the southeast frontier.
Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/09/16/estonia-is-digging-a-40-km-trench-to-stop-russian-tanks-and-600-bunkers-are-next/
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
https://crust.piefed.social/comment/151494
It’s specifically a question about a tank.
No you don’t, you might fast and turn the turret around like the video shows but you’re not going to plow into a dirt wall and foul your barrel if you don’t have to.
I really shouldn’t have to draw a picture to show you if your front end goes 35° hull down just to stay level with level terrain you’d need 55° up elevation. In this case there’s another ridge that’s probably 40° so add 40 to 55 and you get? Anyone? Anyone ? 95°! And we just agreed no MBT has 90° up elevation so the only possible thing you could be proposing would be that tank crews are going to en masse heave themselves into a wall they know their barrel will impact and likely foul in rather then turn the turret and cross to the other side where you can then use your tracks to move the dirt in the hill back into the pit so it’s whole again.
I’d say that’s absurd but maybe in this administration bugs bunny operates a no holds barred tank division but I dunno I guess I don’t keep up with the news enough.
Aight so that was sad enough I figured I’d do a couple physical sims just to answer the question definitively:
Turns out a T72 would need +35° of elevation to clear this if you approached at 1kph
But at +14° elevation, it'll just barely clip the top at 30kph
And only needs to be going ~46.02kph to clear the berm
But to cross at 30mph, you’d only need to rotate the barrel ~20° off center-line to clear the berm (which if Warthunder is to be believed (hehe), will take 5/8ths of a second to return to axial - this is as close as I could get to the actual figure but it’s probably closer to a full second, I couldn’t find acceleration curves for the T-72 turret traversal (go figure)).
So you’re right, most likely a T-72 crew would have to rotate the turret some to clear this berm unless they’re going flat-out across that field, which is possible for them to achieve but the offroad speed of the T-72 isn’t super reliably reported (again go figure) so lets just go with you’re right.
And with that side topic settled, back to my point: this ditch ain’t going to force an AFV to slow down. Like at all.
Disclosures:
I used the absolute shortest value for ground support length which is only 5.5m, used the common 106" ditch crossing value for ease instead of calculating it custom as soil dynamics sucks to define and I don’t have enough information to calculate the center of gravity for a T-72 manually, used the most generous estimate I could for ditch dimensions (4m wide w/ 90° slopes) and just traced the outline of a T72 where I couldn’t find specific dimensions in the manual I’ll pretend I have sitting on my desk but which I just googled around to find, and finally I just totally ignored ground compression for the same reason as above (but eyeballing it, it should roughly even out)
Edit (forgot to say this):
Colloquially, the term “tank” is used to refer to any tracked* AFV - it’s the basis for a great many tanker drinking games. It’s also a pretty safe assumption that a person who’s unfamiliar enough with military hardware to be unsure if this ditch would be effective tank trap is also unfamiliar enough with the specific terminology used when discussing the topic of armored vehicles. Erring on the side of caution, I used the broad term AFV instead of litigating the weirdly tedious distinction between the two groups, as it adds nothing to this discussion (and it isn’t even a uniformly defined distinction between militaries).
Correct me if I’m wrong but you’ve just admitted you were wrong.
No when people say tank they mean MBT, if you drive a Bradley and call it a tank Abraham’s crews will straight up laugh at you. The phrase you used doesn’t matter, the question is will that actually stop a tank. My response was no but it will slow them, your answer was “Nuh uh!”. Now you’ve proved visually by yourself that you are wrong and probably shouldn’t have “uhm actually” your way into the conversation.
My god, you’ve broken my secret code.
…
Or uh… no wait. No, you’re still wrong. Sorta. It’s complicated. Here:
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 gave you diagrams dude, I don’t think I could be more explicit about how this works out. 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 cattle prod. 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 be 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 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?
If you’re dumb enough not to know the distinction yet you’re driving a bradley, they’re going to be laughing at you for a whole host of other things regardless. like not being able to tie your own shoes or spell your own name. The distinctions really get driven into you as part of an armored group.
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.
Wait, 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? When’d I say I was being tedious, again?
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.
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 (There’s no risk of booping the berm with an Abrams or Challenger 2, for example. They’re both too tall and the barrel does not extend to the same comical distance). 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, it seems objectionably petty even to me, but I am curious about what your motivation is here.
edit: clarity
edit_2: added edit disclaimer
Because hitting a wall at 50 kph in a armored can is a stupid* 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.