>We're nearly at 100% of Russia's pre-war T-90M stocks lost

>We're nearly at 100% of Russia's pre-war T-90M stocks lost
What made it such an abject failure?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What made it such an abject failure?
    Drones and Western ATGMs.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Drones don’t actually matter much and ATGMs have largely disappeared from Ukranian usage for whatever reason. The big killer is mines. Russians drive through a minefield, get tracked and abandon the tank. The drone then drops a charge through the hatch.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and Russian crews

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >T-90M is a souped up T-90
    >T-90 is a souped up T-72

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Souped up
      I might be wrong, but I thought every upgrade made it's power to weight ratio worse?

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Open the lid
    >It's just a T-72 with a few more bells and whistles

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ETERNAL LIFE
        @FIHTERTANKER

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is the survival rate for tankers in modern warfare, anyway?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Depends, do you count in eastern or western listings? Because one of them is vaaaaastly lower in those stats being rapidly inflated by a certain idiotic despot

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on how the ammo is stored.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Still would like to know what hit that one. APFSDS? ATGM?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Stugna-P ATGM according to the original source

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Stugna-P ATGM according to the original source
          I always thought that T-90M hit a massive anti-armor mine. That was an amazingly energetic reaction to an ATGM hit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blind fugger, you can see the projectile in the video, even more so visible in the uncropped one

            Stugna-P ATGM according to the original source

            It looks way more like APFSDS

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The only way a tank would go off like this when hitting a mine would be a tilt-rod fuzed or magnetically fuzed anti-bottom shaped charge mine that actually managed to breach the hull, and 99.99% AT mines used in this war are anti-track.

            >That was an amazingly energetic reaction to an ATGM hit.
            It was par for the course reaction for a HEAT warhead initiated ammo cookoff on a T-72/80/90, you can see dozens of similar hits from FPV drones carrying a basic b***h PG-7.

            Blind fugger, you can see the projectile in the video, even more so visible in the uncropped one
            [...]
            It looks way more like APFSDS

            >It looks way more like APFSDS

            No it doesn't moron, like you said you can clearly see the missile, good luck with that when it's a Mach 4-5 APFSDS.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Boris Johnson

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He just strolled over and biffed 'im on the bonce

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What made it such an abject failure?
        it was a souped up T-72, but we were told it wasn't

        landmine on that track

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wrong, you can see a missile (?) coming in from the left in one frame

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A poor understanding of modern war, and general lack of brilliance among the Russian officer corps and among tank crews themselves.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    aren't they making 300 new T-90s a year?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can't believe they're making 3,000 T90s a year. 30,000 T90s a year? They'll have 900,000 T90s by next year! It's so over.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >aren't they making 300 new T-90s a year?
      A captured T-90M had a gun manufactured in the 90s, it's not even clear if they can reliably build an entirely new T-90M. The T-90Ms are likely rebuilt T-90As.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're rebuilt T90A and T72 tanks. I'm more surprised that we have seen so few T90A tanks with how many they allegedly made. Makes me think the majority of them were rebuilt and sold to other countries

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They claim to make 250-300 new T90s a year. Considering they lose 3 tanks on daily average it's not nearly enough. And that's considering they're tellling truth and about that, you know...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >aren't they making 300 new T-90s a year?
      A captured T-90M had a gun manufactured in the 90s, it's not even clear if they can reliably build an entirely new T-90M. The T-90Ms are likely rebuilt T-90As.

