The T-62 and 72 has no remote control for the commander's MG unlike the M60 and M1 Abrams, it's strictly "get the frick out where you can be shot and use it manually" gig, so the Donbabweans would probably rather all get incinerated than use it.
It still has a gun, park it far away and lob shells at random. Not like they care about Lugandan lives or anything.
That's a shitty tactic for defense if you don't have a rangefinder of any sort. Before you correct me a coincidence rangefinder doesn't count.
Yeah I'm honestly confused at why the Russians see this as a viable tank to use. At first I thought it was just going to be a decoy of some kind but they've actually been using them in their already undermanned BTGs with other more modern tanks. They're going to just get the crews killed.
Because they might actually be running out of T-72s that aren't tied up for homeland defense or combat duties, or rusting away
You do understand that there are anti tank warheads for munitions that small, right? You aren't a fricking moron who thinks the top of a tank is going to stand up to even an old RPG-7 warhead coming in at a 90 degree angle, right?
>weren't these supposed to be static emplacements?
Lol, they got tired with this excuse really fast, now they say that's a perfectly fine tank - it shoot's, it rides, does whatever a tank can.
my man, at the point which your front armor is penetrable by an RPG-2 or LAW, you don't have a tank. You have a sixty year old piece of shit with no smoke launchers, no laser range finder, ancient ammo that is probably more of a risk to you than the enemy. You are throwing away lives.
Yeah I'm honestly confused at why the Russians see this as a viable tank to use. At first I thought it was just going to be a decoy of some kind but they've actually been using them in their already undermanned BTGs with other more modern tanks. They're going to just get the crews killed.
1. Get tank.
2. Put solar panels on cope cage.
3. Infinite energy.
4. Russia wins again.
5. Europe starves and freezes.
6. Mother Russia presents throbbing wiener.
7. West sucks on it.
8. Russia wins again.
9. Village of Blyatsk, Donbass (population 12) recaptured from HATO troony Black person homosexual israelite israelite Black person nazi homosexual.
10. Another glorious triumph. Russia just keeps winning. Two more weeks.
Can you imagine if the US invaded Mexico, lost so many tanks they started to use Patton tanks? That would be very embarrassing. I can’t believe Russians wouldn’t be embarrassed by this video.
>lost so many tanks they started to use Patton tanks?
does the US even have enough patton tanks to use?
iirc, they sold the M60 off as fast as they could, resulting in even the national guard having less than a hundred left
>We have 5,000 Abrams and no, we don’t have many if any Pattons around except for museum pieces.
They still have M88 armored recovery vehicles when it comes to Patton variants. Last time they ordered new ones was in 2017 for batch of 11 additional vehicles.
Nope. None left for a long time now. National Guard fully retired the remaining M48A5s and M60s in 1997. They were already retired from combat following desert storm and had FMS permits, even in the mid 2000s only a handful of M60s were left just for stuff like radar testing.
The only "M60s" in service at all in the US (or in storage) are those in museums, for limited tests, or as gate guards.
We didn't even keep the 105mm Abrams, they were all converted into 120mm M1A2 SEPs later in the 2000s
The army keeps track of all the equipment they either use actively or have in storage, all 6200 remaining Abrams tanks are of these models.
this seems more like a counter to the abundance of drones dropping small munitions of tank turrets
the sheet metal obviously wont stop much but at least its better than blowing up inside the tank. 2x4 wood in two alternating rows would be much better at that actually
You do understand that there are anti tank warheads for munitions that small, right? You aren't a fricking moron who thinks the top of a tank is going to stand up to even an old RPG-7 warhead coming in at a 90 degree angle, right?
>talking about drone dropped grenades >BRO WHAT IF IT SHOOTS AN RPG-7 DOWNWARDS BRO
Anything with a shaped charge at all is probably not gonna hit that thing, and if it is gonna hit it, it's a tandem warhead and probably enough mass to crash through that shit without even fusing. You're just as moronic as the russian conscripts for thinking an improvised sun shade is gonna give you protection from munitions
>I don't understand spaced armor and how it applies to old, outdated antitank munitions
Go read through the archive, numbnuts. There was a Ukranian drone guy talking about how they've been Black personrigging it to drop older explosives. The cope cage isn't going to do anything to an actual EFP, but it does provide an element of protection against a 70s era Soviet weapon that Ukraine has massive stores of.
Don't know where you heard that T-62s don't throw turrets but they 100% do.
Every tank without some form of safe ammo stowage (which is to say every russian production tank) will violently throw its turret if the ammo is hit directly either by shell fragments or spall from the armor.
T-62s can be marginally safer than a 72 if all the ammo is stored in wet racks but let's be real they're not fricking doing that lmao >The gunner and commander sit on the left side of the turret, and the loader on the right. Like the T-55, the ammunition layout is fairly archaic, with few ready rounds in the turret, and the majority of rounds stored in the hull. This leads to an initial high rate of fire, which rapidly diminishes after the first 3-4 rounds; after this, rounds need to be loaded from the hull.
