As I understand it, the issue is ammo size
They have a lot of 100mm shells, but their artillery is generally sized for 120
They have next to no 120mm shells left, but do have a lot of old-school tanks with 100 barrels
This is their solution, as dumb as it is to use tank barrels for a job they're really not designed for.
Aren't they generally using 152mm? I guess 120mm for large mortars?
This is my understanding too. Nothing wrong with innovation. It's just embarrassing in the context of Russia pushing out a decade plus of "Russia stronk, it could go head to head with all NATO," propaganda.You use what you have.
Since old tanks are going to be extremely vulnerable being used as tanks, this doesn't seem like a terrible use if you are low on artillery and low on appropriate shells.
With the proliferation of drones, especially autonomous search drones that don't require constant interaction, I think we will see engagement distances go up significantly over time. Advances might now be covered by a drone screen.
This being the case, I imagine tanks use a lot more indirect fire, another data point in favor of bigger guns, which seems to be coming down the pipeline.
The problem is simply that these are not going to be good sources of indirect fire or accurate. Combine the tool being wrong with a lack of training, plus Russian coms, and I can see friendly fire incidents a plenty. Maybe it works if you're just lobbing shells at a fixed line of contact to suppress it, but they'll be sitting ducks against an advance and offer little real fire support on moving targets. Obviously their production is shit, because they'd be better served by mass produced field guns.
Future MBTs will be big armored vehicles with their own interceptor systems, drone charging abilities, EFP active protection, and essentially artillery guns. You add together drone spotting and the ability to push out loitering munitions via the main gun and a ton of fighting will be beyond visual range.
But then you still need a tank for urban ops. Maybe two models? Or maybe a quick to swap out systems change?
[...]
Wtf is this, im pretty sure the only 120mm weapons russia has are mortars
Their modern mbts all use 125mm, their artillery is mainly 152mm, with some older 122mm models
But yes theyre using 100mm as artiller because of shell shortage
(gentlemen with all due respect please be quiet, you're exactly right but that's why you shouldn't say that. I'm trying to bait russians monitoring these threads to report up the chain that they are being mocked for not having enough 120mm shells, not 152)
(idk how viable this is but clearly they are here and they do try to get info out of us, so I intentionally tweak all info I post to be ever so slightly wrong)
ahem, anyway, yes Russia's current problem is lack of 120mm shell production as I was saying, it's pretty embarrassing that they need to rely on T-55s as pseudo-artillery when they have so many guns that are able to accommodate 120mm rounds currently standing empty.
Wouldn't the limited gun elevation give them piss poor accuracy? They would basically always have to fire in really shallow trajectories near max range, no?
I guess you could drive them onto a slope of dirt to increase the angle of the gun but that limits your ability to shoot and scoot.
>Wouldn't the limited gun elevation give them piss poor accuracy?
yes, but it's not like they had good accuracy before this when they were using actual proper artillery pieces
Yes without high elevation and variable charge tank guns are only limited for low angle fire with high velocity. That means:
1. High range dispersion (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
2. High barrel wear (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
>1. High range dispersion (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer) >2. High barrel wear (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
Si they'll ne firing 16 to 36 times more shells to get the same result as artillery guns while needing to replace the tank guns twice as fast.
Damn, that's going to burn through their stockpile of tanks quickly.
>Wouldn't the limited gun elevation give them piss poor accuracy?
yes, but it's not like they had good accuracy before this when they were using actual proper artillery pieces
Yes without high elevation and variable charge tank guns are only limited for low angle fire with high velocity. That means:
1. High range dispersion (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
2. High barrel wear (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
Once again westoids underestimate the Russian resourcefulness.
I don't get it. The BS-3 field gun, which Russia still has in storage because they never threw anything away, uses the same 100 x 695 mmR ammo as the T-54/55's D-10 tank gun. If you need extra pieces of artillery then just use the piece built for it rather shoving a 70 year old tank with limited elevation into the job.
>why the frick did they develop a complete new round just for antitank guns?
because the anti-tank gun was an entirely new gun
the M-12 was a smoothbore 100mm gun developed to replace the aging B-3 100mm rifled gun that they had been using since WW2
the original BA-3 AT gun did share ammo with the T-55s 100mm gun, since they shared the same lineage
but the T-13 would lose compatibility due to the move to smoothbore
the T-62 was developed independently of the T-13 so it was equipped with a different gun entirely, the 115mm smoothbore
eventually, the T-62 didnt 100% replace the T-55 in service but it needed a quick fix
so they developed APFSDS with driving bands to allow it to be fired from the 100mm gun because this was easier than re-fitting all of the T-55s with new smoothbore guns, an enormous expense for vehicles that were already at the end of their useful lifespan
1 year ago
Anonymous
but why not give your new anti tank gun the same calibre as your new tank? the guns were developed just 3 years apart. but i guess in the early cold war just shitting out equipment was the prority
1 year ago
Anonymous
the probably originally planned to, but they ended up enlarging the T-13 gun to 115mm for the T-62
USSR procurement isnt any better than the US version, so you end up with a 100mm gun and a 115mm gun that each use meme-ammo unique to them
presumably, the T-62 designers were better informed of the state of western armor so future-proofed the gun
but nobody told the T-13 designers about this and delivered their gun
but thats just my speculation
1 year ago
Anonymous
>why the frick did they develop a complete new round just for antitank guns?
because the anti-tank gun was an entirely new gun
the M-12 was a smoothbore 100mm gun developed to replace the aging B-3 100mm rifled gun that they had been using since WW2
the original BA-3 AT gun did share ammo with the T-55s 100mm gun, since they shared the same lineage
but the T-13 would lose compatibility due to the move to smoothbore
the T-62 was developed independently of the T-13 so it was equipped with a different gun entirely, the 115mm smoothbore
eventually, the T-62 didnt 100% replace the T-55 in service but it needed a quick fix
so they developed APFSDS with driving bands to allow it to be fired from the 100mm gun because this was easier than re-fitting all of the T-55s with new smoothbore guns, an enormous expense for vehicles that were already at the end of their useful lifespan
T-62 115mm gun is just a T-55 gun with the rifling removed, at first at least.
If you can make a ramp you could also just dig an emplacement to park a proper field gun that gives the crew a decent amount of shelter.
Using stupid ramps so you can use ancient tanks as an artillery pieces is stupid. Period.
Take a fraction of a second to think about it before calling someone a moron, moron. These tanks haven't ran for decades. They aren't going to be reliable. You aren't going to be able to cruise them around like an SPG. And every position you use them from is going to need to be prepared that is easy to spot with a drone.
If you have a field gun that you could just tow behind a KamAZ/Ural army truck you should just use it instead. It makes FAR more sense from a crew/equipment/support/logistics standpoint and you don't have to use a fricking ramp.
I feel the bigger issue is trying to move and maintain tanks.
Tanks are an MX logistics and fuel nightmare unless they are ripping off the turrets and sticking them on trucks/apcs
>This is their solution, as dumb as it is to use tank barrels for a job they're really not designed for.
they were literally designed for this though. all of these shitty old tanks, on all sides, have features that enable you to use them as indirect artillery. read a book
Not really if firing HE and HEAT.
Extra super wear (200-300 rounds barrel life) is from notorious soviet sabots with full bore size fins. Like BM-9. They use fins as second point of contact to the barrel and those fins literally plow the barrel surface.
>It was literally made to counter Panter tonk.
