~1,000 T-80BVs Tanks Disappear From Russian Storage Bases
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommon...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
'not enough T-72s in storage to replace them,' is one hell of a statement. I don't think anyone thought such a thing could happen in just two years.
Exactly. Even when you read about on paper storage numbers I counter with; how many are even still operational? I did logistics for car repair but a lot of those basic principles apply to maintaining any motorized fleet.
It coincides with all the footage we seen of turret tosses... staggering losses
How many got destroyed by a machine that me or you could build in our bedrooms?
It shows you value we're all getting sending weapons to Ukraine.
Moreover, it is not just anyone thought such a thing could happen, but this thing has happened in imagination of the same anyone. And as it didn’t happen, but could happpen in the head of anyone , It is published here.
So now it’s happening in your head.
Proud brainwashed Ukrainian supporter 😅😅😅😅
@TonboIV The Javelin and other purpose built ATGMs are expensive. Almost all the footage of ranks being knocked out any more is with drones with a shaped charge. Way cheaper and still gets the job done. Might take a few to destroy it outright and not just a mobility kill but it's still way more cost efficient.
I was a Bradley mechanic for 15 yrs from 95-2012. I did 3 tours in Iraq the first two during the very early years. The bigger question I have right now isn't Russia's ability to refurbish and replenish it's tank losses. It's engines and other major components that tanks currently in the fleet need to keep running. Field repair units have got to be robbing from Peter to pay Paul right now. Meaning they are taking parts from downed and destroyed tanks to keep other tanks in the fight. So while we talk about "Current tank numbers" we have to wonder how many of those "current" tanks in the field are actually operational. I have seen first hand US Army vehicles like Bradley's meet this fate in just training and garrison situations. Because units are not allowed to hoard parts and have easy access to them. We are expected to rely on our logistics system to get the parts to us quickly. Now that often end up being several days to weeks depending on the part or component. And I am talking about the US Army logistics system. The best on the planet. The only time I have ever seen a situation where this wasn't a factor was during my 2nd tour in Iraq where I was told to order all the parts I would need to get a Bradley back up and running within 24 hrs. I turned in my $2.4 million dollar parts list (We had 2 different Bradley's ODS and A2's *long story). And it was approved and within 2 weeks I became THE Bradley parts guy in Iraq for 6 months. Russia can't afford to do this logistically. And their logistics is actively being destroyed by Ukraine's air strikes and such. So not only are ammo dumps being blown up. Vehicle parts and components as well. So these front line units MUST be stretched incredibly thin. And having to perform shade tree repairs often just to limp these vehicles around. And turbines are far harder to do this with than diesels. Honestly Ukraine should focus more on the logistics side of Russia's military if possible. Because as a former Army mechanic. I know exactly how hard it is keeping things running with a GOOD logistics system. I would bet Russian mechanics are screaming for parts by the second.
These tanks have been on their tracks for years as well...some from the start of the war.
I was in the military and you need to ask permission to take parts from a down unit to repair another unit. The US military rather have both broken awaiting parts then have people start stripping one unit to fix another.
All the ones they are taking from stockpiles were already worn machines that got parked in fields to rot for 30 years. They can get them running again, but they aren't brand new with a thousand active hours of life left. So many of the motors, gearboxes etc must be at risk of breaking sooner rather than later.
@@sebbonxxsebbon6824In the late 80s we had a Bradley that went down on a 6 month repair time frame.
Our unit stripped it for parts. I saw it run again when it was fixed to be turned in for our A2 upgrade.
The Commanders did not want to eat the down time.
It was dumb but it happens.
@@peterwolf4230 Mechanized parts take a lot of abuse.
They will break.
"They do have garages, which I'll get into later."
Wow, bold claim there, Covert Cabal!
