Over 51 of Russia's T-90M tanks, which is Russia's most capable operational tank platform currently deployed in Ukraine, have been rendered ...

Over 51 of Russia's T-90M tanks, which is Russia's most capable operational tank platform currently deployed in Ukraine, have been rendered destroyed or otherwise combat ineffective by Ukrainians. A loss of that magnitude involving America's most advanced armor assets would likely prompt an emergency session of the Principals Committee under the President to reassess strategic objectives and operational readiness posture. However, Russia has made no such indications of reevaluating its campaign plan at this stage despite the attrition of key sustainment systems.

It's not normal for the "second most powerful army in the world" to not change its tactics when facing losses this massive.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A tank is a tank, they can always restore more T-54s or something.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, sending a T-54 to do a T-90's job would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight – it's just not gonna end well.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Eh, tanks get blown up by artillery and drones not other tanks. Both will explode if hit from above, and both can mount cope barns so it really doesn't make that much difference.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Eh, tanks get blown up by artillery and drones not other tanks.
          Stop speaking in categoricals for situations that are obviously likely to happen.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'd wager the most significant portion of Russian tanks have been lost to anything other than other tanks. Mines, ATGMs, artillery, drones. Yeah you sometimes have tank on tank engagements, but that's not the optimal situation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Both will explode if hit from above, and both can mount cope barns so it really doesn't make that much difference.
          T-55 lacks thermal sights to see its targer
          T-55 lacks composite armor, so an RPG-7 will go through its frontal armor, to say nothing of TOWs

          this is like saying a brown bess musket is as good as an M16A1 because the guy holding it is equally likely to die to artillery
          which is stupid because it discounts things like fire superiority

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Anon, sending a T-54 to do a T-90's job would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight – it's just not gonna end well.
        What's the difference between the T-54 and the T-90, other than some technical nuances? If it drives, if it shoots, and if it helps you reach your goal, there's no difference. And the T-54 is much cheaper than the T-90 AFAIK, so it makes sense to focus on making more of them, since economy and cost-effectiveness is always the key to victory. During WWII, the Germans had plenty of wunderwaffen that the Allies couldn't even dream of, but that didn't stop them from losing the war because the Soviet T-34s were much cheaper and extremely effective for their price.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I know this is bait, but I miss when there were morons on /k/ that thought this unironically

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Same, 2013 /k/ was something different

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The OG shiteaters that initially infested this place were a fricking goldmine. It was like they couldn't leave. You could humiliate them endlessly, and they had to take it. Watching them psychologically break in real time, it was beautiful. Sadly. I believe those days are gone. Even CHUG is a barren waste land. This bate

            >Anon, sending a T-54 to do a T-90's job would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight – it's just not gonna end well.
            What's the difference between the T-54 and the T-90, other than some technical nuances? If it drives, if it shoots, and if it helps you reach your goal, there's no difference. And the T-54 is much cheaper than the T-90 AFAIK, so it makes sense to focus on making more of them, since economy and cost-effectiveness is always the key to victory. During WWII, the Germans had plenty of wunderwaffen that the Allies couldn't even dream of, but that didn't stop them from losing the war because the Soviet T-34s were much cheaper and extremely effective for their price.

            is breddy gud doe

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I mean very occasionally we still get a true believer vatBlack person and even some lakhta Black folk, but it's true that it's nothing like the 2022 days

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >muh cost-effectiveness
          A tank that actually does the job and survives is infinitely more cost-effective than one that gets slaughtered because it was built "cheap".

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        T-54 can also explode from Bradley fire.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Extremely janky movement. Slavaboos can't even do MMDs right.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Russia's T-90M tanks, which is Russia's most capable operational tank platform currently deployed in Ukraine
    Is this actually true? Isn't T-80BVM actually the most advanced Russian tank that's actually been built and used?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, isn’t the t90 basically just another t72 variant? With the same shit 3kph reverse speed?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The T-90M is *allegedly* supposed to have a new automatic transmission like a modern tank but I remember one or more captured examples just had the same old T-72 manual with it's pathetic reverse speed.
        So I'm really not sure if it was a sometimes feature or something that never got implemented at all yet lingers on warthunder and Wikipedia.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The issue with Russian tank types is so often they refurbish old hulls to make their "new" tanks, but neglect to bring certain parts of the tank in-line with the specs of the modern variant. We've seen this even in armor, I've seen various T-72 hulls that larp as B-3s and whatnot have the old 60-105-50 scheme. They have new production tanks which do meet the new specs, but their fleet is inconsistent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/C7IqeZ9.jpeg

            The T-90M is *allegedly* supposed to have a new automatic transmission like a modern tank but I remember one or more captured examples just had the same old T-72 manual with it's pathetic reverse speed.
            So I'm really not sure if it was a sometimes feature or something that never got implemented at all yet lingers on warthunder and Wikipedia.

            captured T-90M that was made in 2022 was worse by all acounts than T-90M made before the war. It had uncooled thermal matrix and instead of 2A46M-5 it had 2A46M-1 gun

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              But were the pre war examples even given this alleged automatic transmission? That's what I'm wondering.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >A loss of that magnitude involving America's most advanced armor assets would likely prompt an emergency session of the Principals Committee under the President

    Fascinating use of language that instantly belies zero familiarity with america's system. The weapons board truly is the land of larpertunity for anons who want to take a stab at playing american.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >It's not normal for the "second most powerful army in the world" to not change its tactics when facing losses this massive.
    You cant compare Russia to the US. Russias tactic has always been about quantity. Just spamming hordes and hordes. In the past this was a successful doctrine but I wonder if its still viable in this day.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How are you idiots still asking "wHeN rUzzIA wiLL coNsIdER lOsseS"? Russia will just throw everything they've got at the enemy until they collapse or win. That's the extent of their war strategy. Russian military is not strong, it's just long. Also the differences between shitty Russian tanks are not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things when all they do is send infantry waves and Ukrainians can use drones/artillery/ATGM against all of Russian tanks all the same.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >65+12=77
    >over 51
    why number 51?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ichiro Suzuki fan

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia doesn't care. They quite literally just probe, push and give zero shits about losses. What was that soviet quote that when encountering a minefield, their troops attack as if it weren't there. Manpower isn't the problem, but these equipment losses are starting to look really significant.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why has the T-90M been such an abysmal failure?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because despite a few tack ons, it's mostly just a T-72.
      The sad thing is the russians had the time, resources and money to do better but they decided on the pie in the sky armata.
      Well, sad for them but you can't help feeling bad for lost potential.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >A loss of that magnitude involving America's most advanced armor assets would likely prompt an emergency session of the Principals Committee under the President to reassess strategic objectives and operational readiness posture.
    In an insurgency perhaps. The Ukraine war is a conventional war, greater losses have to be expected by both sides. In the second battle of El Alamein, the M4 Sherman first saw combat and nearly 50% of the armored force was lost; yet there was no congressional inquiry into the tanks performance because expecting them all to survive was a childish notion.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this was because the M4 was always expected to be an interim design, it only was not replaced because they dilly dallied with the M4s replacement and went through T20 to T25 before finally settling on the T26 way in late 1944 and only actually entering service in 1945 when the war was almost over

      they did have hearings over its performance after the battle of the bulge, after crews reported the inadequacy of the 75mm gun

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