T-54 rolled off the assembly line in 1947, several years after the last panther saw combat
it was not really meant to fight any specific enemy vehicle, just be a total replacement for the T-34 using lessons learned from the development of the T-43 and T-44
starting with attempts to enlarge the T-44 turret ring to hold the 100mm gun
they decided it would be used to fight post-war western tanks, but they actually had zero idea what their capabilities would be
This guy has no way to tell what's going on inside Pucciya because he's just a stramer homosexual from Australia with no academic or military credentials and no access to real intel.
This isn't even Perun you gigantic homosexual, you just saw a vaguely PowerPoint-looking screenshot and rattled of the usual vatnik buzzword responses.
>If you have no academic or military credentials and access to intel then the answer to 2+2 will remain shrouded in mystery.
Jesus christ you dont have to defer to an "expert" on every little thing if you arent a braindead Black person.
Given how he won't talk about anything with Australia (beyond emutopia thought experiments), and how he occasionally mentions industry scuttlebutt, or how "x makes y want to kill themselves", I was assuming he works in procurement in some capacity.
They have limited ammo for 122, 152 and the barrels went smoothbore after overusing them.
100mm is better than nothing but it's only good for direct fire. All T tanks (except for the T-64 and not UD T-80) have the "same" engine.
The only ammo Iran and NK were willing to give Russia were there old stockpiles of 100mm shells so they have a glut of them and the age of counter battery is now in full swing so they need to move the artillery after firing and need the trucks for logistics so they dragged the 54/55s out of museums as the best case solution for both issues.
Hey, they're getting a pretty sweet deal.
During the great mobilization of 2022, there were reports that some artillerymen were given AKs and orders to man the trenches when nobody could find their artillery pieces.
I have never replied to one of these moronic MOTHER WILL DIE IN HER SLEEP posts
My mother has never died in her sleep
stop being a slave to superstition.
[...] >we don't have any manufacturing capacity.
i am a machinist in North America
I literally do nothing but make stuff out of metal and keep up with the news on other things being made out of metal
this war is the best thing that's happened for manufacturing in a while. Jobs everywhere, trickle-down effect everywhere (certain shops get the govt contracts to make shells, therefore have to delegate their former work to another shop, who then has to delegate their former work to another... etc)
what a moronic conclusion
the US has nearly 13 million people working manufacturing, compared to Germany's 5.4 million or France's 2.6 million, and our productivity per worker is insanely high vs. Asian serf sweatshops, there is no point even arguing with him when he is clueless and homosexual
I mean, honestly why not use it as artillery if you have it just sitting around. Although resorting to such very much indicates a supply problem for real artillery and SPGs.
Tank guns are designed for high velocity use. As in like the old cowboy movie, the tank that knocks out the other first, wins the tank battle. High velocity guns are not designed for a high rate of fire like artillery pieces. So after about 250 rounds these tank guns will be kaput.
RF is so bad at modern warfare, they should have their nation card revoked.
Perfectly fine in its secondary or tertiary role as self propelled artillery of the "good enough" sort, these obsolete tanks don't require any of the equipment necessary to survive the modern battlefield, because they're racing around in friendly territory, answering the call for fire missions as needed, then suddenly racing away from their last firing positions before an enemy counter artillery barrage can respond.
Lmao thats just a cope to save face. Give it a month and we'll be seeing footage of those rusted coffins being blown up by mines while front charging some Ukie position. No way moronic Russians commanders will use it as self-propelled artillery when they are already desperate for any form of modern vehicle supporting their suicidal attacks.
Well, I'm not saying that it's exactly working out ideally for the Puccians, or that those old T-5xs won't get blyact'd while serving as artillery or in some other role, and ofc they're going to get desperate and pull them from artie duty for zerg rushes (sans air support or proper infantry screening).
They must be having some sort of payment issue or behind the scenes drama with North Korea, they should be able to supply Russia with all the shells they need (DPRK has the worlds largest artillery force after all) but so far we haven't seen a single confirmed report of North Korean shells showing up.
North korean workers are used all over the globe as cheap labor, don't want to be sanctioned suddenly. We let north korea do their flexing and they know it and all is good.
I know that but i seriously doubt the nations they provide labor to will obey a unilateral US sanctions request.
"Oh no the USA demanded that North Korean forestry workers in Russia be thrown out of Russia for supplying Russia with shells, sorry but you have to go home guys"
Because they have ammo. But of course, using tank guns for indirect fire is really fricking shitty. The US actually did it in Korea with Shermans once we trashed North Korea's tiny tank fleet. Tank barrels aren't designed for the shell counts an artillery barrel is and gun elevation is an issue as well especially on Russian tanks.
Old tanks make for half decent frontline artillery. This is unironically a better use for them than as a spearhead. Ukraine does the same thing because its effective
using oldsmobiles from the mothball tank park as what amounts to turreted assault guns is an entirely sane thing to do, though using assault guns for indirect fire is about the least good thing to do with them; beside raw necessity, a good cope is that this is a means to drill artillerists into ersatz tankmen, some time after which you can stick a proper commander in with the crew, ERA the shit out of the hull with a nu-eyebrow armor package for the turret, and then use them as a counterpoint to enemy IFVs to hopefully leave more modern tanks free for killing other tanks
while the shells are no doubt dogshit versus any modern armor and still sketchy versus the west bloc equivalents like the Leopard 1 getting shipped to the Ukies, the D-10T's missile packages are actually serviceable, aren't they? 850mm pen at 6k meters on the Boltok? if utilized as what amounts to an angrier BMP with actual armor and they don't catch some of the better NATO feed ATGMs, it's feasible they could do work
they could also just as well ditch themselves like morons Israeli Merkava style or get held in reserve as pure artillery indefinitely, which is probably a waste
Come to think, replying to myself like a moron; why the frick aren't they reactivating actual SU-100 assault guns for this counterbattery-resistant indirect fire purpose? It's even got an extra 3 degrees of gun elevation. How many of those are a derust & primer spray away from using up all that otherwise useless 100mm stock, instead of wasting potentially upgradable second or third line tanks which MIGHT serve with some external add-on armor and maybe a bolt-in spall liner+textolite spacer, whereas the SU-100 just doesn't have the baseline armor thickness or modernization potential to cut it under direct enemy fire on the offensive? Did the ruskies scrap all of those that didn't end up going to Asia or the Middle East?
Anon someone can correct me but it is my general understanding they did manage to by and large scrap/eliminate WW2-era weapons, don't expect stuff older than the 50s-60s showing up in numbers
IIRC, a lot of their artillery pieces were at the end of their service life and needed maintenance all at once. At least that was the speculation from a YouTuber a few months ago when people were wondering why T-55s were being sent to the front.
>Is there a particular reason why Russians use ancient tanks as artillery
Probably because it's a smarter idea then using those ancient tanks as actual tanks. Using tanks as artillery isn't something new. The US did the very same in Korea and Vietnam, makes more sense now especially if it's a old out dated tank like the T-55/54. If Russia's "modern" tanks can get knocked out pretty easily from most anti-tank weapons then it would be a complete waste of resources to actually use the older tanks in a tank role. Also Russia probably has a huge stockpile of 100mm shells and 100mm HE is still very effective.