😅
Braindead comment
Mr Cabal was somewhat surprised to find a rotting fleet of Buran space-shuttles in those garages, rather than more Russian tanks.😉
@@dj1NM3 Ohh but the Buran was the bestest space shuttle that only flew once... The botnik defence of the Buran is really something to witness! 1 flight and left to rot - but somehow has a better record than the space shuttle. 🤣🤣🤣
I suppose that fufills the "covert" part of "Covert Cabal".
Another thing to consider is a lot of these tanks are being canibalized for spare parts.
Yes, he has noted this in several videos.
Cannibalising old vehicles for parts might absorb the 'unknown' vehicles in the sheds.
BS
@@rick7424 And he is lying lol
@@Max_Da_G because Putin told you they truth?
Another difference between the T-64/T-80 and the T-72/T90 is their autoloaders, the T-80 basically has the autoloader from the T-64, while the T-72 and T-90 share one (as the T-90 is basically an upgraded T-72)
T90 is not an upgraded T72 it has a completely different chassis. Turret fire control system even has a different aa mg engine get your info right.
@@SCARFACE-gp4fy nope T90A is upgraded turret, its same inside , just different shape for better protection, its like difference between t80bv and t80u. T90M on other hand is different tank.
@@SCARFACE-gp4fy it has the same chassis, engine, transmission, autoloader etc, it just has a different turret
@@SCARFACE-gp4fy The original T-90 was intended to be called T-72BU initially, then the designation was changed. This tells you all you need to know. And I'm not saying that this makes it a bad tank, not at all, but it is a fact that the T-90 is just a continuation of the T-72, rather than a brand new tank.
The Object 195, which was supposedly going to be called T-95 when it would go into production, was a brand new tank, however it was delayed and eventually abandoned due to budget reasons after the collapse of the USSR. The T-14 Armata is also a new tank, largely based on experience from the Object 195, however it has still not been accepted into service, and honestly I don't know if it ever will be. This will certainly be an issue the Russians will only be dealing with after the war ends, but my guess is either they will make significant modifications to the T-14 based on experience from the war before accepting it into service, or they may start a whole new tank project instead.
@@SCARFACE-gp4fy The Object 188 (T-90) was engineered by a team under V.N. Venediktov. The biggest change was the integration of the 1A45 fire-control system of the T-80U. The Object 188 was initially designated as the T-72BM. The first four of these were delivered for trials in January 1989. An improved variant (called the T-72BU)
This is what happens when you let your country's specialist sectors rot from corruption and brain drain.
That sounds to us to….
Sounds like Western Europe for sure.
You believe pure western propaganda.
Please ... explain to me how Russia PAID DOWN their National Debt the last 2 years...?
Explain to me how they have a higher growth rate than anywhere in the west ..?
All while both adding to their gold deposits ... and stomping the collective west ..!?
Cue the _BOT_ NPCs
@@hayleyxyz exactly, collapsing bridges. Incompetent president, with criminal son, and congressmans serving donors and not who voted for them. Agreee.
@@HonorableBeniah-Anot really.
Not to mention that every new crew is less and less experienced.
And being three man Tanks means the basic maintenance is already difficult compared to a Western four man Tank that's, and I quote multiple US Army Tankers, basically Soldier Proof. Meaning the crew has to be doing something incredibly stupid or running their Tank unreasonably hard to break something.
Experience is what usually Westerner fantasize about
But not in UA-crews - or!?...
2022: russia is running out of tanks and missiles
2024: russia is running out of tanks and missiles
@@automatedrussianbot8043 Russia was running out of MODERN Tanks. Now they're fielding hastily upgraded T-72s that were in storage and now are also using T-62s they weren't using for 40 years.
Begging for weapons from North Korea on credit is pathetic. Even if its a way for China to supply weapons to Russia secretly through North Korea, it's a sign that Russias military capacity has been much lower than assumed.
Its could also be a reflection of China's actual military capabilities.
