- cross-posted to:
- ukraine@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- ukraine@sopuli.xyz
You must log in or # to comment.
I really hope Russia is collapsing soon so Ukraians can have actual peace.
And the world. Fuckers have infected everything
Agreed. I want the killing to stop and Russia to stop it’s conquest.
Don’t worry, the US will probably bail Russia out to keep that from happening
lets bankrupt them next. they obviously have too much power and dont know how to be responsible with it.
Not if Trump has anything to do about it.
Unfortunately I think this also has to do with the changing tech around war. Drones are the new hotness and it is a very good counter to tanks warfare.
Drones don’t hold ground, soldiers do. Soldiers that have tanks are going to be more effective than those without them.
I’m sorry but have you seen what a drone with a grenade does to a tank with an open hatch?
Have you seen a photo of what tanks in combat look like these days? They have cages welded on top of them. Also the hatches can be closed. A lot of tankers like to have the hatch open so the commander can have have more visibility, but it’s not a necessity.
There have been ways to take out a tank with missiles for a long time now. The reason why they’re still used is that air defenses exist and nothing beats the cost efficiency of moving a big gun close to the enemy and firing a lot of cheap ammunition at them.
Also are you going to tell civilians they can move back into their towns based solely on drones? If the civilians are behind a bunch of tanks, they’re safe because the drones will go after the tanks before going after the civilians. You need soldiers to hold ground. A soldier in a tank is going to be harder for a drone to kill than a soldier that’s not in a tank.
Yes drones are effective, but drones can’t hold ground and keep civilians safe.
For the price of one tank with cope cages you could buy thousands of drones instead. Tanks are not cost effective anymore. They’re the land equivalent of battleships in an era of aircraft carriers.
The land equivalent of an aircraft carrier is a soldier with a couple of drones in a backpack.
The problem is still getting people from one place to the other
Even with drones taking out tanks, people would rather be in a vehicle than walk
That’s what APCs and lighter infantry vehicles are for. They’re not going away. It’s main battle tanks (the ones that cost millions of dollars) that are going away.
Moving troops around in safety is going to be extremely challenging but that’s because of enemy drones, not enemy tanks. Drones can fly recon around a moving personnel carrier just as easily as planes fly recon around an aircraft carrier.
Yeah dead soldiers inside of tank that got 1 shot by a micro drone with a grenade the moment they opened their hatch don’t hold ground either.
Also, if you’ve seen them in Gaza they are next to useless in rubble that heavy with dudes popping out of tunnels that disable them without ever being seen.
Historically even, tanks are awful against gorilla fighters. Which is what a lot Ukraine combat has become. Them not using tanks is not surprising.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Even without drones, they are awful I’m so much of modern warfare. If you’ve watched any footage out of Gaza you’ll see a dude pop up out of tunnel and just completely disable a tank without them ever seeing him. Tanks are quickly going the way of the cannon. In much the same way.
It’s seriously astonishing that they managed to wear though the entire massive Soviet stockpile.
Covert Cobal has great tank and apv counting vids, documenting the ever worsening condition of the vehicles remaining. https://youtube.com/@covertcabal
Yes. Back when analysts used to talk about a war with Russia pre-2022, something you heard pretty often was “they’re not as advanced, but they have so much stockpiled armour”.
This is like America running out of guns or Canada running out of syrup.
I think not even the CIA predicted the effectiveness of drones and javelins against old armor. Without modern defenses, they are just sitting (or slowly moving) ducks. Add to this the corruption in the military, causing lack of maintenance and missing parts, plus the gaps in skills and training of their soldiers.
We are maybe 1-2 years away from the Russian military collapsing, if it weren’t for the orange clown.
I seem to remember they were using actual WW2 tanks?
Yup. Not because they were out of more modern tanks yet at that point, but because the more modern tanks took longer to refurbish. But now they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The stockpile was built in the 50s, 60s and 70a though. The vast bulk of it is 50-70 years old. Post soviet Russia didn’t have the money, and prior to that the stockpile was good.
Prior to Ukraine the stockpile was good. Then it started disappearing.
According to the researchers, even though there are still about 4,700 tanks in storage, most of them will be difficult to restore due to their poor technical condition.
This is Russia though - “poor technical condition” is “ready for service.”
