Umm Kyivsisters, i thought they ran out of T-90Ms long ago? Posted on May 6, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor Umm Kyivsisters, i thought they ran out of T-90Ms long ago?
I think I have this imaged saved approximately 50 times.
They really pulled classic this time
my thoughts exactly
ohnononono alliedbros, its unironically over!
It's like they have a checklist of shit the Nazi Germany did and are just going ham at this point.
Maybe it's because a fair amount of Ukrainians sided with the nazis so they're trying to get some Ukrainians on their side
I estimated 300 tanks in total.
Many rows were T-62M with Kontakt 1 blocks.
They don't show if they have T-90M electronics/optics. A T-90M is as good as its electronic because the tank gun and armor isn't remarkable.
A T-90 is basically a T-72 with add-on armor and better electronics and FCS (though I think T-90M 'Breakthroughs' have a different gun? I can't remember). Without those electronics and FCS it is strictly a worse T-72B3.
>lol more like 30, 50 if we're being generous.
Look at the video. Although even 300 tanks (including many T-62M) are barely 2 months worth of Javelin fodder.
Think you replied to the wrong person, anon.
Oh, my bad. Thx
>lol more like 30, 50 if we're being generous.
Look at the video. Although even 300 tanks (including many T-62M) are barely 2 months worth of Javelin fodder.
count the barrels, there's really not that many in frame at any one point.
~25 tanks per row, I only can see one (apparently) complete row of T-90s. There's a lot of T-62Ms. Resolution is bad and most of tanks rows are too far.
>lose 1900+ tanks
>pose with something like 100 tanks as if it's going to be a game changer
Thirdies really are something.
> >pose with something like 100 tanks as if it's going to be a game changer
Stop the cheap straw man bs. My post before that:
>are barely 2 months worth of Javelin fodder.
Game changer, huh?
Calm your tiddies bro, I'm having a laugh at the video.
you need crew to man them, you need competent crew to win with them, you need competent command to help the competent crew to win
they have neither
Lol lmao even for propaganda shoot, russians cant scrounge enough fuck up enough T-90s and have to bulk it up with museum relics
why are those tanks parked at concrete pads?
is this some kind of long term storage?
lol more like 30, 50 if we're being generous. They show the same tanks in tight shots and every time you could see past 15 tanks there's a conveniently placed vehicle in the middle of the path to stop you from seeing further. Also half of them don't appear to be T90's
Russia has a dozen tanks upgrade to late-90s technology standards. It’s over for hoohools
that's... not that much tbf with you tbh senpai
My name is John Smith from washingtown, please let's make peace, givw Russia all the land in the old soviet SSR and stop the sanctions!
No, we enjoy the enemy destroying it's future.
>Russians have to gather a bunch of tanks in a spot and take a narrow angle photo so it makes it look like there's a lot
>there are thousands of m1 abrams in a depot in the Nevada desert and they don't try to hide it
Seriously why is the USA so unsure about sending them. They are just collecting dust (sand).
it's not about the tanks themselves.
The line rebuilding abrams tanks for foreign sales is working at capacity to send rebuilt tanks to Poland, Taiwan, Australia, etc.
The DoD does not want a SEPv3 with a HAP package analyzed or God forbid captured - it'll get an FMS armor package similar to the M1A1 AIM
Nah you're missing the point: the us doesn't want this war to be over quickly. That's why they withheld Patriot, M109 Paladin, Bradley and Abrams for so long. Why they still withhold ATACMS and F-16.
Ukraine is supposed to be too strong to loose, but to weak to win. russia is supposed to be ground down in a long process, not beat fast.
They are boiling the frog.
Like a death by a thousand cuts.
I don't think this is true, because it's mainly peddled as a line by vatniks to try to imply that the west is to blame for Ukraine's misfortune and not, you know, Russia which is the one doing the invasion.
