this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
65 points (98.5% liked)

Global News

4926 readers
474 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.


Rules

This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

There is no stopping a tank force that's determined by obstacle alone, countries in WW2 spent millions and lots of resources into complex anti tank setups and the lesson learned is nothing stops them. You just invest the least to be the most annoying and by that I mean time consuming.

At the very least you have to slow and turn your turret away from the place you want to go which is problematic if there's people on the other side who don't have to turn their guns away.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

At the very least you have to slow and turn your turret away from the place you want to go

You don't, though, not in this case - because this isn't an anti-tank ditch. You might have to elevate to prevent sticking your snoot in the berm, but (and not to go all war-thunder here) it's two button presses on the gunner's station and at very most a second's delay to get back on sight, and thanks to the stabilization the turret is still tracking the entire time you're doing that. And that's just if you don't blast the berm out of the way. And this doesn't apply to most AFV's, since they don't have protruding barrels that might foul while crossing this.

There's lots more here about the way static defenses factor into defense in depth and how modern improvements to the strategy incorporate information warfare to improve the cost/effect ratio, but I'm lazy - if you want to learn more look up Ukraine and Russia's current anti-tank policy or Russia's counter-counter-strike preparations from last year. At the very least it'll give you some photos of what a legit anti-tank barrier looks like, which isn't this goofy thing designed just to deter the so horrible "migration offensive".

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes you do physics exists and gun barrels aren't super into impacts or being filled with mud.

You're article supports me not you. It never says it is or isn't a anti tank ditch, it does imply it's anti vehicle though with tanks being a vehicle.

Ps your proof being a tank crossing a smaller equally sided trench backwards with the turret facing.... away from the berm is really terrible evidence that you wouldn't need to slow or turn the turret away.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

... Right, which is why I said you might need to elevate the barrel, my point being that such a maneuver is not a tactical disadvantage.

A small stone wall will stop a Cupra and this ditch sure would be annoying to cross with a bicycle, but while all ditches could be anti-vehicle ditches, very few ditches are anti-tank ditches.

Really though, I'm trying to figure out how to phrase 'how does physics factor into this' in a more useful way, because obviously molecules stay together and gravity works, but do you have anything more than that? You can poke a tank barrel through a cinderblock wall without taking it out of battery, it's a massive tempered steel bar, and barrel obstructions are extremely difficult to get. In modern tanks, tho iirc not on the T-72, soft barrel obstructions like dirt/mud/water/gravel/etc. can be cleared automatically from the breach controls by diverting pressure from the pneumatics (IIRC the T-72 had to use a squib to achieve the same result, which was stupid dangerous for russian-engineering-reasons). You're just bringing up points that aren't really relevant.

For example, this ditch alone would not be a deterrent to any AFV - but that's why in an ideal world this would be sitting on the fronts of an AT minefield, to dissuade civilians or wildlife from walking into the field itself, separate AFVs from their support and to provide a nice little aesthetic boost. Like a ha-ha, but for tanks (though this goofy thing wouldn't even function as a ha-ha)

Ps

Buddy that was only evidence for not having to slow, not having to turn the turret. This is starting to feel like you're just lashing out because your preconceptions are being challenged, not you having a genuine intellectual objection to what I'm saying. You're clearly unfamiliar with the topic, and you're butting up against the big dunning-kruger trench (which ironically would make a much more effective tank defense than what's pictured in the OP).

Please just go do a little bit of your own research instead of lashing out with random objections like this, then come back. Even on it's own it's a potentially important topic to be familiar with, what with the rise of far right nationalism the world over, and it's getting clear you don't have much theoretical (let alone practical) familiarity with the capabilities of AFVs.

^edit:^ ^spelling^

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Except that's again not how physics works, they're not anti air guns bud. Hull go down = barrel go down and no MBT has 90° of elevation so you turn your turret round just like your own video shows.

Again nothing is going to stop a tank group who wants to get through history has taught us this again and again, all you do is slow them down.

IFVs aren't tanks btw, if you're gonna be weirdly tedious about strange stuff you might want to be correct.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Correct: IFVs* aren't MBTs, but MBTs and IFVs are both AFVs. Using the supercategory in this case is just a nod to actual tanks being pretty rare on a modern battlefield vs. the vast number of tracked armored vehicles. This information doesn't apply to just tanks, and since I find purely semantic arguments like this one tedious, I figured I'd err on the side of accuracy instead of informal intelligibility. More fool me, I guess.

And also yeah, no argument about gun elevation. Which is why you just go fast over a trench like this, and rely on it being < 1/2 the length of your vehicle (ex: the T-72 has a ground support length of around 9m for this roughly 4m trench) for added stability while crossing. Which totally ignores that you'd only get to where a 90° elevation would be relevant if you go so slow you're pointing directly down into the trench, which wouldn't happen if you impacted the angled far wall (which is why real tank ditches are shaped like the dunning kruger graph or the trench in the vid I linked - a sharp vertical wall to prevent climbing usually combined with an angled ramp to direct the bulk of the tank downwards before it's feasible for the gap to be jumped)

Keep in mind that tanks initially existed for the sole reason of crossing ditches like this. While warfare has evolved and tanks no longer have WWI / Warhammer style gigantic climbing tracks, the basic use of a tank as an obstacle-crossing fire support vehicle has not changed.

^edit:^ ^words^

^edit_2:^ ^why^ ^did^ ^you^ ^change^ ^AFVs^ ^to^ ^IFVs?^ ^Nobody^ ^has^ ^been^ ^talking^ ^about^ ^IFVs^ ^except^ ^when^ ^I^ ^referenced^ ^the^ ^BMP,^ ^which^ ^doesn't^ ^even^ ^have^ ^a^ ^protruding^ ^barrel,^ ^so^ ^what^ ^was^ ^the^ ^point^ ^here?^

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

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.