>operating in ukraine since october
>none of them have been visually confirmed destroyed
this little shit is the proof that western equipment will stomp over ziggers. if NATO spec optics are so good they helped t-55s survive for 7 months in the hell that is this war, imagine what actual western tanks will do.
They've not been yet deployed to the front line, they're paired with Bradleys
god that's fricking kino. but it seems weird that they've just been holding onto them for almost half a year.
Does it seem weird? Has ukraine done any offensives since Kherson?
>tanks can only be used in offensives
you know tanks have a reverse gear right (unless you're a t-729
>tanks have a reverse gear
>cue T-72 driver's first time in a Leo2
>what happens when you fart inside a Leopard 2A4
>you know tanks have a reverse gear right
You don't reverse a tank into trench warfare, and you don't drive it forwards without air support. So ukraine stores them until there's a clear and defined purpose for them to enter the battlefield in any significant numbers, makes sense to me
>holding onto them for almost half a year.
Training + waiting for ideal terrain conditions
Not really they're serving in a brigade that hasn't been deployed.
Can't wait for the inevitable video games where you get the tank mission and you can just choose between like half a dozen different vehicles from Bradley, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, etc.
They aren't holding onto them, they're keeping them in a safe place to train with them before deploying them.
>they've just been holding onto them for almost half a year.
Because they stand even less of a chance on the front than other outdated tanks.
I'm sure the intent is the same behind Russia fielding obsolete tanks, they're self-propelled field guns that are proof to shrapnel and that will never not be useful.
They were holding onto them until the Russians pulled out the original T55s so the Slovenians could compare the two and see the worth of their upgrade. Now that the Russians are deploying T55s the M55’s time has come.
Yeah or they were just storing them for the counter offensive. You don't get to pick and choose what tanks you're going to encounter on the battlefield, so the idea of them storing them until they can put them in front of T-55s is moronic.
Gloves remain on bratan
they're dogshit, and they are probably paired with bradleys because actually useful tanks are on the frontline but bradleys need to learn how to cooperate with something that passes as a tank. on the frontlines, you will see bradleys with leopards and not this shitpile.
You will see Bradley's with the m-55's anon. The 43rd have had both for a long ass time, that's what they're fighting with.
They're both gonna have Delta, they're both going to have good optics. They have had the most training of anyone on the "Western" platforms, and the 43rd were badass before this. It's gonna be great.
>The M-55S is significantly different from its predecessor. The tank received a new gun – a 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 with a thermal insulation jacket, one of the most successful tank guns of all time. The tower and hull were covered with additional reactive armor, which even changed the silhouette of the tank, bringing it closer to modern ones. The M-55S received a digital ballistic computer and gun stabilization, a Fotona SGS-55 sight with a laser rangefinder, a Fotona COMTOS-55 commander’s sight, an improved engine, and new rubber-metal tracks, and even a LIRD-1A laser radiation detector linked to the smoke grenade launcher IS-6.
its arguably better than a stock russian t72 bruh. people are acting like Ukraine just got a bunch of T55s with more armor or something
What do you mean by "stock" T-72? A models are already dwindling and B models make up the bulk of the T-72s on the battlefield. The very first models are extinct by now.
whatever russia equips it's tanks with on the battlefield as standard issue. and not what they SAY they do, what has actually been found and confirmed.
the m55s is arguably better in a lot of ways lol
Okay so if you have to pick between a M-55S and a T-80BVM, what are you picking?
in the current war, with all the circumstances taken into account? m55s all day
i guess in some sort of "neutral battle" scenario where it would be some Deadliest Warrior-esque battle 5v5 pitched battle, the T80. but this aint it
Not that guy but:
That's relative to what it is supporting. If you think that is a cop-out, plainly, I don't know that Russia would have a better BCS than Ukraine's Delta. The fact that the M-55s will have delta on it and is supporting Bradleys who also have good optics by comparison?
Then you have the whole engine thing with the T-80bvm. The Ukrainians seem to fricking hate them. Really underwhelming in terms of performance, and thirsty pigs.
I know the eronomics in the T-80BVM are bad.