100mm HE was a great anti-infanty/fort gun back in the 50s, but its greatly outclassed even in the infantry support role
F-412 has a 2kg HE payload
the 120mm HEAT isnt even designed for soft targets and carries a 2.5kg HE payload and can be programmed for delayed burst for hitting through walls or over cover
and dedicated demolition rounds like 105mm HESH has 4kg of explosive filler
and the 100mm gun itself is not stabilized, has no thermal sight, and has no fire-control system
this means it will have to drive suicidally close to targets to be able to make them out against background clutter
and it cant do long-range indirect fire very well due to having crap elevation and inaccuracy
only the modernied T-55As and T-55AMs would be able to do more than ineffectually make craters, and those were all made by PACT countries that got second-priority on T-72s
>and the 100mm gun itself is not stabilized, has no thermal sight, and has no fire-control system >this means it will have to drive suicidally close to targets to be able to make them out against background clutter >and it cant do long-range indirect fire very well due to having crap elevation and inaccuracy
T-55 has a gunners quadrant so it can be used just fine for indirect fire. It was designed with this in mind based on experiences from world war 2. Its just that it doesnt have much of an elevation so maximum range is like 11-12 km. If you park it on the rear side of a hill it can go further since the ground is sloping.
Yeah man, you really need thermals on stuff you're using as artillery in the rear. And that stabilizer. What are they going to do without that? Pheeeeew!
But you're not doing that.
You're getting beating by Ukraine using NATO's hand-me-downs.
Literally nobody has compromised their own defense to supply Ukraine, and you can't even beat THEM.
Also, every week you deny it adds another year to the time that Russians won't be able to live this down.
>This war is very good for the NATO economy
So its good for theRussian economy as well then, is that what you are saying? No? I though that Russia was going to cripple the EU with its gas sales? No? You pointless gibbering vatBlack person monkeyspastic brainlet.
Sure, as long as Russia isn't sending it's young men—that their economy expects to rely on as a generator of productivity, consumption, and wealth—to die or be mutilated en-mass or anything like that.
Also as long as millions of young Russian men (and women) don't flee to the EU, central asia, and south east asia with 0 (zero) interest in ever returning.
>and the NATO hand-me-downs are a result of Ukraine losing its original military.
Ukraine actually preserved its MBTs and vehicles quite well relative to Russia, what are morons like you doing to do when there is no Russian military left for you to lie about winning? Ah frick let's face it, most of the board just wants to see you glavset fricks conscripted/mobilised and dying in a wemb. The biggest single doner of tanks to Ukraine is Russia, which abandoned so many and had so many captured by Ukraine. I do hope you are going to die for your Putin bullshit and are not hiding somewhere in a nation you are betraying. It really is time the vast majority f Russian diplomats and students were expelled form the EU and USA. How do you feel about that?
there should be an IQ minimum to discuss economics but as fun as an argument with a literal moron over demonstrable and easily searchable facts to the contrary, perhaps you would have more fun doing it on
>we don't have any manufacturing capacity.
i am a machinist in North America
I literally do nothing but make stuff out of metal and keep up with the news on other things being made out of metal
this war is the best thing that's happened for manufacturing in a while. Jobs everywhere, trickle-down effect everywhere (certain shops get the govt contracts to make shells, therefore have to delegate their former work to another shop, who then has to delegate their former work to another... etc)
They move faster than conventional artillery
They have ammo surplus to spend
They offer more protection than any SPG currently in service
Their wearout clears space for newer machines in stock
And, last, but not least, it kills.
[...]
Do you think you are the only country with manufacturing capacity, moron?
This war is very good for the NATO economy
[...]
[...]
there should be an IQ minimum to discuss economics but as fun as an argument with a literal moron over demonstrable and easily searchable facts to the contrary, perhaps you would have more fun doing it on [...] or [...] where that kind of discussion belongs
muh ebil kapitalist war mongers muh tankie angst muh putin
Samegay vatBlack person probably groomed leftwinger quisling posts
You see, for euro rightwingers, there is no difference between russians and communists, mostly because of old XXth century biases and narratives.
And I thought that trots vs stalinist debaters were morons.
You see, for euro rightwingers, there is no difference between russians and communists, mostly because of old XXth century biases and narratives.
And I thought that trots vs stalinist debaters were morons.
>Tracing a walk cycle from a literal nazi catboy for vatnik propaganda
Aside from the palpable irony you can apply schrodinger's dilemma to the current state of Russian shell ammunition
This thread was brought to you by c**ty lefty vatBlack person lovers replying to themselves. AKA quisling tratorrats
I'm curious, what do you guys think would happen if a bunch of Western Ztards like these got the Dugina/Tatarsky treatment? Ukraine would obviously deny it regardless of whether it was them or just a pissed off member of the diaspora acting alone. Would it cause an actual diplomatic issue for Ukraine or would nobody give a shit?
Spics were all working for the Russkies in the Cold War, it was the only way their spy asses could get any work here. Their home countries didnt want them because they were all going to creepy pedo commie training camps in the jungle.
>NATO disarming itself
Lmao. It's doing the opposite. Now core NATO members are actually investing in their defense instead of letting the US foot the bill. The US is getting rid of it's old junk while the Russians are fighting and dying with their old junk. It's as win-lose as it gets for NATO, and they didn't even have to fight. >I'm American, we have no manufacturing base
It's better to be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt
So not only do they run a whole lot of ex Russian tanks, but they are being supplied with leftover Western tanks that are at a higher level of superiority than the Warsaw Pact era moving targets the Russian are fielding.
Hello. I can explain this. You probably won't read my post. It might have already been explained. But the reason is this.
Russian (and to a lesser extent, Ukrainian) artillery has become too worn and low on ammo to do sustained barrages. That's literally it. Tanks are being used as SPG's because they have the ammo and have the 'barrels' to do it. However many tanks are having their barrels worn and some areas are resorting to using ATGM as artillery.
That's it. That's why they're doing it. I don't know the repair rate of the barrels of actual artillery pieces, of make-shift tanks and so on, but they're not super quick. That is why it is just easier to get a T-54/55 out of storage and send it on its way.
>imagine being dumb enough to ramp up war-time manufacturing after you've been in a war for a year.
Yeah, how silly of them to plan ahead.
Real men like Vikram Vladimovitch don't do that : they improvise !
Cue T-54 as SPA
>Could someone give us a rundown on how a tank is used differently than an assault gun
stug IIIs were under the jurisdiction of artillery and handed out to support infantry
panzer IVs and panthers were concentrated in panzer divisions and fought alongside half-tracked infantry (in theory, shortages meant they fought on foot in practice)
the US didnt have as many dedicated assault guns but used the M4 sherman in the assault gun role
so M4 shermans intended for regular tank duty would be concentrated in armored divisions, fighting alongside half-track infantry
M4 shermans intended for infantry support for assigned to smaller separate tank battalions that could be split up among infantry divisions
M8 scotts and M4 105mm variants were also in separate tank battalions to be parceled out as needed
obviously, a tank can be used as an assault gun an vice-versa as seen with the M4
but in terms of role, tanks are for breakthrough and calvary action while assault guns are for infantry support
so a vehicle intended for maneuver wants more general-purpose guns and a turret, while an assault gun wants anti-fort or anti-infantry guns
Its their tactic since the cold war, they use the tanks to pummel cities into surrendering so that they dont have to send their infantry in to fight NATO and its superior Urban Warfare Tactics. The Russian Federation hasnt really modernized much since its cold war Soviet days and its really just afraid of the type of warfare that is going on in Bakhmut.
They have stockpiles of ammo laying around for the guns.
