Russia has depleted its tank stocks: the industry is not covering combat losses
-
Even in modern war, a significant amount of armor is lost not from literally being blown up, but from breaking, getting stuck, being abandoned after a flank cuts off retreat in a vehicle etc...
-
According to the researchers, even though there are still about 4,700 tanks in storage, most of them will be difficult to restore due to their poor technical condition.
This is Russia though - "poor technical condition" is "ready for service."
Even without assuming they'll use low quality examples, the article also says
According to researchers, only about 1,200 tanks can still be relatively easily restored after major repairs.
It sure sounds like the title is BS.
-
Don’t worry, the US will probably bail Russia out to keep that from happening
lets bankrupt them next. they obviously have too much power and dont know how to be responsible with it.
-
According to the researchers, even though there are still about 4,700 tanks in storage, most of them will be difficult to restore due to their poor technical condition.
This is Russia though - "poor technical condition" is "ready for service."
Nah. In those photos, where there's one or two tanks left but all the others have gone... those are immovable tanks. Couldn't even get them to the service bay. Why else would that one tank have been left behind?
-
It's seriously astonishing that they managed to wear though the entire massive Soviet stockpile.
Covert Cobal has great tank and apv counting vids, documenting the ever worsening condition of the vehicles remaining.
https://youtube.com/@covertcabalThe stockpile was built in the 50s, 60s and 70a though. The vast bulk of it is 50-70 years old. Post soviet Russia didn't have the money, and prior to that the stockpile was good.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Mourne the loss of history, but blame the people who threw them to be destroyed.
-
Even without assuming they'll use low quality examples, the article also says
According to researchers, only about 1,200 tanks can still be relatively easily restored after major repairs.
It sure sounds like the title is BS.
That is not really out of line with the title, especially if you line it up with the rest of the article. 1200 tanks that need major repairs does not mean a potential 1200 combat-ready vehicles. It means that you can, if you are really good, salvage 60% of that by cannibalizing the rest.
They drew down 350 tanks last year. Oryx confirmed 3800+ tank losses over the past 3 years, Ukraine claims 10000+. This means that they have enough tanks to last them another 6-8 months if we're being incredibly generous, if they could do 2 years of work in an instant. This is practically an empty stock.
And that doesn't count that these are the last vehicles for a reason. They are not 1200 T-72s that can be restored to full working order, it's mostly going to be very badly damaged and worn T-55s or even T-34s, compared to which an RPG-7 is space-age technology.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
European leaders are already talking about using the new army to invade the Middle East.
Could you back that up with a citation?
-
Yet we must triple up military budget in case they decide to invade whole europe on empty tanks...
I think at this point the unspoken truth is that we must have a military that needs to be a deterrent to the US as well.
-
The stockpile was built in the 50s, 60s and 70a though. The vast bulk of it is 50-70 years old. Post soviet Russia didn't have the money, and prior to that the stockpile was good.
Prior to Ukraine the stockpile was good. Then it started disappearing.
-
Unfortunately I think this also has to do with the changing tech around war. Drones are the new hotness and it is a very good counter to tanks warfare.
Drones don't hold ground, soldiers do. Soldiers that have tanks are going to be more effective than those without them.
-
I really hope Russia is collapsing soon so Ukraians can have actual peace.
Not if Trump has anything to do about it.
-
Yet we must triple up military budget in case they decide to invade whole europe on empty tanks...
Yes because Russia will build more tanks and other equipment in the next decade. Not a problem if Europe builds up too. But that will be a problem if Europe does nothing.
If Russia were an immediate threat, Europe would have no choice but to give Trump whatever he wants so the US will protect Europe. But with Russian forces being decimated by this war, Europe has the opportunity to build it's own arms industry to be able to produce it's own weapons to be able to counter Russia in a decade's time.
-
Drones don't hold ground, soldiers do. Soldiers that have tanks are going to be more effective than those without them.
-
Have you seen a photo of what tanks in combat look like these days? They have cages welded on top of them. Also the hatches can be closed. A lot of tankers like to have the hatch open so the commander can have have more visibility, but it's not a necessity.
There have been ways to take out a tank with missiles for a long time now. The reason why they're still used is that air defenses exist and nothing beats the cost efficiency of moving a big gun close to the enemy and firing a lot of cheap ammunition at them.
Also are you going to tell civilians they can move back into their towns based solely on drones? If the civilians are behind a bunch of tanks, they're safe because the drones will go after the tanks before going after the civilians. You need soldiers to hold ground. A soldier in a tank is going to be harder for a drone to kill than a soldier that's not in a tank.
Yes drones are effective, but drones can't hold ground and keep civilians safe.
-
Have you seen a photo of what tanks in combat look like these days? They have cages welded on top of them. Also the hatches can be closed. A lot of tankers like to have the hatch open so the commander can have have more visibility, but it's not a necessity.
There have been ways to take out a tank with missiles for a long time now. The reason why they're still used is that air defenses exist and nothing beats the cost efficiency of moving a big gun close to the enemy and firing a lot of cheap ammunition at them.
Also are you going to tell civilians they can move back into their towns based solely on drones? If the civilians are behind a bunch of tanks, they're safe because the drones will go after the tanks before going after the civilians. You need soldiers to hold ground. A soldier in a tank is going to be harder for a drone to kill than a soldier that's not in a tank.
Yes drones are effective, but drones can't hold ground and keep civilians safe.
For the price of one tank with cope cages you could buy thousands of drones instead. Tanks are not cost effective anymore. They’re the land equivalent of battleships in an era of aircraft carriers.
-
For the price of one tank with cope cages you could buy thousands of drones instead. Tanks are not cost effective anymore. They’re the land equivalent of battleships in an era of aircraft carriers.
The problem is still getting people from one place to the other
Even with drones taking out tanks, people would rather be in a vehicle than walk
-
The problem is still getting people from one place to the other
Even with drones taking out tanks, people would rather be in a vehicle than walk
That’s what APCs and lighter infantry vehicles are for. They’re not going away. It’s main battle tanks (the ones that cost millions of dollars) that are going away.
Moving troops around in safety is going to be extremely challenging but that’s because of enemy drones, not enemy tanks. Drones can fly recon around a moving personnel carrier just as easily as planes fly recon around an aircraft carrier.
-
Covert Cobal has been classifying in mainly 4 categories. Abysmal is the lowest one, and are often missing such minor accessories as the turet, tracks, engines, and wheels. Not to mention having sat outdoors for upwards of 50 years. Those conditions are mostly what they're down to. It might allow for slightly higher throughout on production to start on these rusted husks rather than from raw steel, but it'd definitely be harder and more expensive to make these usable than to build a new tank from scratch.
Devils advocate, but given the way they’ve been building metal sheds around the prior tanks and almost completely negating the main gun, a missing turret might just be a weatherproofing issue for the
OrksRussians.It’s not like a main gun helps you survive a mobility kill from the umpteenth TM-62 in the dirt that got replanted after the last assault failed.