If I look at the M-55s in terms of the 47th, I take the M-55s over whatever the frick the RF is using the T-80BVM to support.
Lmao okay cool, I can have the T-80 then
can you explain your choice?
80>55, simple as
>Thermal sights
>Armour is proof to the 105mm from the front
>Considerably more manuverable
>I'm not a moron when it comes to propaganda and media hype about literally anything NATO provides
>Thermal sights
Anything with thermals is probably flat out better than the M55 (unless the Slovenians slapped something on before they sent them out), but keep in mind thermal sights are by no means standard in the Russian tank fleet. Many of their tanks still rely on Soviet era IR illumination spotlights which exposes them to anyone with functional passive night vision like what the M55S has. The M55 potentially is a better night fighter than a lot of Soviet Era tanks.
That's fine, but Anons were saying they'd rather be in a M-55S than a T-80BVM which definitely has thermal sights.
M-55/T-55 tanks are *okay* for infantry support if with upgraded comms/armor and proper tactics. M-55/T-55 will take higher losses than modern tanks, but improved armor like picrel gives them some protection against some of the most common antitank weapons used by infantry. They will be slaughtered going up against modern tanks and IFV's, however.
>Upgraded with a gun from the 1960s
>First generation ERA
>"Ackshually it has been super-upgraded™ and is practically a tank from the late 90s!"
Doesn't work that way, a 50s tank upgraded with 70s tech at best doesn't equal a viable modern tank.
Good thing Russia has never developed a modern tank then.
Cope in anyway you need to, but they've got you thinking a T-55 upgraded in Slovenia is somehow a notable weapon on the modern battlefield.
It's obsolete, the unmodified T-55 is equally obsolete, it has been palmed off on to Ukraine so Slovenia can demand more modern replacements for doing their bit in the war and being down on tanks as a result.
This is supposed to be /k/ ffs
Russia's deploying T-54s and T-62Ms without any ERA, so shit talking the ERA the M-55S does have is a little funny
T-62M has reactive armour..
Nevertheless, whether you're firing a modern RPG or anti-tank missile at a T-55 with no reactive armour or a M-55S with first generation ERA, the result is going to be the same. That's why this "super-upgraded™" cope is so silly, what upgrades it has would have been relevant like 50 years ago, but are no less outclassed now than an unladen T-55 is.
>T-62M has reactive armour..
No, T-62M has Dolly Parton applique. T-62MV has reactive armor. Russia has deployed both.
It's not dolly parton, it's NERA.
(meant to be one post but I fricked it up, oh well)
>Nevertheless, whether you're firing a modern RPG or anti-tank missile at a T-55 with no reactive armour or a M-55S with first generation ERA, the result is going to be the same.
Sure, Konkurs-M or TOW2 or whatever don't care about your K1 or even K5 bricks. But both sides are extensively using weapons like basic b***h PG-7 warheads. Fricking BMP-1s are being used, first gen ERA laughs at 73mm single stage HEAT. "Super upgraded" first generation main battle tanks like Leo 1A5 MEXAS or M-55S are a cope that provides basic protection against common threats, not top of the line protection against top of the line threats.
No one ever said it was a modern viable tank, even OP said that if this is good then image what a real western tank will do. But it sure as frick beats a tank that became outdated in the 1970s
The level of upgrades it has are on par with a T-62M
>The level of upgrades it has are on par with a T-62M
The T-62M doesn't have automatic lead for the FCS, passive night vision, or laser warning receivers like the M55 does. Seems like like shallower modernization package.
VGH THE SOVL
heh, looks like they're about the same size.
They are. Bradleys are fricking HUGE.
Length, they're a little shorter IIRC, but a Bradley is 100% as tall, if not taller, than an Abrams. It's insane.
I still can't wait for the Ukraine RTSs.
They are in one of the units that have been held in reserve in the west of the country.
They plan to operate alongside M2 bradley as part of the 47th mechanised brigade.
Such a fricking kino lineup.
please stop posting that fake and gay crap
This is the only Soviet retrofit that actually looks cool.
Hope that translates into some actual survivability.
