- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
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.
… 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 5/8ths 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?