The real reason is escalation. Whether Russia has functioning nuclear weapons is unknown, and rather than test it by immediately intervening and slaughtering the Russian armed forces in a direct western intervention which might (if Russia has nukes) provoke them into just using nuclear weapons, the west is preferring to do minor stages of escalation so that Russia has no one event they can point to as justification for nuclear war. Ever step is minor. Russian nuclear weapons staff aren't going to turn the key because Ukraine got some Turkish drones. Russian nuclear weapons staff aren't going to turn the key because Ukraine got some rocket artillery. Russian nuclear weapons staff aren't going to turn the key because Ukraine got some Bradleys. Etc. Each event is too minor for the Russian soldiers who would actually have to fire nuclear weapons to agree to do it.
The west would prefer the war to be over as quickly as possible so they can hurry Ukraine into the EU and NATO and station American troops at the border, and western companies like Shell can get in on Ukraine's natural resources. But they can only escalate gradually, just in case Russia actually has working nukes.
Your premise that "the west" isn't doing all at once because they fear russian nuclear strike is beyond dumb.
>The west would prefer the war to be over as quickly as possible
Long war has it's benefits, Ukraine is getting in debt, which will allow NATO to get a strong influence over it. Also, NATO has a strong proxy country to grind russian military down. And long war allows "the west" to impose sanctions and turn russian aligned countries against them - therefore push russia forwards to another collapse.
>thinking America operates on China-style debt traps rather than making friends via generous giveaways
IQ of a snail.
Didn't we forgive soviet debt and then hold the UK by the balls for 60 years?
UK also forgot soviet debt so yeah. But USA wanted to end the British Empire so held them accountable.
No, the Soviets told us to fuck off and we didn't want to start a war over it, while the UK would like the option to do it again in the future so making sure to pay their debts is a good way to do so, on top of maintaining a good relationship with the US. We let them pay over such a long time scale with minimal interest because it was good for them since inflation ate away most of the actual debt while they symbolically paid the money back.
UK still did well out of that, by letting the US use its military bases it got a near deterrent for free while it sorted its own out.
More like the soviets refused to pay. UK got a decent deal out of it.
The entire US executive branch of government is composed of garden gnomes at this point, that’s exactly what they do.
>Long war has it's benefits, Ukraine is getting in debt, which will allow NATO to get a strong influence over it.
>[The goal is to collapse russia]
Most expensive thing on earth right now for countries is a large population of young healthy professional men. That might not have been the case in the past even if you ignore the odd genius that manages to survive a war, but birthrates are way down and the global number of young healthy professional men in the world has massively shrunk. I'll give you a hint as for what all those evil western capitalists' really want in life; its more people to buy more stuff. Speaking as a moderate, I think moscow should be glassed.
Ukraine is so dirt poor as a country that even poland could buy out all their economy and poland isn’t exactly an economic superpower. There’s no need to debt trap them, especially since they’ll either be tied to russia or eu within a decade
There is no point in giving Ukraine extra debt through long term when they could simply give Ukraine 5000 Abrams and then charge them for it which is way more debt.
Long war has no benefits for anyone in the West right now politically.
Are you saying the US is completely willing to let Joe Biden lose in 2024 simply so Ukraine can have extra debt?
>The real reason is escalation
No the real reason is that we want to keep as much of our capabilities hidden as possible, see all the threads about the Patriot shooting down the Kinzhal for that.
Russia is in the wrong, don't be retarded and expect us to pretend the people running the US are not psychopaths willing to destroy Ukraine with a slow war to weaken Russia.
wow an accurate take on PrepHole, how rare
Just another Kremlin propaganda piece. By giving the ukies only what's absolutely necessary to push them the Russians out means they're less likely to even think of going across the border and attacking Russia proper and making it into an even bigger shitshow. Plus the US has no need for a collapsed Russia, as trying to secure every warhead from every Russian microstate resulting from such a collapse would be an exercise in futility.
Everyone understands that when Russia is driven out of Ukraine, it will most likely be necessary to proceed further into Russia itself to get them to agree to a peace treaty. Ukraine could kick them out of every square inch of Ukraine and Russia would continue to engage in missile strikes on civilian targets and refuse to agree to a peace treaty just to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. Russia will need to be pushed into a position where they are in danger of having substantial parts of their country occupied indefinitely before they'll agree to fuck off.
