The War in the Ukraine

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Sounds like bollocks to me. Most likely the T-62s would be put into service as the equivalent of support fire weapons for mechanized infantry brigades. Not the tank brigades. It is highly unlikely they would send them to a unit like the 1st Guards Tank Army. Plus it is pretty rich of them to dismiss the T-62 when they have been sending crap like the M-55S and Leopard 1 into Ukraine. A T-62 with ERA and thermals is certainly not inferior to either of those tanks. And the T-62 proved itself to work just fine in Syria for example.
 
Last edited:

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Sounds like bollocks to me. Most likely the T-62s would be put into service as the equivalent of support fire weapons for mechanized infantry brigades. Not the tank brigades. It is highly unlikely they would send them to a unit like the 1st Guards Tank Army. Plus it is pretty rich of them to dismiss the T-62 when they have been sending crap like the M-55S and Leopard 1 into Ukraine. A T-62 with ERA and thermals is certainly not inferior to either of those tanks. And the T-62 proved itself to work just fine in Syria for example.
Whatever, tanks is better than no tanks... Between a T-62 and an AMX-10rc, I would take T-62. Leopard 1 is more or less equal.

Don't know the ratio of mission kill and disable vs destroyed tanks on both sides. I think a lot more have been disabled than destroyed. A lot just rusting in fields waiting to be salvaged. Time to repair them is probably way longer than using a bunch of T-62. Incoming Leopard 1, AMX-10rc or T-55s falls probably in the same lot. No need to bring disabled tanks 2000 km to repair and shipping them back.

Filling the line ASAP for Russia without depleting top tier MBT on minefields while blowing dacha and rubbles is a nice task for T-62.
 

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
I believe it's coming. It just doesn't make sense for a 30 million dirt poor Ukraine to be able to mobilize 500k troops while the 140 million Russian with gas, oil, crops and whole lot of other resources and intact military industrial complex to only be able to mobilize 300k. Even with the whole of NATO contributing economically to Ukraine, that still does NOT make sense number wise.
my belief is also that if russia wants to win this war, it will need to recruit more people. but as it stands i am not sure the country is ready to do another round of conscription (i think they will need to get another 300k min to have enough for a convincing victory). every round of conscription is basically paid with putin's political capital, he will have to have something to show for, and so does the russian army. so far that has not materialized, since even the biggest recent success for russia came from the wagners (yes with russian army support, but civilians dont know that). when juxtaposed with russia's loss at vugledar it really isnt a good look.

i also wonder if russia has been able to recruit a steady stream of soldiers through contracts. if that has been the case recently then perhaps they are okay. i can see the russian army recruiting soldiers via contract for logistics and artillery positions, while the dangerous infantry job is filled with wagners and some volunteers who are crazy enough to do it.
 

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member

zelensky declares that he and the generals are in agreement that Bakhmut's defense will continue. Huge powerplay here, basically forcing the military leadership (who were backed by the west) to go with his plan. i feel zelensky is putting a lot on the line over this battle. i wonder what he sees, perhaps he assesses that wagner's offense truely is culminating...
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Wasn't Zaluzhny quoted weeks ago in several interviews about recomending to pull out of Bakhmut?.

Why the change of heart or is it bs and Zaluzhny was just told to shut up and get on with the show?.
 

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
my belief is also that if russia wants to win this war, it will need to recruit more people. but as it stands i am not sure the country is ready to do another round of conscription (i think they will need to get another 300k min to have enough for a convincing victory). every round of conscription is basically paid with putin's political capital, he will have to have something to show for, and so does the russian army. so far that has not materialized, since even the biggest recent success for russia came from the wagners (yes with russian army support, but civilians dont know that). when juxtaposed with russia's loss at vugledar it really isnt a good look.
In order not to disturb the population even to avoid the escape of men from Russia, Putin could be doing small rounds of recruitment to increase the total number of drafted mobilized in Ukraine, this would not arouse the same problems arising from the first round of 300,000 that happened in September of last year and Putin would not spend political capital following the mobilization in this direction.
Wasn't Zaluzhny quoted weeks ago in several interviews about recomending to pull out of Bakhmut?.

