What do irregular forces use old tanks for?

When the rebels or militias get their hands on old tanks like T-34s or IS-2s what do they actually use them for? I know ISIS had a few tanks at various points, or the rebels in Donbas back in 2014 had a couple, or various groups in the balkans had T-34s and other comparable shitboxes. What did they do with them?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What do fighting forces use weapons designed to break through lines and assault defensive positions for?
    I dunno anon, you tell me.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but they're T-34s in the 21st century operating without any support from an armored division. Even autocanon fire would chew them to peices.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah but they're T-34s in the 21st century operating without any support from an armored division
        seperate tank battalions could be attached to infantry divisions to just give them a little more reach
        they would just assign a company to support infantry and act as artillery

        >Even autocanon fire would chew them to peices.
        unlikely, except from the side
        a T-34 has 45mm of armor at 60 degrees, giving it 90mm of frontal armor and 40mm at 45 degrees on the side giving 50mm of side armor
        russian 30mm APFSDS could do it, but not the older APDS rounds that would likely be used in a regional bush war
        the even older AP rounds carried by the BMP-2 couldnt do the side armor even at point blank range

        a BMP-3 with APFSDS rounds would represent the most modern version of the BMP and wouldnt be fighting T-34s or T-55s but actual MBTs

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your two options are fight with T-34 or fight without T-34. What do you choose, retard?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If both I and the enemy have ATGMs I'll go without the T-34. At least then I'll be harder to spot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Youll also be lacking a gun that could be brought to bear
            And the loss of a tank means a replacement by a towed counterpart

            And while a T-34 is vulnerable to shaped charges it can move under its own power and defend itself with machine guns
            Those 5 men would instead be assigned to a mortar or light howitzer, and would be limited by how fast their legs can go and can be engaged by enemy machine guns

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It still wouldn't be useful as a tank though. Perhaps as a ghetto SPG, but its not being used for breakthroughs or assaulting defensive positions.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Medium tanks were intended for both maneuver and infantry support

                The US had more seperate tank battalions than regular tank battalions, due to the sheer number of infantry divisions needing reinforcing

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They use them like a normal military unit does, idiot.

                >Perhaps as a ghetto SPG, but its not being used for breakthroughs or assaulting defensive positions.
                Who says they're not? A tank can protect from rifle fire and can blow up trenches and apartment buildings, that's good enough for any irregular force.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Your two options are fight with T-34 or fight without T-34. What do you choose, retard?
          I'd honestly choose no T-34 if we are talking about frontline. Four infantrymen will be much more useful.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Four infantrymen will be much more useful.
            Thats a fireteam at best
            Even a US fire team only packs a SAW and 3 rifles
            A 3rd rate regional power might get 4 AKs and a machete at best
            And they can all only travel at the speed of their legs

            A T-34 would add a 85mm cannon and 2MGs, which vastly exceeds any fireteam in firepower
            And while an ATGM could knock one out easy, they can withstand HMG fire and indirect weapons, while infantry are easily killed by either

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              But the infantry are much lower maintenance, can go many more places, and are much harder to spot (thirdies don't have thermals).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well, if you're a militia with a tank taking on a militia without a tank, it is a pretty bit advantage, Anon. In the context of two under resourced groups fighting one another, hauling out a T-55 provides advantages in mobile protected firepower, if the other side does not have the appropriate means of destroying the tank. It should be pretty obvious, Anon.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        T-34s have better protection then Bradleys.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Aren't Bradleys usually fitted with some form of nERA?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Unironically a tank is a tank. Contrary to popular belief, AT weapons like RPGs are NOT that common among your average ragtag militias

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But what if you're not fighting a ragtag militia though? There are plenty of occassions of militias fighting regular armies.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          T34s are rare as shit nowadays, the only instance I know of beyond the pic you posted (and I don't know the context of that) is a ripcord T34 Self propelled gun in yemen.

          RPGs are common, but proper ATGMs are not. And the rate of hitting with an RPG7 is a lot lower than you think. Wiki's is uncited but it does seem corroborated elsewhere that past 50 meters it drops, past 200m it is pretty much 5% or less. A basketball court is 28 meters, so think of 2 basketball courts and that's the ideal distance to use an RPG7 - if you want to hit.

          If you want to survive then it's not.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The kind of autocannons that could penetrate a T-34 aren’t very common in shitholes where T-34s are still common

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Makeshift SPH

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >bulletproof armored vehicle
    >cannon with HE rounds
    Gee I wonder

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >When the rebels or militias get their hands on old tanks like T-34s or IS-2s what do they actually use them for?
    infantry support
    even an ancient 100mm can lob HE shells all day
    and you get a machine gun that fires from under cover and doesnt need to set up a tripod

    if the enemy only has molotov cocktails, for anti-tank weapons
    than an M4 sherman might as well be the juggernaut

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    VBIEDs

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what did they do with them?
    Infantry fire support guns, of dubious actual effectiveness

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What did they do with them?
    Usually they are just mobile pillboxes/roadblocks for chtckpoints.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What war thunder gays fail to understand is that shrapnel and small arms fire are the two most common threats in war, and any vehicle that can stop both of those things is a vehicle that's worth having.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >russians using t-55
    >"lmao what a brainlet xD"
    >le heckin wholesome mujahidino using t-34
    >"akhchually that's pretty based and valid"
    I don't understand this board anymore

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Muj don't claim to be world-class militaries that could lift the eyebrow and count the eggs to beat all of NATO, anon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You seem like you have a hard time understanding a lot of things in life.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t. the deliberate missunderstander

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those muj insurgents didn't previously spend decades LARPing as a military power, boasting about how they could take over the world and that nobody could stop them.
      Russia is only held to higher standards because it assured us that it met them.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One of those managed to ward off the combined might of the US armed forces.
      The other is getting wrecked by 3% of its budget

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        *combined might of the Afghan security forces

        The Taliban aren't the NVA, the original organization doesn't exist outside of a few units in the Pakistani tribal areas.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because rebels and militias mostly have small arms or at best old AA guns mounted on pick-up trucks. Even ancient tanks are bullet proof to most weapons they have.

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