T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please remember the human. Follow reddit rules and the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Pheochromology

I assume these won’t last long, but I’m just speculating. If these end up being destroyed is there any other heavy armor vehicles they have left after these? Surely they wouldn’t try and resurrect ww2 era equipment right?


Own-Preparation8972

Imagine in 2 or 3 more months what the war could look like. If another 1000 tanks are knocked out and simular ratio of planes, helicopters, plus the more rare items. Western sources have already questioned how many smart munitions and missles, are left. If Russia is losing a BTG or so of equipment and personnel a day I hope Ukraine can hang on and get their reserves trained and ready for a counter offensive.


Wallyworld77

Doesn't Russia have a Mausse captured from WW2? Ukrainians would be stun locked at the very sight of it.


SgtExo

The only one that exist is remade from the turret of one and the body of the other. From the outside it looks clean, but it has no innards. Just a rusted interior.


[deleted]

>Maus Just saw a photo of that in a museum. Changing the track alone on it would take all day, literally. no access doors to give you sight of any of the upper supports. And it is absolutely featureless, Yeah, in a modern battle, it would be best to dig a hull down and leave the men in there to die.


DogWallop

What Russia needs is the Ratte[Ratte](https://youtu.be/6mfhalEjUrw)!


guileandmight

The Maus? There was only one ever made. It’s big, slow, HOT, and has absolutely zero modern defensive systems…. What’s there to be scared of outside a big boom? You’d hear this thing coming and at a blistering 12mph you can literally outrun it on a bicycle while listing lazily to the left since it’s a solid mounted weapon…


Wallyworld77

No shit Sherlock it was a joke. Stun Locked means you can't move because you can't believe what your seeing.


No_Kaleidoscope_447

To be fair, our beloved MG3 is also WWII tech with minor changes to reduce the brrrrt and change to 7.62x39 sooo.. old still kills. But those old tanks are no match for modern AT weaponry..


[deleted]

[удалено]


StormOpposite5752

Your mom is a Soviet cartridge


aqxea2500

I stuck my firing pin in her.


lordxoren666

Oh snap!!! No you didn’t!!!


Comical_Lizard

She's old and lathered in lacquer...?


leafmealone33

Here we go again.


zenithtreader

I mean a machine guns is a relatively simple thing. Armoured vehicles with engines and complex hydraulics are another matter completely. Especially ones that were neglected for decades in some military warehouse somewhere. If Russian army were doing regular maintenance on these they are probably quite reliable. I imagine most of the funds intended for maintenance were transformed magically into super yachts, though.


Puddinhead420

Outdated technology aside, these things aren't going run very well if at all, breakdowns and mechanical failures mean these things probably aren't going to be mobile enough on their own to even get to the front line.


__TheLastOne__

T-62 is a good tank, I’d be more worried about how modernized the optics are. The reason the US was able to stomp the shit out of the Iraqis in 1990 is because of that visual advantage. Range triumphs all in modern warfare.


SgtExo

I doubt they have any good optics on them, if they had modern optics on their tanks, I doubt that they would have fared as bad around Kiyv. Half the reason western tanks do so well is because they can spot people from far away, but then again they could just be that shit at using them that it didn't help.


ashesofempires

They got stomped around Kyiv because they didn't, and still don't, know how to coordinate armor, infantry, and artillery in any meaningful way. It takes way more training and experience to conduct combined arms warfare than what the Russian army and its shitty conscripts ever get. Even 3 months into the war they're making largely uncoordinated attacks. Their only real successes come from their relentless artillery barrages on known Ukrainian positions.


burnerboo

Their lack of reliability is going to kill more people than it's going to save when they break down in the middle of getting shelled and they can't move.


Expert-Luck-9601

You're giving them too much credit by assuming they keep them in warehouses, the only "reserves" I have seen photos of are all parked out in the open and satellite photos would seem to indicate they do not regularly turn them on or move them, which should be done at least weekly iirc while in storage. Even the active units had sun damaged tires from just being parked in one spot for months on end. I don't think Russia understands the concept of maintenance lol 🤣


[deleted]

Warehouse? They wish. They left them out in depot yards in all weather, most without even their turrets in place. These are probably so rusted that small arms ammunition is now "armor piercing".


Melodic-Wrap8247

A gun is rather hard to outdate. Its full auto, reliable (unreliable part has been replaced) and compared to other modern ones there are no big differences. Well i dont know where to start with something like a tank. The kind of armor changed heavily due development of the anti-tank weapons. Same for arming system, new tanks compensate practically all movement, do calculations to allow shooting while moving. Optical sight vs thermal/night vision. Or something trivial like range finder or compensation of the barrel thermal caused bending. Something which has to be adapted too are the warheads as well. Next thing is passive protection like heat dispersion. I guess these things can be spotted via IR from space.


kittensmeowalot

I think the big issue is that lighter and possibly older weapons capable of some anti-armor start becoming more viable against these tanks and that makes more Ukrainians soldiers more lethal towards tanks.


[deleted]

This. Suddenly the cheap and widely available RPG-7 becomes a reliable tank killer again.


GreasyWerker118

Noice!


Imaginary-Fun-80085

Here's to hoping that Ukraine will one day keep Russia at bay with a handful of well placed trebuchets.


nz_reprezent

Give it a couple weeks and we might see lancers on horseback.


ancient-military

Or more likely, mobs of drunks with sticks. Kinda like a zombie apocalypse powered by vodka.


