>Russian train moving tanks to Ukraine
Retard here. What value does this old ass equipment provide on the modern battlefield?
>Russian train moving tanks to Ukraine
>Russian train moving tanks to Ukraine
Retard here. What value does this old ass equipment provide on the modern battlefield?
>that turret shape
>that ERA pattern/mounting brackets
>that roadwheel spacing
yuuuuuuuuup, more T-62MVs with (presumably) Kontakt-1. More food for anybody with a tandem warhead lying around.
that's a t54 my dude
No thats a T62.
A single look at the bore evacuator should tell you that but I guess you're too retarded.
Hot damn look at that modern army..
2nd fucking army of the world...
FUCKING KEK
T-44 when?
>ynr these getting dabbed on by Abrams and Challys during desert storm
Target practice, fuel guzzler and metal coffins.
Tank guns are terrible artillery platforms.
Why:
- High velocity meaning thicker casing and thus a lot less explosive mass.
- Another issue with having such a high velocity gun is barrel wear meaning they'll be able to fire less and I mean a lot less.
- tends to be lower caliber (in this case 100mm) meaning a also a lot less explosive mass compared to 155 or 150mm shells, then combine that with the first point and its really not ideal.
If real, it's obviously a desperate measure. Nobody pretends it's optimal, just what they have in hand for that role.
I thought it was just the cope used to justify the pics of T-62s/T55s sent to Ukraine. Pretending they'll be used as artillery platforms make it easier for vatniks to justify and accept, even when deep down they know these will be sent to the front. Just like what happened in Kherson last year.
>Muh artillery is only big slow boom boom
There's more kinds of cannon and artiliery than just howitzers my dude. Pic related was only 87mm in calibre and was used in both direct and indirect fire roles and was considered perfectly acceptable in both roles.
That's the thing, in the end they use these rustbuckets as frontline tanks, not as artillery. that's what happened in Kherson.
How is "frontline" being defined here? I've still not seen a T-62 being used actively as a breakthrough tank, but being 2-3km from the line of contact is certainly still "frontline" compared to indirect fire howitzers, but is the kind of range we're looking at for a field gun.
When was the last time Russia tried a breakthrough? In Kherson, they were clearly used as tanks, to fight back the Ukrainian offensive. Not as makeshift artillery or field guns.
They've tried to break through in Bakhmut for the past 10 months.
They tried a tank rush in Vuhledar and got BFTO:
wrong. it was a diversion to draw ukrainian reinforcements from bakhmut and it worked exactly as planned
The plan being to lose a bunch of tanks and still not take Bakhmut, presumably
It's a bit facetious to claim that only holding like 10% of a city is proof that city hasn't been taken. Like they've not surrendered, but let's not kid ourselves and claim Ukraine still owns Bakhmut.
>It's a bit facetious to claim that only holding like 10% of a city is proof that city hasn't been taken
Yeah, right?
What's your point? Stalingrad was effectively lost and then it was retaken, the point is that Ukraine isn't going to "surrender" Bakhmut even if they control none of it and therefore people will still claim BAKHMUT HOLDS
You're stupid or a disingenous liar. A city doesn't fall until there's nobody defending it, like Marioupol, no matter how dire is the situation.
What a retarded gay
>gets BTFO
>moves goalposts
>makes ludicrous claims
No one is claiming Mariupol is still holding, and if the Russians had take the hamlet of Bahkumut then no one would be saying they haven’t. Simple as, my little vatmoron
Well maybe we will find out
Correct. Prigozin even said that they have legally captured the town of Artemovsk (formerly known as Bakhmut).
I jest, but capturing 90% of something is still not owning 100% of something.
I didn't claim that was the case, something could easily still happen to turn the tide of battle that forces Russia to leave Bakhmut, but that has not yet happened and if it doesn't happen then that 10% won't remain Ukrainian for the rest of the war.
Prigozhins "legally captured" was ofc funny when taken out of context. Context was Ru MoD and it's contract with Wagner. I think he ment it so that the contract has been fulfilled and Bakhmut has been captured by definitions laid out in the contract. Russian flag at city hall etc. Thats why "legally captured".
