Jump to content

Ok, question about the stuff that the Ukrainians nabbed from the Russians


Randomguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

So the Ukrainians are scooping up stranded or orphaned tanks and artillery and such from the Russians and farmers with tractors are towing them out.   Is it just a win by depriving the Russians of them, or is it a double win because they can maybe use them against the Russians?  I am just not sure that the Ukrainian army can maintain and arm tanks or find ordinance for the artillery, is that something that can be accomplished, although maybe not easily?  Also, how much training is needed to man a tank properly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 hours ago, Randomguy said:

So the Ukrainians are scooping up stranded or orphaned tanks and artillery and such from the Russians and farmers with tractors are towing them out.   Is it just a win by depriving the Russians of them, or is it a double win because they can maybe use them against the Russians?  I am just not sure that the Ukrainian army can maintain and arm tanks or find ordinance for the artillery, is that something that can be accomplished, although maybe not easily?  Also, how much training is needed to man a tank properly?

The Ukrainian army is already equipped with Russian hardware.  In many cases it would be an item to immediately go into service with them.  

  • Like 2
  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if we needed any more indications, that this is happening illustrates how disorganized and weak the Russian military is.

Any truly functioning military has units dedicated to vehicle recovery, especially heavy vehicles like tanks.  If nothing else, a 'totaled' tank can be stripped for still-usable parts to keep other tanks going, avoiding the delays/logistics of shipping new parts from 'home' and avoiding the additional pressure on manufacturing resources that will be pressed in any war situation.

That the Russian convoy backed up for miles - and then sat there for days - was all the indication anybody needed of the disarray in the Russian military.  Had they been facing a more substantial opponent, the ends of the convoy would have been destroyed bottling up everything in the middle, which would have then been destroyed piece by piece.  A more substantial opponent would have done to the Russians what the Allies did to the Germans at the Falaise Pocket in WWII.

You can be sure every military intelligence organization on the globe is closely watching how badly the Russian military is executing the war.  In particular, the Chinese.  I'm sure they knew full well the incompetence of the Russian military before Ukraine, but now they - and everybody else - has had that demonstrated and confirmed.

And as a corollary to all this: If the Russian military can't subdue Ukraine after weeks and weeks of fighting, it's patently obvious they are utterly unable to mount any sort of wholesale conquest westward into Europe.  As weak as NATO is, the lack of Russian success in Ukraine is a clear signal that the US does not need to be concerned about a Blitzkrieg style attack from Russia into Europe , and we should be able to significantly draw down our forces and expenditures there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maddmaxx said:

The Ukrainian army is already equipped with Russian hardware.  In many cases it would be an item to immediately go into service with them.  

Trained and equipped on all that stuff.  It's just a matter of a quick respray of the flag?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the large hardware such as tanks and personnel carriers, the captured ammunitions are a direct fit for their Russian supplied arms. Also, the Poland aircraft supply was for MIGs that the Ukranian pilots were trained for, with Poland back filling and upgrading with US fighter jets. Would have been great if they were trained in US planes...and got a few A10 Warthogs for those convoys, but training didn't support it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

"Should" but won't :(

Likely he just spends his days doing awful stuff until he dies or he gets deposed old school Soviet style.

I think it will if some top brass hand him over.  But then, why do that when a little lead to the head is quicker. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maddmaxx said:

The Ukrainian army is already equipped with Russian hardware.  In many cases it would be an item to immediately go into service with them.  

At worse, Russian vehicles and artillery knocked out of action and captured can be used for spare parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years back, our Scout troop visited Fort Hood in Texas.  We were hosted by a mounted cavalary unit.  They had a museum of armor, both ours, and stuff they had captured dating back to pre world war II.  One thing they had was a US tank painted in Japanese colors.  The Japanese captured it from the Americans in the South Pacific and used it against us after repainting it.  The Americans got it back and it is now in the museum, still painted as a Japanese tank.

Artillery, Tanks and AFVs in the USA: Texas (4) Fort Hood, 1st Cavalry  Museum

 

https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/post/artillery-tanks-and-afvs-in-the-usa-texas-4-fort-hood-1st-cavalry-museum

 

I imagine it was much easier to work a 1940s tank vs a 2020s tank.  Maybe the Russians have really old tanks though?  Not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am reading too much into it but I sometimes wonder if this isn’t all a ruse by keeping their best stuff on the sidelines. It wouldn’t be the first time in military tactics. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

My magic eight ball says “presumably yes”.

