Skip to content

Evraz and steel for tanks

This is a slightly strange accusation that’s being made about Evraz. That they might have supplied steel to make tanks.

Tanks are not made of the normal steels. Further, most of the Russian tanks are still cast – that is, they’re not even plates of steel which are then worked, but molten steel which is stuck into a mold. Which is something you don’t do at a normal steel plant.

Sure, I know, there are those baying for Abramovich to be dispossessed but this is weak, weak, as an accusation.

This included “potentially supplying steel to the Russian military which may have been used in the production of tanks”.

There becomes a point where the supply chain of any particular product is the entire global economy…..

35 thoughts on “Evraz and steel for tanks”

  1. I gather most of the Russian tanks are so old they were made when Abramovich was in short trousers. Maybe he did the colouring in.

  2. There is of course Russia’s new supertank. Most advanced in the world. That should be equipping Russia’s army. Very good for parades past the Kremlin if you don’t mind towing it home afterwards

  3. Will manufacturers of aluminium and other metals used in the aircraft used in the Iraq war be facing sanctions?
    No?
    Oh. I guess it’s ok when we invaded places with dodgy justifications for doing so.

    This is just government virtue signalling and not giving a damn who of the little people get crushed while they do so.
    See also Chelsea FC.

  4. Also isn’t modern tank armour really complicated, made up of layers of metal, blu-tack, concrete and Angel Delight ?

  5. I gather most of the Russian tanks are so old they were made when Abramovich was in short trousers

    Yarp. Mostly Cold War vintage T-72’s and T-80’s. They have a bunch of T-90’s too but I’m pretty sure Roman Abramovich had nothing to do with building them. Most of their current stock has been upgraded at some point over the last 40-odd years, but upgrades means composite armour, sensors and whatnot, not slabs of steel.

    There is of course Russia’s new supertank. Most advanced in the world. That should be equipping Russia’s army. Very good for parades past the Kremlin if you don’t mind towing it home afterwards

    Armata isn’t a tank, it’s a meme. They only have about 10 of them and it’s unlikely they’ll ever be able to afford more. On paper, it’s a great piece of kit, but so was TSR-2.

    CD – this week, Cardiff Philharmonic cancelled Tchaikovsky. I don’t think Tchaikovsky minds though, since he’s dead. That type of pointless virtue signaling is aimed at signaling virtue to the in-group, not really about harming the out-group.

    More disturbing is Facebook and Instagram – which aggressively deplatform people for asking questions about the Covid narrative or opposing the mass colonisation of Europe by “refugees” or raising awareness of electoral fraud in the USA – just announced its now ok to use their platforms to call for Russians to be murdered.

    I don’t think this will lead to 19th century style literal pogroms (Westerners are far too lazy and passive aggressive), but mibbe the only real difference between Hutus and Tutsis and NPCs is that the former were more fit and active.

  6. Pretty much the same rationale used to justify bombing civilians in WW2: ” They work for the war effort, so it’s ok to kill them…”.

  7. Otto – no, only Western tanks of peace use Angel Delight. Russian murdertanks use Fizz Wizz, because they’re bastard people.

  8. Cardiff Philharmonic cancelled Tchaikovsky: I suppose this demonstrates that musicians are honorary luvvies.

  9. Pretty much the same rationale used to justify bombing civilians in WW2

    LOL, Jonathan has the biggest and knarliest whip so far.

  10. “If you don’t mind towing it home afterwards”

    Something farmers in Ukraine are doing with increasing regularity…

  11. Jonathon,

    Pretty much the same rationale used to justify bombing civilians in WW2: ” They work for the war effort, so it’s ok to kill them…”.

    Bombing Berlin and forcing Hitler to bomb London rather than airfields is what saved Britain. We’d have been forced into surrender within weeks without that lucky break of a German pilot getting his location wrong..

    But more broadly, in a war of survival, you do everything that aids victory, however horrific that is.

  12. “We’d have been forced into surrender within weeks”
    Not really. The RAF may have had to withdraw to north of the Thames, but would still have been able to contest the airspace over Southern England (and provide cover to the Royal Navy coming down the East Coast to slaughter any attempt at a German landing).
    But I agree with your last sentence.

  13. BoM4 – Bombing Berlin and forcing Hitler to bomb London rather than airfields is what saved Britain. We’d have been forced into surrender within weeks without that lucky break of a German pilot getting his location wrong..