Sure it is that's why americans are always wrong
China will not provide weapons through North Korea. It would be easily recognizable. Of course, it's possible that China would substitute Korea's depleted weapons by sending their own to Korea, but it is highly unlikely in my opinion. China is not happy with Russia-Korea friendship. They prefer having Koreas as subordinate to them, not Korea gets another ally.
@@konfunable substituting NORTH KOREA's depleted supplies after being depleted by Russia is the same thing! Why would North Korea supply Russia at the risk of being depleted without reassurance from China? Who else could North Korea turn to?
i doubt that anything like that is happening
@@konfunable either way, the condition of Russia's actual capacity could only be a sign hinting towards China's actual military capacity. North Korean military supplies are already recognized as being outdated and severely antiquated to be of any use against a modern military apparatus
Absolutely insane that they're genuinely running low on some models. They've built so many of those over the years, I imagine if you told someone Russia would go through their tanks in about 2 years ages ago they would have either laughed or call you crazy.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if 50 to 70 years ago you could inform the Soviets that nearly their entire production of armored weaponry built up over multiple decades would be wiped out, not by the combined forces of the Western world, but by the former Soviet territory they thought so little of in just a couple years?
@@michaelgreaves2375 pretty sure the war wouldve gone in a different way 30 or 40 years ago the ussr was very close to close the gap between the west technologically and only at the end of 80s the pendulum swong to the other direction towards the west with the introduction of thermal sights etc and even then the soviets had some good designs
In the interest of fairness: most of tanks Russia inherited from USSR (20k out of 30k) were dismembered for parts before 2022
@u2beuser714 meh.... Soviet technology seemed all flashy and modern but corruption is hard-wired into the culture. Even now their super tank (which looks great - Ala Mechs video game) is actually crap and about a dozen were actually built.
Now, just like in WW1 armies were sent to fight well-equipped Germans with minimal ammunition, clothing and inept commanders. Same old same old.
@@u2beuser714 There was no USSR 30 years ago.
Tanks for the video
Family Guy ostrich: Ahahaaa
Whenever I get invited to Tiananmen Square by unfamiliar relatives, I always respond with "no tanks". "P.S. How da fuq did you get my email address?"
Tanks-R-US.
I was treading this comment.
LMAO
This reminds me of the old 1980s RPG "Twilight:2000". In that game it was assumed that a nuclear exchange went of in 1998 or 99 but the war simply went on with ever dwindling numbers of vehicles and heavy weapons on both sides.
As CC rightly pointed out - Russia will never run out of tanks, they will just continue to use fewer and fewer of them until they become as scarce as hens teeth on the battlefield.
1st edition Twilight: 2000 was one of my favorite RPGs back in the day!
It is very difficult to fight in a situation when you have almost no tanks, the enemy has them, they are regularly repaired, and he also has rocket launchers with a cluster warhead. I am talking about the situation in the spring of 2022, when Ukraine lost almost 40% of its territory and almost surrounded the capital due to a critical lack of equipment and artillery in the first month of the war. But since then the situation has changed dramatically. A similar situation, but the opposite happened, when the Russians lost a critical part of their armored vehicles after the spring and summer of 2022, and they had not yet pulled up a sufficient amount from the storage depots - the Russians lost almost a quarter of what they conquered in the spring (Kherson and Izyum) in 3 months. So yes, the Russians will never run out of tanks. 2 or three things will always remain somewhere in the barns. But without tanks, it is impossible to hold huge territories against the enemy with HIMARS and M777. That is why - all the current proposals of "peace sooner on Putin's terms" - this is just the delusion of people with sick heads. Although why the sick - I'm sure, half of them receive money directly from Putin for their position.
@@davidzachmeyer1957 I played in one campaign where the team were basically armed mailmen roving from town to town. I was a nuke tech and I spent every encounter trying to find spare parts to build a tacnuke, in the end I had no plutonium (of course) so I built a huge pyrotechnic device that scared off a Soviet armoured attack. Fun game, fun times in the late 80s !