Most pictures (if real) show the Russians advancing with T-72 tanks.  They appear to be the newest version however.  Ukrainian T-72 are an older variant which mostly involves the electronics equipment fit.  The Russians do not seem to be sending forward their better tanks for some reason.  Perhaps they are being saved in case the reaction to their attack from other countries is stronger.

It shouldn't matter though.  Russian T-72's are perfectly adequate for destroying apartment buildings. Their crews and logistics trains may not be however.  Settle down and turn everything into junk with artillery seems to be what they do best, even in Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dottles said:

Maybe I am reading too much into it but I sometimes wonder if this isn’t all a ruse by keeping their best stuff on the sidelines. It wouldn’t be the first time in military tactics. 

Probably but they can't put all their war eggs in one basket either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, donkpow said:

You can bet the oligarchs aren't too happy right now. Sitting on the sidelines while the EU locks their assets. Gone are the dreams of exploiting the fertile lands of Ukraine for profit.

Meh, they will be fine.  This is just a temporary glitch.  It would be different if their assets were sold off and the funds given to Ukraine for rebuilding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I am old, and not willing to be PC.  There are no chicks in tanks.

That is not consistent with Soviet history.  Numbers are growing in the US army as well.

At the rise of not being nice, you are underinformed more so than unwilling to be PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maddmaxx said:

That is not consistent with Soviet history.  Numbers are growing in the US army as well.

At the rise of not being nice, you are underinformed more so than unwilling to be PC.

If we know one thing about women drivers - cars or tanks - it is that they know how to drive into things and cause massive damage.  Tank driving is a "natural" for that skillset as long as they are placed in enemy territory first.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

That is not consistent with Soviet history.  Numbers are growing in the US army as well.

At the rise of not being nice, you are underinformed more so than unwilling to be PC.

Not in tanks, they aren't.  Dudes only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

If we know one thing about women drivers - cars or tanks - it is that they know how to drive into things and cause massive damage.  Tank driving is a "natural" for that skillset as long as they are placed in enemy territory first.

You make a good point.  One thing the Russians had to do to come up with enough troops was to conscript a lot of retired soldiers.  So that convoy probably moved so slowly because one of the retirees was in the tank in front, in the left lane with his left turn signal on.

couple stories from the front:  Ukrainian auto repairmen have been retraining to repair and refit armored vehicles.  They are repairing captured tanks and giving them to the troops. They are even taking mounted guns from destroyed vehicles and welding up fitments to put them on other combat vehicles.

Why are the best, newest equipment not being used?  Develop a system of government that thrives on stealing from the people and giving that to a few oligarchs in position to do the stealing.  Then put a few of those guys in charge of spending money to develop and maintain an army.  Yup, their yachts and planes work great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

How new? Because the original T-72 are 50 year old designs, IIRC.

New fire control computers, newer engines, better laser rangefinders, thermal blankets on the barrels, active armor and a host of other things that can turn old steel into a reasonable formidable weapon.  Even the Ukrainians have a better tank.  Their modernized T-64 is nominally a better tank than the T72 but the 72 is easier to maintain, quite possible because of the less sophisticated electronics.

Remember that our M1 entered service 42 years ago in 1980.  The design, just like the Russian one has be upgraded many times since then however.

Within these hardware limits however place your bets on crew training and tactics to be the decision maker in any of these battles.

This is why you don't want a conscript military.  You want healthy, well paid, well trained and motivated specialists at doing what they do better than anyone else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

How new? Because the original T-72 are 50 year old designs, IIRC.

Our M1’s have been out since the mid 70’s. The basic design is the same but the electronics & bore have been enhanced and reactive armor added.  But from a layman’s point of view it looks like the same tank we fielded in 1970’s.   The T72 has gone through similar upgrades but I’m hearing many of the tanks are lacking reactive armor.  The harnesses are in place but appear to be empty. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Not in tanks, they aren't.  Dudes only.

You really need to keep up with the times. ;)   (not that I agree with how things are progressing, I'm old too)

June 3, 2020    The U.S. Army announced recently that female soldiers will be integrated into all of its infantry and armor brigade combat teams (BCTs) by the end of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

You really need to keep up with the times. ;)   (not that I agree with how things are progressing, I'm old too)

June 3, 2020    The U.S. Army announced recently that female soldiers will be integrated into all of its infantry and armor brigade combat teams (BCTs) by the end of the year.