    Idk, is that actually true? I don’t think the British Government was going to surrender in any event.

    It’s shockingly easy to repair airfields, and we had massively distributed manufacturing of aircraft during WW2.

    There’s a somewhat related idea that if only those stupid Germans thought to bomb Chain Home, they’d have blinded the RAF. But the Germans knew about radar, even if they weren’t as sophisticated about integrating it into military planning as we were. They didn’t target UK radar sites very often because it was a waste of resources – dumb bombs are pretty shit when you need precision, and radar masts could also be quickly rebuilt.

    Seems to me that Operation Sealion was fantasy roleplay bullshit, even less realistically likely to result in success than their cunning plan to invade the USSR. Even if the Krauts achieved air superiority over the Channel, they didn’t have the manpower, materiel or time to do a reverse Normandy. Invading Britain would’ve very swiftly involved hordes of dead Germans.

  14. BoM4:

    Bombing Berlin and forcing Hitler to bomb London rather than airfields is what saved Britain.

    I’d think that the Battle of the Atlantic was far more important. As EvilDrSmith says, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Germans to successfully invade Britain, given the strength of the Royal Navy.

  15. @Steve
    Read a large and excellent book on Chain Home radar. Lots of details, including circuit diagrams, and japes to steal transmitting tubes from Navy stores, ‘cos they weren’t allowed to say why they wanted them.

    Seems the Germans were well aware of it and deprecated the technology. “Ha, da English have only HF RDF, unlike our modern microwave stuff, we’ve even managed to make 2 of them!”
    They completely failed to understand how even obsolete HF RDF (which is was) when produced and deployed in volume, with an excellent command and control system to use the information, could provide an effective air defence. They copied most of the system later, though the techie bits had moved swiftly on, of course.

    And yes, Sealion was primarily Kabuki theatre intended to negotiate a peace from the 1940 Remainiacs. Came damn close too. Ever read “The Big One” by Stuart Slade? (and follow-ons, like “A Great Endeavour”, has Churchill being smuggled out of UK, after being imprisoned in Vichy Britain.

  16. Tim the Coder – . “Ha, da English have only HF RDF, unlike our modern microwave stuff, we’ve even managed to make 2 of them!”
    They completely failed to understand how even obsolete HF RDF (which is was) when produced and deployed in volume

    This sounds like the entire history of German engineering.

    Ever read “The Big One” by Stuart Slade? (and follow-ons, like “A Great Endeavour”, has Churchill being smuggled out of UK, after being imprisoned in Vichy Britain.

    I haven’t, but I will look it out.

  17. People are punished on “maybe” and “possibly” now are they? Ok, Boris Johnson has a penis, he could possibly rape my sister, therefore he must be in prison.

  18. The Luftwaffe didn’t even know for sure where the RAF fighter fields were. In the Malta battles there were a mere four airfields and the LW (and the Regia Aeronautica) was not able to eliminate any or even close them for long. And that goes for the rest of the war with any pair of combatants. What we now call counter-air wasn’t all that effective until recent times.

  19. And Roman A should get a judicial review, the action is surely unlawful. Whatever happened to Edward Ludd late of this parish?

  20. It’s shockingly easy to repair airfields, and we had massively distributed manufacturing of aircraft during WW2.

    Did the fighters of the day even need airfields?
    Been a while since I watched Battle of Britain, but IIRC the fighters could take off from just a reasonably smooth grassy field?

  21. @Rhoda The fact that the planes of the time needed not much more than a decent stretch of manicured lawn to take off/land.

    I remember an old english friend of mine regaling a tale of doing exactly that back in the day: build a spare airfield by egalising a stretch of likely land near some woods. Then make sure there’s some fences, grass and sheep on it.
    All that was needed to make it operational was some tents and a good round of mowing while chasing the sheep off and pulling part of the fencing out.

    Very hard to spot, that, unless it’s actually active. By which time the spotter had severely reduced chances of making it back home with the news…

  22. @CD
    Yes, c 1940, grass would do: ‘airfield’, being a field used for aircraft.
    I think you are thinking of an ‘airstrip’ i.e a big strip of concrete, or as we would say in full steampunk: ‘an aerodrome’.
    Common language and all that. 🙂

    NB In one of Richard Bach’s books about flying across the US in a Stearman buplane, he is forced to land ACROSS a runway, having noted the grass is unlandable, and having learned the hard way that the crosswind capability is nil. No airfield that!
    Queue sarky comment from the airstrip owner. Old joke: Very short runway you have here, but isn’t it wide!

