>Russian train moving tanks to Ukraine

>Russian train moving tanks to Ukraine

moron here. What value does this old ass equipment provide on the modern battlefield?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          that's a t54 my dude

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            No thats a T62.
            A single look at the bore evacuator should tell you that but I guess you're too moronic.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/ivJJLPp.jpg

      Hot damn look at that modern army..

      2nd fricking army of the world...

      FRICKING KEK

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      T-44 when?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ynr these getting dabbed on by Abrams and Challys during desert storm

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Target practice, fuel guzzler and metal coffins.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

        If real, it's obviously a desperate measure. Nobody pretends it's optimal, just what they have in hand for that role.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

            https://i.imgur.com/ApXjj9n.gif

            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.

            >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.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              That's the thing, in the end they use these rustbuckets as frontline tanks, not as artillery. that's what happened in Kherson.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They've tried to break through in Bakhmut for the past 10 months.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They tried a tank rush in Vuhledar and got BFTO:

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                wrong. it was a diversion to draw ukrainian reinforcements from bakhmut and it worked exactly as planned

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The plan being to lose a bunch of tanks and still not take Bakhmut, presumably

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                What a moronic homosexual
                >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 vatBlack person

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well maybe we will find out

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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".

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The even funnier part was that overnight that building got blown up with a bunch of gayners in it, and they immediately began wailing about ISIS-Amerikkkan tactics the next day.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Did Americans fail to capture the Philippines just because some Japanese holdouts kept fighting until the 70s?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you think Russian forces can move past Bakhmut RIGHT NOW, if they wanted?
                Yes or No?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it was a feint!
                lmao

                >Most of it
                less than 10%

                sure, that's why Russia is buying ammo from Iran or NK, right?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                losing your premier reserves does not make a feint cum /chug/gie

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >T-62s and they're never seemingly close to anything
                They've been used as part of attacks in the Donbas area.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In a field, seemingly not close to anything

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They didn't get to the city before getting destroyed by at therefore it wasn't an offensive

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, tanks are shitty artillery.
        You know what's worse artillery? Not having any.
        Both sides are doing this.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well logic and reality has never stopped a vatnik before, has it?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just shit like barrel angle makes it impractical as spg.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/ApXjj9n.gif

        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.

        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.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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 fricking 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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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?

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    target practice for bradleys*~~*~~))

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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 moronic. It's for these moronic 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 moronic 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.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a tank is a tank
      I fricking 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 frickhuge 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 moronic.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        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?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >NLAW
          "Modern" variants of the fricking 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 moronic either way.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            (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.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            T55 will be vulnerable to all sorts of drone dropped munitions as well.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          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

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a tank is a tank
          I fricking 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 frickhuge 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 moronic.

          I will not call you a moron only because it seems you're not of bad faith, just merely a tourist. Lurk moar, though, man.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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 frickers who won't give you what you need.

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow war seems really expensive

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mobile, supper inaccurate artillery or cheap target for even cheaper nlaws.

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >be soviet union
    >take decades to build a huge stockpile of equipment
    >see it gone in a year

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of it was sold during the 90-2000s to third world countries

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Most of it
        less than 10%

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sure and the also got rid of all the T-55s.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        there is that western cope again. Vatnik union was just as shit as its successor russia today

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    spare parts, people who know how to operate and fix them, etc

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tank is a tank

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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 ape 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

      https://i.imgur.com/qwOaEMQ.jpg

      >Russian train moving tanks to Ukraine

      moron here. What value does this old ass equipment provide on the modern battlefield?

      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.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's better than nothing isn't it?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Those are damaged tanks going back for repairs

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Underrated as frick post.

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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 fricking 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 fricking 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 assfrick any soviet IFV they see, but thats about it.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Practically nobody is still makign 115mm shells and barrels

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Old shit is still better than no shit, personally I would rather have 50yo tanks for support than no tanks for support.

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >moron here
    Finally some honesty. Slava on my knob gay.

  22. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    When will we see T34s in action? A dude with an AK could probably take one of those out, it would be kino

  23. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

  24. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What value does this old ass equipment provide on the modern battlefield?
    Entertainment value.

  25. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    russians smell their farts

  26. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly surprised that there haven’t been a whole lot of sleeper cells destroying train tracks

  27. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    T-18 when?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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