Why does it take so much to make arms and vehicles? In ww2 america used to build a fully functional cargo ship in less than two weeks, why now people talk about "stocks running dry" or shit like that? Have we lost the manufacturing capability we possessed 80 years ago? Or is the lack of resources that causes that?
The of simply Maintaining such capacity is in of itself extremely expensive, and wasnt long term sustainable even back then.
>by 1944 US defense spending was 40% of national budget
Cost of*
If we just moved services and infrastructure to private entities, we'd easily be able to spend that much on defense again like we should be doing.
Like we do now?
Who do you think actually builds the ships?
Lmao yeah because the state department privatized all the major infrastructure development the last time there was a major world war and it made things so efficient. Jesus Christ you should hear yourself. The only reason that America has a functional highway and (a long time ago now) rail system is because they took it out of the hands of all the dumbfucks squeezing freight in a negative spiral of toxic competition.
>toxic competition.
Competition is inherently good for the consumer commie. If private companies owned the roads and bridges and dams and all that, they would actually have an incentive to keep it well maintained because they'd have a vested interest in doing the right thing so that their profit margins aren't threatened by fed up citizens.
NTA, but I'd like to point out that this was the exact argument used by Enron's lobbyists for deregulating the power grid. And the past few years of blackouts and price spikes in Texas are further evidence that the virtues of the free market don't necessarily a panacea for everything ever.
>If private companies owned the roads and bridges and dams and all that
Road transport and other heavy-duty infrastructure is a bit different than breaking up AT&T or getting your choice of cell phone carrier; look at some of the problems that Orange County had in outsourcing a few miles of freeway in exchange for private maintainers using it as a toll road.
Hah. Texas here and we're having to cut our power usage today because the grid is having problems. Second time this week. Also my brother's business had its utility contract reverted to market rates and they didn't tell him right before one of these supply/demand mismatches so they almost got stuck with a massive power bill which they couldn't cover, so they had to get on the phone and threaten to sue until they worked out a deal to pay the original amount per their contract. It sucks.
Thanks for the perspective, Texanon. That sucks for you and your brother, though it does highlight some real-world counterarguments to the hardcore Ayn Rand position.
Wrong, if public infrastructures were made completely private they would ultimately cannibalize themselves until one megacorp holds monopoly over it. And when it does they can make the shittiest roads and railways they want and charge what they want, and people would still use them because they need them. Public ownership is a farce due to bureaucracy and conflicts of interest, but they're incentivized to keep infrastructures somewhat functional because they're bound to the voters' decision to keep or remove the current administration when the next polls come
>Competition is inherently good for the consumer commie
Doesn't mean it's good for the state.
Consider the NDIS, which is part of our healthcare system in my country. The government approves a budget for a disabled person and that person can spend the budget at approved NDIS providers for things they need because of their disability. Great system, right? Private companies compete to offer attractive disability care to consumers who "know best" and can make "good choices."
But in reality what it means is that a mobility aid that costs $100 if you're not on the NDIS costs $500 if you are. The private companies just bilk money out of the government by jacking up prices for services covered under the NDIS. Consumers don't care, they just ask for more money. And you can't not give them the money because the whole fucking point of the NDIS is to pay for this shit. So instead the government has to police the private companies doing this price gouging. And what you end up with is an arms race between private companies who are constantly competing to gouge government money and governments who are perpetually behind the curve.
And it doesn't even save on bureaucracy because you have to get approved for the NDIS in the first place to get a budget, so there's still a massive cadre of bureaucrats doing that work.
It's a perfect example of how privatization isn't a fix-all - private companies are very good at maximising profits, but when the government is paying for it that means that private companies become very good at stealing your tax money. The government has massive leverage and could, for example, sign a binding contract with a preferred supplier to get a good price on mobility aids (which is what our public healthcare does with drugs - "we will buy all the drugs for everyone in the country from your company, IF you can give us the best price") but instead of taking advantage of leverage and centralisation you just end up bleeding money into private hands.
>Doesn't mean it's good for the state.
Competition is good for the state. It's called war.
Go look up what a natural monopoly is. There is a reason roads and electrical grids, etc. are all public. One producer can provide the service cheaper (lower cost to consumers) than many. This is because it's retarded to build two sets on competing electrical grids, two sets of sewer pipes to each house, etc. In these cases you need to state to deal with monopoly power.
have a nice day lol. America is a shithole thanks to your "compitition" inbred hick
Privatized roads would be unironically lowest bidder shit that are barely maintained. Road networks are something that turn into natural monopolies quickly. Once that had happens, sole existing road provider would start to extract maximum profit with minimal investment into infrastructure. That is in the interest of their shareholders.