The even funnier part was that overnight that building got blown up with a bunch of fagners in it, and they immediately began wailing about ISIS-Amerikkkan tactics the next day.
Ah, yes, much like the Germans famously took Stalingrad since the S*viets only held 10% of a city. I mean what's the difference, really? 10% filled with enemy forces, 0% filled with enemy forces, no matter! Just ignore them and pretend you've won already. Go ahead, divert the troops currently stationed there and advance straight past Bakhmut as if it had in fact been taken, what's the worst that could happen?
Did Americans fail to capture the Philippines just because some Japanese holdouts kept fighting until the 70s?
>some Japanese holdouts kept fighting until the 70s
lol
lmao even
Yes, anon, you got me there. One guy camping out in the deepest, dankest jungle is absolutely comparable to significant armed resistance that your troops cannot overcome and keep them pinned there for 3/4ths of a year already. My bad, you win.
Do you think Russian forces can move past Bakhmut RIGHT NOW, if they wanted?
Yes or No?
>it was a feint!
lmao
sure, that's why Russia is buying ammo from Iran or NK, right?
losing your premier reserves does not make a feint cum /chug/gie
Again, I've only seen images of knocked out T-62s and they're never seemingly close to anything. Always in the middle of a field somewhere, not on the streets of Kherson of any city. All footage I've seen of Russian tanks actively working on the frontlines have always been a T-72 at least, if you have footage proving T-62s were used to push the line of contact and can post it, then by all means do so. I'm not saying it's impossible that T-62s were used as frontline tanks in desperation by the Russian Army or in the hands of Lugansk/Donbas militiamen, but from what I've personally seen, as usual it feels the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
>Pro-Russians: they're only being used as long-range, indirect fire artillery in low-intensity battles and will never face any other tanks
>Pro-Ukrainians: they're literally all Russia has now, they've all been used as frontline tanks out of desperation and they have been knocked out in the THOUSANDS, literally littering the streets of Kherson, Kharkiv, etc
Naturally, even for mid-range fire support you'd ideally want at least a T-72 and not resort to using T-62s and this use of a tank can absolutely be described as one of the roles of a tank and not just artillery so absolutely the use of T-62s is due to lacking other more modern models, but conversely claiming that the T-62 is being used as a tank and therefore is being used in ALL the roles a tank can be used for, including active breakthroughs, also seems like a fantasy.
The very fact that Russia is bringing out rusted T-62s and now T-55s in 2023 should be by itself a clear sign of how dire their situation is, it's amazing how people will try to "akshually" that with "muh field guns" copexplanation to make it appear reasonable or expected. Pure insanity.
>Naturally, even for mid-range fire support you'd ideally want at least a T-72 and not resort to using T-62s and this use of a tank can absolutely be described as one of the roles of a tank and not just artillery so absolutely the use of T-62s is due to lacking other more modern models, but conversely claiming that the T-62 is being used as a tank and therefore is being used in ALL the roles a tank can be used for, including active breakthroughs, also seems like a fantasy.
What are you even trying to say here?
>T-62s and they're never seemingly close to anything
They've been used as part of attacks in the Donbas area.
>In a field, seemingly not close to anything
>They didn't get to the city before getting destroyed by at therefore it wasn't an offensive
It’s part of a video where a T-62 and T-72 get rekt by javelins. This is as close to combat as it can get.
The chief drawback of the 25pdr was the fact its small calibre made for a wimpy shell made up for only by a blistering fire rate thanks to an outdated and flawed taxtical concept of neutralising fire. Ask yourself why almost nobody bothers with such small calibre artillery anymore.
Yes, tanks are shitty artillery.
You know what's worse artillery? Not having any.
Both sides are doing this.
Can tanks even be used as effective artillery? As you already pointed out, 100mm shells are considerably smaller than artillery shells, but what about range and accuracy? I know Russian artillery, particularly in the hands of Russians, sucks in general, which is why their doctrine relies on saturation, but wouldn't tanks firing 100mm shells be borderline useless, as they have even worse accuracy and explosive power?