      Don't forget having to buy 125mm guns from Iran.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Nah, just more Russian garbage. Lost track of how many it's been, but it's way more than 15 lmao

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    primarily some kind of shit-tier armor over the ammunition magazine, such that a turret strike sets the whole thing off

    I haven't seen details on exactly why the armor is so shit though

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My guess it was made before javelins and such that strike at the top armor, but it predates it only by two years and they had 30 years to address that issue

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        top attack has has been a thing for way longer than the javelin

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This anon might have a point, guys. I-I'm... demoralized...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      reminder that, until recently, the Abrams hadn't even seen combat in Ukraine. The losses are minimal because they haven't even been used

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is also 12 killed abrams but they never update the picture
        Also they never mention the thousands of soviet tanks Ukraine lost, literally the entire western half of the soviet union's stock is gone

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >ukraine
          >12 abrams
          >thousands of soviet tanks
          may we see them?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >12 killed abrams
          May we see them?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          While I can believe that, I also want pictures.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      100/1's still a losing proposition when then have 3,001 tanks and you have 30

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes truly it's crazy how Ukraine has literally zero tanks or even any weapons at all besides the Abrams they have hardly used, truly it is joever for them

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The last Russian tank is victorious over the last Ukrainian Abrams
        >"Da comrade, now we just drive to Kiev!"
        >US approves a transfer of two more Javelin missile systems

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Javelins are delivered 8 months later

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >About the same time as fuel for the last russian tank arrives,

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just in time to take care of the whole new t-90 they made during the wait.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There isn't a single hint of proof that an abrams has ever killed a tank in Ukraine and they already lost half
          What is this meme ? Tanks are not dying to tanks

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    not sure how this will fit in your story, but T-90 losses are went up during the war and then remained on a almost constant level, this could mean it is actually in production in reasonable numbers. Why do I think this, it's new and there was literally nothing in storage. so in this rare case Russian production is able to keep up with losses.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      moron

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there are new tanks being built but production is certainly not keeping up with losses. We wouldn't be seeing T-62s being rolled out if that was even remotely the case.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the graph indicates % losses of each type, so its rather useless without absolute numbers of tank losses

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          average confirmed number of tank losses did not change this much after the initial at the beginning
          it was always about 3 lost tanks per day (+-1).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You could say than the T-90 losses are keeping up with production.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This chart was made with far too much autism. Color-coding with 19 colors makes it way too hard to read. Condense the eight T-72s and five T-80s into one category and everything has a very clearly recognizable color instead of having 3 shades of "dark blue".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Would like to see some studies of all those T-62 wreaks to see where the refurbishment parts came from.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >these T-90s are 'new'
      lol
      lamo even

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They are making more, but even according to the Russians' own numbers they're making as many in a year as they lose in a month.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      RIP in Pepperoni, T-80U.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      gaaaaaaarbage chart for the purpose
      only showing relative proportion, not total losses.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >take a shit tank
    >give it a new coat of paint
    >put a new price sticker on
    >give it a new name
    >why is my new tank such an objective failure??

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was just a discount version of the T64 but with expansion packs marketed as an M1A2 or Leopard 2 equivalent. To put the Russian vs NATO divide into perspective. Mexico is projected to surpass Russia this year in global power.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I hate our tankie government, I wish we were in NATO making ziggers seethe

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It turns out that a cast turret on a T-72 wasn't the problem with the T-72.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, I'll bite: How many hundreds of Abrams and Leopards did the ukraine lost? How many of those "real" losses are now replaced as Russia is making hundreds of tanks per year?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What made the Abrams such an abject failure moron?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tactics. at first it was charge them in a big line hoping people would run away rather than shelling the formation. now they end up alone and isolated, making them functionally useless because there's nobody to help or protect them if something goes wrong.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's enough about the T-90 on paper at least which should make it serviceable enough in some aspects of conventional armoured warfare, but this is an old tank. Sure its had some upgrades and things over the years but its still just 50 year old technology meant to fight a 1990's war with Soviet Doctrine- the one which has a massive wave of IFV's, motor-infantry and air cover in deep battle where its numbers and comparatively high firepower would lend itself well to direct fire support.
    >Ok
    Is not the 90's anymore, soviet union is a memory and they've tipped into this whole BTG strategy, fair enough it should still work well enough there
    Still have the support elements organic to the BTG, little less arse, all teeth and lay about dealing as much damage as humanly possible with all go, no brakes. I think the T90 and even the 80's should be fine enough there along with the 72's if you really got to throw a fella in off the bench.
    >Except for one very big problem
    Executing the concepts, tactics and training required to get something like a BTG just never really happened. All that time with the book in front of them and no one in the entire Russian military bothered to read the motherfricker! They just took the money for training and stole that motherfricker! By halfway though 2022 there wasn't enough of anything left and much less any members of the Russian military left who could come up with making the BTG concept work. It died, oh well