>Road transport and other heavy-duty infrastructure is a bit different than breaking up AT&T or getting your choice of cell phone carrier
Local phone networks and cable tv-networks are natural monopolies, once there is established network, barrier of entry for competitor becomes insane. Cell phones kinda disturbed tele communication industry as you don't need to build lines for end users anymore, just the network at large. Last leg is where absolute fuck ton of cable goes and it costs lots of money. Established company can lower prices to squeeze out local competition for a while and once competition goes away ramp up the prices.
>Privatized roads would be unironically lowest bidder shit that are barely maintained.
maybe in the third world, works just fine in europe
Privatized roads make absolutely tiny part of road infrastructure and those are regulated to hell and back. Not to mention tax payers are still paying huge chunk of building expenses and likely backing all the loans needed for rest of construction costs. Private road or bridge offers a short cut and they aren't in position to impose cartel that comes with monopoly. Road/bridge tolls are heavily regulated. Private roads are a long term low profit, but still profitable business for large construction companies. They get their 30 years of road tolls, before handing over the road to government.
Marinette Marine and Oshkosh Truck are both private companies that the US contracts to make military ships and vehicles. Both those companies started out as and still make civilian product too.
This anon gets it.
The creation and initial manufacture of anything is the easy part. It only took the United States 9'ish months in 1939 ~ 1940 to get the Liberty Ship Yards into swing, and afterwards it was just a matter of fabricating the bits and bobs at their respective industrial centers.
The big problem for restarting the gears of war these days is that it means whatever commercial or service industries you have, need to be somehow organized into manufacturing something that can be used for the greater war effort.
Just some examples:
>Candy manufacturers almost instantly shifted into making components for MREs/Survival Rations
>Textile workers were pushed to find the best design for a combat uniform, and then produce it too scale well economically.
>Plantations and Farmers were given specific crops by the government to grow. One of the mainstay crops in the Midwest was hemp, as the US Navy was in dire need of it for ropes.
>Some sugarcane plantations were actually crop shifted into growing cattail, as the "wild corndog" fluff was actually found to be suitable for life vests.
It's mostly a matter of the government taking census of what they have, and then finding out who can make what. Alternative uses for mundane things is encouraged because it could mean less waste material and more stuff for the war effort.
Every single piece of equipment made has to be maintained. It's not just a one and done deal, if you spend 1,000 dollars to create a piece of equipment, you could be spending 100 dollars every year after you make it to maintain it. The US military is as large as can reasonably be maintained during peacetime.
Two reasons, warthundertard.
>Most countries (incl Russia) are largely deindustrialized. The industrial base is no longer there.
>The man-hours needed to produce modern equipment (as opposed to that used in WW2 80 years ago) has increased anywhere from 3 to 5-fold.
Please stop using WW2 as any basis for an argument about modern equipment- the needs, economies, and weapons of the time are completely divorced from today.
What’s weird is these morons don’t use any other metric to compare to today from 80 fucking years ago.
I’m surprised why they don’t complain why it takes so long to manufacture a modern firearm vs. a sharp stick, as if they’ve stumbled upon mindbreaking revelations.
1. WWII had war economy with almost no bureaucracy -but some project failed and still got in production-
>brittle ships
>shit torpedos
>stupid tank designs
>expensive small guns
>aeroengines with self-destroying turbos
>tanks with no/useless sights
>shells less effective than shots
>obsolete AT guns
>and so on
Or see germany, their tanks, non standard arty, no strategic bombers (and engines) and they HELL-MUTT bomb (rocket) engines propelling submarines, aircrafts, torpedos. Just to give an example.
Probably most WWII systems wouldn't have been mass produced during the cold war.
2. "stocks running dry"
Just like during WWII, more is better (with caveats).
3. even nowadays you get new drones deployed in matter of months. As long as you have existing techs easy to integrate it's possible to do something like skunk works, Mark 18 torpedo, the endless variations of the M4. Autistic would say that those designs looks all the same in the same way as the F-16 is "50 years old"
Most of those issues have to do with budget before the war and not the conflict itself. Germany isn't the US.
