Special Thread: Yanayojiri Mgogoro wa Ukraine na Urusi. Nini chanzo na hatma ya mzozo?

Asante, ila sioni kasi. Maana Ukraine walitaka kuingia tangu miaka 14 hawakukubaliwa (wanachama wote wanahitaji kukubali). Na katika miezi kabla ya vita viongozi mbalimbali walisema haitawezekana kwa Ukraine.

Kuhusu wanajeshi wa NATO katika Ukraie: sijaona ushahidi wowote, hata Warusi hasemi wamo. Haya ni uvumi hapa TZ pekee, watu wakitumia elimu yao au zaidi hisia. Wanachofanya ni kuwapa Ukraine habari kutoka satelaiti za ujasusi na ndege za upelelezi kama AWACS zinazozunguka juu ya Bahari Baltiki na Bahari Nyeusi.
Wanajeshi wa Ukraine wanafundishwa matumizi ya silaha kama mizinga mikubwa ya 155mm huko Poland.
 
Si wanyoshe mikono juu watoke.
Un alitakiwa amwambie zele ache kutumi human shield
 
Nimeshangaa mara kadhaa kuhusu picha nyingi za vifaru vya T72 / T80 na 80 vikionekana vililipuka hadi sehemu ya juu yenye mzinga (turret - ngome?) iko kando. Kumbe inaonekana kuna kasoro katika muundo wa vifaru hivyo. Wanatunza ramia zote kwenye ngome hiyo kwa sababu walipanga kifaru kiwe na askari watatu pekee. Hivyo kuna faida kifaru si kubwa vile. Hasara ni kwamba wanajeshi wako sehemu 1 pamoja na ramia, kama kifaru kinapigwa ni rahisi mno ramia kulipuka na kulipusha ramia zote. Tokeo ni mlipuko mkali sana na ngome yote inatengwa na gari lenyewe. - Tatizo hilo lilijulikana tangu vita ya kwanza ya Iraki ambako vifaru vya Saddam vilionyesha udhaifu huu, vyote vilikuwa vya Kirusi. - Na vifaru vya Ukraine wana tatizo hilohilo.

Soma CNN:

Russia's tanks in Ukraine have a 'jack-in-the-box' design flaw​


Brad Lendon, CNN
(CNN)Russian tanks with their tops blown off are just the latest sign that Russia's invasion of Ukraine isn't going to plan.
Hundreds of Russian tanks are thought to have been destroyed since Moscow launched its offensive, with British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace on Monday estimating it had lost as many as 580.
But Moscow's problems go beyond the sheer number of tanks it has lost. Experts say battlefield images show Russian tanks are suffering from a defect that Western militaries have known about for decades and refer to as the "jack-in-the-box effect." Moscow, they say, should have seen the problem coming.
The problem relates to how the tanks' ammunition is stored. Unlike modern Western tanks, Russian ones carry multiple shells within their turrets. This makes them highly vulnerable as even an indirect hit can start a chain reaction that explodes their entire ammunition store of up to 40 shells.
The resulting shockwave can be enough to blast the tank's turret as high as a two-story building, as can be seen in a recent video on social media.

"What we are witnessing with Russian tanks is a design flaw," said Sam Bendett, an adviser with the Russian Studies Program at the Center for a New American Security.
"Any successful hit ... quickly ignites the ammo causing a massive explosion, and the turret is literally blown off."
The flaw means the tank's crew -- usually two men in the turret and a third driving -- are sitting ducks, said Nicholas Drummond, a defense industry analyst specializing in land warfare and a former British Army officer.
"If you don't get out within the first second, you're toast."

The 'jack-in-the-box" effect​


Drummond said exploding munitions are causing problems for almost all of the armored vehicles Russia is using in Ukraine. He gave the example of the BMD-4 infantry fighting vehicle, typically manned by up to three crew and able to carry another five soldiers. He said the BMD-4 was a "mobile coffin" that was "just obliterated" when hit by a rocket.
But the design flaw with its tanks should be particularly galling for Moscow as the problems have been so widely telegraphed.
They came to the attention of Western militaries during the Gulf wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, when large numbers of the Iraqi army's Russian-made T-72 tanks suffered the same fate -- turrets being blown from their bodies in anti-tank missile strikes.
Drummond said Russia hadn't learned the lessons from Iraq and that consequently many of its tanks in Ukraine featured similar design flaws with their autoloading missile systems.
When the T-90 series -- the successor to the T-72 -- came into service in 1992 its armor was upgraded but its missile loading system remained similar to its predecessor's, leaving it just as vulnerable, Drummond said. The T-80, another Russian tank seeing action in the Ukraine invasion, has a similar missile loading system.

There are some benefits to such a system. Bendett, at the Center for a New American Security, said Russia had chosen this system to save space and give the tanks a lower profile, making them harder to hit in battle.
Western militaries, however, had been spurred into action by the T-72's fate in Iraq.
"(Western militaries) all learned from the Gulf War, and from seeing tanks killed during that time, that you have to compartmentalize the ammunition," Drummond said.
He pointed to the US military's Stryker infantry fighting vehicles developed after the first war in Iraq.
"That has a turret that sits on top, and that turret does not enter the crew compartment. It purely sits on top and all the ammunition is inside that turret," he said. "So if the turret gets hit and blown off, the crew is still safe below. That's a very clever design."
Other Western tanks, such as the M1 Abrams used by the US and some allied armies, are larger and have no carousel. In the Abrams, a fourth crew member in the tank retrieves shells from a sealed compartment and transfers them to the gun for firing.