MechWarrior as Mechs start to become increasingly scarce, and other vehicles begin to gain dominant positions due to being easier to build and maintain.
@@user-kv4hr1hw4myou are not informed, Russians have an ever growing number of victories currently.
You can't use tanks en masse when both sides have 50 drones per km of front.
Any western force wouldn't fare any better as they haven't fought in a modern war for decades.
Russia running out of tanks is like KFC running out of chicken.
it’s not though.
it’s not though.
@@hydrachop4322amazing rebuttal
I find it amusing that your analogy assumes that what KFC sells is chicken.
@@daviddobbs4679You think that's air you're breathing? 😎
But will they run out of tank drivers first?
I read a few months ago when Ukraine captured a Russian tank, the poor driver was literally begging them not to kill him.
He had joined the military as a medic, and was forced to drive a tank.
Literally popped his hatch, put up his hands, and surrendered without hesitation.
That is a very valid point. It does not matter how many sophisticated pieces of equipment you have, it is just a lump of metal if there are no trained people to use it.
It takes about a year to train a tank crew. These guys on battlefield only receive a few days of training. And are being trained by guys with less than a year experience in the tank themselves. All the experienced drivers died in the 1st year of the war
Sounds like a true story
and you are probably the only one that saw that video😂
@@Lipi19821Na, I saw it as well. The video was an interview with the soldier after he’d been captured - he explained that he was trained as a medic, but got pushed into driving the tank because they had a shortage of tank crews.
Of course he could’ve been lying to make him seem less of a “threat”, if he thought saying that might make the Ukrainians treat him better.
Imagine going back in time and telling the factory workers who were building those tanks that they were ultimately going to be used to invade Ukraine.
Actually some of those workers (who were youngest back then) are still working and fully support russian invasion. So does the majority of their civilian population. So yeah, it's not just putin
@@Shaterrer Many alsso supported the Wagner march on Moscow
Because they wanted a more hard-line government@@pevebe
@@ShaterrerCry about it lol
so?
1:05 One of the biggest pros of the T-80 is the gearbox and turbine allowing a higher reverse speed compared to the T-72/T-90.
Its the most used gear in the war in russian tanks. i am impressed that the commisars dont mandate to remove the reverse gear
@@marcpaulus6291 yet, Russia is making gains every day.
@@user-is5rn5bw5j Trading several hundred lives in exchange for an average of 150m each week. Keep coping, RU bot 😂😂
@@user-is5rn5bw5j No theyre fucking not
@@user-is5rn5bw5jdepends on your definition of „gains”. What they’re doing Is suffering horrendous losses to advance few meters
Maybe North Korea will sell them some of their new super tanks.
I don't think even Russians would be willing to go to the front in cardboard boxes.
@@d3nza482 Lets face it, NK's tanks cant be any worse than the high profit margin garbage NATO has.
I think most of the North Korean tank fleet are just reworked locally built T-62s so nothing we haven't seen before. The more interesting bit is that they share a lot of powertrain components with old Russian tanks (the engines, being derived from the V-2, should bolt right up to a T-72/T-90 as well) so a deal with them would probably see a greater amount of vehicles returned to service. If only to drive around as these new EW APC shed thingies they are making.
@@d3nza482 they have all the features of a modern tank they are not a cardboard box
@@d3nza482 Might be an upgrade from what they are fielding now.
Seeing how the recent Kharkiv offensive used mostly T-62s was interesting. There have also been more T-54/55s spotted, which suggests that that the current frontlines are already being padded out with the old stuff rather than churning through the remaining T-80 and T-72 variants faster.
On top of the tank losses, russia is also losing a lot of tank crews, who are not easy to replace. That is likely to both affect their effectiveness in battle, and increase the loss rate.
Definitely going to be an interesting 2024.
To fair most analysts think Russia was just trying to draw Ukrainian troops away in Kharkiv offensive
@@fredthefish581 Most analysts don't really agree in that manner that you suggest. Everything from a buffer zone to an assault on Kharkiv city to a renewed attack on the oblast have been suggested. Putin said it was for a 'buffer zone'.
Either way, russian troops have been massively outnumbered from the beginning, which is why they got bogged down so quickly. The russian troops also were very unprepared, as evidenced by the videos released by russian soldiers on the ground.
It feels more like a poorly equipped group of recruits with scrappy equipment got thrown into the blender by an overly zealous commander. A commander for that region whom we already know from 2022 and his failures at the time.
no it means they are using old tanks where they know they will most likely not face enemy tanks
a t55 vs infantry will be just as effective now as it was 60 years ago
@@tavish4699 Not really, Infantry these days have ATGMs and FPV drone support.
@@MayaPosch And there are very few Tank on Tank engagments. Its more that they suspect werent facing modern tanks like leopard. Also a Bradly can destroy a T55 with ease.
Mr Cabal!
Welcome back!
We have missed you...
I am anticipating Videos on towed artillery, self-propelled artillery, BMP's and BTR's. The updated numbers should be interesting.
wait I have never seen this dude before but its just... wait what recommended?!
@@kenpatterson2948 Precisely, Mr Patterson.
Been waiting for an equipment update. The Soviet stockpile is disappearing and Russia's anemic production capacity would take centuries to replace it. That's not hyperbole. Russia's domestic tank production is less than 200 brand new tanks per year. Ukraine destroys more than that every 30 days.
What are you smoking ukraine is not destroying 200 tanks/month at the moment. Not even close.
I think most estimates are 90-120 entirely new tanks built (including new hulls) maximum production rate....but they might not even be hitting that now because UVZ is so busy upgrading existing.
From what we’ve seen russia produces +- 60 new T-90M’s a year, the thing is, we can’t tell newly produced T90 hulls from those that were built on top of existing T90A hulls, so the “new production” rate might be even lower!
@@SC4RRiGAN Andrew Perpetua is tracking an average of 3 tanks destroyed per day, with visual confirmation and geolocation.....thats 150 per month...all confirmed with photos and video.
Not all losses are filmed....30% more that have yet to be discovered is not much of a stretch....
@@olegbobrovskiy3244 I really don't know where you are getting those numbers from. Are they before the war after the war started, after the recent military-industrial shakeup?
I think it is entirely possible they have pretty much run out of T-80s. The tanks outdoors where probably beyond salvageable and used for parts. And the barns could be empty. It wouldn't surprise me if Russia was attempting to make it look like they have plenty of tanks left by putting them all out in the field so satellites would count them.
You’d think they’d have sent the tanks from the barns first as they’d be in the best condition. If the outdoors ones are going too then it’s a safe bet the inside ones are gone.
@@Minerals333 Great point!
@@artbyty Your comment is contradictory. If Russia wants people to look at its tanks wouldnt it want them to see that they take care of them too? Like if they care what people think they wouldnt let people think that the tanks are neglected and are put outside of the barns like that ?
@@u2beuser714 why would you care what people think when you’re sat on your super yacht in Monaco whilst the tanks you’re paid to look after are rusting in a field?
@@Minerals333 Read his comment before replying he literally said that russia put them outside so it appears on the satellites as if they have alot. I used his logic to refute it that if russia really cared about appearence they wouldnt let them be outside, but they did. Means that they have many in the barns too.
So, with 282 T-80s in the storages we can consider these storages as virtually depleted. I don't think Russia has many if any of T-80s in those garages. There are few more hundreds in the active service and in repair facilities, but these won't last long.
What about other version T-80A And D.
@@JMiskovsky I guess close to 0.
Yeah the ones in the garages were the first to go as they were directly usable.
the ones left will be the ones that need the most work to restore.
@@JMiskovskyThe few T-80U’s in storage are either gone or have been completely swapped out to the T-80B/BV/BVM.
A lot of the A models of Sov tanks never made it past the Cold War before being swapped to a newer designation standard.