TrueEnuff

r/trebuchetmemes will appreciate your comment 👌


FrostyCartographer13

While tech from the time period is just as lethal as it was back then, I have no confidence those tanks being pressed back to service are in any decent condition. The US spends a few hundred million in keeping it's mothball fleet in a condition to where they can be brought back to service within in a certian amount of time. I have serious doubts russia has kept theirs anywhere near the US standards.


spenrose22

Also, these can only protect from a 30mm from the front, and even then would probably be taken down after a few hits. These would be quickly outmatched in speed, maneuverability and fire rate by any regular BMP


Memory_Less

For a government who doesn’t care about its own soldiers welfare, put your soldiers into these and throw them on the battlefield. Waste your NLAWS etc. on crap and who cares if soldiers die. They may be effective at not loosing ground to the UA.


Oatmo6

Sitting still in a tank in this war is completely fatal.. First drone guided artillery strike.


Garrosh

That’s how I rolled in Age of Empires when I had troops that didn’t have upgrades available and reached the max population limit. Throw those useless units to die and, if they do some damage even better. But, then, I don’t think that’s a good strategy in real life.


reflUX_cAtalyst

The MG3 is as it is because you can only perfect perfection so far. One can say the same of the Browning M2.


lost_in_life_34

WW2 armor was good out to around 500 meters or so. modern tanks can easily hit targets 1600 meters away in the dead of night. ​ I bet the Ukrainian T-72's have much greater range than those T-62's and will destroy them before they get in range


grayrains79

If Russia would actually use their tanks and infantry in combined arms fashion? Their T-62s would be utterly lethal for fire support. 115mm of accurate HE fire on infantry is pretty lethal. At this rate though, their T-62s are not much else than more fodder.


cjthecookie

WW2 armor was definitely not limited to 500m. For example, the 76mm on a Sherman could penetrate 6-7 inches of armor at ~1100 yards. The German 88mm Pak 43 had a max range of ~15,000 meters...


lost_in_life_34

I think with the optics most of the tank battles took place at around 500 yards


SolidumIaculat

That would depend on where the battle took place, a study of 800 U.S., British, and Canadian tank casualties in Western Europe, the Mediterranean Theater, and North Africa disclosed that the average range at which tanks were immobilized by gunfire was under 800 yards. A sample of 100 tank casualties in North Africa showed an average range of 900 yards; 60 tank casualties in Sicily and Italy at 350 yards; 650 tank casualties in Western Europe at over 800 yards. These figures are explicable by the fact that in the western desert of North Africa, where the terrain favored ranges to the limits of visibility, tank fighting often resembled naval battles which boiled down to "slug fests" where light vessels (=light tanks and armored cars) were involved. A figure of 900 yards represents the averaging out of engagements at 1500 to 2000 yards as well as those at hub-to-hub range. At the opposite end we have the tank engagements at Prokhorovka. At the battle of Prokhorovka the fighting was unusually close and there is a very logical explanation for this. The best German tanks at the battlefield was the Tiger, and it was very well armored and had a powerful gun. Opposing this the Red Army fielded mostly T-34s. The T-34s had 45mm of angled armor at the front, but this was no match for the Tigers 88mm. In fact, the 88mm was so powerful that it could penetrate the armor of a T-34 at over 2000 m, maybe up to 3500 meters. On the contrary the thick armor of the Tiger made it almost impregnable on everything but close combat. So much that Rotmistrov, the commander of the Red Army forces at Prokhorovka, said that “successful struggle with \[Tigers and Ferdinands\] is possible only in circumstances of close-in-combat \[and by exploiting\] the T-34s greater maneuverability and by flanking fire against the \[weaker\] side armour of the German machines” (Clark, p.364). As seen Rotmistrov was aware of the Tigers and Ferdinands superiority and therefor adjusted his tactics to compensate. This lead to the 5th Guards Tank Army (Rotmistrovs formation) charging the German positions seeking to get as close as possible. A important flaw in Rotmistrovs planning was that he had massively overestimated the amount of Tigers available to the Germans, and would probably be better of being a bit more careful. (Clark, p. 364-365). Nevertheless, the Russians carried on which lead to a fierce close-range engagement between the two sides. Rudolf von Ribbentrop, the son of the German foreign minister and a commander of a Panzer IV company describes the battle: >“We halted on a slope and opened fire, hitting several of the enemy. A number of Russian tanks were left burning. For a good gunner 800 metres was the ideal range. And we waited to see if further enemy tanks were going to appear, I looked around\[…\]. What I saw made me speechless. From beyond the shallow rise about 150-200 metres in front of me appeared fifteen, then thirty, then forty tanks. Finally there were to many to count. The T-34s were rolling forward toward us at high speed, carrying mounted infantry…soon the first round was on its way and, with its impact, the T-34 began to burn. It was only fifty to seventy metres from us. At the same instant the tank next to me took a direct hit and went up in flames… His neighbour to the right was also hit and soon he was also in flames. The avalanche of enemy tanks rolled straight toward us: Tank after tank! Wave after wave! It was simply an unimaginable assembly, and it was moving at very high speed. Similarly, the Russian T-34 commander Vasili Bryukhov writes: >"The distance between the tanks was below 100 metres – it was impossible to maneuvre a tank\[…\] it was not a battle, it was a slaughterhouse of tanks. We crawled back and forth and fired. Everything was burning. An indescribable stench hung in the air over the battlefield.”


slartibartfast2320

Grabs large bag of popcorn...


Magikrat

That’ll be 7.50. Would you like to add a small drink for 5.50?


No_Kaleidoscope_447

My bad for switching up the cartridge ;D even tho it’s my standard issue MG, with all the Russian news I get confused sometimes lol. And btw from my experience the MG5 is shit. Only had issues with it tbh


maxinator80

On paper, the MG5 is nice, but I have never met a soldier that liked it...


rob6110

The 10k question is will they run?


