T-54

It's stupid to attack russia for using them

If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?

The next war probably is far in the future and they would be even more obsolet than right now.
If you don't use them they just rusting and you lost a bunch of resources for nothing, great

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

    If you're told you're the 2nd biggest army in the world, wouldn't you be upset to be put into a tank that your great grandfather died in?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >great grandfather
      Hoholshills can't into math. It is known.

      Also where would this dying be done?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Hoholshills can't into math. It is known.
        20 yo guy serving in the 50s or 60s
        his son is 20 in the 70s or 80s
        his grandson is 20 in the 90s or 00s
        his greatgrandson is 20 in the 10s or 20s
        math checks out

        >Also where would this dying be done?
        Soviets managed to lose hundreds of soldiers crushing the uppity Hungarians and Czechoslovakian in the 50s and 60s respectively.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Europeans having kids in their 20s
          lol
          Except for the dumb uneducated gypsy ones... oh wait, it does make sense!

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Russians
            >Europeans
            But also it was pretty standard to have a dozen kids by middle age in Eastern Europe back in the days, and the siberian trash that enlists in the Russian army today is similarly backward.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >great grandfather
        Hoholshills can't into math. It is known.
        The T-54 entered service in 1948. 75 years is enough for three generations to grow into adulthood no problem.

        >Also where would this dying be done?
        What do you think happened to the crew of the T-54A that the Hungarian revolutionaries drove into the British embassy? If they didn't die in the tank, it would only be because the crowd dragged them out and beat them to death on the pavement.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Average russian man has his first kid in early 20's and then dies of alcoholism in his 40's.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The crew, even if they are moronic vatniks, is far more valuable dipshit.

    >the crew and all the personnel needed to support those steel coffins

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      the crew in general is, but in case of Russia now you literally mobilize vatBlack folk and train them in 1-3 months to use this (no complicated devices on board for sure) as mobile artillery or to exploit gaps just more blood for Khorne

      stupid? kinda, but if it does not have modern fire control system, thermals for commander and gunner it doesn't matter if its vanilla t-72 ural, t-62 or t-55

      the only downside is that they need to get 100mm ammo from somewhere

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >100mm ammo from somewhere
        Syria, Iran, all the ME should have a lot of that.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        ragheads will probably send them 100mm shells anyway.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >train them in 1-3 months to use this
        Bold of you to assume they would even train them

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          baseless of you to assume they would not

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The problem is sustainment. You now have a fleet of 70 year old tanks that haven't seen service in decades and had next to no maintenance done while in storage. It is going to be a huge burden for whatever unit uses them and will clog up the logistics for little to no combat capability versus using a more normal armored vehicle or even just light wheeled vehicles. Pickup trucks with recoilless rifles or rocket pods on them or something. Shit, towed BS-3 field guns use the same ammo. Just use them.
        It simply isn't worth the hassle to bring them with their large costs in POL and parts and staff. Do you think it is worth valuable space on your military trains just to have some T-54s? Really? What else now can't be sent or is delayed because you were screwing around with these things?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most T-54s/T-55s have been scrapped. Only about 700 left, max 1,000. The Leopard 2s will run over their front line like they aint even there

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        People have been saying the russians are using their t-54s and 62s as IDF support for months, but I have yet to see any videos of this actually happening and absolutely no documentation or anything really about their actual impact on the battlefield in that role. I'm really starting to think this is just vatnik cope.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          I've read a few blog posts written by vatniks seething that old-ass T-54/55s and T-62s are being used in this role because it's ineffective and they're worried that the gun barrels will be worn out, stating that it's madness to just burn out the barrels and "waste" the tanks as ineffective artillery rather than just using them as tank. Supposedly the T-54s series tanks in particular are seeing heavy use as substitute artillery because the russians have gotten quite a lot of 100mm shells from Iran and conventional artillery shells are in very short supply.