>Why does it take so much to make arms and vehicles?
This better not be the intro to some Reformer bullshit, Anon. :^)
>Have we lost the manufacturing capability we possessed 80 years ago?
Not at all. My grandfather's machine shop had refurbished tools like a Bridgeport Mill and a lathe with 1/10,000th an inch tolerances. Given a sufficient supply of raw materials, I believe it would have been possible to replicate almost any WWII-era gear like propeller aircraft with a shop like that.
But we're talking about WWII designs from, as you said, *80 years ago*. Modern-day arms and vehicles are built to stricter tolerances and have a lot more in the way of exotic materials and refinements, and a Bridgeport knee mill from the late 1960s isn't the same thing as today's computer-controlled CNC milling.
As an example, compare what goes into a civilian automobile from that era (say, a 1942 Chrysler DeSoto) with some current model. Miles per gallon is dramatically improved by computer-controlled fuel-injection, for one example. Safety features. A/C. Now consider that that's just a civilian car and that the military is looking for something built to be orders of magnitude more reliable and fault-tolerant under dramatically harsher conditions.
you realize the west outsorced all its manufacturing to the third world decades ago right?
same reason we're not killing as many enemy soldiers right now as we were during WW2- we're not at war
most of our GDP right now is peacetime stuff; if we were in a serious conflict like WW2, a lot of that would get reprioritized to doing stuff that helps the war effort
>Have we lost the manufacturing capability we possessed 80 years ago?
yes
Russia is about 1% of the world’s industrial output. The US is like 19% (iirc). But Russia produces hundreds of tanks a year currently and has the world’s largest tank factory. The US produces ZERO tanks a year. US tank production shut down years ago, and SEP 2, 3 & 4 programs are upgrading existing vehicles. What this shows us is that arms production is a special snowflake that is somewhat divorced from normal economics.
>Russia produces hundreds of tanks a year currentl
ayy lmao
Do you have even tangential evidence to the contrary? I’ll wait.
>russia produces hundreds of tanks a year currently!
>lol
>HA! disprove it! here's photo of dozen old t-72s upgraded to b3m variant on a train!
???
Have another one.
Keep posting refitted old hulls, you'll fool someone eventually.
>refitted old hulls
Those are T-90Ms
>Those are T-90Ms
so a refitted old hull?
NTA, but can we agree that the sightings of "modernized" T-62, T-54 and T-55 tanks are prima facie evidence that Russia's MIC can't produce brand new non-refurbished T-90Ms in the amounts they need to replenish losses? I saw one report that the repair capacity of the Uralvagonzavod factory is 8 tanks per month – that’s just 96 tanks per year, and that's the "repair" of some hull that was sitting out in storage or whatever -- not a brand new one with every component sourced and assembled from scratch. According to Novaya Gazeta (Feb 2023), the Russian defense industry currently produces no more than 250 new tanks a year. The Ru Defense ministry's official claim was 220 in 2020, and given their known corruption problems I'd treat that with some caution.
There was a recent article in Forbes that Russia might have solved some of their optics problems and would be able to ramp numbers up "in the near future", but from what I've seen virtually all "new" units are substantially refurbished.
>Photo from July of 11 tanks
>11x12=132
>Thats a 132 tanks a year
>Good will Ukraine half
>???
Russia strong
about 39 tanks per month new ones and about 15 refurbished or upgraded.
Russia does the exact same thing the United States does. It modernizes old hulls from the mothballs, with a bare handful of actually 'new' tanks. See: Armata for the absolute state of Russian manufacturing.
If the United States had need to, then yes it could start up the production of new hulls. But there is no need, because it has a massive excess of hulls from post-cold war drawdowns.
Russia does upgrades (T-72B3) and new builds (T-90M) in roughly equal numbers — according to them anyway. US does 0 new builds, the last and only factory was shut down when the Army stopped buying new tanks over 10 years ago. There was fierce resistance to this move and Congress tried to keep it open but the Army firmly rejected this intervention. So right now any tanks sent to Ukraine or sold as exports are out of a diminishing stock.
Didn't the Army lose to Congress though? Lima also just got a contract to build a bunch of M10 Bookers, so it doesn't seem like the U.S. is out of the tank business.
>new builds (T-90M) in roughly equal numbers — according to them anyway.
