Polish Armed Forces: News

It appears you know about Poland much more than these silly Youtubers.

Rocks know more about Poland than Youtubers...

Yeah lots of vids and articles from the usual sources over recent months talking up the new upcoming European superpower Poland

At the same time as they've started to talk less about the previous European superpower the Ukraine

Operation meatshield moves from plan A to plan B...

The Ukrainians have failed us... what idiots would step up and volunteer to replace them in the meat grinder... who could be that stupid...

As Turkey becomes more unreliable perhaps Turkeys nukes might become Polands nukes in a tantrum because they are upset about Belarus nukes.

When Turkey does not get entry to the EU and therefore blocks Sweden from getting into HATO I rather suspect a few in the EU and HATO will suggest a Turkexit.

flamming_python wrote:

Odin of Ossetia wrote:You are correct.


But whole bunch of Youtube videos have already appeared showing Poland as some sort of next military superpower.

It appears you know about Poland much more than these silly Youtubers.

Yeah lots of vids and articles from the usual sources over recent months talking up the new upcoming European superpower Poland

At the same time as they've started to talk less about the previous European superpower the Ukraine

Do not really agree here, since shortly prior to the Special Military Operation there was lots of talk about Ukraine falling to the Russians only in a matter of days. Not a realistic assessment considering how heavily armed Ukraine was (and still is) combined with how few the Russian troops were used.


But in case of Poland it is precisely the opposite, a genuinely weak and foreign-controlled country is made into some sort of an "upcoming superpower."

These people have no idea about the situation in Poland, "Binkov" and the others.

The whole thing looks suspicious to me.

Inspected today.




Doesn't look bad at a closer look. A very interesting and successful combo of Soviet and NATO designs.

At least it can take a bridge

ALAMO wrote:
Doesn't look bad at a closer look. A very interesting and successful combo of Soviet and NATO designs.

Would've been great if it came out 30 years earlier. As it is the K2 would have a very bad time against the broad spectrum of threats encountered in Ukraine, nevermind stuff the Russians are cooking.

Like, look at that unprotected bustle ammo rack. That's just begging for an FPV to set off.

The K2 is probably the best tank in the West. Only Western tanks similar would be the Type 10, or the Leclerc. These are tanks designed in the 1990s or 2000s. All come with autoloader. Not like the 1970s tanks that Germany and the US still use.

But I would have to agree that all these tanks are highly vulnerable to the most recent drones.

It is a general proof that Soviet design school was much more effective.
K2 is very compact. General size is misleading, it is all add on all around making it look almost as bulky as L2A6.
It is about half a meter lower and about 1m shorter, and it is still including that all bells&whistles hanging around.
Weak point it a hull ammo magazine that is extremely vulnerable. It is not protected in any way other than the main armor - just a rack. And what made me even more speechless, is the fact that it is extremely high, occupying all the space of the hull, bottom up.

Would suggest a lack of real combat experience for the last few decades, but if that was a genuine reason then the west has no excuse at all for having shit tanks.

Perhaps real combat experience against a competent enemy would be a better way of putting it.

The number of times the west has pitched in and helped those the Soviets or Russia was fighting, they actually have rather extensive experience fighting a near peer enemy in some aspects.

That was my guess either. South Koreans seem not to believe that NK will be able to create something capable enough to make a threat.
And I guess they miscalculated severely - in the last decade NK made a huge jump in technology. It is clearly visible. Sadly, I do not have the newest NK tank at hand to compare

South Koreans better believe it. Especially after their government has chosen to supply the Ukraine

These tanks will kabooming like hell, and I have not a single doubt about the matter.
With 24 rounds in one rack, ready to cook off, I can bet the winner of the furthest flying turret right now.
Still, it is the best that west can do.

ALAMO wrote:It is a general proof that Soviet design school was much more effective.
K2 is very compact. General size is misleading, it is all add on all around making it look almost as bulky as L2A6.
It is about half a meter lower and about 1m shorter, and it is still including that all bells&whistles hanging around.
Weak point it a hull ammo magazine that is extremely vulnerable. It is not protected in any way other than the main armor - just a rack. And what made me even more speechless, is the fact that it is extremely high, occupying all the space of the hull, bottom up.

Now that you mention it, that kind of sounds like the T-80 with its combination of low profile and vertical ammo carousel.