Well logic and reality has never stopped a vatnik before, has it?
Just shit like barrel angle makes it impractical as spg.
Here's the snag with that:
>Average barrel life of a howitzer - 2000 rounds
>Average barrel life of a high-velocity tank gun - 250-300 rounds
Also, not all shells for these high-velocity guns are the same, HE shells intentionally have smaller charges to lower the velocity precisely to conserve the barrel life and provide thinner walls to the casing for more HE filling.
Barrel lives are measured in Equivalent Full Charges. You don't get more than the advertised barrel life by only firing HE, you get less than the advertised barrel life by firing super charges like APFSDS with sabots that gouge your barrel lining. Using tanks as artillery is fucking stupid. It's not worth the transport capacity it takes to get them to the front and fuel them there. Russia seems to have no possible limit to their stupidity.
LMAFAOOOOO remember when Russiaboos said early on that Russia would win because they had enough arty shell stockpiles to wage war against le evil HATO for 100 years?
Those are all T-62s. They're assault guns or shitty artillery at best, tracked coffins at worst. They'll probably be dug into defensive positions and destroyed in place.
target practice for bradleys*~~*~~))
100/115 indirect fire shell spam? Possibly non-aware decoy/sacrificial missions to deplete ATGM inventory? Just inflating numbers "a tank is a tank, comrade!" ?
Anyway these are in Irkutsk, probably just moved from graveyard storage to some refitting facility.
>100/115 indirect fire shell spam? Possibly non-aware decoy/sacrificial missions to deplete ATGM inventory? Just inflating numbers "a tank is a tank, comrade!" ?
The funny thing is that all those possible "reasonable" reasons are unleaded copes.
>100/115mm indirect fire platform
It's a tank canon. Others ITT have noted why using tanks as primary indirect fire support is utterly retarded. It's for these retarded reasons why you don't do that unless things are bad enough that it necessitates falling back on *very* unfavorable options, and apparently needing to do so pretty damn often.
>Possibly non-aware decoy/sacrificial missions to deplete ATGM inventory?
The Ukrainians aren't going to be running out of ATGMs any sooner than Russia will run out of mobik meat. If either side is playing to either one of those goals, they're both retarded and are trying to actively lose their respective war. It's also, again, not a good point you must be at where you need to Leeroy Jenkins (potentially) unknowing personnel in heavy equipment to do recon-by-dying because you just really, really can't into ISR.
>Just inflating numbers
It's an obvious point but nonetheless, yeah, shit's pretty rough if you gotta break out the T-62s and T-55/54s just to pad the number of "tanks" you still have operational and in-country.
>"a tank is a tank, comrade!"
Da, tovarisch.
Not to mention every country that's been supplying them ATGMs has ramped up production heavily. Javelins alone are going to be made to the sum of 7.2 billion.
A tank is a tank. You still need to have AT, tank or artilerry to stop it.
What i find more confusing that with such high numbers of obsolete tech we see very little ingenous jerry rigging.
>cope cages
>S-300 attacking ground
>FPV drones with RPG warheads
>Strizh drone as cruise missile
And thats about it. With tens of thousands in storage i expected lots of funny disposable used, like remote control mod, explosive rigged tanks to clear mines / positions, old russian migs converted into missiles etc. Especially on Russian side as they have full undisturbed manufacturing complex at their disposal and while experiencing ammo deficit. Seems like the judt cant invent.
>a tank is a tank
I fucking detest this cope with a passion. While there's a kernel of truth with regards to T-62Ms, it's purely cope whenever brought up with relation to T-55s. The Kontakt-1 on these MVs barely puts them a step up above the T-55s, which are really more oversized IFVs with a poorly suited gun for IFV work and a fuckhuge logistical footprint for what it does. The T-62Ms at least will somewhat resist hits from the ultralight AT weapons so they're not shittier-than-an-IFV tier but they're not really that big of a step up either and still posses a large logistical footprint.