>Russia would continue to engage in missile strikes on civilian targets and refuse to agree to a peace treaty just to keep Ukraine from joining NATO
That's not how it works.
Also, what peace treaty? According to russia they're not at war with Ukraine.
Uh no? Ukraine can let Russia rot inside its own borders.
>missile strikes and NATO
Missiles don't grow out of trees and a few impotent strikes don't affect policy as much as you'd think it would or else we'd still be in the 1990s timeline-wise with the Koreas. Plus NATO membership isn't a win condition for Ukraine, they can perfectly exist outside it. Russia as a pariah state excluded from most of the world's economy can't.
I think it's less that they want the war to last, and more that they want to send the bare minimum needed so as to not reveal the full capabilities of all their most advanced shit unless they absolutely have to. Probably a bit of both though.
This has been the worst point of the entire war. Continuously made, but entirely wrong.
Yeah it's bullshit. It was completely retarded when the vatniks pretended that was Russia's strategy, it's almost as retarded when applied to the US.
The truth is the West simply wasn't super bullish on Ukraine's chances and showering a non-ally with serious weapons is generally avoided.
This is so obvious but look at these replies. Shills are everywhere lol
>This is so obvious but look at these replies. Shills are everywhere lol
Yeah if you think anything else but then you're a vatnik or retarded. Let's consider the advantages of dragging out this war: 1) Russia has been threatening to destabilize the West for several decades now. The longer they can be sanctioned the weaker they become and the less they compromise western government and diplomacy. 2) The only militaries of real concern to the west is (was) Russia and China. Once it became clear that Ukraine could hold it's ground against Russia, the west was given the opportunity to violently disarm one of their last two enemies in a way the whole world approves of. Even China has began to approve of the west's proxy war against their former largest ally. 3) This war is cheap and has massive public approval. Ukraine has been fighting with only surplus and the public is in no rush for this war to be over. 4) This destabilizes the shit out of Putin, who is perhaps the largest antagonist of Western relations with Russia. The west wants to westernize Russia and force them to be 100% dependent on western trade, effectively making them a vassal. 5) Russia interferes with the US's playtime in the sandbox and the US doesn't like it. If its military can be reduced to a garrison force (which is where it is presently pretty much), Russia could no longer project it's power and the US would be able to gain more global influence and control. 6) The US wants to sell it's energy to Europe and destroying the Russian state is a good way to make that happen. 7) The US is the worlds largest arms dealer and the ukraine war is the largest advertising campaign in history. Pretty much every country the US sells to has expanded their military as a result of this war, and that's good for the US. And finally 8) the west has hated Russia for most of the last century. Watching them be eviscerated is highly satisfying.
self posting bc of limit.
inb4 muh nooks: Russia has very few working nuclear weapons due to slavic management practices. Russia also probably doesn't know which nukes are the working ones and which aren't Russia also likely doesn't know which of it's launchers (the missile) work. The Russian military is also not efficient enough at communicating orders that any ordered strike would take much longer than expected to execute.
Realistically, if Russia tried to nuke the US (or anyone else), a good number of missiles would launch. The strike would be slow and uncoordinated, and missiles would slowly trickle out. Some would get intercepted, but most would make it to the US. Of these, most would fail to detonate. Nonetheless, some working nukes would make it and millions would die. And then the Russian state would permanently be removed from history. We know this and Russia knows this. Russia is effectively not a nuclear state as far as MAD goes. Nukes were never an option.
i'd be much more worried about western/northern europe since afaik russia has a ton of shorter-range nukes and not so many long-range nukes. i doubt russia could ever pose a meaningful threat to the US but europe would probably be fucked due to cope nukes being launched at them. but as an european myself i don't give a fuck, we should never give any concessions to russia ever again out of principle and if they wanna start throwing nukes at us for it then so be it
They need to be repaired. The Army is also anal about its vehicle hulls. Even though they didnt want to build that many in the first place.
