Forbes and Bloomberg are full of shit. That claim is ludicrous on the extreme.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Indeed, L7 armed Israeli Centurions proved themselves very well against Syrian T-62's
Weren't those early model T-62s though? The later versions received a lot of applique armour.
The only tanks the west seems willing to part with are Leopard 1A5 so far. I don't think it is necesary to point out the disadvantage those things are at in the armor and firepower department against T-72, T-80 and even T-62M.
105mm's have no hope of penning a T-72B from the front, even with the latest ammo, which Ukraine won't get anyway. There is a reason why NATO dropped the 105mm gun when the uparmored T-72 and the T-80BV and U started to show up
They were. Also, is not like it was particularly hard to perform well against the Syrian army, yet Israel managed to botch the first par of the Yom Kippur War-
Last edited:
They can be used for both indirect fire support and infantry support. In case the M-55S is perfect for fire ambushes and supporting border guards, this will allow troops based in northern Ukraine to be released if Kiev so desires, can be used by pro-Western Georgian legion, for sure will alleviate more troops to be sent to the east and south, where the offensive is still ongoing.
In terms of guns, the 1950s British L7 105mm in the M-55S is almost on par with the Soviet U-5TS 115mm gun in the T-62M. L7 offers better ammo, accuracy and aim (thanks to the three-part thermal sleeve that reduces muzzle flex by more than 70%, helping to increase the weapon's accuracy). The L7 is an extremely old rifled tank gun that cannot fire modern kinetic penetrators, will function as a fire support vehicle, but will not reliably penetrate Russian Kontak or Relikt. The 125mm flat bore on the Ukrainian T-64 is much more capable than the L7. The M-55S is more protected thanks to Rafael ERA blocks. It's still a seriously outdated tank, but it's better than no tank at all. Also, you probably don't know that during the modernization of the T-62, only the old hull and turret remained on it, and new systems will be installed as on the updated T-72 and T-80. They will be extremely important against IFVs, AFVs etc.
One other thing, Ukraine doesn't even have ammunition for the L7. There are APFSDS for the L7 made in Europe from 2004. It is still inferior in performance to the Soviet APFSDS from the 80s for the 2A46. The DM33 they are getting from Slovenia is worse than 3BM42, but not that bad. It is possible that another country will ship better shells, however, the US has a large stock of M833 which is equivalent. Basically they don't operate modern 105mm APFSDS, and no HE available for L7 (afaik Slovenia uses 1kg Israeli M110) is better than the ones used on T-62s, Ukraine still hasn't received better ammunition than it had before the war (the best was 3BM42), doubtful, we'll have to see that yet.
Also in the M-55S, the gunner is provided with the Slovenian Fontana SGS-55 dual-axis day-intensification/image stabilized sight with a laser rangefinder that provides information to the fire control computer. As an option, a thermal version of this system is also available. Fontana material in Slovenia is good but quite dated, especially when some T-62Ms are running around with newer FCS and thermal sights (more important views than FCS for these dated vehicles used almost exclusively for fire support), the Volna fire control system includes the main armament-mounted KDT-2 laser rangefinder, which has a maximum range of 4,000 m, TShSM-41U sights, Meteor M1 stabilizer, and BV62 ballistic computer. The T-62M can traverse a maximum depth of 1.4 m without preparation.
In terms of overall armor, the M-55S is inferior to the T-62M, it has something like 5% less frontal armor and 20% less in the turret, there is also no fire stabilizer, basically it is inferior in many ways. Armor? A lot worse. Gun? Worse. FCS? Depends on variant of T-62M. mobility? Worse. T-62M base armor is better than current M-55S armor, even with fancy Israeli addons. The Israeli Blazer ERA is quite literally the same if not worse than Kontakt-1, and is ancient. Maybe it's Super Blazer and not regular Blazer. Which even then offers no tandem protection and the bare minimum of kinetic protection. Afaik not even enough to stop 3BM6 at 1000m with T-55 base armor included.
As long as Ukraine sends garbage east and south, they don't need to send modern armored units, that's waste of resource, they don't need to take what is not rotten, they take it because they know the enemy's inferiority, spend big resources bringing modern units while the enemy using inferior tanks that were sent from the other enemy is simply idiotic. Furthermore, the shipment of M-55S only indicates that NATO is running out of ways to supply more operational tanks by the AFU or according to standard Ukraine/NATO usage, more precisely, T-72 and equivalents. Western countries are running out of T-72 tanks, so they need to transfer T-55-based combat vehicles, for which the AFU does not have ammunition, to Ukraine. Another issue is that as it was removed from the reserve, it is important to check its conservation. I consider this a possible transition to other 105mm armored vehicles such as the M60A3 which I see as the most likely Taiwanese donor. If it is to send regular garbage to the AFU, Romania should do its part and send the Romanian T-55, they have 122 of the base version (base version is from 1957) and 226 of a patched one (because modern is not - uses the base tank body and put explosive reactive armor and new optics in 1998, but it's still a T-55, same gun, same pure steel armor) called TR-85, throws 500 tanks on top of the AFU at once time, while Romania itself would have a chance of getting a German or Turkish tank practically for free.
The T-62s are not only being repaired, but they are being modernized with modern thermal imaging, night visions, reinforced protection, installation of articulated armor, protection against missile systems, rear protection against grenade launchers, in this context, it is worth remembering that the T-62 tanks used in Ukraine are there not for lack of armored vehicles, but because they are armed with volunteers from South Ossetia, in addition to also being in service with Cossack units, parts of the brigade operate in a southerly direction.
333mm vs 308mm at 2km...lol
It's not my problem if you don't accept the veracity of the news, I've already informed about this. Now, interesting your position on Forbes and Bloomberg sources, I will remember this when news of the poor performance of the West or bad news of the West in general is published, I believe you will maintain consistency and accept that in fact the sources are bad and that the news is not true.
The problem with western sources is that they will peddle bullshit or the truth whenever it suits their handlers and financiers. Bloomberg has jumped in "the coming fall of China" bandwagon multiple times, just like Forbe, for example.
So, the whole "broken clock" thing applies to them.
broken clocks are right twice a day, but clocks with a frameshift error are never correct.
Fighting Rages Between Russian, Ukrainian Forces on Frontlines of Zaporizhzhia
China's CCTV reporting on the current situation in Ukraine, this news segment is from the Russian side. That Ukrainian squad just walking out in the open in mortar range seemed like a reckless decision when they should know they can be spotted by DJI drones used for recon.
Pro-Ukraine source, post attack one Admiral Grigorovich class spotted at dock and doesn't seem particularly harmed.
Today's air strike is really heavy. Ukrainian sources claim 40 cruise missiles in their airspace
Then there's this claim...
But anyway the claim is they were launched by 10 Tu-95 over the Caspian Sea. Russians targeting energy infrastructure again, uniquely hydroelectric power stations are hit this time. Russians claim:
Judging from this:
Let's just say I'm not convinced of that 44/50 missiles down claim, explosions and videos of transformers on fire notwithstanding.
Then there's this claim...
But anyway the claim is they were launched by 10 Tu-95 over the Caspian Sea. Russians targeting energy infrastructure again, uniquely hydroelectric power stations are hit this time. Russians claim:
- Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station
- Yuzhnodnestrovskoye Hydroelectric Power Station
- Kanevskaya Hydroelectric Power Stations
- Kremenchugskaya Hydroelectric Power Plant
Judging from this:
Let's just say I'm not convinced of that 44/50 missiles down claim, explosions and videos of transformers on fire notwithstanding.