This men is Colonel Markus Reisner head of the research and development at theresan military academy in Austria. According to him sending T-62s to separatists mellitias is good idea because tank on tank engagements are rear in this war, T-62 can provide good fire against fortified positions and are mobile.
Is he right?
Yeah it's better than nothing.
It's probably better than no tank but it has the logistical weight of a tank without being as survivable as a tank should be. It needs fuel, ammo, tracks, trained crew, etc. And unlike a T-72, it will die to a plain old RPG-7V or M72 LAW from the front.
Unironically the best use for T-62s would probably be Iran-Iraq style "tanks are just fancy howitzers" indirect fire.
>Unironically the best use for T-62s would probably be Iran-Iraq style "tanks are just fancy howitzers" indirect fire.
They were doing this when they first put T-62s in Ukraine and lost a bunch within literally a day. They make for shitty howitzers and are some of the worst tanks in active duty on the planet today.
>the worst tanks in active duty on the planet today.
>he doesn't know about Paraguay
The tank as howitzer meme became obsolete with shit like HIMARS, and even then an Abrams would not fare well in that role, nevermind a fricking T-62. For all the strain you’re getting on operating those more than half a century old rust buckets you might as well just buy newer tanks. Tanks succeed in a spearheading offensive with infanty support, but if everyone around you has access to RPG’s that can take them out with a single half assed shot then its pretty pointless to even bother when all that time, money, and effort went into something thats better in a museum or online game for larpers to larp with. So if something sucks ass as a howitzer or acting as a cannon with treads, is extremely fragile to modern weaponry, has no real means of defending itself against said weapons, and will just be yet another logistics burden, then what the hell is the point of getting them? If it was still 1970 where anti tank weapons worth a shit were a luxury then it would have use, but a lot has changed since and even vatniks could take one out without too much trouble. Might as well break out Mk. IVs from their museums if its really better than nothing. Leave that moronic thinking to the Russians getting turrets blown off so much it became an olympic sport.
Counter question, why are (you) such a disingenuous penis slurper, you just disproved your entire post by mentioning first class intel reports that the US has more of than anyone else. Not to mention the fact its been in conflicts one way or another since before the Cold War, so by default it already has more combat experience than every other country combined. Add in the fact that America has been working closely with Ukraine ever since it all popped off leads me to take American opinions on the matter a bit more seriously than some literally who from Austria, a country that has barely done dick period beyond making the AUG and the Glock.
>And unlike a T-72, it will die to a plain old RPG-7V or M72 LAW from the front.
No. T-62M got add on composite armor against such threats.
I would give separatists T-55s and save T-62s for ourselves.
Did he say that? Link please.
I've seen more than 5 instances of Russians taking his words out of context or inventing things he never said, so I'd like confirmation.
In case he did - he is correct about everything you listed, but they still put uneccesary strain on logistics. An up-armored flatbed carrying a mortar is probably going to be a better investment.
he said this at 13:00
%C3%96sterreichsBundesheer
Thanks anon, I had forgotten about this sinces it's from June 1, and since we've seen those things used:
1.In Kherson, not Donbass
2.As tanks
He wasn't wrong about his assumptions about how best to use those, I guess he did not expect the attitude of 1 tank = 1 tank.
Sending tanks you don't need to waste enemy AT missiles is a decent idea. Using expendable manpower to drive it there is also a good idea.
Now, it might be an even better idea to give them to trained crews, working together with trained infantry, in a limited and cautious assault gun role, avoiding enemy AT. Russia doesn't have either of those and the rebels very certainly don't, so it is not an option in reality - though russians may want to make you believe it is.
>tanks you don't need
every tank is needed no matter what
>wasting anti tank missiles against tanks
every anti tank misile that is used against a tank isn't wasted
>every tank is needed
A tank that you cannot man and supply yourself, to be used in a meaningful way, is a useless tank. If you instead have them manned and supplied by someone else, to soak up AT fire that then isn't direct against your tanks that are actually to be used for effect, that may be worth it.
As I said, even those old tanks could probably be used more effectively, but not right now, so russia is making the short term choice of drawing a little bit of use out of it.