but theres some other factors as well. Firstly and most obvious is that russia is getting completely humiliated even without them so why put in the money and effort, and second is that if a Ukranian mishandles one and it gets destroyed in an embarrassing way it'd seriously upset top brass since they sell them constantly.
because its still a complete toss-up as to whether the ukrainains can even USE all this western armor properly.
here's another for your collection
Grey Abrams are so sexy.
have to gather a bunch of tanks in a spot and take a narrow angle photo so it makes it look like there's a lot
are thousands of m1 abrams in a depot in the Nevada desert and they don't try to hide it
Average A vs B brainer be like
Is it true that the US keeps building Abrams despite their military having more than enough because the tank factory workers will crucify the sitting Congressman who allows them to stop getting more tanks?
They've changed over from making completely new ones to upgrading the existing ones, but more or less, yes.
Why can't they give a few tanks to Ukraine?
Abrams are gas hogs and need a lot of logistics support compred to other western tanks, that's why they're getting first Leo 2s, and Abrams will come later.
>need a lot of logistics support compred
Probably been sitting there for the past year waiting for internal components to be fitted.
probably sitting there because valuable optics or radio equipment was dismantled and sold on the black market.
This doesn't even replace the T-90Ms that they've lost. Their yearly output is dogshit.
one brigade of tanks. neat
>They put fucking ERA on the cope cage.
If any of your fuckers had predicted this two months ago, I would have congratulated you on a good shitpost. And here we are.
>era blocks on the cope cage
Would K1 on the cope cage even work? The explosive has to be against a solid base to direct it back out against the incoming projectile, wouldn't this just cause the cage to cave in?
No it doesn't. See ERA mounted on side skirts?
Will it work, doubt vs Javelin, that comes in at around 45 degrees
doesn't matter anyway, javelin duel mode is designed to push it all out the way
Who gives a shit if they've got 500 more T-90M's? They still suck, they're practically little better than T-62Ms.
>i thought they ran out of T-90Ms
Where did you read that? I haven't.
It's a news story every time a T90M is knocked out. It's happened what, a dozen times? I don't know.
19 visually confirmed losses of T-90M's. 7 T-90S. 1 T-90AK. 35 T-90A.
There are many 'unknown' because they can't be visually identified due to various reasons.
Yeah but those aren't all T-90M's.
>19 visually confirmed losses of T-90M
Phew just 20% of all in existence
Well some of them were captured so it is possible they were recaptured by Russia. Haha! We know for a fact that the UK has had a T-90A for months upon months and USA got one (confirmed) in USA itself a few months ago. As for T-90M's? I assume any captured have gone to Poland then to UK then to USA. If they have multiple I suspect UK and USA will be going over them.
One T-90M was spotted at a gas station in Louisiana. Literally
That was a T-90A
>filling a 2tb hdd with black cocks to OWN the libs
>i thought they ran out of T-90Ms long ago?
Your ESL is showing Vatnick.
>, i thought they ran out of T-90Ms long ago
I mean, a lot of those are T-62M's so... yeah?
I am not getting into this without a cope cage with era on top.
Don't worry Medvedev said Russia will produce 1,500 T-90M's a year. Russian MoD said 'hundreds' had been delivered at the start of the year. Trust the plan.
And not a microgram of copper left in the lot of them.
We knew they didn't months ago by virtue of OSINT. They're out of decent crews though.
Literally nobody said that.
well, we got what we were waiting for
Usury and debt slavery?
unfortunately not, instead we got dry-dicked, square glass wearing fags from 4chan
Throw insults all you want, plebbitor. The truth is self evident.
garden gnomes are as much the demons you make em out to be as gender is a large and wide spectrum.
It's both bullshit.
>command wants you to find the difference between this image and OP's
>one row of T-90s
>rest is T-62s
Hell of a lot more than this https://twitter.com/elintnews/status/1654761734685556736?s=46&t=BFFhc0UL-CnNLrDuOAjmTw
Russia would lose a war of attrition to even fucking Mexico.
>4.4% unclassified transactions