Is it because it was made by israelites? Its because it was made by israelites wasn't it?
Probably. Israel makes the most kino kits for old armor, or at least, the best ones that anyone sees fit to buy. I'm partial to the Sabra but the Magach 7C's angled turret is pretty sexy too.
Israel was going to modernize Vietnam's T-54 fleet based off of the work that went into the Slovenian M-55Ss but the deal fell through.
Yeah, I remember. The Vietnamese went through with modernization, but a less extensive indigenous upgrade. The reality is it rarely pays to do deep upgrades of old platforms. I think the Czechs realized upgrading their T-72s was moronic and never continued for their whole fleet. The only reason the Israelis upgraded their fleet initially was because nobody sold anything to them.
>what is context
The fact the "second army in the world" has been reduced to fielding naked T-62Ms and even T-54s is pathetic and some modernized Slovenian M-55S don't change that.
>You're ignoring context!
I think that's a case of pot kettle black anon, T-62Ms are cringe but better than clutching on to a newspaper clipping that says
>Irrelevant NATO nation promises 5 Leopard 2s, to arrive at some point this year, probably
Which was the choice when T-62Ms started showing up
are we still pretending that the West is totally gonna back out on tanks? Wasn't that chug's thing a month ago
No I mean when T-62Ms were getting sent to Ukraine, the west sending Leopard 2s was still something being ummed and ahhed at. If the T-90Ms were going to take time to reach the battlefield in numbers and the same was true of Western MBTs, then in the interim a T-62M is a more solid stopgap than a pinky swear for moar gibs at some point.
No.
Okay.
No means the NAFOstani refuted your argument.
So when are more of them T-90Ms showing up?
They've already shown up in bakhmut recently, the benefit is however is the production line is open and will keep producing them, the NATO stocks are on the other hand finite.
May I see them?
>NATO stocks are finite
>Russia is already bringing out T-62s and T-55s
Lol, lmao
Now cue the questioning why the image isn't timestaped to prove it's this year with someone showing a GPS proving the exact location.
>Wheee T-62Ms prove Russia has no tanks
And yet Ukrainians have knocked out Russian T-90s and T-72s tanks to boast about every month
>18 out of 1907 tanks lost are T-90Ms
Some "production" they have going lmao
How many tanks did the Ukrainians produce in this past couple of years?
>b-but what ABOOT the wienerholes?????
It's not whataboutism if the keking is about Russia "only" producing 100 tanks when the enemy they're fighting doesn't produce any tanks. That's an acceptable number of tanks, clearly.
Besides it's not like thousands of Leopard 2s are getting made every year either.
Russia isn't "making" anything. They take old shit and refurbish it. Making tanks in 2023 isn't anything special. Tanks aren't aircraft
T-90Ms are new builds and Russia also produces aircraft
>T-90Ms are new builds
No they aren't. The hulls have all been made decades ago.
So Russia can produce the entire tank except the hull?
>Russia also produces aircraft
Today, I will remind them.
>How many tanks did the Ukrainians produce
See, that's the neat part, they don't have to produce jack shit, they just need to have men willing to get into tanks and kill some vodkaBlack folk, HATO will take care of the rest. :^)
Russia had since the end of the Soviet Union to get its shit together. Why did that not happen?
corruption I assume, it happened at every level it seems
That's something that can be asked of all cold war nations other than the US, the simple answer is that war machines are fricking expensive and will bankrupt any nation that isn't routinely utilising their massive investment in their military to curbstomp the third world for their resources, thus getting a return on that investment.
The USSR couldn't sustain their military budget, America can only sustain its military budget by just underfunding everything else, there's no way the Russian Federation could compete with Soviet military funding after the economic collapse of the 90s and their economy had only stopped being completely dysfunctional in the 2000s. If they managed to become the "second military superpower", as is often claimed on /k/, in a mere 30 years after literally starting from scratch after shit canning their previous economy then that would have been literal superhuman levels of economic and political skill.