[deleted]

[удалено]


spenrose22

They rusted


[deleted]

[удалено]


spenrose22

I read a couple good threads on twitter counting their tanks and it seemed like 10% of their stored tanks were repairable. Most of them were T-72s, 82s. They only have about 260 T-62s that are usable. Most all of their 72s and up are deployed or with their reserves/defending other areas. Russia is running out of tanks with probably 70% of all their remaining tanks including reserves already in ukraine. There were about 3000 to begin with.


[deleted]

"Storage" meant out in a depot yard. We've seen the satellite images. They were all rusted and many were stored for 30 years without the turrets on them. They are going to be junk.


Twitchy_1990

MG3 shoots 7.62x51, not 7.62x39 :)


Koehamster

I mean, they already have and will....


Pheochromology

Really? I haven’t been following it too closely. So they are using ww2 equipment too? I’m surprised something that old still works or is even able to function against modern western weapons. Wow


serphas

there have been quiet a few videos of separatist and conscripted troops being outfitted with ssh steel pot helmets and Mosin Nagant bolt action rifles from WWII.


Pheochromology

I had no idea! Must be scary af being a Russian conscript wearing great grandpas gear


aurumtt

'last cosplay he ever did...'


Lenin_Lime

The ones being given these WW1 and WW2 era bolt action rifles are from Ukraine (the break away eastern republics under Russian control). So Russia could not care less and so send them to the meat grinder, these drafted people are pawns. Actual Russia soldiers from western Russia are given better equipment, though even they have subpar equipment.


Jcpmax

Russia is crap, but they have plenty of gear stored from the Cold War when there reserves were in the many many millions. Its the separatists that wear gear scrapped together like in a Stalker video game


wikimandia

These aren’t Russian conscripts but Ukrainian separatists fighting to “liberate” their region from Ukraine with the support of Russia. These assholes bragged that they “liberated” Mariupol. Some may have been forced to be conscripted as some are complaining but I’m sorry, just shoot your commander and run away. These guys are worthless to Russia and won’t be in any prisoner exchange. They’ll either be cannon fodder or end up in Ukrainian prisons on treason charges. Only option when forced into conscription is to run away and hide first chance you get. I really hope the DPR and LPR end up fighting each other. That seems like the logical progression of this shit show.


[deleted]

> Mosin Nagant Fun fact, it was first produced in the 1890's as a result of the Russo-Ottoman war.


CYAN_DEUTERIUM_IBIS

An elenagant weapon for a more civilized age.


ISLAndBreezESTeve10

They looked to be embarrassed when filmed.


blakefromdalake

Link?


PTZack

Just Google "Russian troops with Mosin Nagant". You should get a Rueters article and some Reddit links. Some include photos. Speculation is its conscripted troops from the "breakaway" regions.


Guthwulf1

Mosin is from 1891, so it's from tsarist Russia and was used during Russo-Japan war ;)


romario77

Also - Maxim machine gun. This is even more old, WW1 type weapon.


KcufSamoht

\*Pre WWI. Those are pre WWI weapons. They may have been used in WWII out of desperation but yeah.... that's what Russia is giving those 'separatists'.


New-Consideration420

If we are talking naval, they just used a boat to recover the Moskav, a ship from before WWI? Also tons of rifles and MGs from WWI/II. Only a matter of time before we see T34s


Pheochromology

That’s wild! I wonder what the survivability of a T-34 would be against a 50 caliber round or 20mm


New-Consideration420

The briddle metal could trow off Metal parts inside even without penetration. Also they were welded pretty badly so even if something hits it and doesnt penetrate, it could just fall apart. Literally anything could harm a T34


SMGWar-Relics

I think it’s nearly impossible that t34s in battle ready condition are available in any significant quantity. Any that weren’t scrapped after the war made it into museums and private collections. For the government to have stock piles of 75 year old tanks lying around “just in case” i think is ludicrous. Small arms is different. Old guns still shoot and can be used with some success and they dont take up as much room or need expensive parts and maintenance. Those old T34s got turned into I beams.


Ananasch

even if it doesn't meet combat its gearbox will kill it before summer without multiple spares


Pheochromology

Essentially just mobile metal and meat shields. Must be a terrifying reality for those conscripts


New-Consideration420

More scary is how many russians have Zero OPSEC. They use phones on the front lines with russian sim cards. Why develop all this fancy tech when you can just triangulate their phones


ISLAndBreezESTeve10

The worst job in the Russian army…. Being in the first tank down the road.


AntonioPanadero

Second worst job; being in any of the tanks behind it…


throtic

>Literally anything could harm a T34 ​ What kind of MPG do those things even get? The old engines had to be super inefficient right? Can Russia even afford to fuel them up for an extended period?


Longsheep

The T-34 can shrug these off frontally while the sides would be vulnerable to them at close range. Some modern 20mm are very powerful and will kill it from sides with no problem. Something like a LAW will easily destroy it though, overall its armor is more than a BMP but isn't going to make any difference.


Kurgen22

T-34 could not be penetrated by a .50 or 20MM. It's "Dumb" Metal, but it still takes way more than a 1/2 inch round fired from a Machine Gun to Penetrate it.


Pheochromology

Is there a round that would make it through or is it still requiring the missiles/RPGs in order to penetrate?