I am extremely skeptical given the number of appropriate hulls sitting in their mothballs. It makes pretty much zero sense for them to be building those from scratch unless I'm missing something about the T-90M.
>US does 0 new builds, the last and only factory was shut down when the Army stopped buying new tanks over 10 years ago. There was fierce resistance to this move and Congress tried to keep it open but the Army firmly rejected this intervention. So right now any tanks sent to Ukraine or sold as exports are out of a diminishing stock.
Yes, that's what I said. The United States uses stored hulls to modernize tanks when it wants more to either fulfill an order or replace something out of active inventory. There are more than 3000 Abrams sitting in deep desert mothballs. If the United States had need to build more hulls, it would open a plant and build more. The United States does not need more Abrams because it has a metric fuckton in storage, more than enough to meet the demand for more tanks until the Abrams reaches the end of its service life.
>But what if Mutts get into a war and lose 10,000 tanks
I don't say this to strawman, but to head off an argument I've heard a million times; with whom? The only conflict the United States might be in, in the near future, which it wouldn't be guaranteed to overwhelmingly and casually win, is with China. A war with China is not a war in which the Abrams (or any heavy MBT) is going to play more than a tertiary role.
The Lima plant where they build the tanks is also the same one where they upgrade the mothballed ones anyways, right? The production facilities are still operational.
That's right. They do keep the production lines prepared in the situation that they need to produce more tanks. The idea that Russia has a higher capacity to output tanks than the USA is a complete meme spread by brainless vatniks.
>according to them anyway
And that's your problem. You'd have to be genuinely retarded to even trust whatever they're saying.
Sigh. We know they’re building tanks we see images of them on transports. They put out a propaganda piece on the factory a few months ago, it’s clearly in operation. We know from many news reports from US and EU regulators and congressional intelligence reports that Russia is evading most sanctions and are getting critical components for their defense industry (ie, optics, chips, etc). In fact some US official recently told the media that Russia’s electronics imports are at roughly pre-war levels now. There is nothing at all except for some minor attacks on a couple of parts factories dragging down Russia’s ability to produce arms — especially tanks. Increased import costs to evade sanctions? Why is it so difficult to accept?
Probably because we keep seeing older tanks pressed into service, along with Frankenstein bmps and a hodgepodge of civilian trucks. It all paints the picture that Russia cannot replace anything in good numbers.
>and a hodgepodge of civilian trucks
That, as much as anything, is some real food for thought. How much easier is it to manufacture a KamAZ-43118 than a new T-90M, and why does the proportion of Scooby vans seem to be rising rather than falling?
NTA, but I addressed some items that make me skeptical here:
I don't doubt that the factory is operational, or that at least SOME tanks roll off the line. The real questions are how to get a vaguely accurate number for their output, and what definition we use for a "new" tank.
I also wouldn't assign high confidence to any photos or propaganda pieces put out by the FSB and their wholly-owned subsidiaries. There's an RT.com piece out there where Medvedev claims they'll build 1500 tanks in 2023 alone; I'll believe that figure when I see those hundreds of shiny new T-90Ms and T-72B3s in action and not a minute sooner. Every "T-62 (obr. 2023)" sighting is a counterargument.
Because if they could really build as much as they claim to then we'd be seeing a lot more of them in use instead of the increasingly older stuff they keep fielding. I'll accept it when they finally start using T-90s(which isn't supposed to be some rare wunderwaffe tank by any means) in the numbers they claim to have.
>In fact some US official recently told the media that Russia’s electronics imports are at roughly pre-war levels now.
May I see this?
>source: literal propaganda photo ops
I guess the krauts had hundreds of Tiger IIs as well because of the propaganda films made at the time and not because they were using the same dozen of tanks over and over at different angles and locations. Jesus Christ just do humanity a favor and off yourself already.
>Sigh
cringe
Free-market capitalism starts to break down when you're shifting to and from a total war economy. The U.S. government subsidized companies for loss of military production orders so they could switch factories back to producing consumer goods (some plants were simply closed though) while giving big money (in those days) to returning soldiers so they could go out and buy homes and consumer appliances.
It's not socialism but has more in common in demand-side Keynesian economics. I'm not an economist though.
A thriving middle class is amazing for the overall financial wellbeing of a state, and the greater cultural and legal prosperity of the nation.
The current problem we have now is the highest of the highest upper classes demanding this morbid min-maxing where the middle class is underpaid and struggling towards basic life goals, but has just enough money left at the end of the month to consume products that somewhat distract from the daily grind.