          But judging by the photos and videos I've seen of these things being destroyed or captured, it really does seem like the russians are just using these things (particularly the T-62s) as tanks, outright replacements for lost MBTs. This is further supported that at least a few T-62s have been upgraded with "modern" (1990s spec) gun sights and night vision optics.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But judging by the photos and videos I've seen of these things being destroyed or captured, it really does seem like the russians are just using these things (particularly the T-62s) as tanks
            This is my impression as well.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you literally mobilize vatBlack folk and train them in 1-3 months to use this
        How'd that work out in Vuledhar?

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >lost a bunch of resources
    You don't "use" a 50 yearold rustbucket car, it goes straight to a car crusher.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is a bad analogy. A fifty year old car still does the same job as a modern car. A fifty year old tank can't do anything without getting killed by even the cheapest of AT weapons.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Mind you a 50 year old tank would be a T-72. T-54/55 is 75 years old

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          > Yesterday was 10 years ago
          Do you have to remind me m8

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't worry bud. The discrepancy only gets worse the older you get.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, it is good analogy. I'm talking about a car as military equipment, no amount of maintenance will make it work like brand new, short of a complete refurbishment. Even more modern 1980s cars go to a car crusher because not a single normie can be bothered fricking with the moronic rust bucket that gets unexplained oil leaks.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          An old car will run like shit but it still has utility, an old tank runs like shit and has next to no utility.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Frick your mudda. Old rigs are fine if know how to fix things. You can ship of Theseus them with aftermarket parts.
          t. guy who daily drives a 1972 Ford

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            ?t=6

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most vehicles are not nearly as good as those Fords. Bad analogy on your part.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree. But the Russian military is so poorly trained and equipped that refurbishing old tanks is a death trap for the crews. Have you seen the interview where the Russian POW said some tanks can fire and some can't? That's how it'll be but worse with these older tanks.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >one of you gets a functioning cannon, the other follows him
              >when the one with the cannon explodes, the other catches his turret and shoots
              Kek

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>one of you gets a functioning cannon, the other follows him
                >>when the one with the cannon explodes, the other catches his turret and shoots
                >Kek

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can ship of Theseus them with aftermarket parts
            Not when all the parts you need are blocked from import with sanctions, and haven't been domestically produced since Brezhnev was in office.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          How DARE you insult the humble '73 Monte Carlo by comparing it to Vatnik trash?!

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think you missed the rustbucket part of his comment. You do not want to drive a car that's been sitting out in the open for 50 years. It will need major repairs before it's usable. OP's point is you're wasting resources not using old tanks, but that guy's point is you have to waste resources repairing old tanks. Either way it's a resource dump.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    My fellow black man, they ain't got 95000 t-54s

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >had 95,000 T-54 laying around

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      sorry that includes all models of t-5x models

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're talking about global historical production. Russia would struggle to put 1,000 T-54s into service.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        May I see them?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >sorry that includes all models of t-5x models
        >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around
        That's overall production numbers worldwide, since they were designed, you fricking cretin.
        Russians have low hundreds, tops. They were trying to get rid of them since the 80s (because before 2023 they understood they're absolutely useless in a conflict outside of Africa).

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    > 95,000 T-54 laying around,
    Every adult in putler russia has one t-55.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Using T-54s itself isn’t bad, it’s just that Russia was seen by many as the second, or perhaps first, greatest army in the world. Especially in 2021, there were a lot of people who liked to brag that Russia could take on America and defeat them in a war.

    It’s an overdone analogy but imagine America was fighting a war with Mexico and the US losses were so bad that America pulled M48 and M49 Pattons out of storage. The entire world would be laughing at the US and claiming them to be a paper tiger and whatnot.

    Even assuming Russia is the second strongest army in the world, we generally shouldn’t see a need for them to use T-54/55. Instead, we should see Armata, T-90, T-80, and maybe later models of T-72 making up the entire fighting force. Not a tank that entered service in the late 40s

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      they're being used as artillery replacements too which is just insane

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wow that’s actually wild. You’d think they’d use Spruts or something

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Those were probably already wrecked in 2022

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I still believe that Russia was the 2nd strongest in the world. The gap between 1st and 2nd place was just so huge. I don't imagine another military that could have survived such humiliating and devastating losses while still kind of trucking along. If Russia wasn't the 2nd military after the US, who would it be? China, India, Turkey, various European nations? Even if the richest guy in a room has $1m, another guy has $200, and then there are a bunch of people with about $160, $80, etc each. Would the guy with $200 not be, technically, the second richest man in the room?
      Keep in mind the rating the Iraqi military had and they were obliterated with ease.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I have a different take. My money says that #2 has been China since at least the end of the Cold War.