I say let them do it. The extra logistical strain on them is going to be significant. These fricking things need far more fuel and maintenance time than a towed piece or a truck with a grad launcher. They should be stripping them of literally all armor plating they can before sending them up if they really want to use these as SPG's and not desperately filling the gaps in the line where they've lost more modern armored assets.
the liberal fascists who are at the top of both russia and the west are working together. they're on the same side. they're playing a game of good cop and bad cop but ultimately they want the same thing. global domination, global enslavement and the destruction of everything that we love. they will use any means necessary to put their secret world order plan into motion. that's why they're pushing this Ukraine war so heavily. they want to increase their power. they're playing two sides against each other to cause maximum turmoil, death and destruction so they can use that as an excuse to clamp down even harder on us.
the russia-ukraine war is just a way to increase american military funding and give the pentagon an excuse to increase its military power. they're using the war to spread american "freedom" and "democracy" around the world. but really what they're spreading is totalitarianism and tyranny, which will eventually give rise to a single world government and a single world religion. the elites are using this all as a way to increase their global control. putin and biden are both part of the same club.
it's not an overnight process. they're taking things slowly because they have to ease the public into it if they want to prevent people from waking up to the truth and revolting (like what's happening in Iran right now). they have to be very careful when rolling out these new world order plans because if they move too fast they will wake up the public. they have to wait until everyone is sufficiently brainwashed and controlled before they can fully roll out their plan for global control of the entire planet and the complete enslavement of all of us.
1 year ago
Anonymous
your right, its not overnight. still, bidens defense plan was shorter than lawmakers anticipated, and increasing a military budget on the doorstep of defaulting the entire country seems like a baffling poor plan to increase military spending
so far its, biden and putin, are working together, to collapse eachothers economies, ruin their budgets, losing them billions.
to raise the defense budget of america?
1 year ago
Anonymous
your right, its not overnight. still, bidens defense plan was shorter than lawmakers anticipated, and increasing a military budget on the doorstep of defaulting the entire country seems like a baffling poor plan to increase military spending
so far its, biden and putin, are working together, to collapse eachothers economies, ruin their budgets, losing them billions.
Because they weren't prepared at all for a real modern war. They're likely going to learn from every mistake they've been making and build a capable military after learning from their failures.
Imagine the mountains of wealth and human labor time wasted on keeping these cargo cult communists in check out in Siberia and Coofistan rather than acting on 1960s viable Moon Base plans and beyond. That's what's at stake here: geopolitics is shifting to exopolitics, and the leader of the free world can't be looking over its shoulder while we go to space and walk among the stars. This is getting wrapped up in a big expedited way, and we are moving on to bigger and better things before the century is out. Let freedom ring.
>Is there a particular reason why Russians use ancient tanks as artillery?
-They've run low or out of stockpiled 152 and 122mm shells; they still have a supply, but they must now be more picky about who gets them, hence a gradual shift over to things not using the 152 and 122 shells has been going on ever since late last year.
-Ukraine has both gotten very good at shooting and scooting with their towed guns even, and switched to using smaller mortars for general fire-support due to Russia's reliance on "frick that grid square" counterbattery.
-Russia's general reliance on "frick that grid square" amounts of artillery for basically everything has also incentivized the Ukrainians getting good at, focusing on, and saving the real artillery systems for quick counter-battery fire in return, followed by getting out of dodge before Russia can respond.
-Theoretically this wouldn't be a problem since Russia *had* focused a lot on mobile artillery- but they've lost many SPGs, and so now have a similar problem to the one with ammo, in that they needed to be picky about where to deploy units. This along with ammo bottlenecks made them more reliant on towed guns, and their crews are not nearly as well trained at quickly setting up, firing and then packing up.
-While the logistics side of things are better in the sense that they are no longer storing everything in giant stockpiles (at the front, at least), it's still fricking dogshit because they have a shortage of trucks and cannot into palletized storage. At least a T-54/55 can carry it's own ammo/
My question is how the frick does this even work, on the level of using the things in indirect fire. Do they Black person rig Azimuth and Incline indicators or have they always had them like the M-51 SuperShermans?
Even if they do, how the frick do they handle coordination between the crews in the tanks, the spotters, and the target? It's not like these have GPS / GlonASS built in to work off of?
self propelled
As I understand it, the issue is ammo size
They have a lot of 100mm shells, but their artillery is generally sized for 120
They have next to no 120mm shells left, but do have a lot of old-school tanks with 100 barrels
This is their solution, as dumb as it is to use tank barrels for a job they're really not designed for.
I think Iran is supplying them with 100mm, so they use those tanks to fire them.
not to mention the stress on the barrels of the artillery they have been using
because it's better than nothing at all.
same reason ukes do it (maybe not as ubiquitously)
albeit that's a pretty brief reprieve considering how long tank barrels last
mainly meaning on towed guns no telling the quality of the t55 cannons they are pulling in from Siberia
What this anon is saying. It's an ammo and barrel wear issue.
Aren't they generally using 152mm? I guess 120mm for large mortars?
This is my understanding too. Nothing wrong with innovation. It's just embarrassing in the context of Russia pushing out a decade plus of "Russia stronk, it could go head to head with all NATO," propaganda.You use what you have.
Since old tanks are going to be extremely vulnerable being used as tanks, this doesn't seem like a terrible use if you are low on artillery and low on appropriate shells.
With the proliferation of drones, especially autonomous search drones that don't require constant interaction, I think we will see engagement distances go up significantly over time. Advances might now be covered by a drone screen.
This being the case, I imagine tanks use a lot more indirect fire, another data point in favor of bigger guns, which seems to be coming down the pipeline.
The problem is simply that these are not going to be good sources of indirect fire or accurate. Combine the tool being wrong with a lack of training, plus Russian coms, and I can see friendly fire incidents a plenty. Maybe it works if you're just lobbing shells at a fixed line of contact to suppress it, but they'll be sitting ducks against an advance and offer little real fire support on moving targets. Obviously their production is shit, because they'd be better served by mass produced field guns.
>120mm
He probably meant 122mm
Future MBTs will be big armored vehicles with their own interceptor systems, drone charging abilities, EFP active protection, and essentially artillery guns. You add together drone spotting and the ability to push out loitering munitions via the main gun and a ton of fighting will be beyond visual range.
But then you still need a tank for urban ops. Maybe two models? Or maybe a quick to swap out systems change?
>But then you still need a tank for urban ops
do you really?
(gentlemen with all due respect please be quiet, you're exactly right but that's why you shouldn't say that. I'm trying to bait russians monitoring these threads to report up the chain that they are being mocked for not having enough 120mm shells, not 152)
(idk how viable this is but clearly they are here and they do try to get info out of us, so I intentionally tweak all info I post to be ever so slightly wrong)
ahem, anyway, yes Russia's current problem is lack of 120mm shell production as I was saying, it's pretty embarrassing that they need to rely on T-55s as pseudo-artillery when they have so many guns that are able to accommodate 120mm rounds currently standing empty.
>They have next to no 120mm shells left
two more weeks.
For every 2 weeks that go by russia gets more and more pathetic
Russia has 120mm shell production, even if they've run their stocks dry, but more shells always > less shells
Wtf is this, im pretty sure the only 120mm weapons russia has are mortars
Their modern mbts all use 125mm, their artillery is mainly 152mm, with some older 122mm models
But yes theyre using 100mm as artiller because of shell shortage
Wouldn't the limited gun elevation give them piss poor accuracy? They would basically always have to fire in really shallow trajectories near max range, no?
I guess you could drive them onto a slope of dirt to increase the angle of the gun but that limits your ability to shoot and scoot.