Covert Cobal has been classifying in mainly 4 categories. Abysmal is the lowest one, and are often missing such minor accessories as the turet, tracks, engines, and wheels. Not to mention having sat outdoors for upwards of 50 years. Those conditions are mostly what they’re down to. It might allow for slightly higher throughout on production to start on these rusted husks rather than from raw steel, but it’d definitely be harder and more expensive to make these usable than to build a new tank from scratch.
Devils advocate, but given the way they’ve been building metal sheds around the prior tanks and almost completely negating the main gun, a missing turret might just be a weatherproofing issue for the
OrksRussians.It’s not like a main gun helps you survive a mobility kill from the umpteenth TM-62 in the dirt that got replanted after the last assault failed.
Nah, adjust for Russian standards in what “poor technical condition” even means. It’s not going to Ukraine if it can’t drive off the base.
Nah. In those photos, where there’s one or two tanks left but all the others have gone… those are immovable tanks. Couldn’t even get them to the service bay. Why else would that one tank have been left behind?
Even without assuming they’ll use low quality examples, the article also says
According to researchers, only about 1,200 tanks can still be relatively easily restored after major repairs.
It sure sounds like the title is BS.
That is not really out of line with the title, especially if you line it up with the rest of the article. 1200 tanks that need major repairs does not mean a potential 1200 combat-ready vehicles. It means that you can, if you are really good, salvage 60% of that by cannibalizing the rest.
They drew down 350 tanks last year. Oryx confirmed 3800+ tank losses over the past 3 years, Ukraine claims 10000+. This means that they have enough tanks to last them another 6-8 months if we’re being incredibly generous, if they could do 2 years of work in an instant. This is practically an empty stock.
And that doesn’t count that these are the last vehicles for a reason. They are not 1200 T-72s that can be restored to full working order, it’s mostly going to be very badly damaged and worn T-55s or even T-34s, compared to which an RPG-7 is space-age technology.
I don’t think “depleted stocks” is good way for saying there are tanks available but not usable but I also don’t know what a better wording would be so maybe it’s accurate. Thanks for elaborating regardless.
So let’s have a ceasefire eh? /s
Finally the reality is catching up with russia.
Slava Ukraine!
Edit It looks like Ukraine has began serious production of truck mounted mobile 155mm artillery systems, something the US doesn’t take seriously here because it can lean on an assumed air superiority to deliver overwhelming force, something Ukraine can’t do . This coupled with a depletion of Russian tanks might actually be decisive here since the more Ukraine can field mobile, extreme lethality cannon artillery the more necessary it becomes for Russia to have main battle tanks with significant armor and extreme survivability under the hellish conditions of metal shards hurtling at terrible speeds in all directions from exploding ordnance…
The problem with artillery smaller than this is that it doesn’t actually pose an existential threat to very highly armored/entrenched targets and the range is that much more limited. Again, if the U.S. had taken arming Ukraine seriously, they would have made sure that the Ukranian military had a very deep and resilient supply of mobile artillery pieces that could serve in place of the role U.S. airpower plays (or U.S. forces assume air power will play at least). As long as Ukranian infantry has access to effective, shoulder launched anti-tank weapons this could tip the balance of the war significantly.
longer answer
I hope this hits Russia hard, but I wonder how much Russia needs tanks at this stage of the war vs a breadth and depth of infantry and artillery reserves.
Main battle tanks are for punching through enemy defenses and making a run on enclosing enemy forces/enemy territory.
Once you capture that territory tanks are still very much useful, especially because of their mobility and ability to reposition quickly, but they aren’t necessary in the same way that you need some kind of tank or something behaving like a tank in the maneuver portion of the war. Even if Ukraine counterattacks with main battle tanks, the most effective counters in that case are artillery, entrenched infantry, and mechanized infantry with effective AT that can respond and reposition to slow down armored columns attempting to break through their front lines. Don’t get me wrong, tanks would absolutely decisively help too, but if I had to choose between depriving Russia of artillery and depriving Russia of tanks, I would choose artillery. I mean… obviously but especially at this stage of the war.
Who knows though, I hope Ukraine can get a steady supply of main battle tanks from someone (do they currently?), if Russia can’t field main battle tanks even if it doesn’t immediately affect the strategic balance of the war, the immediate psychological impact and tactical efficiency of tanks chewing through emplaced machine gun nests and enemy positions will be huge. No matter where you are on the battlefield you know that if Ukranians show up with an actual main battle tank, you are fucked as a Russian unless you have a whole lot of artillery/air support at the ready (which they do sometimes).
