Just to nitpick, because it’s the name of the game, but you are missing a couple of zeroes there. Apart from that, you are right: this war has shown that tanks are obsolete for most of the traditional roles they used to have in warfare. Tanks still have uses, but the former main weapon of Ruzzia is no longer that relevant. In fact, they have become a liability in most war scenarios, as they have to be protected against drones by infantry, instead of protecting infantry in the offensive as they used to.
Not sure where I heard $60k, but want to say that I’d heard that was the average cost to rehab a typical T-72 taken out of storage. But yeah, my point is there’s a big disparity in the cost of the weapons.
Drones can’t take or hold land though. If Ukraine has a tank advantage that would bode well for a counter attack.
Even back in WWII, tanks always relied on infantry for protection against infantry because can’t see well enough to prevent the enemy from getting close enough to use an anti-tank weapon. Gross incompetence on the part of the Russian army is one of the reasons they’ve suffered so much loss to their armor during this war. For whatever reason, and I’m guessing poor training, the Russians weren’t screening their tanks properly and were unlucky to run into an enemy that was determined, well trained, and well equipped who capitalized on their incompetence.
And WW2 tanks.
Russia has lost between 4,000 and over 11,000 tanks in Ukraine.
Well the 1950s-era T-54/55s, cost only $200K or so to build, and some were sold for $50K. The t62 cost about the same. They are drawing deep, deep, deep into reserves.
Sounds about right, the T62 was about $50-50K to upgrade.
Nothing will ever replace the mark1 Mod? Infantry.
And also some more aid from Canada:
Why did it take 4 years?
The link proudly lists a bunch of companies , including “shadow companies” operating in semi-secret to bypass sanctions,which surely should have been included in the boycott of Russia since the beginning of the war.
But a delay of 4 years is nothing to be proud of.
Can’t they use aircraft or convoys?
Two points.
- Totally agree that Drones can’t take or hold land.
- I think my post on the T-80 wasn’t clear enough. This will be the first model of tank that will stop production. Russia will still have T-72, T-62, T-55 etc being restored in their factories. Ukraine will still be at a tank disadvantage in this war.
Right, I almost commented earlier but the current production lines are the T-90M/M2 (yet another jumped up T-72) and purportedly the brand new and the to date never or rarely deployed T-14 Armata. The latter is very expensive, seems to have some serious teething issues and may be suffering from international sanctions hampering production.
So new tanks are overwhelmingly the T-90M line. Production figures should be taken with a grain of salt, but there are claims they’ve ramped up from 60+ a year in 2022 to 200+/year by 2024, possibly hitting 250-300/year and they’re trying to push that figure higher.
Russia is not yet running out of the capacity to produce tanks. Hard to say when or if they will.
It’s in Ukraine’s best interest for Russia to pour its rubles into expensive weaponry rather than cheap-effective things like Shaheds. Every $2 million T90 tank that rolls off the production line is already an indirect financial win for Ukraine before it’s even been destroyed.
Ukraine mostly isn’t trying to take land, though. They’re trying to win the war, which they’re doing by destroying the Russian capability to wage war. And drones can wipe out a major chunk of the Russian air force, and burn a bunch of oil infrastructure to the ground, and the like.
It is more the opposite at this point. When Ukraine did not capitulate and also regained some large portions of territory, Russia pivoted to conducting an attrition war. The effectiveness of drones and the difficulty of hiding massed forces in preparation of large attacks, made this the most sensible approach. As well, Russia has a large in place production base for the more mundane types of weaponry to conduct such a war. Fairly dumb bombs, artillery and such. Also a larger population to recruit from.
At this time Russia has far more reserves near the front that have not yet been involved as units in active combat. Front line troops can rotate through these reserves. And also rotate out and be replaced. Russia has much more materiel of almost every type.
Russia also has the luxury of retreat. If you are fighting an attrition war, retreat is a good tactic. Ukraine is fighting on its territory. Retreat is much harder to do on an emotional and political level.
Ukraine has lost far more personnel than is admitted. Although the higher figures are reported now and then. Western support in materiel is thinning due to the long lead times and higher complexity and cost of most western weapons. The western system of production is profit orientated while the Russian system is authoritatively directed. They may not make the slickest weapons, but they make a lot of weapons.
An attrition war reaches a tipping point. The target of it is whittled down to the point where the conductor of it can now make large decisive advances which lead to total military defeat. Or they surrender without the large advances needed. Or, the conductor cannot support the attrition war over time, due to politics or supply. A frozen conflict while both sides try and rebuild. Or one or both sides are picked off by other players.
Right now it seems Russia can continue this attrition for several more years. I feel Ukraine cannot resist that long. Maybe one more year.
They are on the back foot. Not getting enough support to survive much longer.
@Kedikat
Funny, I read crap like this from you 3 years ago. Load of crap then and now.
Almost feels like you’re trying to troll the board.
I banned you from the breaking news thread and I guess I might need to request a full topic ban for you. For now you’re banned from this thread.
Moderating:
Additional details for the thread ban here:
BBQ pit for that sort of thing.
A London Times article just a few days ago stated some of these things. But it is pay walled.
Good news: Putin-friendly leader Viktor Orban is facing serious trouble in the polls and may very well lose to a more Western-friendly challenger in upcoming elections.
However, we don’t know for sure how firm or where the prospective challenger stands on the Ukraine issue. Nevertheless, almost anyone would be an improvement over Orban.
Why would Orban allow anyone else to win an election?
Moderating: @Kedikat suspended for violating thread ban. Being reviewed in the Modloop. Warning will also probably be issued.
Just caught up with this BBC documentary, broadcast to mark the anniversary of the war starting. The fact of so much brutality and indiscipline may not be surprising in principle, but this puts human faces on it:
Alas, it’s Apple TV. I don’t use it.