>Wouldn't the limited gun elevation give them piss poor accuracy?
yes, but it's not like they had good accuracy before this when they were using actual proper artillery pieces
Wow. They sure showed those potatoes who's boss.
Yes without high elevation and variable charge tank guns are only limited for low angle fire with high velocity. That means:
1. High range dispersion (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
2. High barrel wear (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
>1. High range dispersion (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
>2. High barrel wear (about 2-3 times larger then howitzer)
Si they'll ne firing 16 to 36 times more shells to get the same result as artillery guns while needing to replace the tank guns twice as fast.
Damn, that's going to burn through their stockpile of tanks quickly.
Once again westoids underestimate the Russian resourcefulness.
you forgot the part where the tank rolls off the side of the ramp and flips upside down
Once again you fail to understand.
What you call "rolling of the side of the ramp" is a tactical maneuver to avoid drone drops.
>builds a wider ramp
Yea it works in a pinch, but it's terrible for rapid mobility which is a lot more important these days.
I don't get it. The BS-3 field gun, which Russia still has in storage because they never threw anything away, uses the same 100 x 695 mmR ammo as the T-54/55's D-10 tank gun. If you need extra pieces of artillery then just use the piece built for it rather shoving a 70 year old tank with limited elevation into the job.
This. Or use mt-12 like the ukies they also come with a indirect fire optic
MT-12 Rapira is a smoothbore that uses 100 x 910 mmR. The T-55 ammo no worky.
oh shit you always learn something new. why the frick did they develop a complete new round just for antitank guns?
>why the frick did they develop a complete new round just for antitank guns?
because the anti-tank gun was an entirely new gun
the M-12 was a smoothbore 100mm gun developed to replace the aging B-3 100mm rifled gun that they had been using since WW2
the original BA-3 AT gun did share ammo with the T-55s 100mm gun, since they shared the same lineage
but the T-13 would lose compatibility due to the move to smoothbore
the T-62 was developed independently of the T-13 so it was equipped with a different gun entirely, the 115mm smoothbore
eventually, the T-62 didnt 100% replace the T-55 in service but it needed a quick fix
so they developed APFSDS with driving bands to allow it to be fired from the 100mm gun because this was easier than re-fitting all of the T-55s with new smoothbore guns, an enormous expense for vehicles that were already at the end of their useful lifespan
but why not give your new anti tank gun the same calibre as your new tank? the guns were developed just 3 years apart. but i guess in the early cold war just shitting out equipment was the prority
the probably originally planned to, but they ended up enlarging the T-13 gun to 115mm for the T-62
USSR procurement isnt any better than the US version, so you end up with a 100mm gun and a 115mm gun that each use meme-ammo unique to them
presumably, the T-62 designers were better informed of the state of western armor so future-proofed the gun
but nobody told the T-13 designers about this and delivered their gun
but thats just my speculation
T-62 115mm gun is just a T-55 gun with the rifling removed, at first at least.
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/search?q=T-62#cannon
>limited elevation
use ramps or park on a hill. moron.
If you can make a ramp you could also just dig an emplacement to park a proper field gun that gives the crew a decent amount of shelter.
Using stupid ramps so you can use ancient tanks as an artillery pieces is stupid. Period.
Take a fraction of a second to think about it before calling someone a moron, moron. These tanks haven't ran for decades. They aren't going to be reliable. You aren't going to be able to cruise them around like an SPG. And every position you use them from is going to need to be prepared that is easy to spot with a drone.
If you have a field gun that you could just tow behind a KamAZ/Ural army truck you should just use it instead. It makes FAR more sense from a crew/equipment/support/logistics standpoint and you don't have to use a fricking ramp.
so its not good for stuff its not going to be used for, and it would be easier to just get...more trucks, then some dirt in a warzone. got it.
I feel the bigger issue is trying to move and maintain tanks.
Tanks are an MX logistics and fuel nightmare unless they are ripping off the turrets and sticking them on trucks/apcs
First gen t-54 turrets ended up as defence line against china
>This is their solution, as dumb as it is to use tank barrels for a job they're really not designed for.
they were literally designed for this though. all of these shitty old tanks, on all sides, have features that enable you to use them as indirect artillery. read a book
Compare artillery barrel and tank barrel wearing rates and be prepared to blow your mind
Tanks are designed for infantry support to shoot emplacements tho unless ur Germany 80 years ago
Yes, but Russian (Soviet) tank barrels are infamous for their rather short effective functional lifespan
Not really if firing HE and HEAT.
Extra super wear (200-300 rounds barrel life) is from notorious soviet sabots with full bore size fins. Like BM-9. They use fins as second point of contact to the barrel and those fins literally plow the barrel surface.
luckily, Russian tanks and tank crews are also infamous for their rather short effective functional lifespan, so that won't be an issue.
Nah, tanks are designed first to fight enemy tanks since 1942 by all countries. T-54 is no exception. It was literally made to counter Panter tonk.
>It was literally made to counter Panter tonk.
T-54 rolled off the assembly line in 1947, several years after the last panther saw combat
it was not really meant to fight any specific enemy vehicle, just be a total replacement for the T-34 using lessons learned from the development of the T-43 and T-44
starting with attempts to enlarge the T-44 turret ring to hold the 100mm gun
they decided it would be used to fight post-war western tanks, but they actually had zero idea what their capabilities would be
That and worn out barrels and parts on their real artillery pieces.
I mean if true then that's a fairly reasonable answer
>Source: Perun's ass
This guy has no way to tell what's going on inside Pucciya because he's just a stramer homosexual from Australia with no academic or military credentials and no access to real intel.
This isn't even Perun you gigantic homosexual, you just saw a vaguely PowerPoint-looking screenshot and rattled of the usual vatnik buzzword responses.
>If you have no academic or military credentials and access to intel then the answer to 2+2 will remain shrouded in mystery.
Jesus christ you dont have to defer to an "expert" on every little thing if you arent a braindead Black person.
>tfw vatniks marvel at concepts like "Basic deduction" and denounce them as witchcraft.
>no academic credentials
Doesn't he have some sort of military procurment engineer/logistics degree?
Given how he won't talk about anything with Australia (beyond emutopia thought experiments), and how he occasionally mentions industry scuttlebutt, or how "x makes y want to kill themselves", I was assuming he works in procurement in some capacity.
>intimate knowledge of what makes people wanna kill themselves
>must be in procurement
so when Ukraine inevitably domes them, do they count as +1/+1 SPG and Tank both?
SPG for the lulz of it. I think it would be funnier. Almost insulting.
They have limited ammo for 122, 152 and the barrels went smoothbore after overusing them.
100mm is better than nothing but it's only good for direct fire. All T tanks (except for the T-64 and not UD T-80) have the "same" engine.
The only ammo Iran and NK were willing to give Russia were there old stockpiles of 100mm shells so they have a glut of them and the age of counter battery is now in full swing so they need to move the artillery after firing and need the trucks for logistics so they dragged the 54/55s out of museums as the best case solution for both issues.
>3 crew men in a 4-man tank
>taking your artillerists, training them a week, then stuffing them to a fricking T54B
Hey, they're getting a pretty sweet deal.
During the great mobilization of 2022, there were reports that some artillerymen were given AKs and orders to man the trenches when nobody could find their artillery pieces.
Debunked!
you are all so desperate to emulate testical torsion mari
frick you anon
I have never replied to one of these moronic MOTHER WILL DIE IN HER SLEEP posts
My mother has never died in her sleep
stop being a slave to superstition.
bls no
I hate you.
wiener gobbler
O
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
butt
Thanks for reminding me
bastard
sauce?
immunity dog saves everyone no saving required
Bless you immunity dog
Thanks immunity dog
Anon please, I'm planning on fricking my wife tonight and she's a sadist.