You don't need to be a college commie to see that this is just gonna lead to a point where the endless min-maxing by corporate interests causes a complete collapse of the middle class.
Modern technology is far more complex than anything in the 1940s; this not only makes everything far more expensive, but also means that you can't just retool car factories to churn out tanks or fighter aircraft anymore due to all the specialized technology involved in manufacturing today.
america can just get china to build its military equipment
>Communism vs Capitalism economics re-hash #93724681
Finland's democratic socialist mixed-market economic model has already proven itself far superior to any other model in human history. It's a settled question at this point. It's not even political, it's just what's most practical
democracy doesnt work. politicians just become selfish and only do things that will help them get elected
>politicians just become selfish and only do things that will help them get elected
>only do things that will help them get elected
Which in Finland's case is continuing the policies that have led Finland to be the most efficient high-tech economy on Earth whose high school and university students consistently rank at the top of the world in international STEM competitions.
then you have the politicians who rape the workers with taxes and harm the future economy to pay for the boomers pensions because boomers are the largest voting block
>then you have the politicians who rape the workers with taxes and harm the future economy to pay for the boomers pensions because boomers are the largest voting block
Which specific Finnish politicians are you referring to?
things become 500% more expensive and 5000% more effective.
compare a nuclear bomb to a sword. a nuclear bomb is much more expensive to manufacture than a sword but all the swords in the world couldn't do what a nuke can.
technology is a teetering tower and the question is whether our ascent can outpace our collapse.
Burea*cracy
>comparing modern tech to tech from over 80 years ago
>”why is the stuff today so much more complex to make than then?!”
I don’t know, OP, you’re the retard, you tell us.
The American government paid exorbitant amounts of money to manufacturers to get them to switch to arms production. Ford, GMC, etc. were all focused entirely on manufacturing bombers and tanks and fighter planes. There's no need for such spending or work when there isn't a war and manufacturing companies can focus on R&D instead of production. You should be impressed that things like night vision, advanced optics, and thermal devices manufactured in the USA are so prevalent and manufacturing is so streamlined that they are affordable despite being alien-tech level for other first world countries.
It took a lot of convincing because Ford liked Hitler.
>In ww2 america used to build a fully functional cargo ship in less than two weeks
is there such demand for that many cargo ships, when did the USA last lose a cargo ship during conflict?
This is the first post-industrial war.
Both sides are making use of stocks their predecessors made because nobody can produce anything serious in decent quantities
This isn't even a real war. It's Russia invading a country badly.
>Both sides are making use of stocks their predecessors made
Seems reasonable.
>because nobody can produce anything serious in decent quantities
Simpler explanation: some nations CAN produce new stuff from scratch, but that's nowhere near as cost-effective as refurbishing the items in those massive stockpiles?
When politicians say the military industrial complex is out of control and milking the government dry and causing all of these wars, they're lying. The relationship has always been codependent, and the government has spent every waking moment since Vietnam trying to break free with less visible ways to stuff their wallets with griftbux. But even still, the sweet taste of opium revenue and free oil beckons them. Because of this off-again on-again cycle of hatefucking and breakups, the MIC is in this really weird R&D limbo where there's not a whole lot of production base, because that would be inconvenient, but the government keeps enough cash going through their gills that they don't suffocate or run off entirely to foreign markets.
America makes almost no commerical ships anymore. It's not like 1939 at all. We launched 10 in 2020. China literally produces over 100 times more commercial tonnage.
We aren't as fucked on land equipment and planes by a long shot, but we're also not the country we were in 1940 either. A ton of our production relies on overseas supply chains and a ton of "US manufacturing," revenues you see is value added on patents for shit produced in China.
Anyone who tells you, "uh, just ignore the acers of shuttered factories around every city, we actually produce fine for a major war," is retarded. Remember how we couldn't produce enough paper masks for several months?
They finally threw money at the fact that microchips are all made in China but it will take time for that to pay off.
I believe that on the commercial side it is another case of Chinese manufacturing simply being more cost effective. I don't know any reason why the US would not be able to get back into ship building if China was no longer an option. And I see no reason why the US would not be able to build military vessels at the same rates with some time to restart production.
from someone who knows next to nothing about naval industry, call me a retard if necessary
>I believe that on the commercial side it is another case of Chinese manufacturing simply being more cost effective. I don't know any reason why the US would not be able to get back into ship building if China was no longer an option.