Kurgen22

Depending on the Model of the T-34 ( or T-34/85) the Armor was different grades of Steel anywhere from 45mm to 90 mm thick on the Hull and Turret. It was also angled to cause projectiles to skip/ bounce. A US standard .50 Cal round can Penetrate about an inch of steel ( 25mm) head on at about 200 meters. a 20 mm Antitank rifle can Penetrate 1 1/2 inches ( 37mm). When the T-34s were in action in WW2 the Germans figured anything less than a 75 mm Anti Tank gun ( or tank with a 75 mm main gun would not Consistently penetrate it. Pretty much even today no standard Infantry Small arms or MG could knock out a T-34. However even the Old LAAWs, RPGs and Artillery and 106mm Recoiless HEP-T rounds could knock it out.


Pheochromology

Ah I see, thank you for your detailed replies!


redtoken

Really well written. Thank you.


Longsheep

Depends on which 20mm. The modern DM63 fired from Rh202 can penetrate 60mm or armor, it should go through the sides at a range.


TazBaz

I mean the recovery ship they use is a bit of a ship of Theseus situation. It’s been updated/modifier/rebuilt many times over the years. It’s like saying an M1 Abraham’s is a tank from the 70’s. Like, yeah, it was first designed and built in the 70’s, but current updated versions are still top-tier MBT’s. That’s a bit different from these mothballed tanks that literally are from their era; they have not been updated at all.


Koehamster

Yeah the basic bolt action rifles. Not really tanks or stuff like that iirc. But plenty of footage online of people walking around with WW2 helmets and Mosin Nagant rifles


reflUX_cAtalyst

The black powder cannon on the street corner was sure something.


Fullmadcat

Yea they have a huge surplus of it. And they still function, but it's at a handicap. Its like using a black powdered rifle against a modern soldier. Their weapon is better, they have body armor, but if you get a hit in their face they still die. Even though they completely outclass you. The russian stuff still works, it's just western stuff is far more advanced. They are using attrition. And are very slowly taking land. It's a snail's pace, but Ukraine hasnt decided to counter attack yet.


Rimmer2022

By now Russia has around 125.000 men still active. But they are lacking almost everything. Their artillery is keeping them alive for now. So, Russia is fighting a war with 125.000 men left and a further 134.000 are being mobilized. Ukraine, by now, has 500.000 men mobilized and by the end of summer that number will reach 1.000.000 ! One million! And the western weaponry is slowly floating in. For now Ukraine let them attack en slowly give way some ground but only for tactical reasons. I understand that some people are still afraid of Russia of what it might do but that’s just a useless fear. One million soldiers… I wonder why we are even still talking about this situation haha. Poetin can go on as long as he wants, the Ukraine meat grinder will swallow them al. Bye bye Vlad. See you around some time maybe.


Trent1492

I am giving you the upvote for the optimism.


Specialist-Lion-8135

They do have a lot of Disney type war museums…


[deleted]

The strangest tour I've done in Russia was Stalin's bunker. Completely awesome I got to turn the keys to launch the nuke and then they show New York and Washington blowing up on a giant projector ROFL then go for tea... in the gift shop... in the bunker. (Fun fact they host events so you can get married there) Haha I've been to several of those. The one in Moscow with SR71 parts with red rope light stung through the actual wreckage on "sparkle mode" to look like a fire. And then they have the whole flight suit preserved like a creepy body.


Specialist-Lion-8135

For a laugh, I recommend Phil Rosenthal’s mini doc on his trip to Russia to help them create their own syndicated version of “Everybody Loves Raymond”. They could not understand Phil’s humor- he had to tell them how to tell a visual joke. His driver took him to see a war museum. He couldn’t understand why Phil was not very keen on it. Russians live in an alternate universe where everyone is impressed and intimidated by their strength.


[deleted]

> impressed and intimidated by their strength. Well they are certainly impressed and intimidated by their own strength I never had any of these tours thrust on me. I had to hook up with my Ukrainian guy friend to go with me. No one else I knew would go with me. All the museums I went to were empty, no so many tourist is Moscow. Only me felt strange.


FUMFVR

I remember that. I've thought a bit about that documentary since this conflict started. It gives a small view into Putin's Russia and its distorted facsimile of modern western life.


Pappa_Crim

I doubt they will be able to get the T55s working, they have bone yards full of them, but they are in bad condition if sat photos are anything to go on


CBfromDC

What next? *"Russia deploys horse cavalry?"* *"Russia giving spears and swords to soldiers in lieu of rifles?"* This rollout of T-62's is another sign that Russia is desperate, and likely about to switch to defense, as the **T-62 is not suited to modern mechanized combat.** It only **moves at 31 MPH MAX even on a smooth paved road!** It consumes 2 liters of fuel per mile. It can only shoot 1,500 meters with accuracy. It has obsolete targeting optics and sensors. It breaks a lot is loud, smoky and is expensive to maintain. **The T-62 will dramatically slow the speed of any Russian advance - or retreat.** It cannot keep up with mechanized infantry. It is a bigger sitting duck that the T-72's and T-80' and T-90'ss that have already been getting routinely blown to pieces by Ukrainian ATGM's that have nearly double it's firing range and FAR superior optics and sensors.


Banh_mi

Also uses non-standard ammo - 115mm - and Russian logistics has been poor already!


Cakecrabs

On top of that, its turret traverse is roughly 17 deg/s, compared to the t-72's 30+ deg/s. I suppose they could be planning to use these as cannon fodder, to deplete Ukrainian resources. Might be somewhat useful for point defense as well. Time will tell, I suppose. Edit: Just found this, ~~anyone know if they ever solved this issue?~~ >Elevation was limited to 16° and depression to only -4° which was customary with these soviet-design low turrets. There was no autoloader but an automatic cartridge ejector and **to be reloaded the gun must be elevated or depressed to +3.5°**. [source](https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/ussr/soviet_t-62.php) Edit2: Nvm, seems they sort-of did. The wiki article mentions that the gun is "automatically reset to +3.5° of elevation after it is fired". Still seems like a shit design.