It's fascinating what a look into the Europarasite mindset this Colonel unintentionally gives though. "Logistics? America handles those."
He is actually one of the most impartial analysts on this conflict. In the last video he said a good friend of his has died after a russian offensive in donbass. Curious is that his videos stopped after that.
If you are a redditoid subhuman that cant accept that ukrainians are just as corrupt and as subhumn as russians you are not goint to like his takes.
Ukrainians are clearly far more human.
Ukraine started the trend of mutilating and executing POWs well before the russians followed suit
Good, Russians started the trend of this invasion.
Angry Polish people need to be banned from the internet
Russians need to be banned from existence.
Swing and a miss
Good
This is untrue, though I would have no problem with the Ukrainians mutilating and executing Russians.
Kinda like the holocaust didn't happen but it should have?
Simply produce video evidence. Not one of the proven fakes though, you Russians have this weird thing where you thing anyone forgets that and you can simply recycle old material.
First case I saw was the kneekapping of those guys in the van, the eye-stabbing in the stair case of an apartment, and the killing of wounded soldiers in the "azov kino" video at the timestamp below:
?t=60
Up until that point russia had operationally killed civilians and targeted civilian infrastructure, but the mistreatment of POWs specifically, by the russians, wasn't documented until later. As far as I know obviously
Kneecapping was a proven fake, never seen the eye stabbing one, and killing wounded soldiers is not a war crime. You have to surrender to be immune to be rendered aid and immune from torture/execution.
>proven
>probably fake
Jesus Christ "not looking real enough" isn't an actual debunking of a video, especially given how inept Russian propaganda usually is.
>killing wounded soldiers is not a war crime
>Putting security shots into enemy you think might be playing possum is not a war crime.
It actually is. Anyone hors de combat is under protection and "just to be safe" isn't a justification. Faking injury or death in itself is a war crime and you're not supposed to assume everyone is doing that.
there's been enough analysis of the video and audio to show that it was fake. you'd have to be a vatnik to believe otherwise after all that, or willfully biased.
>First case I saw was the kneekapping of those guys in the van
That was probably a russian fake. The shot didn't look like it was aimed at his knee, he didn't fall like someone who was shot in the knee would and it looked like a blank round being fired.
> the eye-stabbing in the stair case of an apartment
Not seen it, but anons here on /k/ claimed that the screams were overlaid from another sauce and it's fake
>the killing of wounded soldiers in the "azov kino" video at the
Putting security shots into enemy you think might be playing possum is not a war crime. A wounded enemy might well be continuing the fight. From the video you can't even tell if the guy is actually wounded or dead or what, and there's only one.
Given Russia's history of lying and producing fakes, I tend to the opinion the first two were fake and the third is, as demonstrated, not a warcrime.
Even if those were true, which I doubt, Russia committed far more war crimes and before those incidents became known about. Bucha killings were happening from the moment the Russians rolled in on the third day.
There really isn't a comparison.
Even if that happened, which it didn't, the Russians deserved it.
Just like each and every Russian citizen deserves to be slowly ground by a woodchipper to the last man, woman and child.
>Austrians
>impartial
"Austria is a “veritable aircraft carrier” of covert Russian activity, said another. Its BVT intelligence agency is regarded as being so compromised that for a time it was cut out of much European intelligence sharing activity, according to one Vienna-based European diplomat.
The country’s defence ministry is “practically a department of the GRU”, the diplomat added."
https://www.ft.com/content/bd74a542-3ce3-44de-a93a-36dc5929912b
Leaving aside the questionable allegiances of the Austrian military, their commentary is not particularly valuable because the Austrian military has no actual credible understanding of modern war. Honestly they haven't been militarily respectable for over a century. Germans pulled their weight in WW2 and in WW1 they made the Turks look almost human compared to their bungling.
Fair point considering the country literally cannot be attacked (except by the Swiss lol) without crossing a NATO country.
>Austrian military has no actual credible understanding of modern wa
>haven't been militarily respectable for over a century
These things are totally unrelated.
