In retrospect would 2,000 T90s have actually helped Russia?

Or would this have just ended up making life easier for the Ukies with the amount of modern armor they could've captured?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no amount of T-90(even tho I think it's a good tank) can supplement for army corruption, incompetent leadership(military or political) and non existent survivability union

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>no amount of T-90(even tho I think it's a good tank) can supplement for army corruption, incompetent leadership(military or political) and non existent survivability union
      Wait, are you talking about Russia, or Russia Minor here? Can't tell.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is more to it than just having a lot of tanks. If they are stuffed with mobiks and carry 3 rounds each, they are better off serving as mobile small arms cover

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It wouldn’t have helped the Ukies but it wouldn’t have made that much of a difference for the Russians. Even now, with over 1.5 years of practically non-stop warfare the RuAF is still only doing operations consisting of a single tank working with a small infantry unit. Poking around, taking potshots, trying not to get RPG’d etc. Their real problem is poor comms / command / training etc, the tanks aren’t being used even to their own doctrinal standards so having more won’t matter.

    The USSR was able to run large combined arms assaults using tanks in ww2 that had NO radios except the platoon leaders.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > The USSR was able to run large combined arms assaults using tanks in ww2 that had NO radios except the platoon leaders.
      weak bait, 2/10
      captcha VJGAY8

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >two different wars
        >two different eras
        >two different doctrines
        >two different enlisted/conscripted mindsets
        >two different goals
        >two different peoples entirely in patriotism, morale, personal convictions and actual willingness to fight
        Damn, it turns out 80 years is a long fucking time anon, who coulda thunk yesteryears generation is entirely different to this one!

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not really, 2000 kamaz trucks on the other hand...

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Ignoring the captured tanks, this guy thinks 34 is smaller than 16. Really shows how important school is.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The age of tanks is over, so no.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not sure if troll or actually an idiot, but tank's role in modern military doctrines has not changed, it's just that neither Ukraine nor Russia are able to use them effectively due to shit C4ISR, not enough training and lack of AA coverage

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not sure if troll or actually an idiot, but horse cavalry's role in modern military doctrines has not changed, it's just that neither Ukraine nor Russia are able to use them effectively due to shit brains, not enough training and lack of grain coverage.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cavalry was surprisingly effective in WW2 and even in modern combat as counter insurgency troops.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Actually that's exactly the role of tanks in modern military doctrines, in many countries they're even called "armored cavalry" - their purpose is to rapidly break through enemy defenses and enter their rear. Basically tip of the spear. But to do that effectively, you need to have good AA and C4ISR, otherwise you get decimated even before you gain momentum. Russians attempted to use armor like that many times (e.g. famous Vuhledar assaults) but failed. Ukraine is likely looking for an opportunity to try that as well at some points, I hope with get videos of that.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    T-90M never participated in any offensive operations until last month. The moment they transfered T-90M to Klishchiivka Russians lost 3 in single day

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are almost no tank battles in this conflict, so it doesn't really matter if the tank RU use is T-34 or T-90M, crew survivability when hit by western ATGM or Excalibur is the same

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No dude just no one might have an catastrofic cook-off with a turret pop but there still a chance to survive it the other is prob going to be vaporized and it's range and optics are shit

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No dude just no one might have an catastrofic cook-off with a turret pop but there still a chance to survive it
        How? It's possible to survive a direct hit with APFSDS ammo because effectively it's just a piece of metal penetrating the hull. When ATGM or 155m round penetrates the hull, overpressure kills everybody on board instantly.
        >range and optics are shit
        Doesn't matter because there are almost no tank battles. Tanks are used as armored indirect fire support.

        ATGM / 155mm shell are not like a tank ammo fin piercing the armor

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If an ATGM frontally pierces the armor of a T-80, most of the shaped charge and energy got absorbed by the armor, while the much thinner T-34 armor would let most of it through and kill the crew.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >give every unit a T-90
    >now instead of just the convoy being out of fuel, all your units are out of fuel

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia's military is too corrupt to support the logistics of 2K T-90s.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >instantly shifts the goalposts
    You mention time because you know very well that Leopard 2s have been used in spearhead operations against defensive positions while the T-90Ms have not.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends if they're T90M or plain T90.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The M version is the one with more Western components I guess?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sort of, originally they were supposed to use a French optic, but due to sanctions they switched to a Russian one, which is still good but a bit worse. I guess the crews that get the "luxury" variant must be really happy.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The smaller size and weight of the T90 seem to be incredibly useful, so perhaps this is true. Of course, it also depends on the variant of leo.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Finally the russian hidden gem T90M is revealed on the battlefield and comes out with outstanding performances as the powerfull war machine destroyed 3 Nato tanks in Krasnylyman, storming the stronghold of the Ukraine forces, and capturing a large number of surrendering soldiers as a result, reported by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    2000 tanks are pretty useless if you hant trained crew and officers to use them properly, even more so if you havnt any fuel, spares, ammo or trained technicians to keep them going.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Russians would still abandon the tanks anyway, yeah.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they didn't have the logistical capacity to even support the number of tanks they had, adding 2000 more vehicles wouldn't have gotten them anywhere further.

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