  23. If one wishes to argue about how Britain won or perhaps merely survived WW2, Churchill in his ‘History of the Second World War’ mentions pointing out to Roosevelt that poor old Chiang Kai-shek wasn’t getting much support. So Roosevelt upped the embargoes on Japan, which Churchill naturally backed. The Japs, feeling that the UK wouldn’t have backed the US unless it had received a guarantee of support, bombed Pearl Harbour. So as Churchill then points out, ‘we’d won after all’.

    Of course if dear old Adolf had used every penny he could scrape up to make sure the American newspapers gave headlines to his humble request to Roosevelt to negotiate a peace with Britain for him so they could all teach the lacquered monkeys (his term) what’s what, instead of declaring war on the US, he might still have won. But he was too busy trying to micro-manage the Battle of Moscow.

  24. Having re-read some things about the Battle of Britain, it looks like I was working off some old historic stuff and later assessments are that the RAF was easily managing the situation. So, me wrong etc. Carry on, chaps.

  25. @dearieme – “Cardiff Philharmonic cancelled Tchaikovsky: I suppose this demonstrates that musicians are honorary luvvies.”

    No. Cardiff Philharmonic took action against an individual based only on their membership of a group (in this case being Russian). They are using defective reasoning (the same kind that leads to irrational sexism, racism, etc). To assume that the actions of one member of a group (an orchestra) is a reliable indicator of the behaviour of all members of a group (musicians) is also defective reasoning – though going in the opposite direction.

  26. Some of my work takes me driving all over East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and fairly frequently I notice I’m driving along an oddly flat length of road with an odd turn in it. I get home and check my old maps and find I’ve driven along, across, or over an old airfield. They’re everywhere!

  27. I worked for a few years in the 60s and 70s at Middle Wallop. That is a BoB station which was then (and maybe is still) unchanged from WW2. It has never had a paved runway. It could have taken plenty of bombs with no serious damage. Indeed, Fred the storeman when I was there had been there when they bombed a hangar while the erks were rushing to shut the doors. A door was blown off and fell on some poor bastard. A sixty-tom steel door. Fred saw the bloke’s hand sticking out from under it, an incident which is recorded in a few BoB books.

    But never mind that, can anyone find any case of an airfield in WW2 being rendered inoperable by air power for more than a couple of days?

  28. “Seems to me that Operation Sealion was fantasy roleplay bullshit, even less realistically likely to result in success than their cunning plan to invade the USSR. Even if the Krauts achieved air superiority over the Channel, they didn’t have the manpower, materiel or time to do a reverse Normandy. Invading Britain would’ve very swiftly involved hordes of dead Germans.”

    Not really. The Germans had read their Douhet. Who said that a strategic bombing campaign was irresistible. It it had largely proved so when they’d done them earlier in the war. Sealion was to put the occupying forces on the ground of a country that had already accepted inevitable defeat. It didn’t envisage a full scale opposed invasion. Just a need to overcome localised resistance.

  29. @jgh
    Most of the airfields in that area were bomber bases – hence the nickname of Lincolnshire as “Bomber County” – and of necessity had paved runways. A heavily-loaded bomber didn’t take kindly to operating from grass, particularly in wet weather, whereas fighters being much lighter were less restricted.

    Fighter bases tended to predominate in the south of England because of the need for fast response times to an incoming attack (usually across the Channel rather than North Sea) and the much shorter endurance of fighters.

  30. The Luftwaffe wasn’t really a strategic bomber force. It was used as tactical support to soften up the enemy while ground forces advanced. They had no heavy bomers in the BoB or Blitz. It wasted a lot of resources on the wrong tasks,

  31. Strategic vs tactical is defined by the targets rather than the bombers. The Luftwaffe’s tactical doctrine employed He111s, the RAF’s ‘strategic doctrine employed at best Wellingtons, closely equivalent to the Heinkel in capability.

    (See Vietnam, ‘fighter’ F-105s bombing the North, B-52s bombing the jungle in the South.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *