I suspect the salient point is not whether the T 55's have any battlefield utility, in a modern drone and satellite recon'ed steppe I would guess none, the real point is this is all they have, it speaks to an utter degradation of their tank building and recovery/maintenance ability
Look, the video provided earlier of the train transporting T54/55 has no context. It is not known when the person took the video or where they took the video. Furthermore, there isn't any information as to where the train was heading. So what? Well, they could be going to Ukraine, but more on that in a bit. Or they could be going to training grounds. Or they could be going to museums. Or they could be going to Syria. Who knows? Time will tell.
But let's assume they are heading to Ukraine because, once again, the Russkies are out of tanks, right?. So what? Well, it's highly unlikely the RuF will put them at the tip of the spear because the reality is they have no need to do so.
So what can they be used for? For one, RuF could use them with follow-on forces behind a main force to provide protection to infantry. Infantry could actually ride on them - using them as a battlefield taxi. They certainly provide more protection and firepower than MRAPs, M113s and various other dinky toys the AFU is using right now with nary a complaint from the armchair warlords.
Secondly, the RUF could use them as mobile assault guns to clobber bunkers and other fortifications. A big gun on tracks is still a big gun on tracks, no matter its age - and high velocity HE 100mm provides a significant wallop - more so than a lobbed 80mm or 120mm mortar bullet.
Finally, the RuF can use them in defensive positions - use them as bunkers/pill boxes.
Can a T-55 go up against a modern MBT? Not head on. But you can site them in enfilade to get a side shot. Shots on the lower hull can immobilize NATO MBTs. A rear shot can destroy them. But, let's be honest here. Tank vs tank is rare in this conflict, as I have pointed out before.
Well, you say, the Bradley will sort out a T55. Sure. But any modern Russian MBT has Refleks AT missile which is more advanced than TOW and with a 5000m range. What that means is RuF can take out Bradley before it can engage. The RuF "Terminator" is also lurking here and there with its Ataka ATGMs. The Atakas, by the way, have double he range of TOW.
Consider the Line of Contact is about 1000km. There is always room for more guns. If it fires, it fires.
a·pol·o·gist
/əˈpäləjəst/
noun
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
If only there was some other democratic, peaceful, resource-rich nation that could displace Russian O&G on the global stage. Could you imagine a country that could wean the world off Russian O&G and making a lot of money doing it? And then investing a good portion of that money into advancing alternative / green energy policy, research and technology?
Yeah, I can't either.
Presidents Obama and Biden, along with Jon Stewart, Hasan Minhaj, and countless other celebrities have deemed Alberta Oil the dirtiest and worst thing on planet earth, and those American opinions are completely altruistic and not at all rooted in America's quest to dominate the world in oil production and sales. Not at all.
I can see those T-55s being anchor turrets on trench lines on the narrow points of the Crimean isthmus and nothing more. Sort of akin to the Japanese attempting to beach the Yamato at a strategic location in the Philippines before the Americans fed it numerous torpedo's and bombs while it was en route.
I can see those T-55s being anchor turrets on trench lines on the narrow points of the Crimean isthmus and nothing more. Sort of akin to the Japanese attempting to beach the Yamato at a strategic location in the Philippines before the Americans fed it numerous torpedo's and bombs while it was en route.
I suspect the salient point is not whether the T 55's have any battlefield utility, in a modern drone and satellite recon'ed steppe I would guess none...
You can make that argument against any modern tank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
...the real point is this is all they have, it speaks to an utter degradation of their tank building and recovery/maintenance ability
No, they are not all they have. Russia produces in the neighborhood of 800 tanks annually. There hasn't been any degradation in their tank manufacturing. How many tanks does NATO produce annually?
What's fascinating is how fired up this community got over a no context video posted by a pro-Ukrainian Twitter account. Why do people here take such posts as gospel?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
You can make that argument against any modern tank.
No, they are not all they have. Russia produces in the neighborhood of 800 tanks annually. There hasn't been any degradation in their tank manufacturing. How many tanks does NATO produce annually?
What's fascinating is how fired up this community got over a no context video posted by a pro-Ukrainian Twitter account. Why do people here take such posts as gospel?
Really? You are going to accuse people of using fantasy numbers while quoting Russian fantasy numbers? The Soviet Union, let alone Russia without all the satellite states, hasn't been producing tanks at that rate since the cold war. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since you regularly posted stuff straight off Russian sources/maps. By most reports, including Russian newspapers right before Putin's press purge, UralVagonZavod is the only tank factory operational at this point and they are down to a single production line and refurb line. The production line's capacity is quoted as 20/month and they've had to "pause" plans for a second line because they haven't been able to find the tooling/resources post sanction or people to do so. Refurb line is 17/mo there and there are plans build 2 more refurb lines in the "coming months". Meanwhile Russia has lost 150+ tanks/mo just on visually verified OSINT data.
Ukraine is not losing tanks, let alone Western ones, at anywhere near that rate either. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann has stated they can can currently do 50 tanks/year and can refurb 60-70/year and they are not crippled on critical components, lack of manpower from conscription, or sanctions on critical western tech which the most modern Russian armor used extensively. i.e. all the last generation off the shelf French thermals on even the latest T-14s. Spain and Sweden have both produced Leopards domestically under license in the past, and could restart that. Abrams production is at 11 tanks per month at the Lima Army Tank plant at low rate production but can ramp up. But do the Americans even need to build more when they have an insane 3500 M1A1/A2 in mothball storage? https://warisboring.com/germanys-leo...rt%20it%20here. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...702-story.html https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/24...tudies%20(IISS).