And almost noone in the world has actual experience on the kind of war ukraine is having. Policing sandBlack folk doesn't provide you a meaningful advantage there.
They're both relevant because Austria has an institutional poverty of useful military thought dating back to over a century. The only European militaries left with pointy-end experience in large operations are the French and British. The last major conventional conflict of note done by the west was principally fought by the US and the British, and was a success beyond the wildest fantasies of either of those nations.
>an institutional poverty of useful military thought
Watch out, we got someone with intimate knowledge of austrian military institutional culture here. Or maybe just someone who doesn't understand that institutional cultures can change massively within just a few years (case in point, see ukraine post 2014).
Doesn't seem to be the case with this fella, since the Russoids took this advice wrt. T-62 and failed abysmally and preditably. Unless it was reverse psychology, then he's clearly brilliant.
Russia has proven to be as incompetent as Saddam, if America wanted to Desert Storm them the only reason not to is nukes.
Why are americans so goddamn insecure? Noone is in any doubt american forces could humiliate russia without even trying (vatniks don't count). Americans know how to use their ridiculous overpowering arsenal. The question is, does that give americans a better understanding on how the war between ukraine, with a very different kind of army, and russia plays out. And the answer is no. (Americans no doubt have a great understanding of it, because they have first class intelligence reports, but that was also not the point.) And american public statements on the matter are unreliable because they have a pro-ukrainian agenda, unlike the austrian military.
Having war-fighting experience and superior intelligence tends to give you a superior understanding of a conflict to a country which has not successfully prosecuted even a police action in 100+ years and an intelligence service that is known to be worthless at best, compromised at worst.
And as I stated, america has little war fighting experience relevant to the conflict between ukraine and russia.
You have already been demonstrated to be incorrect re: Desert Storm, and further you're incorrect because the US has been planning - for decades - the possibility of having to fight a land war in Europe against the Soviet Union (and later, Russia) for longer than either one of us have been alive on behalf of its allies there. There is no country on Earth - save the British - with even the slightest claim to a better understanding of how to fight a conventional war against a Russian opponent.
I never made a point about desert storm you moronic Black personmutts. I didn't even want to make a point about american intelligence. I made a point about how your argument about the austrian military is faulty. Stupid americans think every little piece of criticism of their thinking is directed against anything and everything american, then coming up with how mighty they are which obviously makes it all wrong. morons.
We’re not calling you a moron because unlike Chinese bug people such as yourself we are capable of separating us individually from the government. We’re just explaining why the whims of any other country on Earth are borderline useless in regards to combat capabilities or tactics when compared to the US, because they never actually had any combat ops worth a shit that wasn’t completely handheld by a US formed coalition since the 60’s at the latest with all that colonial shit. You don’t want to address those points because those points completely obliterate whatever stupid “argument” you attempt to make, especially when more and more shit Ukraine is now using came straight from America. Now go boil a dog with plastic rice or whatever the frick you impotent eternally seething board spamming clowns do.
Why are you getting so mad? It's not like Austria is in danger of being invaded, it doesn't really matter if your intelligence service is a joke and your military is a bunch of larpers who give brainlet takes on how to fight war in the 21st century.
Our military is great, they're good at the things we need them for, which is disaster relief and nothing else.
This is the most honest answer i have seen here in a long time.
Desert Storm is relevant to the Ukraine conflict because Russia is the technological, doctrinal, and morale equivalent of Saddam's Iraq. Although a better comparison perhaps would be the Iran-Iraq war. And do you think America and the UK haven't already reaped significant benefit from their cooperation with Ukraine?
Yes, which is why a lot of agencies, officers and civilian think-tanks have completely embarrassed themselves in regards to the war. In random order:
>insisting the Putin won't invade
>insisting that Ukraine is doomed within a week
>unable to realize how Russian logistics work for 4 months, despite everybody else already knowing that
>unable to realize how Russian propaganda works and gleefully succumbing to it because it matches your very partisan outlook
Notably, neither high command, nor the foreign intelligence fell for any of these mistakes and never embarassed themselves to the same degree as the French and German intelligence services. The French case was especially bad, because the Army saw things coming while they remained willfully blind.
why is it that amerisharts literally cannot go one post without mentioning that they beat a third world country whose entire military gave up on day one?