Could it really be a coincidence keeping in mind that SK has fielded T-80s since Russia repaid debts by supplying them in the 90s?

K1 has a very similar layout.
I guess they just cashed the fact that Koreans are slightly smaller than Europeans.
Anyway, the height of ammo rack is much bigger than a whole ammo carousel of T-64/80. Occupies whole hull height.

It is not me!
It is math racist!
1.80 vs. 1.75 ...
5 cm makes a difference, ask any girl!

ALAMO wrote:5 cm makes a difference, ask any girl!

LOL! Just stop.

There was K9 aside, but I didn't take any photos as already saw it

The exposure of the ammo on MZ autoloaders is overstated. If the vertically stowed ammo was so bad the Russians would hardly pick this option for 2 of their next gen MBTs.

In fact a carousel with vertical cassettes is actually the more defendable arrangement. If you have a hull citadel the the autoloader is behind the thickest armor from the front sector so the increase in profile is more than compensated. In exchange the rounds have minimal exposure to top attack munitions which are increasingly prevalent compared to direct fire weapons.

The semi combustible 125mm propellent stubs are the problem... externally they are cardboard with a metal stub case, the core problem is that if you have the propellent stubs sitting vertically in an autoloader on the floor of the turret, then any turret penetration that leads to showers of sparks and burning hot bits of metal entering the turret will lead very rapidly to those propellent stubs catching fire and with them all stacked together if one goes then they all go in rapid succession.

The western 120mm rounds at least have a metal case around the propellent which protects it from sparks and embers.

The T-72/90 arrangement with the propellent stubs lying down reduces the horizontal area that a penetration could hit and reach the propellent stubs, but the arrangement of protection plate over the ammo in the autoloader prevents sparks from reaching the highly vulnerable propellent stubs, and of course the APFSDS rounds that are also lumps of propellent and sabot.

A design solution is to simply separate the ammo and fuel from the crew compartment in design terms, which is T-14 and the T-14 equivalent to the Boomerang and Kurganets vehicles, the short term solution for other vehicles is to not carry loose ammo in the crew compartment, and only under the sheet metal protected autoloader or other protected areas (ie in T-90 the turret bustle container and a small ammo container between the engine and the turret bustle).

Longer term I would think liquid propellent guns with a binary or even more separate propellent components that are stored separately in the vehicle and not mixed till they are put into the chamber would be the best solution for a chemical energy gun, while EM guns would remove the problems completely if they can be made to reach the necessary level of performance.

Of course no arrangement of ammo and fuel will ever make tanks safe on a battlefield... mines and drones and missiles and artillery and other tanks will always be a threat and thinking fixing this or that will make your tank invincible is just childish.

Both MZ and AZ autoloaders have metal sheets covering the cassettes from spall. The real problem is the loose ammo stowed around the hull and turret which are unprotected. Take those away and only leave ammo in the autoloader and survivability is significantly improved.

The monobloc 120 mm rounds have the same combustible case with a metal stub. They are no less fragile as the 125 mm propellant charges.

lyle6 wrote:The exposure of the ammo on MZ autoloaders is overstated. If the vertically stowed ammo was so bad the Russians would hardly pick this option for 2 of their next gen MBTs.
In fact a carousel with vertical cassettes is actually the more defendable arrangement. If you have a hull citadel the  the autoloader is behind the thickest armor from the front sector so the increase in profile is more than compensated. In exchange the rounds have minimal exposure to top attack munitions which are increasingly prevalent compared to direct fire weapons.

Constant yapping about that is just another example of a deliberate propaganda campaign.
Sure, T-80 suffered in Chechenya on a wider scale rather than T-72, but no propagandist goes further to answer why.
Well, it was widely used, first of all.
And the bulk of losses assisted city fights. Where Russian conscript soldiers clashed with the Soviet army veterans, armed with the best anti tank weapon in the whole world.
So yes, Chechen AT teams used the privilege of being much safer while hiding in the basements and having a great angle of opportunity to hit hull sides at any desired point.
And yes, it was the ammo stored outside the autoloader the main issue here.

Poland received the first AW101 helicopter

Leonardo Helicopters has begun deliveries of the first AW101 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters to the Polish navy. Defence minister Mariusz Blaszczak confirmed on 7 August that the first example was en route to Poland, with the country's armaments agency detailing its arrival hours later.



https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/poland-receives-first-aw101-helicopter/154462.article