>but but from an infantryman's perspective a tank is a tank!
This ain't about a single infantryman and considerations on a purely tactical level (ignoring that even at a tactical level T-55s are basically IFVs that can't carry troops) are retarded.
So you're saying they cant storm a building or trench? Would you be much better in T-72 if someone in there has NLAW anyway?
>NLAW
"Modern" variants of the fucking M72 law will go through a T-55 frontally at practically any angle. They literally are no better (rather worse compared to BMP-2/3s with their autocannons) and weigh down your supply lines far more.
The T-62s like I said are a bit better off but will still suffer higher loss rates as shit like CGs with FFV651 or tandem warheads will go through T-62MVs, probably Ms as well. The more weapons they are vulnerable to, the higher the likelihood they will be killed/disabled. You would be better off in a T-72 in a lot of situations compared to being in a T-62. Hyperfocusing on a tactical level assessment is retarded either way.
(Me)
I should also say, this neglects tactical level advantages of T-72s in fire control and spotting to begin with, along with a slew of other considerations. T-62s and T-55s are objectively a horrendous degradation of capabilities with a disproportionate impact on logistics for what they do offer.
T55 will be vulnerable to all sorts of drone dropped munitions as well.
You don’t need an nlaw to paste a t54/55. Literally anything with a shape charge sitting in a Ukrainian trench, with the exception of 40mm hedp grenades, can frontally pen those tanks. Even the 40 year old rpg18s
I will not call you a retard only because it seems you're not of bad faith, just merely a tourist. Lurk moar, though, man.
Dude, ingenuity is impossible when you have strict rank discipline. You try to make something smart and then sergant appears and starts shouting like a pig "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE WHAT IS THIS!!! I WILL COURT MARCHAL YOU ALL FOR WASTING RESOURCES AND USING THEM NOT PROPERLY!!! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING!!! DISMANTLE ALL OF THIS!!!"
Also, to have ingenuity you need often to coordinate different units. Like old Strizh drones need to be delivered to warehouses for modification. So if you have the idea to repurpose something old, you need to fight beurocracy of fuckers who won't give you what you need.
wow war seems really expensive
Mobile, supper inaccurate artillery or cheap target for even cheaper nlaws.
>be soviet union
>take decades to build a huge stockpile of equipment
>see it gone in a year
Most of it was sold during the 90-2000s to third world countries
>Most of it
less than 10%
Sure and the also got rid of all the T-55s.
there is that western cope again. Vatnik union was just as shit as its successor russia today
spare parts, people who know how to operate and fix them, etc
Tank is a tank
A tank is a tank *~~*~~)) But for real, there's likely a severe snag in the refurbishment of newer model tanks, maybe due to electronics, has anyone checked what actually goes into a T-72's autoloader?
Dunno if it's a snag in refurbishing T-72s, but more they were refurbishing all their T-62Ms to send to Syria anyway, my presumption is that T-62s are ostensibly more numerous because
>A bunch of them were already refurbished and prep'd for transport by the time the war broke out
>It's not as interesting to see T-72s getting transported to the frontline, people only chimp out over T-62s and T-55s for obvious reasons so that's what people bother to spread online
>T-72s aren't just getting refurbished, but are getting modernised to T-72B3 standards which is intrinsically slower than just a refurbishment
Not very useful at all as a breakthrough tank, but as an armoured, self-propelled field gun then it's workable. 115mm HE shells are still pretty large for attacking infantry and unarmoured/lightly vehicles and it will be working out of range of stuff like NLAWs, the armour a T-62 does have will be entirely proof to shrapnel, heavy machine guns, autocannons and near misses from 155mm artillery.
It's better than nothing isn't it?
It's entirely fine if you consider a war where both sides are running out of fighting power, or a quick war where they're used to help overwhelm the enemy. If Ukraine wasn't getting western supplies and was desperately using whatever's left to hold, adding hundreds of T-62s and even T-55s would have a huge impact. Just like all the troops and materiel that Russia mustered after March 2022 would've had a huge impact on the initial invasion.