You Black folk
Dudes
bro
FRICKING RUSSIANS
FRICKING HOHOLS
You won't get me three times in a row
you bastard
Frick you
I want to frick that Ukraine 2d b***h so had she cries for the russians to invade her back
Why do you trick me bros
homosexual.
Jokes on you, I don't have testicles anymore.
frick you
motherfricker
frick
Black person homosexual
I didn't reply to the other one but I just can't risk this time
Frick you mate
Aaaaaah
Heck
b***h ass Black person
Bloody b***h bastard
>:(
reply
mommy
Dickface
Rude.
How do you idiots not know Danger Dog? Now you do.
Good boy, Danger Dog.
The only good pitnig in the world, good boy.
Mashallah salvation has come in the form of acanine.
monk
I fricking hate you
lalala
you are both awful people
the US has nearly 13 million people working manufacturing, compared to Germany's 5.4 million or France's 2.6 million, and our productivity per worker is insanely high vs. Asian serf sweatshops, there is no point even arguing with him when he is clueless and homosexual
PINGAS
C U N T
TZD
TZD
TZD
twat
ALL ZIGGERS MUST HANG
Frick
gay
Too late4d0an
I'm going to facefrick you
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZIGERS
All Russians must hang
frick
Die
i hate both sides equally
FRICK (YOU)
About 10 years too late
Here's your (you)
fug
(You)
kys
Damn Asians
die
Ahh fricking Vatniks
Ahh fricking Hohols
Frick u
VEH
Damn
Die
Typical vatnik
Fake news.
Black person
I knew what this post was
I knew
And I still fricking opened it
Why am I so moronic
Slava Ukraini
homosexuals
(you)
Fricker
b***h post with wholesome replies
You fools! I am protected!
How does that guy see what's infront?
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaBASTARDO SEE YOU IN HELL MISTER b***h
SUN OF BEACH
Frick you
Not chancing that shit. Frick you.
Ahem.
Can Bakhmut cat work as immunity cat?
Ok
The Game
frick off
don't wish that on me anon!
I hope you get featured in a drone drop video
You c**t
Ok
Frick you
Frickin Black person
Black person homosexual
Frick you
I knew it still I clicked on it
But why
This has to have accounted for 1/5th of this threads replies.
homosexual
Zigger
frick you
U
buttholeS! I DON'T WANT TESTIULAR TORSION BUT I DO WANT MY MOTHER DEAD!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
gay
F
kys Black person
FRICK YOU
Frick you
You're a Black person.
You too.
Sigh
(you)
blyatski
frick you moron
I mean, honestly why not use it as artillery if you have it just sitting around. Although resorting to such very much indicates a supply problem for real artillery and SPGs.
Tank guns are designed for high velocity use. As in like the old cowboy movie, the tank that knocks out the other first, wins the tank battle. High velocity guns are not designed for a high rate of fire like artillery pieces. So after about 250 rounds these tank guns will be kaput.
RF is so bad at modern warfare, they should have their nation card revoked.
Ammo
They are low on 122 and 152m
T-52s use different standard than SPGs and newer tanks
Perfectly fine in its secondary or tertiary role as self propelled artillery of the "good enough" sort, these obsolete tanks don't require any of the equipment necessary to survive the modern battlefield, because they're racing around in friendly territory, answering the call for fire missions as needed, then suddenly racing away from their last firing positions before an enemy counter artillery barrage can respond.
Lmao thats just a cope to save face. Give it a month and we'll be seeing footage of those rusted coffins being blown up by mines while front charging some Ukie position. No way moronic Russians commanders will use it as self-propelled artillery when they are already desperate for any form of modern vehicle supporting their suicidal attacks.
I meant armored not modern. Frick me
Well, I'm not saying that it's exactly working out ideally for the Puccians, or that those old T-5xs won't get blyact'd while serving as artillery or in some other role, and ofc they're going to get desperate and pull them from artie duty for zerg rushes (sans air support or proper infantry screening).
>Lmao thats just a cope to save face.
Ukraine has used old tanks as self-propelled artillery too. I saw that mentioned in a RUSI report.
They must be having some sort of payment issue or behind the scenes drama with North Korea, they should be able to supply Russia with all the shells they need (DPRK has the worlds largest artillery force after all) but so far we haven't seen a single confirmed report of North Korean shells showing up.
North korean workers are used all over the globe as cheap labor, don't want to be sanctioned suddenly. We let north korea do their flexing and they know it and all is good.
Exactly what sanctions could be put in place that aren't already there?
Exactly what he just said, prevent North Korean workers from going to other countries. It's a very big thing in China actually.
I know that but i seriously doubt the nations they provide labor to will obey a unilateral US sanctions request.
"Oh no the USA demanded that North Korean forestry workers in Russia be thrown out of Russia for supplying Russia with shells, sorry but you have to go home guys"
China doesn't seem to want Russia to win.
they don't exactly get anything for helping them
in the meanwhile cheap oil and gas
Strategically they don't, a Russian collapse would allow them to send 'peacekeepers' into the the Russian far east.
Because they have ammo. But of course, using tank guns for indirect fire is really fricking shitty. The US actually did it in Korea with Shermans once we trashed North Korea's tiny tank fleet. Tank barrels aren't designed for the shell counts an artillery barrel is and gun elevation is an issue as well especially on Russian tanks.
>gun elevation is an issue as well especially on Russian tanks
Wow, the T-55 has a whopping 2 degrees less elevation than an Abrams.
2 degrees is a significant amount especially at range.
Depends on several factors actually. In effect the range might be the same on both.
>gun elevation
I've seen a lot examples using earth ramps to improve that. Of course the sights still are useless to do indirect fire.
Old tanks, like M60, Chieftain, and Soviet tanks as well have systems for indirect fire
Old tanks make for half decent frontline artillery. This is unironically a better use for them than as a spearhead. Ukraine does the same thing because its effective
using oldsmobiles from the mothball tank park as what amounts to turreted assault guns is an entirely sane thing to do, though using assault guns for indirect fire is about the least good thing to do with them; beside raw necessity, a good cope is that this is a means to drill artillerists into ersatz tankmen, some time after which you can stick a proper commander in with the crew, ERA the shit out of the hull with a nu-eyebrow armor package for the turret, and then use them as a counterpoint to enemy IFVs to hopefully leave more modern tanks free for killing other tanks
while the shells are no doubt dogshit versus any modern armor and still sketchy versus the west bloc equivalents like the Leopard 1 getting shipped to the Ukies, the D-10T's missile packages are actually serviceable, aren't they? 850mm pen at 6k meters on the Boltok? if utilized as what amounts to an angrier BMP with actual armor and they don't catch some of the better NATO feed ATGMs, it's feasible they could do work
they could also just as well ditch themselves like morons Israeli Merkava style or get held in reserve as pure artillery indefinitely, which is probably a waste
Come to think, replying to myself like a moron; why the frick aren't they reactivating actual SU-100 assault guns for this counterbattery-resistant indirect fire purpose? It's even got an extra 3 degrees of gun elevation. How many of those are a derust & primer spray away from using up all that otherwise useless 100mm stock, instead of wasting potentially upgradable second or third line tanks which MIGHT serve with some external add-on armor and maybe a bolt-in spall liner+textolite spacer, whereas the SU-100 just doesn't have the baseline armor thickness or modernization potential to cut it under direct enemy fire on the offensive? Did the ruskies scrap all of those that didn't end up going to Asia or the Middle East?
