From a tactical perspective I can understand why an outdated tank would still be used by an underequipped army, but how the frick do you get someone to willingly crew one of these things? Tanks are already high-profile targets for enemy anti-tank weapons, and crewing an outdated tank with outdated defenses is basically just asking to die, you'd be more likely to survive on foot since at least you're not drawing as much fire, wouldn't you?
There are really only 2 types of countries using older tanks like this.
>North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba
Where the crews aren't doing it willingly.
>Various third world states fighting local warlords (DRC, Paraguay, Uganda)
Where the likelihood of the enemy having any anti-tank weapon more modern than an RPG-7 is low. The Cartels or local Islamic extremists aren't going to be packing ATGMs.
Aren't the Ukrainians using captured shitty Russian tanks though?
Ukrainian tanks arent that much better. Hell in most cases Russian tanks are better as they have better engine, better armor package, better gun that could fire better rounds, better FCS and whatnot. Fricking T-72B3 (Russia's standard MBT in Ukraine) has auto target tracking while T-64BVM doesn't
The T-72B3 was Russia’s way to have thousands of modern MBTs in a short period of time because they couldn’t spend the money on T-90Ms, let alone T-14s, and it shows (just look at the ERA brick placement). Upgraded Ukrainian T-64s are just as good as any upgraded Russian shitbox.
And now I get to sit and wait like a good little boy for a M-55S (a cool little dude) to take out a T-90 or T-80.
>Upgraded Ukrainian T-64s are just as good as any upgraded Russian shitbox.
And yet about the only upgrade they did on T-64BVM are gunner's thermal sight and a slapdash of new ERA on front hull. The engine, transmission, FCS and even the munitions are still from 70s/80s
To my knowledge, "shitty Russian tanks" are still T-72 variants, which means they're at least 2 decades older than anything in the OP pic. And most of the time they're T-72B variants, which have all the features you would expect on a modern MBT; reactive armor, stabilizers, sat nav, modern optics, modern engines, targeting computers, etc.
Of course, it's all Russian-made, so those things are all prone to breaking and inferior to their western counterparts, but the crews don't know that.
>T-72B variants, which have all the features you would expect on a modern MBT; reactive armor, stabilizers, sat nav, modern optics, modern engines, targeting computers, etc
Lol.
See the last sentence of my post. T-72B3Ms have all that stuff on paper. It's just broken and the parts to fix it were sold for vodka in 2018. Or it never really worked right in the first place, but it did the job well enough for Russians to convince their crews that they had it.
You think t72 is at least 2 decades older than a t34, so your opinion is irrelevant
Think of it as a sidegrade. Plus they can install better western supplied electronics and optics.
>the crews aren't doing it willingly
Tell me where can the crew choose which tank they ride.
>The Cartels or local Islamic extremists aren't going to be packing ATGMs.
Yet. Ukies have been selling Javelins and NLAWs like crazy on the black market.
>but how the frick do you get someone to willingly crew one of these things?
Because it's that or walk it.
Being inside any kind of steel box is preferable to not being inside one when you are being shelled.
>person enlists
>make them crew shitty tank
>they don't have a choice
also I'm willing to bet most of the nations that operate old tanks aren't really expecting to use them against (relatively) modern AT assets, the only ones I can think of where it's a legit possibility are Romania and Taiwan
Is that a leopard with a t72 turret?
yes its a concept made after reunification
Why.
Has kitbashing gone too far?
amx is actually sick and could be viable even today if modernized. bulldog aswell
> T-72 variants, which means they're at least 2 decades older than anything in the OP pic.
>at least 2 decades older than anything in the OP pic.
Shit, meant newer.
I'm drunk, cut me some slack.
>I'm drunk
All is forgiven.
Most comically-outdated tanks are used in the two situations where a bad tank is good - where the enemy has no tanks, or where your alternative to old tanks is no tanks.
The fundamental rule of tanks is that if all you have is a bad tank, but the other side has no tank, you have a very good tank.
>how the frick do you get someone to willingly crew one of these things
tell him he's an infantryman otherwise
What has willingly got to do with anything? Soldiers take orders.
For anyone wondering, Paraguay is the nation that still runs M3 Stuarts. And Shermans, apparently. Paraguay also has a navy with a gunboat from 1930 as the flagship. Paraguay's navy kinda makes more sense than Bolivia's but it's still weird.
Looking through the military equipment lists of poor or third-world nations is fascinating, it's like a journey back in time.
>imblying
Thai army still maintains old IJA tank
>Ha-Go in digi camo
Did I take my crazy pills today
It's a running theme in that part of the world
>but how the frick do you get someone to willingly crew one of these things?
Any armor is worse than no armor.
Serious answer is you build an actual working combined arms system and tell your Tankers they won't be alone out there.
I'm always fascinated by the end dea of taking old tanks and improve it way beyond what is originally planned by their respective designers. Things like Super Sherman, Olifant Mk2, M60T etc. is much more interesting to me than armata or abramsex
Agreed, modernized kraut shit in particular tickles my pickle for some reason.
your tank is likely to be destroyed eventually, but as a crewmember, you still have a pretty good chance of not being instantly killed and getting to escape with your life. better odds than infantry.
>tank: might be killed if the enemy have antitank weapons ready
>no tank: might be killed if the enemy have literally anything at all
Which is better and why?
Chart shows t-34-85 but lists gun as 76.2mm