- 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.
(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?