89
Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next
(euromaidanpress.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
89 points (97.8% liked)
Global News
4926 readers
597 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 format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post 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] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country 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 only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone 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 attacks
Any 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 tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com - News and information about Europe.
- !usa@midwest.social - News and information about United States of America.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
... 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^
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.
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?^
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 5/8^ths^ 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.
(Sorry slightly pressed for time this comment, I usually try to avoid quote-reliant responses)
Getting attached to armored regiments gives you a weird degree of insight as to how they do things, I'll happily confess to that one.
You're not quite understanding my argument, I fear. You can see in the vid I posted before that a tank will happily just shove it's way through a berm of loose-packed dirt like this, it's not like I'm trying to present that as a tank driving full on at a wall. I've also never presented that a tank would intentionally foul it's barrel instead adjusting the gun lay to deflect damage (hell, turrets even have a system in place to allow free rotation in the event of strong impacts just to prevent damage to the barrel/sights/etc) because that's the entire basis of my "just elevate over it" point from earlier. The berm in the OP is only a barrier in that a vehicle might get bogged down in it, a small mound of dirt isn't going to stop anything especially not a MBT.
No, what? Rapid thrusts through enemy defenses is fundamental to maneuver warfare - it was the basis of Blitzkrieg, it's the basis of modern Disorganization in Depth, it was a cornerstone of Ukraine's counter-offensive. It's what any armored force would do - exploitation through rapid maneuver, consolidation by following forces.
Here, don't believe me? 1-10. "While Army forces consolidate gains throughout an operation, consolidating gains become the focus of operations after large-scale combat operations have concluded". It's very literally textbook maneuver warfare - it's so basic it's publicly available on the US Army website.
Isn't the point of having a bunker every 60 meters that you'll have lots of locations to shoot at people trying to cross the tank barrier? That's kinda fundamental to the premise here.
But... no, I don't?
Ya huh then you should know you're taking faff but more likely your just lying.
I understand your argument, I'm saying you're being obtuse and egomaniacal.
You agree go away already.
(Taking faff is one of the cutest aphorism's I've run across, thank you for that)
Anyways, you've repeatedly demonstrated a deeply fundamental lack of familiarity with the topic being discussed here. And you asserting that I agree with you, despite repeatedly explaining the nuance of my position and detailing how we disagree, is a pretty transparent attempt to establish a victory condition that has nothing to do with the content of your argument and everything to do with the submission of your opponent ~~which, listen, usually I'm all for that, but man when you're just trying to demand it like this it's a real turn off.~~
It's even wildly off topic - you still have done nothing to actually establish that your position is founded on evidence, you're just asserting that you're correct and ignoring the mounting evidence for my own position. Hell, at this point you've already agreed that there's no reason for them to slow down. I think you're agreeing with my point (not that I'm going to try and strong-arm you into that one)
So, seriously, why would they slow down when assaulting a pre-prepared defensive position? Ordinarily, that's what we'd call suicide.
Neat.
Again, you've agreed with me multiple times at this point, your just upset. It's cool dude, move on.
If you're so certain in your victory, why not simply accept it and move on yourself? Why is my ascension to your proposed scenario so important here? Why attack me, instead of discuss the merit of the arguments I'm so eager to talk about?