>America can only sustain its military budget by just underfunding everything else
We're spending less than 3.5% of GDP on defense, which is well below our historical average, and places us between Uzbekistan and Colombia in the current world rankings. The DoD isn't the reason we underfund elsewhere.
in case people think 6% seems high
>Korea
11.3%
>Vietnam
8.6%
the US economy and overall taxbase is insanely huge compared to historic norms, so the GWOT could afford to be very lazy on defense spending, but the consequence of that is that the US could only pursue half as many new projects as in the past; many of those projects got cancelled or budget-cut (thanks 1999) so they were scuttled too, yet despite all the waste and lack of peer threats, the US remains on top
if we so much as hit 5% again for the first time in over thirty years, the world would shiver
>curbstomp the third world for their resources, thus getting a return on that investment.
I'm amazed that this moronic take is still alive nowadays that there's a glut of macroeconomics 101 content out there.
No, curbstomping the third world "for resources" is not a profitable strategy and never has been. The European empires were endless money sinks after they moved from the "maritime trade outpost" to territorial control. And America fights its wars to maintain things like the free trade based world order and the preeminence of its currency, it doesn't and has never needed the resources of the places it invades directly.
The european empires were sucessful at sucking value from their colonies, anon. Entire european cities were build into what they're now thanks to the spoils of imperialism.
The thing is that the US economic hegemonic/Pax Americana system is even better at it, because it also keeps other countries more or less happy with their own rulers, customs, and prosperity.
Yeah nah m80, there have been exhaustive studies on european colonialism and all of them indicate that their foreign holdings were a net negative in terms of monetary cost.
>inb4 3rdie seething
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1597848214388240385
>Nov 2022
You know those 1000 or so Abrams that went to Egypt as knock-down kits were built at Lima from scratch, right? That production line never closed or did exclusively rebuilds. They always had low-rate production, from scratch, of some tank-like thing going on. Even if it was just some Namer chassis for the Israelis.
Thousands of Leo2s aren't being lost either. Having your army gutted of operable armored vehicles in a single year is a uniquely Russian problem.
Thousands of Leo2s aren't currently being used in wars at all, let alone peer wars. For sure the Leo2s going to Ukraine are going to last longer than whatever Ukraine has currently, but it would be foolish to believe a Leo2 in Ukraine is going to survive for as long as one safely operated on a base in Germany in peacetime.
>peer wars
Zozzle.
So you agree that Russia has a massive shortage of tanks because this war has attrited away their forces while Leo2s have taken, let's count them, ONE repairable loss.
Those undonated Leo2s are going to sit in those storehouses forever because the enemy they were built to fight got it's shit pushed in by wheat farmers in T-64BVs. By the time Russia gets it's shit together after this disastrous war the rest of us are going to be flying space-cruisers and terraforming other galaxies and T-90MB9XLGBT+ obr 2153 will be just as shitty and useless as the modernized garbage they ran out in this war that got schooled.
>no one is building new tanks for Ukraine and no one is going to deplete their existing stocks entirely either
Don't need to. The Russian armored bear is dead. 2000 hull losses and counting. Refurbished NOS western surplus should be good enough for mop up duties.
Honestly I wonder what will happen to people who genuinely think like this when all the western MBTs that get sent are inevitably taken out.
Ukrainians dismantled 1st GTA using T-64BVs. They are actually competent tankers who have an amazing K/D ratio. Giving them better tanks is only going to make that ratio worse for the Russians, not better.
T-80BVM if it's the old model with Thales Sosna-U optics. "Bunny" was a world-class vatnik eliminator when placed in the hands of 93rd Mech.
The problem isn't so much the gear. It's the Russians that operate them.
>CNN
I presume this is a Ghost of Kyiv tale then.
>24 Russian vehicles can mean anything with wheels on it, from trucks to IFVs to APCs to tanks.
It's not just that, it's just the claims of incredible K/D ratios in general are kind of doubtful once they've already made a
>This one guy took out half the Russian air force!
claim that was then revealed to be, obviously, complete bollocks.
Just in general there's so many claims of this or that Russian army getting completely obliterated by the Ukrainian underdogs, the war would surely have to be over by now if even half the claims were true.