Because if Russia was half as strong as they pretend they'd have rolled Ukraine the same way, but that isn't what happened
His videos where always delayed like two whole weeks to the incident. He make a conclusion and it was already out of date when the video was online. Even his first video was a month old ambush about the russian tank column with no new information. Maybe he was good for people who living under a rock, the average tv consumer. This counts for all video make from any MoD or Media.
Get fricked vatc**t.
Better than nothing.
He is wrong, because these T-72s are in poor condition and being furnished to Russian-allied forces which do not have the know-how to keep them reliably operational. While tank-on-tank engagements in this was are uncommon, antitank weapons are not, and the T-62 is vulnerable to virtually every single one of them, making its use as a self-propelled field gun questionable. The poor ergonomics and irrelevant protection the T-62 mounts almost guarantee that penetrative hits are going to kill most or all of the crew, meaning that your few militiamen who can operate these vehicles will be lost. Russia is best-served by using its fifth column militias as - bluntly - ablative lives, allowing them to make contact with the enemy and then attempting to drop in artillery before the enemy disengages. They have been doing this with mixed results since the war began, prominently in the Siege of Mariupol. While 'mediocre light infantry' may seem an underwhelming use for the fifth column militias, they can aspire to little more and their status basically as slaves makes them cheap, in any case.
The T-72 has no place in this conflict, except maybe as an engineering vehicle.
T-62, obviously, not 72. The 72 is also an obsolescent tank with no place on the modern battlefield but the two mentions of it in this post are typos, not intentional mentions.
>*man
>*militias
>*a good idea
>*rare
>*a T-62/T-62s
>tell the untermensch they should use T-62s in combat
>the absolute subhumans actually do it!
I'd be inclined to agree that a tank is better than no tank, but I'm not so sure it is in this specific situation.
I guess it depends on how many of those anti tank systems the west handed ukraine at the start of the war they still have. It also depends on how soon a uke drone operator decides to fly his shitty Alibaba quadcopter over your shitbox.
>because tank on tank engagements are rear in this war
What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that Tank on Tank engagements occur in the rear lines? That is obviously nonsense.
I think he's ESLing that they are in the past tense, that stage of the war has passed has already passed.
probably a typo of rare, most of the tank fights are tanks vs infantry rather than tank vs tank
I’m honest to god still surprised that the brautwursts think their opinion matters in the grand scheme of things, considering the last thing they were militarily relevant was the Anschluss.
may as well do what the germans did and turn them into bunker turrets far better than trying to maintain the pieces of shits.
He's clearly looking at it from the perspective of "any gun is better than no gun" which is usually valid, but inappropriate in this case. Although their tank losses are extreme, Russia's problem is not that they don't have enough tanks. Their problem is that they don't have enough infantry to properly utilize the tanks they have. The current Russian doctrine has a stupid ratio of tanks to soldiers, because they believe more tanks = bigger army. The current Russian army is not nearly big enough to invade a country the size of Ukraine, much less all of western Europe, but by using an enormously high tank ratio, they can larp as a much bigger army than they actually are. The problem is that when put up against an enemy with a ready supply of man portable atgm's, you see how brittle and inefficient their composition becomes. Now Russia is completely stuck. They can't reform their entire fighting doctrine to something more efficient, assigning an appropriate number of infantry to each tank. Their army would "shrink" by at least half and they suddenly don't have the forces necessary to take and hold more than a few Ukrainian border villages. Pulling actual garbage like t-62's out of the boneyards to keep their tank numbers high is the only way they can keep fighting according to doctrine and keep up the larp of having a huge army, but that doesn't mean it's a sound decision. It's coating yourself in your own blood so that you can stand in a fire a little longer.
If they don't plan on engaging superior Ukrainian T64 then yes T62 will be effective.
The virgin Colonel Markus Reisner vs the Chad Spreadsheet Warrior Perun
really?