        To use your money analogy, I'd say it's more like:
        US:
        >$1,000,000. Enough to buy a mansion (in like, Kentucky or something where property prices are reasonable)
        China:
        >~$200,000. Dwarfed by the big guy, but enough to buy a respectable home, also in Kentucky
        Russia in January 2022:
        Maybe $1,000, living in a ragtag shack under a bridge (but he's technically independent)
        Rest of the World:
        >Topping out at $500 each, all either couch-surfing in the USA's mansion, or huddled around outside, Skidrow-style. In America's manor, Uncle Sam picks the metaphorical TV channel (Western Foreign Policy)
        Russia now:
        >$100 or less, with $30k+ credit card debt, sleeping on a cot in China's garage with the Norks. Only form of entertainment is a radio playing CCP propaganda.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's kinda sad that we can't use Russia as the main bad guy in movies and video games anymore because of their embarrassing performance in Ukraine.

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    First off they don't have 95,000 laying around, most were sold off to other countries, cannibalized for parts or scrapped, don't expect to see that many of these things. Second, people aren't mocking them just for using an old tank, if this was a war of survival(like it is for Ukraine) then you do what you have too. This is a war of choice and Russia is choosing to put poorly trained mobilized into those death traps to face down western weapons.
    They are not fools for pulling out the T-54, they are fools for wasting their modern military on some last hope of Empire. Holding Ukraine is like trying to hold on to a hot coal and instead of cutting their losses and dropping it, they are gripping tighter and hoping it cools before their hand is destroyed, it won't.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >95,000 T-54
    More like ~270 "usable" ones

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    test

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?
    Feed them back into steel smelters and make something that's not shit, or sell the steel.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every tank you cram on the front is a crew, the fuel to support it, the trucks to handle logistics, and on and on. Quantity is not a replacement for quality.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      And we know Russia's had fuel supply problems since the very early days of the war, ironically despite being the world's largest and surliest gas station.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody's saying they are stupid for using them, all we're saying is that they're desperate if they're having to use them.

    But yeah they're fricking stupid anyways.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?
    I don't understand why we don't give Ukraine a few of the USAF's 12,731 completely intact B-17s, absolutely none of which got turned into frying pans almost eight decades ago.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      because we want the war to go on.

      We get to watch Russia humiliate itself trying to defend its security interests. We get to sell Ukraine (and everyoen else) lots of new guns. We get to put on a giant pity show for the ukranians. We get to test all our stuff from the past 40 years. And whats the price? A few thousand dead ukranians (and russians). Hm.

      Hm.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Hey, girl. Are you one of Russia's most advanced guided missiles?
        >Because you missed the point.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Holy shit Anon the joke flew over your head on a suborbital trajectory.

        >Hey, girl. Are you one of Russia's most advanced guided missiles?
        >Because you missed the point.

        kek

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes, it's literally free, human ammo provided by Ukraine
        that was the entire idea when foundations were being laid for this war

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?

    Where's the ammo coming from? 100mm HE would probably run dry real fricking fast

    How many of the damn things are working? They'd probably have to cannibalize tens of thousands anyways

    They'd also get shit on by AT4's and maybe even later versions of the LAW, not to mention Javelins or NLAW's

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How many of the damn things are working?

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >It's stupid to attack russia for using them

    no, it isn't, mighty cope

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?
    Scrap them and use the metal to improve domestic infrastructure.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      They already have... well except the improve domestic anything part, yachts are expensive.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?

    I'd have sold them when I was modernizing and professionalizing my armed forces.