The compartment has a door that the crew member opens and closes between each shot taken by the tank, meaning that if the tank is hit, only one shell is likely to be exposed in the turret.
"An accurate hit can damage the tank, but not necessarily kill the crew," Bendett said.
And Drummond said the shells used by Western militaries sometimes burn under the high heat generated by an incoming missile, but they don't explode.

Hard to replace​


There is no easy way of knowing how many Russian tanks have been destroyed in Ukraine. The open-source intelligence monitoring website Oryx said on April 28 that at least 300 Russian tanks had been destroyed, with another 279 either damaged, abandoned or captured.
However, the site only counts instances where it has visual evidence, so Russian losses could be much higher.

And these losses are not just about equipment. When Wallace, the British defense secretary, gave his estimate of 580 lost tanks to the House of Commons he also said more than 15,000 Russian military personnel had been killed during its invasion.
It's hard to know how many of those are tank crew, but what is not in doubt is that the crews are not easy to replace.
Training a tank crew could take up to 12 months, said Aleski Roinila, a former tank crewman in the Finnish Defense Forces, "and that's considered quick."
And for Russia to replace hundreds of crew at this point in the war would be a tall order -- especially when the tanks they are expected to use are so flawed.
 
Point ya msingi kuwahi kutokea kwenye huu Uzi.
 
Hii vita ni ya kiuchumi zaidi,na naona kabisa US atafaidika sana.
 
Russofobia.
American empire imefikia kikomo. Huwa naamini Old Egypt ilikuwa ni Africa Empire hivyo ni circle tu.
Scandinavia hawazaliani waafrica wanaenda kuishi kule halafu mambo yao ya same sex marriage yatafuta kizazi. Baada ya mika 100 black race itakuwa na watu wengi.
 
Dah!
 
FUSO said:
furahi bac na Ujerumani kakubali.
Click to expand...
Ujerumani hailipi rubel. Wanatumia njia niliyowahi kueleza juu: wanalipa euro kwenye akaunti ya Gazprom nchini Urusi, Gazprom inabadilisha pesa kuwa rubel kwa matumizi yake.
Vivyo hivyo wanafanya nchi nyingi za Ulaya. Poland haikutaka kulipa kwa akaunti ya benki ya Kirusi, hivyo walikatwa. Maana Urusi hawana uhakika kupata pesa hiyokutokana na vikwazo.
Kwa jumla ni mchezo wa unafiki kiasi pande zote mbili:
Urusi inataka kuimarisha pesa yake, na hivyo benki kuu inahitaji watu / makampuni yanayonunua rubel (=inapanda). Hivyo walilazimisha makampuni yao ya gesi na mafuta kubadilisha $$ na €€ zote kwa rubel.
Kiasili walitaka makampuni ya magharibi wanunue rubel halafu kulipa, na hivyo kuwalazimisha kuvunja utaratibu wao wa vikwazo. Baadaye waliunda mbinu wa kupitia benki ya GAZPROM ndani ya Urusi ambako wao wa magharibi wanalipa $€.

Nchi za Magharibi waliamua kukubali njia hii maana inawapa nafasi ya kutowasiliana na benki kuu ya Urusi na bado kulipa €$, ilhali wanajua Gazprom itabadilishakuwa malipo kuwa rubel kwa niaba yao. Lakini wanaweza kujifariji hawagusi rubel. Pia hawategemei kucheza kwa thamani ya rubel kwa sababu wanalipa kufuatana na mikataba inayotaja bei kwa €$.
Kwa muda ambako wanahitaji bado gesi ya kirusi wanataka kuendelea.
(wizara ya uchumi wa Ujerumani walitangaza jana wamefaulu hadi sasa kupunguza asilimia ya gesi ya Urusi katika manunuzi yao kutoka 54% kuwa 35% lakini wanahitaji zaidi ya mwaka 1 kubadilisha yote wakitaka kuepukana na matatizo ya uchumi)
 
Tena sio kazi kidogo.
 
Wazungu wenye akili walikuwepo Karne ya 17 Hadi 19 TU.
Hawa wa Sasa wako sawa na sisi TU.
 
Dah....An excellent piece of analysis...thanks .
Pengine Ndugu Nyamizi anapaswa kusoma andiko hili na wengine wa Aina yake...
 
Habari ni nusu kweli tu. Nchi za Ulaya hawalipi rubel. Badiliko pekee ni wanalipa €$ kwenye benki iliyopo Urusi, badala ya kwenye akaunti za benki katika EU. Wakitumia Benki ya GAZPROM wanalipa €$ na Gazprom inauza pesa ya kigeni kwa benki kuu kununua ruble. Ni mbinu unaoruhusu Urusi kutunza thamani ya ruble na kuruhusu nchi za EU kulipa kwa $€ bila kupita benki kuu iliyo chini ya vikwazo.
Poland ilikataa kutumia benki ya GAZPROM (sijui labda mkataba wao unataja benki fulani katika Poland?).
Urusi inapiga debe ya propaganda, na watu wa Eu vilevile.
Hali halisi ni njia ya panya yenye unafiki pande zote mbili.
 
Hebu elezea hii kwa mustakabali wa currency risk.
Nini russia anakwepa kwanini alipwe Kwenye benki yak
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…