But currently we all know that Ukraine's military won't be weaker in a year, so it's kind of just delaying the inevitable.
Kinda. They're still using up resources (fuel, ammunition, crew, support, ...) that could be spent or stockpiled otherwise and for a lot less bang per buck to boot. It's similar to saying "occupying an areas is better than not occupying, isn't it" except that when your resources are seriously limited and you aren't massively outclassing your enemy then stretching yourself too thin and essentially wasting them in the end isn't exactly a galaxy brain move.
Sometimes less is more and, to stick with the example, conserving your resources (like when they withdrew from Kherson) is the right move.
Those are damaged tanks going back for repairs
laughing at all the allied shills here. A panzer is a panzer. You still need a tank, AT gun or hafthohlladung to take one out. Sending Panzer Is to fight Shermans is just typical German ingenuity that you untermenschen cannot understand.
Underrated as fuck post.
>What value does this old ass equipment provide on the modern battlefield?
An old ass tank is still better than no tank. Granted they won't achieve much on a modern battlefield where there's a Javelin or NLAW waiting behind every tree, but that gun can still fling HE at enemy targets, and the armour will still stop small arms and HMGs. It would suck for the poor bastards assigned to use tanks that are older than they are, but I don't think anybody in the Russian military or government really gives much of a shit about them.
What you're seeing is the real capacity of the so-called second army of the world. With these in theater, they have nothing left. Ukie mortar teams and drones are enough to deal with them as it is, if you throw in artillery or MLRS into the bargain it's going to be simply a slaughter. Once these are all gone, it's over, there's nothing left. Puccia will just have to give up and go home.
They basically can act like very shitty artillery pieces with a doomed ammo supply that hasn't been produced for decades, shooting from barrels that have been left in the Siberian winter for decades, with fire control systems on par of that of an early Patton. I mean, as just a gun on the battlefield its fine, but its a fucking waste to put Russia's by this point strained pool of tank specialists into something that dramatically reduces their efficiency in terms of both maneuvre warfare and a fire platform, and will get deleted by literally everything with the label "AT" on it that hasn't been pillaged from a fucking museum.
Don't expect the T62/T64/T55s to stick around for long because of this. Practically nobody is still makign 115mm shells and barrels because lets be honest it was kinda a dogshit gun, and the only prominent developer of 100x696mm shells and barrels is Iran and they are only using it for AA duty, not artillery or AT duty.
Meanwhile Ukraine is in a much rosier spot in that regard because just about every big NATO partner still has a large 120mm and 105mm barrel and ammunition manufactoring base, and the Leopard 1's they are getting quite frankly have perfectly servicable fire control systems.
Basically, look at both the old Ts from the Russians and the old kittens from the Ukrainians as dramatically uparmored Strykers,but Russia's have seen its electronics pilfered for spare change and never bothered to maintain a parts or ammo supply for it.
They'll lob shells just fine and probably will assfuck any soviet IFV they see, but thats about it.
>Practically nobody is still makign 115mm shells and barrels
Old shit is still better than no shit, personally I would rather have 50yo tanks for support than no tanks for support.
>retard here
Finally some honesty. Slava on my knob fag.
When will we see T34s in action? A dude with an AK could probably take one of those out, it would be kino
Why not just use the tank crews as infantry at this point? The tanks are so vulnerable at this point that you’re just making them into less flexible units that are bigger targets and use more resources with almost no protection. All the downsides with none of the benefits
That's what they're doing with mobiks. Plenty videos of them complaining that they were actually (surprisingly enough) trained to do X, Y or Z but ended up being assigned as stormtroopers on the "0th line" once actually in theater.
They've been doing this on and off already anon. Remember all the vids of mobiks complaining they were trained to do one thing and forced into human wave assaults instead
>What value does this old ass equipment provide on the modern battlefield?
Entertainment value.
russians smell their farts
Honestly surprised that there haven’t been a whole lot of sleeper cells destroying train tracks
T-18 when?