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Slap some ERA on it and call it good to go. Besides those older tanks are useful for when the aliens arrive and disable all the modern forces with EMP blasts and they are the only things left working.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?
    Because Russians has been claiming for a decade that they will have about 1000 Armatas by now. I don't recall more than six in working condition at the same time, and more than four actually participating in a military parade, years ago.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >russia 2015

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >russia 2023

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Next year will just be an MS-1 puttering along

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    A good crew is expensive and time-consuming to train, and a bad tank with a bad crew is unironically not worth the logistics to keep it running. It will reduce the combat power of the formation.

  22. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Its stupid to attack the second army in the world for being forced to deploy ancient tanks in an invasion of the poorest nation Europe
    It will never not be hilarious
    People actually thought ruskies were some kind of peer power to the west before this shitshow

  23. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you had 95,000 T-54 laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?

    EVEN IF YOU USED T-34, you have to account for...

    >fuel that could be used elsewhere
    >logistical capacity that most certainly could be used elsewhere
    >training capacity that could be used elsewhere
    >maintenance capacity that could be used elsewhere
    >production capacity that could be used elsewhere

    It's amazing how one time after another people (vatniks?) think that old tech can be run for free or that if it requires logistics, it has no effect on whatever else is out there.

  24. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean yeah sure it's okay to use these junk tanks if you have literally nothing else to use - it the "you have literally nothing else to use" that's so embarassing for Russia here. A bad tank is better than no tank, but this was suppose to be the most powerful tank fleet in the world, with hundreds if not thousands of modern vehicles, and they've been knocked down to refurbing cold war rustbuckets that are probably older than the parents of most of their crew.

    And they wouldn't be doing this if most of their good tanks hadn't already been lost - you can say "why not use them anyway" but there actually good reasons - even a shit tank still needs ammo, crew, fuel and maintenance, all of which stretches Russia's dogshit logistics even further than it already was to begin with. I know Russians are moronic but even they wouldn't do this if they had any choice in the matter - they have to do this because they've got nothing else to replace their horrendous losses with.

  25. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know if being an ukrainian or russian logistics officer is worse.
    Ukies get a shitload of different systems that all need different ammo etc. Russians are stuck in russia

  26. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    they arent so much stupid for using them as stupid for getting themselves into a situation where using them is nessacery, frickers theoretically had enough tanks to equip their entire invasion force with at least T72s if not more modern tanks and enough T72s in reserve to replace losses and equip any nwly raised formations.

    as it turns out they took far higher losses than anticipated and had allowed far to many of their reserves of T72 to decay to the point that it wasnt feasible to reactivate them.

    in a war you always want to give your fighters the best equipment you can so as to maximise their effectiveness, T-54 while better than no tank are worse than T-72, people are criticising them for using T-54, they are criticising them for having gotten themselves into a position where they dont have enough better tanks to use instead

    >The next war probably is far in the future and they would be even more obsolet than right now.
    >If you don't use them they just rusting and you lost a bunch of resources for nothing, great

    not really how military stockpiles work, you build the thing expecting to use it in the period in which it was built, if it isnt expended before it is replaced by newer better weapons you store it in case of emergency, but it has already served its purpose by being available for use during its in service period, the UK for example still has stashes of cold war and ww2 small arms in case of invasion, States tend to store a lot of old equipment that way like the USAF boneyard

  27. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you had 1,000,000 Mosin Nagants laying around, what would you do if not use them in a war?

    If you don't use them they just rusting and you lost a bunch of resources for nothing, great

  28. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Again, Russia is not being ridiculed simply for using t-55's and other plethora of ancient garbage.
    They're being ridiculed for *having to* use them.

    They've paraded around, acting as if they could single-handedly dominate the entire world in warfare, yet they spectacularly fail at even conquering half of one of the most corrupt countries on earth, with several times less population and funding than them; IN OPEN WARFARE; NOT GUERILLA WARFARE.

  29. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They'd arguably be useful if used as the basis for an Achzarit style APC. Any other usage is a terrible idea.
    Also note how having large stockpiles of old equipment tends to work against you if a war does kick off, i.e. Syria for example. The resources and bases to maintain the stockpile would be better used training your active troops.

  30. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    t-54s

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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