Anon someone can correct me but it is my general understanding they did manage to by and large scrap/eliminate WW2-era weapons, don't expect stuff older than the 50s-60s showing up in numbers
This is what peak performance looks like, you chuds.
Because they have guns on them?
IIRC, a lot of their artillery pieces were at the end of their service life and needed maintenance all at once. At least that was the speculation from a YouTuber a few months ago when people were wondering why T-55s were being sent to the front.
Let me look for it.
https://youtube.com/shorts/oneS52OxJFQ?feature=share
>Is there a particular reason why Russians use ancient tanks as artillery
Probably because it's a smarter idea then using those ancient tanks as actual tanks. Using tanks as artillery isn't something new. The US did the very same in Korea and Vietnam, makes more sense now especially if it's a old out dated tank like the T-55/54. If Russia's "modern" tanks can get knocked out pretty easily from most anti-tank weapons then it would be a complete waste of resources to actually use the older tanks in a tank role. Also Russia probably has a huge stockpile of 100mm shells and 100mm HE is still very effective.
People often forget how hard 100mm he hits.
100mm HE was a great anti-infanty/fort gun back in the 50s, but its greatly outclassed even in the infantry support role
F-412 has a 2kg HE payload
the 120mm HEAT isnt even designed for soft targets and carries a 2.5kg HE payload and can be programmed for delayed burst for hitting through walls or over cover
and dedicated demolition rounds like 105mm HESH has 4kg of explosive filler
and the 100mm gun itself is not stabilized, has no thermal sight, and has no fire-control system
this means it will have to drive suicidally close to targets to be able to make them out against background clutter
and it cant do long-range indirect fire very well due to having crap elevation and inaccuracy
only the modernied T-55As and T-55AMs would be able to do more than ineffectually make craters, and those were all made by PACT countries that got second-priority on T-72s
>and the 100mm gun itself is not stabilized, has no thermal sight, and has no fire-control system
>this means it will have to drive suicidally close to targets to be able to make them out against background clutter
>and it cant do long-range indirect fire very well due to having crap elevation and inaccuracy
T-55 has a gunners quadrant so it can be used just fine for indirect fire. It was designed with this in mind based on experiences from world war 2. Its just that it doesnt have much of an elevation so maximum range is like 11-12 km. If you park it on the rear side of a hill it can go further since the ground is sloping.
Yeah man, you really need thermals on stuff you're using as artillery in the rear. And that stabilizer. What are they going to do without that? Pheeeeew!
But you're not doing that.
You're getting beating by Ukraine using NATO's hand-me-downs.
Literally nobody has compromised their own defense to supply Ukraine, and you can't even beat THEM.
Also, every week you deny it adds another year to the time that Russians won't be able to live this down.
Do you think you are the only country with manufacturing capacity, moron?
This war is very good for the NATO economy
>This war is very good for the NATO economy
So its good for theRussian economy as well then, is that what you are saying? No? I though that Russia was going to cripple the EU with its gas sales? No? You pointless gibbering vatBlack person monkeyspastic brainlet.
>So its good for the Russian economy as well then
Sure, as long as Russia isn't sending it's young men—that their economy expects to rely on as a generator of productivity, consumption, and wealth—to die or be mutilated en-mass or anything like that.
Also as long as millions of young Russian men (and women) don't flee to the EU, central asia, and south east asia with 0 (zero) interest in ever returning.
You know, like NATO economies 😉
>and the NATO hand-me-downs are a result of Ukraine losing its original military.
Ukraine actually preserved its MBTs and vehicles quite well relative to Russia, what are morons like you doing to do when there is no Russian military left for you to lie about winning? Ah frick let's face it, most of the board just wants to see you glavset fricks conscripted/mobilised and dying in a wemb. The biggest single doner of tanks to Ukraine is Russia, which abandoned so many and had so many captured by Ukraine. I do hope you are going to die for your Putin bullshit and are not hiding somewhere in a nation you are betraying. It really is time the vast majority f Russian diplomats and students were expelled form the EU and USA. How do you feel about that?
there should be an IQ minimum to discuss economics but as fun as an argument with a literal moron over demonstrable and easily searchable facts to the contrary, perhaps you would have more fun doing it on
or
where that kind of discussion belongs
>we don't have any manufacturing capacity.
i am a machinist in North America
I literally do nothing but make stuff out of metal and keep up with the news on other things being made out of metal
this war is the best thing that's happened for manufacturing in a while. Jobs everywhere, trickle-down effect everywhere (certain shops get the govt contracts to make shells, therefore have to delegate their former work to another shop, who then has to delegate their former work to another... etc)
what a moronic conclusion
bump
They move faster than conventional artillery
They have ammo surplus to spend
They offer more protection than any SPG currently in service
Their wearout clears space for newer machines in stock
And, last, but not least, it kills.
muh ebil kapitalist war mongers muh tankie angst muh putin
Samegay vatBlack person probably groomed leftwinger quisling posts
did you even read the posts you are replying to? go back to
right with him please
Get the frick out of here tankie filth. Russia has lost this war. Death to quislings.
your screeching is irrelevant and you don't know how to read, go back to your containment board and stop embarrassing yourself
Russia isn't communist.
You see, for euro rightwingers, there is no difference between russians and communists, mostly because of old XXth century biases and narratives.
And I thought that trots vs stalinist debaters were morons.
This thread was brought to you by c**ty lefty vatBlack person lovers replying to themselves. AKA quisling tratorrats
VatBlack person scum
pic rel
>euro right wingers
lol
lmao
>Tracing a walk cycle from a literal nazi catboy for vatnik propaganda
Aside from the palpable irony you can apply schrodinger's dilemma to the current state of Russian shell ammunition
Peter Coffin was at that event. You know Peter Coffin the guy from this video.
Americans who embrace communism make me physically ill.
I'm curious, what do you guys think would happen if a bunch of Western Ztards like these got the Dugina/Tatarsky treatment? Ukraine would obviously deny it regardless of whether it was them or just a pissed off member of the diaspora acting alone. Would it cause an actual diplomatic issue for Ukraine or would nobody give a shit?
Everyone would probably suspect Russia to be the actual culprit, which they realistically probably were if it happened.
Spics were all working for the Russkies in the Cold War, it was the only way their spy asses could get any work here. Their home countries didnt want them because they were all going to creepy pedo commie training camps in the jungle.
Frick
I'm hyped this tank episode of nu pogodi to drop.
>1 week of training
Russia, wtf
>NATO disarming itself
Lmao. It's doing the opposite. Now core NATO members are actually investing in their defense instead of letting the US foot the bill. The US is getting rid of it's old junk while the Russians are fighting and dying with their old junk. It's as win-lose as it gets for NATO, and they didn't even have to fight.
>I'm American, we have no manufacturing base
It's better to be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt
>when NATO abandons Ukraine like they did Afghanistan
They were there for 20 years. It's not going to take that long to reduce Russia to a military afterthought, just about another year or so.
getting up early to get to call center, eh, Patel?
>yeah that's why they're running leopards now.
So not only do they run a whole lot of ex Russian tanks, but they are being supplied with leftover Western tanks that are at a higher level of superiority than the Warsaw Pact era moving targets the Russian are fielding.
Hello. I can explain this. You probably won't read my post. It might have already been explained. But the reason is this.