Yeah, I don't believe it.  No way you are gonna put a woman in a tank with a couple of naked sweaty guys to get blown up.  Maybe some chicks will run logistics and drive trucks and such, but in a tank?  Ain't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jsharrwick said:

The USMC no longer uses tanks.  They are going to a new model with small groups of Marines supported by other technologies.  

https://news.usni.org/2021/02/10/early-experiments-are-proving-out-tank-free-marine-corps-concept

 

Probably more in keeping with their quick reaction on any shore in the world.  If you need heavy armor you do a Desert Shield till the army gets there for Desert Storm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Randomguy said:

Yeah, I don't believe it.  No way you are gonna put a woman in a tank with a couple of naked sweaty guys to get blown up.  Maybe some chicks will run logistics and such, but in a tank?  Ain't happening.

Lillian Polatchek graduated at the top of her class from the Army's Armor Basic Officer Leaders Course, becoming the United States Marine Corps' first female tank officer.Nov 16, 2020

The Russians do it.

The IDF does it.

It might prove to be a disadvantage if you have to change out a track, but the mechanical advantage of a modern tank can make any well trained human a quality gunner, or driver, or commander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the awfulness of the war, there are huge opportunities opening up for the US and others to profit (or at least upgrade at reduced cost) from the equipment in former Soviet bloc countries that has been sitting in mothballs or delayed being replaced with modern NATO-spec stuff.  Send those former regimes/new NATO allies new stuff to keep locally, and they send their older stuff to Ukraine. The Ukraine folks will likely have similar stuff from their Soviet-era, and will not need as much training nor need to maintain the western-sourced and the Soviet-sourced stuff simultaneously.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Lillian Polatchek graduated at the top of her class from the Army's Armor Basic Officer Leaders Course, becoming the United States Marine Corps' first female tank officer.Nov 16, 2020

The Russians do it.

The IDF does it.

It might prove to be a disadvantage if you have to change out a track, but the mechanical advantage of a modern tank can make any well trained human a quality gunner, or driver, or commander.

I do believe that, like female dentists and proctologists, there would be certain advantages to having chicks in those tight places.  That said, other than one or two for show, ain't happening.  Too much strength work as far as I can figure, loading shells, wrenching heavy-ass things, getting out and having to go hand to hand with enemy soldiers, etc.  Just not practical.  Plus, it is loud and hot in tanks, they are made of metal.  Chicks generally don't thrive on that stuff, dudes, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

For all the awfulness of the war, there are huge opportunities opening up for the US and others to profit (or at least upgrade at reduced cost) from the equipment in former Soviet bloc countries that has been sitting in mothballs or delayed being replaced with modern NATO-spec stuff.  Send those former regimes/new NATO allies new stuff to keep locally, and they send their older stuff to Ukraine. The Ukraine folks will likely have similar stuff from their Soviet-era, and will not need as much training nor need to maintain the western-sourced and the Soviet-sourced stuff simultaneously.

This seems logical, upgrade time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I do believe that, like female dentists and proctologists, there would be certain advantages to having chicks in those tight places.  That said, other than one or two for show, ain't happening.  Too much strength work as far as I can figure, loading shells, wrenching heavy-ass things, getting out and having to go hand to hand with enemy soldiers, etc.  Just not practical.  Plus, it is loud and hot in tanks, they are made of metal.  Chicks generally don't thrive on that stuff, dudes, either.

They don't have to carry the damn thing.  They have to look through a sophisticated sight and pull the trigger.  Damn, this isn'rocket science.  It's what they used to say about piloting helicopters or even flying fighter jets.  It happens in spite of old school "women can't do that shit manthink."

It will undoubtably blow your mind to find out that the navy even began putting women on mixed sex submarine crews more than 10 years ago.

:frantics:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To @Randomguy’s posts I have mixed feelings on it.  

The Army MP Corps has always been open to female soldiers and many women possess the physical attributes to succeed. I worked with them daily.  I have seen women MP’s hump M60’s for days and have seen women MP’s that can’t manage their basic load out.  It really depends on the person.  

I really wish the military had basic physical fitness standards like the PD’s do.  Pass the physical fitness test and go on.  Fail the test and go into a non combat arms MOS.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

They don't have to carry the damn thing.  They have to look through a sophisticated sight and pull the trigger.

This is true, they can do the thinking, sighting, and pulling the trigger part.  They would also have a harder time with any kind of strength work, making them impractical in many missions.  To Chris' point, yeah, there are some bad-ass chicks out there, but not enough to go around when requirements are to lift very heavy things or lift heavy things repetitively.  Which means, other than ones or two's, ain't happening for all practical purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...