Last edited by FlameOn; 03-23-2023 at 07:58 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
You can make that argument against any modern tank.
No, they are not all they have. Russia produces in the neighborhood of 800 tanks annually. There hasn't been any degradation in their tank manufacturing. How many tanks does NATO produce annually?
What's fascinating is how fired up this community got over a no context video posted by a pro-Ukrainian Twitter account. Why do people here take such posts as gospel?
Dude they're having a hard time maintaining their railway infrastructure due to lack of bearings. There has been degradation across the board.. those wheel turny things are fairly important, and perhaps the reason why the really old stuff is being sent out now.
What's fascinating is how fired up this community got over a no context video posted by a pro-Ukrainian Twitter account. Why do people here take such posts as gospel?
Equally fascinating is your posting history in this thread. Almost like you're cheering on Russia or at least engaging in pro-Russian propaganda.
You took a little break but it seems like you're back for a Spring Offensive.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Equally fascinating is your posting history in this thread. Almost like you're cheering on Russia or at least engaging in pro-Russian propaganda.
You took a little break but it seems like you're back for a Spring Offensive.
Sir, thank you for responding to my post and noticing I was away. I took a long break because I was out of the country for six months and a little too busy to concern myself with the comings and goings of Calgarypuck.com.
Now, whose Spring offensive am I waiting for?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Really? You are going to accuse people of using fantasy numbers while quoting Russian fantasy numbers? The Soviet Union, let alone Russia without all the satellite states, hasn't been producing tanks at that rate since the cold war. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since you regularly posted stuff straight off Russian sources/maps. By most reports, including Russian newspapers right before Putin's press purge, UralVagonZavod is the only tank factory operational at this point and they are down to a single production line and refurb line. The production line's capacity is quoted as 20/month and they've had to "pause" plans for a second line because they haven't been able to find the tooling/resources post sanction or people to do so. Refurb line is 17/mo there and there are plans build 2 more refurb lines in the "coming months". Meanwhile Russia has lost 150+ tanks/mo just on visually verified OSINT data.
Ukraine is not losing tanks, let alone Western ones, at anywhere near that rate either. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann has stated they can can currently do 50 tanks/year and can refurb 60-70/year and they are not crippled on critical components, lack of manpower from conscription, or sanctions on critical western tech which the most modern Russian armor used extensively. i.e. all the last generation off the shelf French thermals on even the latest T-14s. Spain and Sweden have both produced Leopards domestically under license in the past, and could restart that. Abrams production is at 11 tanks per month at the Lima Army Tank plant at low rate production but can ramp up. But do the Americans even need to build more when they have an insane 3500 M1A1/A2 in mothball storage? https://warisboring.com/germanys-leo...rt%20it%20here. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...702-story.html https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/24...tudies%20(IISS).
Give your head a shake. what do you hear?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
You mention missiles but I don't really think that's much of a factor, as I know you know, and any armoured soldier will tell you, any decent tank will be able to detect missile launches and send a return round long before that slow moving TOW reaches it's target.
Maybe. If the crew isn't buttoned up, they have a better chance of detecting an incoming missile and responding accordingly. If not...
There is a dozen or so Turk Leopard IIs in northern Syria rusting away - taken out by TOW and other ATGMs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
Obviously the issue here is going to be doctrine, which, as always, is Russia's weak point. If they couldn't properly support their tanks before, what reason do we have to believe that that's going to change now, no matter how old the equipment they're fielding? Their gear has never been the issue with the Russians, it's how they use it
OK, doctrine. Since we are talking about the use of tanks on the battlefield, let's rewind to seven years ago. On 8 Oct 15, Syrian forces launched an attack against the Jihadist forces at the Latamin bridgehead using an armoured fist plan developed by their Russian advisors. They concentrated their armoured forces on the Hama plains with an aim to crush the enemy with one punch. Unfortunately, their plan did not work and the Jihadists routed the Syrian armour using TOW and other ATGM weapons. Even then it was evident the Soviet dogma of "Tank wedges to the English Channel" was outdated.
The Syrians in subsequent years (largely without Russian participation) rethought the meaning of the tank on the battlefield and began to act effectively. In open spaces, the infantry platoon received a tank under its command. The infantrymen went forward, identified enemy firing points and called in their armor to destroy them. The soldiers went ahead of the tanks, which significantly reduced the loss of vehicles on the plains.
In the cities, tactics changed. Each tank had its own “gunner” operating outside of the tank. He operated a drone over a tank in order to provide a broader picture of the battlefield. Such interaction made it possible to break through the enemy's fortifications even in close Arab buildings.
The Syrian experience taught the Russians nothing and, so, fast forward to 24 Feb 22, Russian armoured columns went forward, with practically no connection with the infantrymen. The losses on those days can be judged by numerous AFU videos.
Now the Russian army has to gnaw through enemy defenses in depth, so the Russians had to rethink the meaning and use of the tank on the battlefield because throwing armoured fists forward on today's battlefield does not work.
Izyum. The Russians tried to capture Kamenka with a tank assault. As a result, this tactic completely failed and the special forces cleared the village on foot. The Wagnerians also advanced in small groups of infantry. Neither Popasnaya nor Soledar were taken head-on by a tank attack.
So what should be done? Firstly, abandon the tactics of tank breakthroughs. Secondly, each tank must be assigned a ground gunner. He must ensure coordination between the tank and the infantry. Thirdly, each tank must have its own drone. Finally, artillery. Better have lots of it. And layered air defence.
Now, has NATO been paying attention?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