What a silly image. First of all there's no such thing as "inert fuel". Second of all, the tracks are not inert and a tank shell will frick them up. Thirdly, aiming for the barrel will frick it up as well. Not every kill has to be a k-kill.
The point of the "inert" parts is that if you shoot the sponson fuel tank head on it won't do shit to the actual crew/internal modules, at most you've shot off a track.
shooting a tank cannon is a lot harder than it sounds due to gun offset and movement, and why shoot his cannon when you can kill him with the round you're firing?
How do you fire your top MG??
thats the neat part, you don't. Is fun for ping pong though
it actually looks like one of those foldable ping-pong tables with hinges
glorious russia captures HATO wargaming equipment to study its tactics
you don't need no MG when you have fancy sun shade
>implying they have ammo for the mg
>or that the mg is functional
The T-62 and 72 has no remote control for the commander's MG unlike the M60 and M1 Abrams, it's strictly "get the frick out where you can be shot and use it manually" gig, so the Donbabweans would probably rather all get incinerated than use it.
is there even an mg in there?
well by default they have coaxial PKT 7.62mm
That's a shitty tactic for defense if you don't have a rangefinder of any sort. Before you correct me a coincidence rangefinder doesn't count.
Because they might actually be running out of T-72s that aren't tied up for homeland defense or combat duties, or rusting away
>That's a shitty tactic
Would be an improvement over current Russian tactics, which are below shitty.
>"our javelins will blot out the sun"
>"then we shall fight in the shade"
Top lel
I guess you just fricking don't?
How are you this illiterate?
>Barrel says "demon"
Kremlin = literal satanists
>Shoigu, I'm already a demon.
Truly a weapon to surpass metal gear.
>latin D
what does it actually say?
If anything it's 'Remon' as that is not a Cyrillic D.
>a quick search indicates a Naruto character
West wishes it was as advanced as mighty bear
rorrisyan tanks now 100% green, they use solar panels for energy instead of fuel
>Javelin laughing
>it's a T-62
>being used for offensive operations
oh no no no russbros, weren't these supposed to be static emplacements? did we run out of T-72s?
The T-72 are getting consolidated for the push on Kiew
>weren't these supposed to be static emplacements?
Lol, they got tired with this excuse really fast, now they say that's a perfectly fine tank - it shoot's, it rides, does whatever a tank can.
They've been using T-62s in maneuver combat for a while now. Some Austrian cuck colonel was even claiming it's a good idea.
I mean it's probably better than no tank at all.
my man, at the point which your front armor is penetrable by an RPG-2 or LAW, you don't have a tank. You have a sixty year old piece of shit with no smoke launchers, no laser range finder, ancient ammo that is probably more of a risk to you than the enemy. You are throwing away lives.
It still has a gun, park it far away and lob shells at random. Not like they care about Lugandan lives or anything.
Yeah I'm honestly confused at why the Russians see this as a viable tank to use. At first I thought it was just going to be a decoy of some kind but they've actually been using them in their already undermanned BTGs with other more modern tanks. They're going to just get the crews killed.
>You are throwing away lives.
That starts with assuming Cossack volunteers, Donbabweans and Lugandans count as lives in Russian bookkeeping.
Didn't Soviet Union castrate Cossacks as a culture?
And now they are throwing themselves into the meatgrinder
I wonder if it plate or plywood. Why not put the ERA tiles on top of the cage?
ERA without a thick armor backstop is just a bomb. Hence why APCs typically don't carry it.
>ERA without a thick armor backstop is just a bomb
It doesn't need a huge counter mass to destroy the warhead in that configuration.
I don't have the picture handy but I distinctly recall a picture from early in the war where 420 IQ Russians put ERA on their MT-LB
They know they're just blocks of rubber; they're not going to waste time shifting them when they're not going to do shit.
That tank barely has enough ERA that it can only cover a part of it's front plate.
It's mostly meant to counter civilian drones carrying grenades.
>grenade drops on that
>the entire thing sprays splints in every direction
genius
>splints
dang what the frick the crew inside the tank is going to do
when they get grenaded, they are either shitting or shagging a goat by the tank
>inside
>0:44
Its just cheap sheet metal lmao
at best it might actually cover them from those homemade bombs dropped from drones
That's what exactly why vatniks came up with these ya dingus
Aren't these meant to be operated by Donetsk forces?
in static defenses. Turns out Vatniks lied and T-62 is used as main tank by Russians
Full webm of OP's tweet link.