It takes years to build up trained workforce. If China wasn't option, commercial carriers would look for their cargo ships and tankers from Japan, Korea or some emerging manufacturing source like Vietnam. European shipyards still manufacture specialized cargo vessels. You either go cheap labor or established shipyards that can deliver on schedule, even if workforce is more expensive, shipyards in more expensive countries have sorted out their shit by streamlining their supply chains, automation and other specialization.
>And I see no reason why the US would not be able to build military vessels at the same rates with some time to restart production.
Some time, like decade or two.
Unfortunately for the US, their most likely big war is a naval war and they make 0.4% of commercial tonnage. China makes almost more then the entire rest of the world combined and even commissions twice the military tonnage per year, although they are playing catch-up.
In a war of attrition the US will be massively behind the curve. You can't open dockyards in a few months and you can't materialize a skilled workforce out of nowhere. People like to pretend it's 1940 and the US is still the largest producer in the world with tons of unused capacity, but it's shipbuilding industry is truly dead and the docks scrapped outside of the military yards which can't even keep up with peacetime maintenance.
Already we have to send out ships to Asia to keep them running.
The US has the capability to track and blow up every ship the enemy uses for military purposes though. It wouldn't come down to shipbuilding capacity, because the Chinese Navy would be extinct or trapped in hardened ports way before this point.
if you are in range to blow up the enemy shipping... you are in range to have yours blown up in turn
Not really, a swarm of f-35s with anti-ship missiles can strike everything without getting close enough to even be seen. Chinese stealth aircraft would be the only danger, but those are only ground-based and don't exist in great enough numbers for the time being. Maybe this will change in a decade, but by that time things like the NGAD will be able to lock up the SEA airspace tighter than a baby's asshole. I don't think realistically there's going to be a window of opportunity for China to win that kind of war.
>a swarm of f-35s with anti-ship missiles can strike everything
where are they operating from, because i bet you that isn't invisible. Chinese systems can range out to Australia i dont think you'll be outranging the Chinese.
There will be launching from a carrier most likely, and with a combat radius of 670 nmi (will probably increase with the engine upgrade) the carrier can be quite far away. China would need to use something like the YJ-12 in a swarm of hundreds to have any chance of punching through a US carrier fleet's air defense bubble, and those have a range of 250nmi, so they would have to be launched by aircraft which would be destroyed long before they got in range. So barring some ultra-silent classified submarine getting a cheeky torpedo off or other Wunderwaffe tomfoolery, I don't think China has any realistic way to touch US carriers.
>why now people talk about "stocks running dry" or shit like that?
Because production capacity for things like artillery ammunition has degraded over the years since cold war in most western countries. To keep industry alive you need to order shit from them or industry dies. Basically industry scaled itself down to peace time operations and politicians didn't see a reason to keep up reserve capacity that could be activated reasonably fast as priority.
>Have we lost the manufacturing capability we possessed 80 years ago?
Yes. US shipyards produce smallish cargo ships for domestic routes and government contracts for military. US shipyards have been competed out of passenger ships, cargo ships and so on. Japanese and Koreans have market presence on cargo ships and their shipyards have maintained competitive edge on those market segments. Good deal of passenger ships and specialized ships are still built in Europe. But general trend has been shipyard business moving to Asia and cheapest labor costs for decades.
>Or is the lack of resources that causes that?
Companies going for cheapest supplier or better quality products causes that.
It's was deemed no longer necessary to win the kind of war the US built its military around fighting. The precision munitions stocks are the only thing that matters. The Ukraine war is depleting those stocks because it's not a US war, and therefore you cannot use things like the airforce or the navy which are the military's greatest assets.
>As of 8 September 2023, Russian forces have suffered 2 T-72 'Ural', 336 T-72B3, 238 T-72B3 Obr 2016, 29 T-72BA, 3 T-72B3 Obr 2014, 3 T-72B3 Obr 2022, 5 T-72B Obr 2022, 41 T-72A, 12 T-72AV, 305 T-72B, 91 T-72B Obr 1989 and 122 unknown T-72 variants visually confirmed destroyed, damaged, abandoned or captured in Ukraine.
>The total tally of confirmed T-72 losses based on these figures is 1187 T-72s.
Wtf are they doing?