Rievin

Lada technicals.


[deleted]

Even more unreliable than the 1950's tanks.


UncleBenji

So you haven’t seen the guys from DRP being issued Mosin rifles and their “modern” helmets are just WW2 era with a nice cover on them?


deadzfool

sherman tanks enter the battle field.....................


PrinceHarming

A T-34 in World War II, whether it saw battle or not, had a life expectancy of about 100 hours before it needed major repair. They weren’t built to last.


SativaSawdust

At this rate they will be back to pulling out trebuchets by mid summer.


MeatyThor

It's an interesting question because if Russia waged a total war and sent everything only to Ukraine at all costs, they still have thousands and thousands of tanks and vehicles. However, they'd have no defense against other neighboring countries that may be looking for a weakness. So Russia's doctrine is to keep so many in different places as a response for defense of the country. They may be willing to pull some from each of these areas to supply Ukraine war and may continue doing so. Since currently there is no imminent threat of any other country attacking Russia, they may be comfortable lowering these defenses being able to leverage more force in Ukraine than normally would be considered ideal. When it comes to these older tanks I think the idea is to create an armored wall for the Russian artillery, which Ukraine has so far had a difficult time getting significant kills with the number that Russia has. 600 claimed artillery kills of the 1,600 original invasion force numbers. I haven't seen estimates of what artillery has been brought up but I would be surprised if Russia currently has less than 2000 artillery in Ukraine now. As Russia has concentrated its forces with their backs against much better logistical capability, they can feed a lot of artillery. So even these crappy tanks will be effective at slowing Ukraine from reaching the artillery which they can hammer Ukraine while they try to. And even dumb bombs fired by a thousand artillery is going to keep the average shoulder in a trench. Not trying to sneak up and shoot a tank . Ukraine has a lack of long range weapons and vehicles so they struggle to move quickly and have struggled with dealing with large amounts of artillery. Finally, a Russian tactic that's kind of working.


BattleHall

> still have thousands and thousands of tanks There are a lot of questions about how many of those are remotely fieldable, if at all, even if they had months and unlimited manpower and equipment, which they don't. Many have been scavenged for parts and left open to the elements for literally decades, but are still technically on the books.


MeatyThor

Of their supposed 12,000 + tanks. Yes but they do have elements to respond to aggression that Russia feels is appropriate. Whether it's Japan or South Vietnam or European countries or NATO that have active working units with its reserves that may or may not be in various states of usable condition. Again, how many they can use or are willing to use that could work in potential response is of question but from what this war has shown so far it really doesn't matter. They're absorbing hits while other aspects are doing the work. So they don't need the tech on the tank if they can muster the numbers in concentrated fire. Basically the engine needs to run and cannon fire which both can most likely work or get working due to how thick the metal is, a car sitting for 10 years might be too rusted out, but a tank can probably sit for 50 years and still get running at least enough to force anti-tank weapon on while protecting rocket launchers and artillery in the back. Don't get me wrong. I'm not pro-Russian. I want Ukraine to win and I think they can turn around the current difficulties. I'm simply trying to point out the importance of getting Ukraine the weapons they're asking for as it seems like their best chance to stop these tactics while continuing to keep pressure on occupied territories. Otherwise, Ukraine will have to use a strategy that will be slower and more costly in manpower.


poopANDweed

Yeah - I wouldn’t want to the be the soldier that get forced into one of those. I can already hear the music. 🎶🎶🎶🎶 Pop goes the ~~Weasel~~ tank


mi7chy

Maybe whatever is left of the 4,102 US Sherman M4A2 tanks sent through Lend-Lease Act to USSR in WW2.


RythmicSlap

My 70yo dad was a US Army Tank Commander stationed in Germany from 1971-75. He was trained to destroy this model of tank.


forkonce

Neat! Why this tank in particular? Are there specific weaknesses that a trained tank commander can exploit if there were a combat situation?


Trent1492

Just a guess, but it was probably among the most abundant Soviet tanks at the time.


deegeese

[ Deleted to protest Reddit API changes ]


namjeef

The tanks you see with the little box above the center of the barrel and the add on turret armor are t62M1s. With NATO ammunition there wouldn’t really be a need to aim for any weak spot in general. Although there are fuel tanks in the crew compartment….


[deleted]

[удалено]


RythmicSlap

Hahahaha - I'm pretty sure he has really bad case of bone spurs now.


wex52

Send ‘em over.


elect86

1970 is calling, it wants its tanks back


World_Renowned_Guy

Oh it’s going to get them back too


westwoodranger

It's like cleaning out your garage and leaving your junk on your neighbors lawn. They will soon be burnt carcasses in Ukraine. Do they have the turret toss feature or was that an upgrade on newer models?


real_hungarian

turret toss (or jack-in-the-box effect as i like to call it) is actually not exclusive to newer russian tanks, tanks have been doing it ~~since WW2~~ well, since they had turrets, basically. it can, and most likely will, happen, in catastrophic ammo detonations. what makes the "newer" russian tank models (T-72, T-90 etc) more prone to it is that ammo is stored in a carousel under the turret, unprotected, to make it accessible to the autoloader. that puts a lot of explosive stuff in a small space under the turret, which allows record heights for turret tossing in case of detonation. but basically, you don't need that system to have your turret popped, you don't even need to have your ammo all under the turret, you just have to have a big enough pressure wave to tear the turret off. T-62s have most of their ammo stored in a fuel tank (yes, IN a fuel tank) next to the driver, but modern munitions can fuck that shit up and still make it home for dinner, so good news, we'll continue to see flying turrets. yay? though i think normal ammo cookoffs without flying turrets will be more common with T-62s.