    So here we are boys in 2024
    >There is no cohesive and dedicated training for vehicle crews worth shit
    >No current doctrine in use
    >There is no overall strategy in effect
    The battlespace has become an attrition theatre against some milsurp that fell off the GWOT boogaloo which shits all over the 1990's USSR equipment, just as planned and designed to do. Worse yet it works much better than anyone in Russia in their wildest nightmares could ever have though it was going to do to them, they're scared and it shows

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >no doctrine
      you know every time i see them doing shit i wonder what the tactics are, what the grand strategy is. then it doesn't seem to actually be anything like that. someone at the top issues an order, and everyone else is expected to figure out or just psychically know what was meant by it, or how to accomplish it. it reminds me of the stories of WW2 Soviet generals ordering attacks, without any actual understanding of the situation on the ground, so the commander gets an order to attack, knows it's suicide for his men, but doesn't want to die, so he orders the attack, watches his men die, then reports back and hopes not to get executed.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Shoigu doctrine consists of
        Select all units - fast move to rush point B - lose all units - spam arty and long range air bombs - reinforce with new units - repeat until done

        This is not a joke, this is it. That is what they have been doing and are doing right now until they run out.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It reeks mostly of fear at the top that they won't achieve any goals that Putin has set them, then scared witless of what Ukraine can do to their equipment and men with not a lot of gear. I mean there's some good stuff in Ukraine but there's been shortages, some of its not performed very well, its a little haphazard to make it cohesive in the battlespace- but they do have a couple of things going for them-
        >training
        >esprit de corps
        >a plan
        Which frankly, is better than 3/5th of frick all but the west could have supplied them better and all this shit would be over much sooner and at least its climbing back up to 2/5th of frick all so that's something to look forward to.

        Russia needs results, they need big results. This bullshit were they advance somewhere, get destroyed over and over again for nothing of any strategic value isn't doing nearly as much as people seem to think it does, at the very best. And its a real stretch to say best its 'make-work' when the guys need to do something, the politicians need you to do something, but you're not really given much of a clue exactly how to go about doing it with a bunch of untrained savages, civilians and millions of dollars worth of equipment.
        At the point the loss of a 4.5mil MBT doesn't matter or a brigade gets evaporated in a wheat field for a tree line
        That's an endemic problem, its not longer a doctrine or attrition warfare, just ticking off a list of things to do from an excel spreadsheet that you can send back to General Bigpants in the rear that you've done as asked.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >someone at the top issues an order, and everyone else is expected to figure out
        Auftragstaktik at it's finest, I don't see any issues here.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >tfw Russia is basically the Dirlewanger nation we said we wanted all this while
          /k/sisters, were we wrong?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      well said

      >its had some upgrades and things over the years but its still just 50 year old technology meant to fight a 1990's war with Soviet Doctrine
      the nub of it is, its specifications were successfully kept under wraps until they were captured this war, we had no idea what it looked like under the hood the same way we have no idea what real idea the ZTZ-99A looks like now. it was prudent to assume that much of the technical developments of the last 35 years would have been visited upon the T-90M
      so it is a little forgivable IMO for us to be quite so surprised at how actually obsolete the T-90M truly is