Russian (and to a lesser extent, Ukrainian) artillery has become too worn and low on ammo to do sustained barrages. That's literally it. Tanks are being used as SPG's because they have the ammo and have the 'barrels' to do it. However many tanks are having their barrels worn and some areas are resorting to using ATGM as artillery.
That's it. That's why they're doing it. I don't know the repair rate of the barrels of actual artillery pieces, of make-shift tanks and so on, but they're not super quick. That is why it is just easier to get a T-54/55 out of storage and send it on its way.
Thanks man, the thread devolved into some chimp lying about USA and NATO
>Perun is the only expert on YouTube
Protip: you literally cannot refute this
>imagine being dumb enough to ramp up war-time manufacturing after you've been in a war for a year.
Yeah, how silly of them to plan ahead.
Real men like Vikram Vladimovitch don't do that : they improvise !
Cue T-54 as SPA
/raises hand
Could someone give us a rundown on how a tank is used differently than an assault gun...?
>Could someone give us a rundown on how a tank is used differently than an assault gun
stug IIIs were under the jurisdiction of artillery and handed out to support infantry
panzer IVs and panthers were concentrated in panzer divisions and fought alongside half-tracked infantry (in theory, shortages meant they fought on foot in practice)
the US didnt have as many dedicated assault guns but used the M4 sherman in the assault gun role
so M4 shermans intended for regular tank duty would be concentrated in armored divisions, fighting alongside half-track infantry
M4 shermans intended for infantry support for assigned to smaller separate tank battalions that could be split up among infantry divisions
M8 scotts and M4 105mm variants were also in separate tank battalions to be parceled out as needed
obviously, a tank can be used as an assault gun an vice-versa as seen with the M4
but in terms of role, tanks are for breakthrough and calvary action while assault guns are for infantry support
so a vehicle intended for maneuver wants more general-purpose guns and a turret, while an assault gun wants anti-fort or anti-infantry guns
Ancient tanks can move after firing, assuming nobody sold the fuel or abandooned them
They don't turn up on Oryx so they're definitely not used for assaults or AT defense. Yet.
>next thread
>yet another vatBlack person shill post
>includes "reply or your mom dies"
>free (You)s, guaranteed extra rubles
Not like it matters because the OP is really embarrasing to the ziggers, the "your mom dies" posts just keep the thread alive.
Its their tactic since the cold war, they use the tanks to pummel cities into surrendering so that they dont have to send their infantry in to fight NATO and its superior Urban Warfare Tactics. The Russian Federation hasnt really modernized much since its cold war Soviet days and its really just afraid of the type of warfare that is going on in Bakhmut.
A gun is a gun. There's nothing wrong with using tanks as artillery.
WW2 doctrine with the SU-76
They have stockpiles of ammo laying around for the guns.
I say let them do it. The extra logistical strain on them is going to be significant. These fricking things need far more fuel and maintenance time than a towed piece or a truck with a grad launcher. They should be stripping them of literally all armor plating they can before sending them up if they really want to use these as SPG's and not desperately filling the gaps in the line where they've lost more modern armored assets.
the liberal fascists who are at the top of both russia and the west are working together. they're on the same side. they're playing a game of good cop and bad cop but ultimately they want the same thing. global domination, global enslavement and the destruction of everything that we love. they will use any means necessary to put their secret world order plan into motion. that's why they're pushing this Ukraine war so heavily. they want to increase their power. they're playing two sides against each other to cause maximum turmoil, death and destruction so they can use that as an excuse to clamp down even harder on us.
+1 potato for Glavset
so putin and biden are working together?
yes. putin is part of the globalist elite. is this news to you? putin is not the great savior he's made out to be
so putin asked biden to make his entire military force look pathetic? and this is to make everyone love usa...so that russia will...profit?
the russia-ukraine war is just a way to increase american military funding and give the pentagon an excuse to increase its military power. they're using the war to spread american "freedom" and "democracy" around the world. but really what they're spreading is totalitarianism and tyranny, which will eventually give rise to a single world government and a single world religion. the elites are using this all as a way to increase their global control. putin and biden are both part of the same club.
so have they? its been a year
it's not an overnight process. they're taking things slowly because they have to ease the public into it if they want to prevent people from waking up to the truth and revolting (like what's happening in Iran right now). they have to be very careful when rolling out these new world order plans because if they move too fast they will wake up the public. they have to wait until everyone is sufficiently brainwashed and controlled before they can fully roll out their plan for global control of the entire planet and the complete enslavement of all of us.
your right, its not overnight. still, bidens defense plan was shorter than lawmakers anticipated, and increasing a military budget on the doorstep of defaulting the entire country seems like a baffling poor plan to increase military spending
so far its, biden and putin, are working together, to collapse eachothers economies, ruin their budgets, losing them billions.
to raise the defense budget of america?
Russian history says otherwise as does non-US support for the war to contain russBlack folk. Not even the brownest serbjeet would believe your post.
I don't understand why you DON'T want a one world government.
Isn't USA number one? Shouldn't everywhere be the USA?
enough using-tanks-as-artillery
start using artillery as direct fire weapons
I have some questions
Like, how do you fire without flipping 360 and unexpectedly driving away under your own power?
>start using artillery as direct fire weapons
^
This guy fricks
russians actually did that when they stormed azovstal, one of the defenders told about it at some interview
Because they weren't prepared at all for a real modern war. They're likely going to learn from every mistake they've been making and build a capable military after learning from their failures.
because the Egyptians made 100mm artillery shells
Imagine the mountains of wealth and human labor time wasted on keeping these cargo cult communists in check out in Siberia and Coofistan rather than acting on 1960s viable Moon Base plans and beyond. That's what's at stake here: geopolitics is shifting to exopolitics, and the leader of the free world can't be looking over its shoulder while we go to space and walk among the stars. This is getting wrapped up in a big expedited way, and we are moving on to bigger and better things before the century is out. Let freedom ring.
>Is there a particular reason why Russians use ancient tanks as artillery?
-They've run low or out of stockpiled 152 and 122mm shells; they still have a supply, but they must now be more picky about who gets them, hence a gradual shift over to things not using the 152 and 122 shells has been going on ever since late last year.
-Ukraine has both gotten very good at shooting and scooting with their towed guns even, and switched to using smaller mortars for general fire-support due to Russia's reliance on "frick that grid square" counterbattery.
-Russia's general reliance on "frick that grid square" amounts of artillery for basically everything has also incentivized the Ukrainians getting good at, focusing on, and saving the real artillery systems for quick counter-battery fire in return, followed by getting out of dodge before Russia can respond.
-Theoretically this wouldn't be a problem since Russia *had* focused a lot on mobile artillery- but they've lost many SPGs, and so now have a similar problem to the one with ammo, in that they needed to be picky about where to deploy units. This along with ammo bottlenecks made them more reliant on towed guns, and their crews are not nearly as well trained at quickly setting up, firing and then packing up.
-While the logistics side of things are better in the sense that they are no longer storing everything in giant stockpiles (at the front, at least), it's still fricking dogshit because they have a shortage of trucks and cannot into palletized storage. At least a T-54/55 can carry it's own ammo/
My question is how the frick does this even work, on the level of using the things in indirect fire. Do they Black person rig Azimuth and Incline indicators or have they always had them like the M-51 SuperShermans?
Even if they do, how the frick do they handle coordination between the crews in the tanks, the spotters, and the target? It's not like these have GPS / GlonASS built in to work off of?