A single tank if used with an effective screen of infantry can delete entire columns of armored personnel carriers and armored fighting vehicles, I hope Russia suffers severely from a lack of tanks to directly counter this.
The problem though is that the Ukranians need much more artillery or extensive & resilient close air support for their tanks to be anything other than juicey targets for Russians unless they are always kept in the rear and deployed as very limited motorized artillery pieces. To the Ukranians an abrams mbt is effectively just a shittier paladin in the current status quo.
…Add the persistent presence of self propelled 155mm artillery backing Ukranian infantry and armor though and the current status quo of fiddly uav flying bombs and horrific close quarters fighting will simplify for the Russians to “get in a trench or heavily armored vehicle or die”. This will hopefully create a situation where tanks are much more necessary for Russia.
Modern war is like rock paper scissors, tanks are the rock, infantry are the paper and artillery is the anvil dropped on the rock paper scissors game…
the industry is not covering combat losses
Since it’s not clear from the headline, that’s the restoration industry. We’re not even talking about the production of new tanks (which was never that impressive at any point in the full-scale war).
I don’t know what to think anymore. I feel like every week for the last 4 years it’s been “China’s economy is going collapse any day now” and “Russia is losing so many people and resources in this war. They might as well give all of Russia to Ukraine”
I don’t take any news written in English with any seriousness for these two countries.
Also, pretty sure modern warfare has learned heavily that tanks are completely obsolete against drones. Or even less modern warfare tells us how useless they are in cities against gorilla fighters.
Amazing.
SLAVA UKRAINI!
Mourn the loss of historical vehicles, but blame the people who threw them to be destroyed.
decommissioned = destroyed? Funny way of describing it.
No but non-functional can be considered destroyed in this context…
Even in modern war, a significant amount of armor is lost not from literally being blown up, but from breaking, getting stuck, being abandoned after a flank cuts off retreat in a vehicle etc…
Yet we must triple up military budget in case they decide to invade whole europe on empty tanks…
I think at this point the unspoken truth is that we must have a military that needs to be a deterrent to the US as well.
I’m going to go with what European military leaders are saying, out loud and in public. God knows what those leaders really know and talk about.
I’m guessing you’re European? Well, you’ve had 80 years of mostly peace and prosperity. Timed to get armed, personally. (Yes my fellow Americans, Europeans can acquire guns without too much hassle. Yes, real guns. Gun ownership just isn’t a major part of their culture like it is over here, and their culture isn’t as diseased as ours regarding weapons.)
If you’re allergic to guns, consider these two scenarios:
-
Hostile foreign power invades America.
-
Hostile foreign power invades Europe.
In which case do you expect the invader to suffer the most? Which case do you consider more likely?
You are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that a rising sense of militarism quickly feeds into a decay of your society, if you make an incredible amount of guns somebody is going to use them, that is how these things work.
I am not saying Europe shouldn’t absolutely take being able to militarily counter Russia seriously, as they should any regional threat, but what is needed isn’t necessarily to reshape Europe into a hypermilitarized environment, especially in the area of police and the militarization of police, what Europe needs is to make sure it has effective counters to a mass, mechanized land war. What conservative war hawks in Europe will advocate for is a militarization of police and of society, that is not what is needed. You need the right military assets to make a ground war incredibly costly for the Russians.
One of the most effective counters, and a decisive element of the war in Ukranian has been HIMARs, long range missiles launched from trucks and armor capable of striking mobile Russian SAM assets and other high value targets from extremely far away. These make maneuvering a large concentrated armored force much much much more costly and dangerous for an invader.
…but ultimately this all devolves into a sense of militarism that undermines the original reason for making all the guns in the first place, it is just a matter of how far you can push it in your society before that cancer becomes terminal… see the U.S. as a prime example…
European leaders are already talking about using the new army to invade the Middle East.
Source?
Could you back that up with a citation?
-
Yes because Russia will build more tanks and other equipment in the next decade. Not a problem if Europe builds up too. But that will be a problem if Europe does nothing.
If Russia were an immediate threat, Europe would have no choice but to give Trump whatever he wants so the US will protect Europe. But with Russian forces being decimated by this war, Europe has the opportunity to build it’s own arms industry to be able to produce it’s own weapons to be able to counter Russia in a decade’s time.