      >no doctrine
      you know every time i see them doing shit i wonder what the tactics are, what the grand strategy is. then it doesn't seem to actually be anything like that. someone at the top issues an order, and everyone else is expected to figure out or just psychically know what was meant by it, or how to accomplish it. it reminds me of the stories of WW2 Soviet generals ordering attacks, without any actual understanding of the situation on the ground, so the commander gets an order to attack, knows it's suicide for his men, but doesn't want to die, so he orders the attack, watches his men die, then reports back and hopes not to get executed.

      with some exceptions, pretty much
      they're struggling as it is to build the modern weapons needed for a modern doctrine, but the lack of training is just as crippling, the result of which is the shambles we see

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Unfortunately for Americans, the Ukrainians have said themselves that the Abrams is fricking useless

    Intelesting, mind prease ploviding some ploof?

    Because as far as we know, if the ruskies encounter an abrams they run away screaming and call in their entire airforce on it. Well what's left of it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      r/UkrainianConflict, check todays posts
      >but reddit
      PrepHole posts get hundreds of thousands of likes on Twitter. All you homosexuals are connected nowadays

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That is a zigger sub.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so what that anon is saying is half-true, but in the sort of way where people can say whatever they want about it. the Abrams was unfortunately not designed for drones either, and was designed with a much better and cohesive logistics chain in mind. keep in mind the plan for repairing engine issues in the Abrams is to put a new engine in it, then fix the old engine while the tank goes off to do tank shit. reports on the ground are that the ruskies won't come out to play with their tanks with one, so it could still be the tank v tank king. that doesn't matter when everyone hides in a hole and just drones the shit out of you until a mobility kill occurs. especially since literally every tank, truck, apc, anything will sink in the mud they're fighting in.

      it's why the challenger is performing with such high praise relatively, russian tanks still aren't coming out to play usually, but the HESH rounds of the challenger then get to be used as a fantastic direct-fire artillery piece, and still could kill any tanks. the Abrams is lacking in the direct fire support department, the best it has is HEAT rounds, and it doesn't sound like there's enough of those, not to mention those are best used against buildings if you're trying to use it as an artillery piece, and at that point just use HE anyways. the leopard is also stacking up really well, because it's able to serve as a tank destroyer. american doctrine wouldn't usually need an abrams to sling a big boom at something, just use an apache chopper, a reaper, a jet, even artillery. instead ukies are finding that they want a tank to sling boom, because they don't have access to anything else in large enough numbers, and artillery duels are dangerous, they can't just set up a firebase like americans and let that do everything. a tank on the other hand can roll up, shoot it's rounds, and then roll away long before return fire endangers them.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Thing with the big thickboi Abrams is that you need
    >a lot of them
    >a huge 1st world economy to run the things
    >a battlespace they can run around in
    The Abrams was a bad choice to begin with that I argued was basically a logistics anchor that eats fuel, its too fricking heavy and this is a battlespace stuck in grinding, static defences that need massive firepower before you can punch through and deliver the tanks running around in the enemies rear areas. US didn't supply it or the means to do that with just that many tanks so there's an argument that there was no cohesive reason to bother- except that it b***h slapped Germany awake long enough to mumble something about donating Leopard 2's and other stuff which they eventually did.

    So thats one area Ukraine seems to have constantly struggled with, they've proved they can punch through some places like Kharkiv and Kherson, achieve all that was expected and a bit more. The military analysis in the west seemed to be fricking sleeping thinking "oh, next time will be the same. I nap now"
    Well it wasn't
    Unfortunately no one pulled their finger out for a game plan on the next front and then the aid stopped flowing halfway through the year, so wisely- frick that. Hold what we got until something better comes around, problem there is they're back foot on the initiative to react to Russia and its bad for troop morale.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I argued
      and you're wrong because the Ukrainians have refuted all that you said, so sit your armchair theorycrafting ass down kiddo

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I spent 12 months in the UK training Ukrainians, I'm not the only one who thinks its a big lump which doesn't have the numbers or logistical train to make much use of it apart from plugging holes in enemy pushes to fend off the Russians for a bit longer. So when you get a brigade of guys who are a mix of everything, you have to take some pretty broad strokes in terms of what they can use, with what they have and when they may have it and its something I struggled with to formulate a longer term tactical application.
        On the strategic level there's all sorts of stuff coming in
        Can I tell these guys they might have 1 of 30 Abrams available? No I can't, they may have to make-do with something else, maybe its ex-sov or a Leo or there simply won't be any heavy armour, they might not be any dedicated artillery and they're going to have to lean into some fast moving infantry tactics and heavily responding with what they do have to either alleviate, prosecute or counter-attack with what's at hand.