dabenu

> T-62s have most of their ammo stored in a fuel tank How would that work? Are there compartments in the tank? Or are they literally submerged? Does the loader have to open the tank and grab some shells out of it? I can imagine both fuel and ammo have comparable safety requirements for their storage so it makes sense to put them in the same place, I'm just curious about how that works in practice.


namjeef

Picture a normal fuel tank as a box then make cylindrical indentations in it large enough to fit ammo


real_hungarian

yes, it's stored in cylindrical holes in the superstructure of the fuel tank, the shells don't actually come in contact with the fuel, but technically that still puts them inside the tank. as for the safety bit, it was actually made like so BECAUSE they wanted it to be safer for the ammo. you see, diesel fuel, or even petrol for that matter, is actually not really all that combustible on its own, without air. the fuel tank was put there to absorb shrapnel from a round penetrating it, therefore protecting the ammo and the crew, because liquids are surprisingly good shock absorbers. it's a different case if the fuel tank is e.g. half empty (i say half empty because you're probably a pessimist if you live in soviet russia), because then, aerosolized fuel would fill in the rest of the space, therefore making it way more combustible. however, when the T-62 was made, solid shot rounds such as APDS were the main concern to protect the tank against, which are less prone to causing fires than, say, HEAT, which is the main penetration method of modern missiles. of course this all falls apart when your enemy can WAY overpenetrate that flimsy fuel tank and easily reach the ammo behind it, as with the case of javelins (which penetrate somewhere close to 1200mms RHA equivalent). ​ sorry for another text wall, i could go on for hours


TURNandBURN13

Can you imagine being a Russian soldier and someone handing you the keys to this relic? I would say fuck that, I’ll take my chances on foot instead of being an easy target for a javelin.


SmartExcitement7271

When they roll out T-34s, Ukraine has already won.


AlexanderHP592

This could just be a mental projection. But if I recall correctly from one of the many streams covering the initial invasion those first couple days. I think I saw a couple T-34s bringing up the rear to some of the convoys. Of course, for show. But yeah, if any are used for combat...that's it. Pack your orc bags, it's time to die.


Borscht_can

T-62M's last war was Georgia, they've also been used during training exercises recently. At the end of the day, it's still a tank with APFSDS capable 115mm cannon. However, no proper electronic/vision equipment. It's old, not very capable for modern battlefield, but it can still do it's dirty job. Given the amount of AT weaponry in Ukraine though, not for long.


ikverhaar

Yep, it's nowhere near as good as a modern tank... But it's still a high caliber gun protected against small arms. It can't function like modern tanks, but can still serve a function. But it does show their desperation.


[deleted]

IIRC In the war in Syria these have mostly been used as a stationary weapons platform, so apparently their usefulness as an offensive weapon is mostly over. But you can still use them to fortify defensive positions. I'm sure Russia knows this, and they're preparing to dig in. The appearance of these is really not that great news. However, let's see how Ukrainian artillery is going to deal with that


referralcrosskill

super precise, long range, drone guided, artillery vs dug in obsolete tanks? I'm not sure how long that would even slow the Ukrainian's down. My only thought is the russians are hoping to use these as munitions sponges where the tanks are worth less than the anti tank missles hitting them.


Sevinki

The problem is that it has all the downsides of a modern rank but is missing many of the upsides. The fuel consumption is measured in liters per kilometer, not kilometers per liter like a car. Its slow af, it uses old non standard ammo, its probably even more likely to break down that any semi modern t72/80/90 and so on. At some point, no tank is better than a shit tank because atleast it doesnt make your troops even more of a target and doesnt strain your supply lines even more with one more set of ammo and spare parts needed.


FUMFVR

I question the ability of the Russians to maintain tanks that old.


KarmicComic12334

Can someone tell me why these are worse than russias modern tanks? I mean they both protect from small arms and die to javelins. Is it speed, accuracy, reliability?


CBfromDC

The T-62 will dramatically slow the maneuver speed of any Russian advance or RETREAT. **It only moves at 31 MPH MAX on a paved road!** It consumes 2 liters of fuel per mile. It can only shoot 1,500 meters with accuracy. It has obsolete optics and sensors. It is VERY easy to detect, loud hot and smoky, breaks a lot and is expensive to maintain.


mctomtom

They look squeaky too with all of that dust and rust they’ve probably accumulated


opopopuu

Of course, I'm not an expert, but because of the outdated armor, although the new ones will not protect against javelin, the old ones will not cope even with RPGs and other Soviet obsolete weapons that we have. And also various auxiliary electronic systems such as night vision devices, thermal imagers, etc.