1. Get tank.
2. Put solar panels on cope cage.
3. Infinite energy.
4. Russia wins again.
5. Europe starves and freezes.
6. Mother Russia presents throbbing wiener.
7. West sucks on it.
8. Russia wins again.
9. Village of Blyatsk, Donbass (population 12) recaptured from HATO troony Black person homosexual israelite israelite Black person nazi homosexual.
10. Another glorious triumph. Russia just keeps winning. Two more weeks.
Z.
lol it's just rubbish from destroyed buildings
Can you imagine if the US invaded Mexico, lost so many tanks they started to use Patton tanks? That would be very embarrassing. I can’t believe Russians wouldn’t be embarrassed by this video.
This is honestly about the most accurate assessment.
>lost so many tanks they started to use Patton tanks?
does the US even have enough patton tanks to use?
iirc, they sold the M60 off as fast as they could, resulting in even the national guard having less than a hundred left
We have 5,000 Abrams and no, we don’t have many if any Pattons around except for museum pieces.
>We have 5,000 Abrams and no, we don’t have many if any Pattons around except for museum pieces.
They still have M88 armored recovery vehicles when it comes to Patton variants. Last time they ordered new ones was in 2017 for batch of 11 additional vehicles.
Nope. None left for a long time now. National Guard fully retired the remaining M48A5s and M60s in 1997. They were already retired from combat following desert storm and had FMS permits, even in the mid 2000s only a handful of M60s were left just for stuff like radar testing.
The only "M60s" in service at all in the US (or in storage) are those in museums, for limited tests, or as gate guards.
We didn't even keep the 105mm Abrams, they were all converted into 120mm M1A2 SEPs later in the 2000s
The army keeps track of all the equipment they either use actively or have in storage, all 6200 remaining Abrams tanks are of these models.
so the us has more usable tanks in reserve and they are all better than everything the russians are fielding?
yes
We try and tell you frickers for decades, stash your sword but keep it sharp. No one ever listens.
Shit, the Russians have mobile cornhole boards. Truly the West will never be able to compete.
When will wevsee this on Burger tanks?
Once Russia figures out top-attack ATGMs :^*~~)
this seems more like a counter to the abundance of drones dropping small munitions of tank turrets
the sheet metal obviously wont stop much but at least its better than blowing up inside the tank. 2x4 wood in two alternating rows would be much better at that actually
One would argue that the hatch was invented for such a purpose
You do understand that there are anti tank warheads for munitions that small, right? You aren't a fricking moron who thinks the top of a tank is going to stand up to even an old RPG-7 warhead coming in at a 90 degree angle, right?
>talking about drone dropped grenades
>BRO WHAT IF IT SHOOTS AN RPG-7 DOWNWARDS BRO
Anything with a shaped charge at all is probably not gonna hit that thing, and if it is gonna hit it, it's a tandem warhead and probably enough mass to crash through that shit without even fusing. You're just as moronic as the russian conscripts for thinking an improvised sun shade is gonna give you protection from munitions
>I don't understand spaced armor and how it applies to old, outdated antitank munitions
Go read through the archive, numbnuts. There was a Ukranian drone guy talking about how they've been Black personrigging it to drop older explosives. The cope cage isn't going to do anything to an actual EFP, but it does provide an element of protection against a 70s era Soviet weapon that Ukraine has massive stores of.
How much electricity can solar panel produce before tank would be destroyed?
Is this a russian way of getting green energy?
Do... do they really still put cope cages on tanks 5+ months after they were proven completely irrelevant?
>T62s don't throw turrets
>cope cages are installed to hinder a quick dismount and make sure the crew still gets cooked after a hit
It's a nice touch
Don't know where you heard that T-62s don't throw turrets but they 100% do.
Every tank without some form of safe ammo stowage (which is to say every russian production tank) will violently throw its turret if the ammo is hit directly either by shell fragments or spall from the armor.
T-62s can be marginally safer than a 72 if all the ammo is stored in wet racks but let's be real they're not fricking doing that lmao
>The gunner and commander sit on the left side of the turret, and the loader on the right. Like the T-55, the ammunition layout is fairly archaic, with few ready rounds in the turret, and the majority of rounds stored in the hull. This leads to an initial high rate of fire, which rapidly diminishes after the first 3-4 rounds; after this, rounds need to be loaded from the hull.
What a silly image. First of all there's no such thing as "inert fuel". Second of all, the tracks are not inert and a tank shell will frick them up. Thirdly, aiming for the barrel will frick it up as well. Not every kill has to be a k-kill.
The point of the "inert" parts is that if you shoot the sponson fuel tank head on it won't do shit to the actual crew/internal modules, at most you've shot off a track.
shooting a tank cannon is a lot harder than it sounds due to gun offset and movement, and why shoot his cannon when you can kill him with the round you're firing?
did they mount a solar panel?
>old-ass tank with Hrushtchyov's Eyebrows
Goddamn, that's some ancient shit.