        Its not always about those numbers like I said
        Its about training, your boys, your team and sometime those numbers of units won't be available in your area so you need to adopt the posture with what is at hand

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it b***h slapped Germany awake
      That was the bongs with the Chally, shaming other western nations into action

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >ignoring the interview where Ukraine said they liked them alot and wanted more

    [...]
    Thing with the big thickboi Abrams is that you need
    >a lot of them
    >a huge 1st world economy to run the things
    >a battlespace they can run around in
    The Abrams was a bad choice to begin with that I argued was basically a logistics anchor that eats fuel, its too fricking heavy and this is a battlespace stuck in grinding, static defences that need massive firepower before you can punch through and deliver the tanks running around in the enemies rear areas. US didn't supply it or the means to do that with just that many tanks so there's an argument that there was no cohesive reason to bother- except that it b***h slapped Germany awake long enough to mumble something about donating Leopard 2's and other stuff which they eventually did.

    So thats one area Ukraine seems to have constantly struggled with, they've proved they can punch through some places like Kharkiv and Kherson, achieve all that was expected and a bit more. The military analysis in the west seemed to be fricking sleeping thinking "oh, next time will be the same. I nap now"
    Well it wasn't
    Unfortunately no one pulled their finger out for a game plan on the next front and then the aid stopped flowing halfway through the year, so wisely- frick that. Hold what we got until something better comes around, problem there is they're back foot on the initiative to react to Russia and its bad for troop morale.

    >heavy
    The Abrams has less ground pressure than the Soviet tanks do.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Abrams has less ground pressure than the Soviet tanks do.
      Seriously, go to eastern europe and have a look at the roads, culverts and bridges, some of them can handle it, a lot of them won't and its not going to matter when you go offroad at some times of the year because its is literally a swamp full of runny black mud that EVERYTHING sinks into

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >have a look at the roads, culverts and bridges
        whatever the objections, we've established that they apply more to T-72s than they do to NATO tanks so the relevance of this point when comparing Abrams vs the domestic Ukrainian tank corps escapes me

        I spent 12 months in the UK training Ukrainians, I'm not the only one who thinks its a big lump which doesn't have the numbers or logistical train to make much use of it apart from plugging holes in enemy pushes to fend off the Russians for a bit longer. So when you get a brigade of guys who are a mix of everything, you have to take some pretty broad strokes in terms of what they can use, with what they have and when they may have it and its something I struggled with to formulate a longer term tactical application.
        On the strategic level there's all sorts of stuff coming in
        Can I tell these guys they might have 1 of 30 Abrams available? No I can't, they may have to make-do with something else, maybe its ex-sov or a Leo or there simply won't be any heavy armour, they might not be any dedicated artillery and they're going to have to lean into some fast moving infantry tactics and heavily responding with what they do have to either alleviate, prosecute or counter-attack with what's at hand.

        Its not always about those numbers like I said
        Its about training, your boys, your team and sometime those numbers of units won't be available in your area so you need to adopt the posture with what is at hand

        the operational failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive was more than just the performance of the tanks and you know it, so there's limited utility in focusing on the alleged shortcomings of the Abrams vs the T-72 in that context
        had those NATO tanks been replaced with T-72s the offensive would have failed the same. spare parts availability and homogeneity was not the reason why the offensive failed

        amongst other factors we don't know for obvious reasons, it was also due to lack of artillery, air support, and mine clearing assets

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Its for a lack of everything
          We can't apply western doctrinal process the Abrams was built around with 3/5th of it just is not there like I said earlier
          They need a lot of air, arty and armour but if you've only got armour, not much artillery and frick all air you're in the shit and that's were its not working properly along with the biggest problem is distance.