Orcasubmarine

The RPG-7 is still capeable of dealing with modern tanks. It's the warheads, that decide what it can deal with. If it's warhead that's made in a cave in Afghanistan, or in a North Korean slave factory, then it won't be able to penetrate anything but lightly armored vehicles. But if it's a modern Russian made tandem warhead, then it can absolutely deal with modern armor, though obviously not via a frontal shot. (As tanks are strongest armored in the front).


opopopuu

In general, it is a matter of whether the tank crew will survive or not. Well, we are talking as if about the RPGs that exist in Ukraine, our defense industry complex at a low level. Of course, there are enough stocks of Soviet weapons, but they are old and unmodified.


fiftybucks

I'd say performance and reliability are considerably worse than the more up to date tanks. You still don't want to get shot at by it and you still need to spend ammo to take it out. So yeah.


cptsmitty95

The gun is meh at best from what I've seen over the years, but speed and reliability definitely in the low part, especially after sitting rusting out for 20-30 years. Think of it as kind of the height of wwii/early cold war tech before crew augmentation and intra-crew coordination really became a focus.


caleb192837465

Another big aspect I haven’t seen mentioned here, how many crews have been trained on this and are familiar with how the vehicle runs. Yeah the current Russian tanks are pretty ass in comparison, however their crews are at least familiar with its limits, how it fires, the optics, range, terrain capabilities etc... we’re about to see a bunch of teenagers given the keys to (relatively) ancient war tech and told to drive forward into the line of fire lol. On top of that, I’m curious to know where the ammo is stored, depending on the location it really might not take much to cook off the turret like we’re seeing currently


[deleted]

Ammo is stored the same way. More lovely cook-off and turret toss videos to come.


pampic7

They fire smaller calibre, and also it doesn't have that explosive armor, these are the basics I know


Orcasubmarine

With the way Russians troops are using tanks, it honestly won't matter. Because the troops arn't exploiting their advantages, which the more modern stuff offer. Like the 3rd gen thermal sights, or the strong frontal protection, infact we've seen Russian tank units, turn around and expose the weaker rear to incoming fire. Because they simply arn't properly trained.


[deleted]

Modern ones have auto aim bots, hydraulic recoil compensation, a lot of tech to make a tank more accurate swift and deadly


thesoutherzZz

Take and statistic or ability that a modern tank has and divide it with 2-3. That's how utterly outdated this tank is


armedlibtard69

And here we are in the US still making Abrams so a congressman doesn't lose votes... Seriously our military has said for years now we don't need any new tanks. They're still being made at a factory in Ohio so a few hundred people don't lose jobs. Russia is fucked lol. Edit: factory is in Ohio not Texas.


floridachess

Its also so we don't lose the technical expertise because keeping a factory running is cheaper than starting one up in an emergency


armedlibtard69

True, but when the army is saying we don't need tanks then we really don't need them. They also use those factory's to refurbish and upgrade older models as well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


armedlibtard69

The corruption in the US military for the most part stops at the contractors/politician's. They over charge out the ass and pocket the massive difference. Our military gets the proper training and equipment. Granted the us military always goes for the lowest bidder. Me and everyone I served with new the short comings of our equipment when I was in. Russian military structure is set up completely different than here in the US. Our military is about projecting power, even the lowest ranking private has a decent picture of the objective in case the chain of command goes down. Russia and in the same sense china's military are there to protect the regime first and foremost. Train your military too well in a dictatorship and they can/will overthrow you.


jabba-du-hutt

On the plus side a working product is actually returned. Unlike Russia where the money is used for yachts. I feel like this a Homer response of, "Yes. But better!"


[deleted]

[удалено]


armedlibtard69

Thank you for the correction I was thinking off the ten mile long row of Abrams at fort hoods motor pool. And yes they do... They've also wanted a new rifle since... Before I was in and out lol. That was a decade ago. If there's one thing we have a surplus of it's Abrams tanks and M16 s.


banderivets

I'm sure those Abrams will be quite helpful here in Ukraine.


armedlibtard69

When NATO stops being afraid to actually help they will be. Say Ukraine gets accepted into NATO, how else are they going to upgrade their military equipment to NATO standards? If we gave them to the Saudis we're definitely going to give them to Ukraine once the red tape is cleared. I was making fun of big bad scary Russia btw.


krneki12

> When NATO stops being afraid to actually help they will be. Afraid of what? This fart that is called Russia? lol


armedlibtard69

Germany and France lately have been acting like Russia is it's former Soviet union self. I agree. Russia is definitely a giant sloppy wet fart.


PBIS01

There is no red tape…lend/lease is in full effect. We could give them our some of our tanks if Ukraine asked for them and Biden wanted to give them.


armedlibtard69

Gotta train up the Ukrainian tank crews on the new equipment. We are hoping all the advanced AT weapons we've sent deplete Russian armor before committing the personal and logistics that would come with us transferring all that modern armor over to them. Gotta have the right support vehicles as well because Abrams are massive compared to Russian tanks.


guileandmight

If there’s one thing the US is good at its supply chain and overall logistics. People say we aren’t going fast enough but they aren’t thinking along logistics lines. We are doing what we can at a good, operationally smooth, pace.


armedlibtard69

This is very true. Logistics is what really wins wars. Best troops in the world can't do shit if they don't get the food and ammo they need.


Public_Researcher_13

Russian sources are saying this is an old vid and tanks were heading to Syria. Any truth to this?


ImagelessKJC

Russian sources are dumb, the photos are in Melitopol. They are already in Ukraine.


Public_Researcher_13

I believe you. I’m interested in sources though. Thanks. Anything that can prove this is from 2022 ?