>Just in general there's so many claims of this or that Russian army getting completely obliterated by the Ukrainian underdogs, the war would surely have to be over by now if even half the claims were true.
Anon the russians have TEN THOUSAND visually confirmed vehicle losses
The war is over, they just haven't stopped fighting yet
Tank autists have been tracking Bunny since she was yoinked from 200th Arctic Motor Rifle last spring.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1645756218244308993
It's almost like they painted wide and thin rings on the barrel to denote different types of kills or something. Weird.
Uh huh, and of course there's some kind of law of physics that means the paint won't physically stick to the barrel unless it has actually made that many kills.
Again, this is the "ghost of Kyiv" people making the claims here.
>It's almost like they painted wide and thin rings on the barrel to denote different types of kills or something. Weird.
Hmmm, intredasting.
Also that Twitter, please. If I made a claim and then linked to you an obviously pro-Russian twitter page, what would your reaction to that be? Honestly.
Why are you responding to someone still malding about the ghost of queef over a year later
>Small scale production of Abrams continues
Yeah presumably to keep up with the wear and tear of operating thousands of the bastards all over the world, Ukraine isn't receiving those tanks though, they're still getting the M1A1s that were sitting around looking for a buyer. The reason I say the NATO stocks are finite is because no one is building new tanks for Ukraine and no one is going to deplete their existing stocks entirely either
>Challenger 2s getting sent are just the ones the UK can't afford to upgrade
>Leopard 2s are largely of the A4 variant and either were in storage or only getting sent in single digits by nations that own merely double digit numbers of them
>Abrams is the decommissioned M1A1 variant that the US has been trying to sell for a while now
The only nearly-new tanks getting sent are the Leopard 2A6s from Germany but again there's no talk of manufacturing new A6es for Ukraine, the only reason any A6es are getting sent is out of expediency because nothing else was in good enough condition to send, and they shouldn't expect many of these to be sent to Ukraine.
>They've already shown up in bakhmut recently, the benefit is however is the production line is open and will keep producing them, the NATO stocks are on the other hand finite.
oh my fricking GOD i literally cannot WAIT to see russians getting slaughtered by bradleys and leopards my wiener is hard just thinking about it
>>none of them have been visually confirmed destroyed
i wonder if that's because they havent been used in combat?
They're just that good. Move aside Armata fricking shits. REAL tanks are here
Neither side uses tanks. There were a few onesies and twosies in battles last year but for the most part they’re parked somewhere under cover. If the Ukrainian counter-offensives materializes it’ll be the first time in over a year a meaningful number of tanks sees battle. Russia is dumping as much tank surplus as it can into Ukraine not to do combat ops but to solidify positions and maybe set up a mobile armor reserve.
They've also got rebels they need to arm as well, I haven't actually yet seen any indication these T-62Ms and T-55s are actually going to the Russian Military and not the Donbas and Lugansk militias, who hitherto were utilising captured T-64s, something Russia can provide ammo for but no automotive components as that was all produced in Kharkov.
The separatist forces ARE the Russian forces now. Remember they were annexed to Russian officially.
Have you memoryholed Vuhledar already?
He did memoryhole Vuhledar because Russian armor got absolutely chewed up there.
BS, I see tanks used all the damn time on telegram, you're full of shit
M-55S a cute.
CUTE!
CUTE CUTE CUTE
Looks like a M1 Go Kart
Always liked these upgrades to Soviet tanks where the applique armor on the turret makes it look wider. T-80Us, T-64BM Bulats, they're all great-looking tanks.
On that note, I'm a little sad that there's virtually no chance the Ukes will keep using T-64 variants after this war. The ones that don't get used up in the fighting are still likely to be outclassed by the stuff we've sent them and that will probably influence their domestic production in the future.
They actually had quite a lot of different prototypes and designs for IFVs and tanks utilising the T-64 platform, the most radical (and probably most unlikely) was a T-64 Armata basically.
Problem was that Ukraine seemingly never had the money to build this stuff for themselves and no one on the export market is interested in sharing parts with the T-64, which was hardly exported. Huge shame because I also have a soft spot for the T-64 and it seems pretty unlikely now that we will get Ukrainian variants in War Thunder now.