Why the change of heart or is it bs and Zaluzhny was just told to shut up and get on with the show?.
Zaluzhny was following the recommendation of the Americans who also supported the idea of a full Bakhmut withdrawal, but Zelensky has ignored all appeals and is sending the 67th brigade to Slavyansk, the 81st and 66th brigades to Siversk, another brigade to Chasov Yar and a last brigade to Konstantinovka to partially or fully unlock Bakhmut's operational Russian encirclement and/or keep the offensive within city limits.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
They are trading lives to buy time. The problem is that it’s unclear what they are buying time for.

It made some sense if they are actually going to get all the promised modern western armour in the quantities promised at the times promised, so they would have been trading infantry lives to buy time to train up their armoured crews for the big spring offensive.

The problem is that the vast majority of the promised armour are turning out to be empty words only, with countries finding all sorts of excuses on why they cannot provide the promised armour ranging from ‘heartless Germans said no!’ to ‘All our tanks are actually broken’ to ‘We won’t sent our old tanks until America deliveries us newer and better replacements first’.

But Ukraine’s infantry losses are real and mounting, and they are depleting their reserves just as the Russians are gearing up for their own spring/summer offensive. To me, it looks like the Russians are in no hurry to interrupt Ukraine as they are making this giant strategic mistake, and are happily milking this gift cow for all its worth for as long as Ukraine is willing to keep pumping in enough lives, even if it means they push back their own offensive.

So in a way, it is working in delaying the Russian offensive, but the problem is what happens next, as the Ukrainians would be drained, bloodied and depleted and without much new western armour to make up for their losses. All the while the Russian regulars are rested, re-equipped and had a massive manpower infusion from newly mobilised troops.

It’s a bad trade in my book.
 

tabu

Junior Member
Registered Member
Russia welds outdated naval turrets to old armoured personnel carriers to make crude tanks as Vladimir Putin's forces face a growing arms shortage.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The crudely constructed vehicles are being used in a likely attempt to shoot down Ukrainian drones as the armed forces face a severe shortage of combat vehicles and ammunition.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

New footage obtained from an undisclosed location shows a 25mm 2M-3 dual-barreled naval anti-aircraft turret being mounted on a Soviet MT-LB amphibious combat vehicle to create a new hybrid weapon.
This unit, which was built from parts dating back to 1945, can be seen being transported by rail, possibly to Ukraine.
Its 25mm guns were most likely procured from a naval patrol boat, an area in which Russia has a rare surplus, and its tracks may date back to the 1950s.
Military experts say Russia probably has to improvise from dwindling stocks to make up for destroyed or lost equipment in Ukraine.
According to Justin Crump of Sibylline, a company specialising in intelligence and geopolitical risk, Moscow is likely to have turned to naval turret because its navy is far less depleted than its battle-scarred ground forces.
"I suspect it was improvised from naval turrets because they had access to them and the relevant ammunition," he said.
The new vehicle could be used to combat the growing number of active Ukrainian drones or sent to a quieter section of the front line so that Russia could move more advanced equipment closer to the main battles." Taken from YAHOO/The Telegraph


The core statement of the article is that ship turrets with 25 mm twin guns are welded onto MB-LB in order to be able to use another weapon against Ukrainian drones. Individual parts were produced in 1945.
To compensate for the tank losses, T 62s (built in the sixties and sixties) were demothballed. Even BTR 50s, built from 1953 onwards, were put back into service.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Ukrainian vehicles being destroyed as they try to escape from Bakhmut.


Lancet from obtf Kaskad claims another artillery victim.


Ukrainian ammo depot gets destroyed in Avdiivka.


Another Ukrainian ammo depot taken out in Avdiivka.


Wreckage of Ukrainian vehicles found in Kremennaya.

 
Top