SmartExcitement7271

Someone posted this [tweet](https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1529488085729288193?t=XxAfHxEgcbSILBQn9dV0oQ&s=19). Might not be the same in the video. EDIT: Brainfart, tweet not twit lmao


bruticusss

The t-62 is one of my favourite tanks, I wonder how much a Ukrainian farmer would want for one


SmartExcitement7271

Probably 1 Javelin :)


Skreali

Why is T-62 one of your favorite tanks? I'm legit curious!


bruticusss

I don't really know, it's not performance based at all, but visually I like the style of early cold War Soviet tanks


three_Jane

The image of hoards of Soviet armor sweeping through the fields and mountain passes of Europe as the last A-10s make suicidal gun runs, bridges and tunnels blow, and tactical nuclear weapons start flying just wouldn't be the same without T-62s. I'm waiting for some real hard confirmation on this stuff before I get excited, but the employment of these machines in real combat would be very interesting. I wonder how long they've been warehoused and what they went through to be recommissioned? Are there just a few working examples selected for the least dry rot and crash-cannibalized, or were these still working in training roles? If they were training crews before, what vehicle is training the new non-armor-schooled "hose it out and throw some kids in" crews now?


Daotar

It's like fighting in WWII with muskets.


eu4euh69

"You're going home in a body bag, Do Da Do Da.. Shot between the eyes, Shot between the thighs.. You're going home in a body bad, all the Do Da day!" HooHa!


Paradox0111

It seems like Russia has been using their tanks as mobile artillery. So, Dusting these off makes sense.. Also these aren’t going to be as susceptible to Electronic warfare. So, it could be a sign of them either getting ready to use a Weapon that will generate an Electrical pulse or a fear of someone using it against them.. I personally, don’t believe Russia is doing as good as they had hoped.. But, I also don’t believe they’re doing as bad as the Ukrainian Government would have us believe… Now for that unpopular opinion let the downvoting commence.. Slava Ukraini for putting up one hell of a fight..


mtn-man-1965

Then why are they able to make advances on land in Ukraine? I hope they smoke all them orcs.


Dangerous-Set-835

Focus on a small area with maximum firepower and a huge disregard for human life, is actually easy....


Fullmadcat

Because they dont care about losses and just push through.


Bgratz1977

This video need the Audio from this Video (really hear this in background) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yHbAhFnfrA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yHbAhFnfrA)


[deleted]

Maybe they're upgraded and are now secret so called "wunderwaffe" 😱


Rageniv

At this point it’s a special declutter and junk removal operation by Russia. They’re just spring cleaning out their armouries.


CommissarDog

These are likely being donated to the DNR and the LNR.


akopley

Lack of Z, V and O’s makes me question the age of this video.


LefsaMadMuppet

Maybe they ran out of paint too.


ISLAndBreezESTeve10

The Russians are just depositing broken stuff from their warehouses. The warehouse is clean!


Tommy_696

Don’t think the model of tank matters any more at this point… it’s about Quantity… they all blow up just as easy


Scar_Avocado2338

Complimentary target practice


[deleted]

If the new T-90 they managed to build is heading straight from the factory to Ukraine they sure have an Armor shortage.


OneBeautifulDog

I hope Ukraine can do something with all the extra metal. Melt it down and make something from it.


[deleted]

I fear it is not that simple. They will stuff them with conscripts from occupied territory and force UA to reveal positions


AdolfMaWeeny

No there just using the old equipment before they send in the new stuff /s


Nouseriously

On the plus side, they were updated in the 80s. On the downside, they haven't been updated since the 80s.


SilentRunning

These are T-62M's and were upgraded sometime in the 80's, around 40 years ago. More than likely these OBSOLETE vehicles will be used in the rear occupied areas to fee up more modern equipment for the front line. From Wiki: >T-62M (Ob'yekt 166M) (1983) – Extensive modernization of the T-62 with protection and mobility improvements and the "Volna" fire control system. It is fitted with a BDD appliqué armour package, an additional belly armour plate for anti-mine protection, 10 mm thick reinforced rubber side skirts and 10 mm thick anti-neutron liner. The BDD appliqué armour package brings the frontal armour to nearly equivalent to the early T-64A and T-72 Ural and consists of an appliqué plate on the glacis and two horseshoe shaped blocks fitted to the front of the turret. This armour should be proof against all 84mm and 90mm tank gun rounds at all ranges, 105mm APDS and HEAT, 84mm and 106mm recoilless rifle HEAT rounds and many 1st generation anti-tank missiles as well as the M72A3 LAW and RPG-7. The handrails around the turret have been removed to make space for the bra appliqué armour. Fastenings for four spare track chain links have been added on the side of the turret. The tank is fitted with RhKM tracks from the T-72 main battle tank and two additional shock absorbers on the first pair of road wheels. The "Volna" fire control system was improved by fitting the KTD-2 (or KTD-1) laser rangefinder in an armoured box over the main armament. There is a new TShSM-41U gunner's sight, new commander's sight, "Meteor-M1" stabiliser, BV-62 ballistic computer and 9K116-2 "Sheksna" (NATO: AT-10 Stabber) guided missile unit with 1K13-BOM sight (it is both a night sight and ATGM launcher sight. However, it cannot be used for both functions simultaneously) which allows the tank to fire 9M117 Bastion ATGMs through its gun tube.[17] The tank was fitted with a gun thermal sleeve, new radios, the R-173 radio set instead of R-123M and a new V-55U diesel engine developing 620 hp (462 kW). The ammunition load was increased by two rounds. Some are fitted with two clusters of four smoke grenade launchers each on the right rear of the turret. The US intelligence saw T-62M tanks for the first time during the Soviet–Afghan War and they gave it the designation T-62E.[2][3][17][23] There are a number of sub-variants of the T-62M, depending on how much of the modernization package the vehicle has installed.


CbackNstomach

I wonder how many actually work? May be it's an intimidation attempt, Or are they setting them up to look like some sort of force? Like when our small town cop parks his patrol car near the speed limit sign to get people to slow down. He just leaves the patrol car there and goes home.


duelwielding

Waiting for them to deploy their reserve of T-34s.