>Always liked these upgrades to Soviet tanks where the applique armor on the turret makes it look wider. T-80Us, T-64BM Bulats, they're all great-looking tanks.
Day 421: the T-80Us have accepted me as one of their own. They do not know my true chassis.
>Never ever in warthundy, because the vatBlack folk would collectively shit their pants and bomb anton's coffee shop
Feels fricking bad. I just want my T-55/62 with bustle autoloader and termals. Shit would be so much fun.
Worth noting those examples are Eastern European/Russian. The M-55S ERA was done by Israel's Elbit. It's a derivative of experience with using ERA on M48, M60 and Centurion.
How good is Western ERA, anyways? I don't hear it talked about nearly as much, why doesn't America just mass produce a million bricks of ARAT and stick it on everything like K1 in the East?
America does a much better job of operating infantry with their tanks, and turning every tank into a claymore is not ideal for ensuring that you have infantry doing their job screening for you. America does have ERA kits for the M1 in the TUSK kit, but would rather spend the money to have real armor.
Weight, is the short answer. Russian tanks are lighter with less armour and relies on ERA as a "saving throw" so it can take a hit more than it otherwise wpild, whereas Western MBTs seemingly are expected to shrug off multiple hits with their much thicker and much heavier composite armour.
You can put ERA on top of this already thick composite armour and they do in urban environments where speed is less able to be utilised, but generally you're better off having the acceleration to GTFO than to have some ERA to withstand an extra hit.
ERA is cheaper and less effective than NERA, which fits for a military that's throwing numbers at the enemy. Western (and related, like Israel, South Korea) generally design for losses to be avoided and tanks can take multiple hits.
US uses APS, doesn't need ERA
>Shame about the T-64
Ukes have some absolute Kino IFVs based off the T-64 and I really hope they use them. In the end, most if not all the Warsaw pact tanks can be converted to really nice IFVs, and that's okay. Pic not really related because it's the expedient version of much nicer designs with the engine in the front.
Puttin a 14.5mm HMG on tank chassis and covering it with ERA doesn't make it an IFV.
Isn't that something you could assume I know?
If not, isn't that something you might assume the Ukrainians know?
With that assumption, maybe google the conversions?
>With that assumption, maybe google the conversions?
I shall not. Still not an IFV.
I am talking about IFVs, that are IFVs, on account of being IFVs.
Circular reasoning.
What on earth is this thing?
Ukrainian technology
i prefer the OG boys
Always weird seeing this picture, since it was taken a few minutes from where I live and I used to work part time nearby.
Pic related me as a teen studying inside some old yugo tank. Any idea what model it could be?
This is a basic Yugo T-55.
Pozdravljen Anon, kako si?
I love this lil homie like you wouldn't believe.
Look at you with your little safety light.
>>none of them have been visually confirmed destroyed
Because the 47th brigade does not take part in the battles
That's not a T-55, that's an M-55 S1, a Slovenian T-55 variant that was heavily modified and upgraded.
This. M-55S was a thorough modernization from late nineties. Russian T-54s actually remembers the Stalin.
This reminds me, have Russians STILL not managed to destroy a single HIMARS platform?
Through sheer law of averages they've probably damaged or destroyed at least one either incidentally or on purpose. Ukraine certainly wouldn't announce their loss due to the huge morale boon they've been. And we can be certain Russia certainly hasn't captured foolproof evidence of it for the same reasons. We'd be flooded by pictures.
Considering only a long range strike could get a HIMAR, there would be footage of a strike most likely. It wouldn't be a random dumb artillery round getting that far
It wont matter, if you think the russians are careless and bug like in their wave attacks just wait until the chinks start rampaging around
Haven't you heard? Western MBTs don't get knocked out, they get damaged in friendly fire incidents.
why cant you put ERA on top of ERA and be impenetrable.
It can be done, but it doesn't make you "impenetrable" because the entire stack is detonated from the same hit. The point is to mitigate tandem charges and reduce penetration of APFSDS, not have multiple layers of protection.