          Putting this into McDonalds terms
          The western seaboard of the USA is completely full of arsehole bandits from California, Oregon and Washington state. Which is terrible, but even worse they manage to bite off a chunk of Mexico and have free run of half of Canada to squeeze into that area as well and mobilise troops. Then to make it difficult, we can't shoot into Canadian lands because they will unleash the dancing Moose and we'll all be hockeysticked.
          You have THIRTY Abrams to cover that entire area
          >ten will probably be broken
          >ten will be in refit-reserve
          >ten will be in frontline service
          Good luck with that counting on it doing very much because to fix the damn things you have to send the engine all the way across the country and hope they can unfrick it, or if they can't then its got to go to somewhere else in the world.

          You've got some artillery, but frick all ammo
          You've got some flying stuff straight off the boneyard
          Somehow you're expected to make both stretch as far and long as it has to and a whole bunch of arsehole bandits that are jonesing for your booty that just seem to keep on coming. That is why I get so cranky with people, the amount of make-do is unacceptable and they need some big quantities of equipment to turn things around and most of all. They don't need it turned off for 8 months while someone sticks their finger up their butt trying to figure out the texture of the shit and depth

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >it doesn't agree with me therefore propaganda
    The only thing you can ding the Abrams for in Ukraine is that there aren't enough of them.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Shut up Chang, you managed to lose all your gains in weeks.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it's why the challenger is performing with such high praise relatively, russian tanks still aren't coming out to play usually, but the HESH rounds of the challenger then get to be used as a fantastic direct-fire artillery piece
    Gonna miss HESH, just a cheap frick off demoround

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Gonna miss HESH, just a cheap frick off demoround
    why is the yankee so mad?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >reading comphrension = 0
      You should learn English instead of shitting up the board.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >not a chink
    >furiously sucking chang's yellow micropenis
    ooga booga chinky poo
    the century of humiliation is just starting

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >You should learn English instead of shitting up the board.
    you should learn how to reply to people, homosexual

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >2024: North Korea produces more tanks with more modern equipment than Russia

    wtf is this timeline.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >North Korea
      >modern equipment
      Ahahahahaha

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As modern as the T-90M, yes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon any tank produced by the DPRK is 35 years more modern than anything made by Russia, Russia is refitting T-72s with 50 year old optics from T-62s.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          These days they're running short of even those, look

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Meanwhile in Pyongyang...

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The abrams bodykit with russian style ERA on top and smoke launchers sticking through has real chinese lead paint toy vibes

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            what am I looking at?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            what am I looking at?

            Russian tanks have been running zigger rigged optics from civilian cameras.
            The most glaring examples are the T90s with no thermals running night vision made out of surveillance cameras.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >surveillance cameras.
              geez louise
              what a humiliation fest
              thanks

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >U.S./NATO ground forces vs. PLA ground forces
    I'm trying to picture the scenario under which this becomes the deciding factor rather than air/sea power.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    We are all heckin twitter normies in this here, zister

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >destroying Soviet mil surplus instead of giving it to me
    I hope all of these stupid slavBlack folk get court marshaled for this

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >ook ookh mutt mutt mutt
    You couldn’t just hold it together for the rest of your post huh

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >bulldozed by the chinks in a few years
    So you need your masters to bail you out in end?

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Too few of them. Possible issues with the turret compared to the earlier T-72 variants.

  33. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >What made it such an abject failure?
    Russians.

  34. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It was made by and manned by russians

  35. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This is good. This clears room for the Armatas to start rolling off the assembly lines and to the front. We know these are basically unkillable via modern anti-tank weapons.

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