Same thing how the US has no M1 Abrams tanks anymore… they have already all been switched to M1A1 and then onto M1A2 standards.
When you convert military funds into super yachts this is what happens.
Good comment
@@dereksollows9783 LOL any proof for this?
Didn't think so.
or your wife does amirite? or are you being willingly blind?
They'll gladly sell their weapons parts today for an upgraded luxury yacht ⛵ any day of the week. 👀
This is getting stupid.
The other interesting thing about the graphs is that almost all curves are flattening out, which suggests that most of the remaining T-80 tanks in storage are unserviceable. So Russia may be running out (or has almost completely run out) of useable T-80s. The rest may just be 40-ton paperweights. Also, it is likely that many of the remaining tanks will take many more weeks or months to refurbish, which also reduces the number of replacements reaching the front over a given time span.
Yeah, the dropping rate at which these are being removed from storage AND the decrease in T-80s as a percentage of verified battlefield losses does support that Russia is approaching the limits of its T80 reserves.
Which is just going to put more pressure on the T72/T90 fleet.
It is likely that those hulls that are left, are those that are being stripped for parts to keep the rest running, seeing as replacement parts would be in constant short supply.
I won't believe Russia is running out of armor until I see assaults being led by Chinese golf carts and dirt bikes.
@@andrewmcalister3462 The fleet of T-72/90 tanks has exactly the same problems. They hardly produce new ones (200 T-90 tanks per year is a meager number for such a war), the storage bases are left mostly with substandard rusty boxes, spare parts for establishing digital communication and modern sights/thermal imagers, etc. - every week it becomes less and less, because even with money it is more and more difficult to buy them, and they do not produce their own. That is why in the modern instruction on the formation of assault units, such units are now NOT PROVIDED WITH ARMORED VEHICLES AT ALL. As much as 2 82mm mortars are provided for the assault units from "heavy" weapons. I'm not kidding. The latest instructions for the implementation of offensive actions in the Russians provide for attacks by units without armored vehicles.
@@user-kv4hr1hw4m while watching the reports from Vovchansk, the latest attack vector north of Kharkiv, I noticed the types of vehicles looked like they were scraped together. The older types in every class. That was a thing in the Avdiivka assaults, with BMP-1's instead of 2, T-72b and not BV3, MT-LB's instead of BMP's... But the most telling part in this last attack was the Tigr-M vehicles: they had parade markings. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that sounds like these were the ones used on the May 9 victory parade on Red Square (or maybe one in a different city)
To me the entire collection looked like they scraped the bottom clean, continued scraping until the bottom was whittled away and are now scooping dirt from under the bottom
Not an expert, yet to me it looks like two options. 1: they scraped together anything and everything for a diversion while keeping the somewhat more modern stuff in reserve for the BIG push to end it all.... But that would have required them to make this push BEFORE the other attack stalled/ got pushed back
Option 2: they were ordered to make an extra push and scraped together anything and everything and did NOT have modern stuff left to attack with in a different direction, this was the very last they could find for an extra attack, and now they have to send in unsupported Infantry
Option 2b: they were ordered to do this attack as a diversion for the Avdiivka axis where some movement is still happening...
Your thoughts on this? Just the rambling of a civilian or are these actual clues?
Man the steel recycling industry in Ukraine is about to be INSANE.
Oh is it? you do know ukraine is never getting any of its territory back, I guess 400 billion isn’t enough to beat a country with a economy of 2.5 billion
@dannyjayke8695 I heard something about Kherson which is “forever with ruSSia”, can you tell me who controls it?
@@maksgon1555 who occupies crimea/zaporizhzhya/Donetsk/Mykolayiv and Luhansk and actually not even ukraine control Kherson when russia control some it, but hey yeah I heard about crimea beach parties last summer tell me about crimea who controls it yeah thought so
@@maksgon1555 let me remind you what tanks has Ukraine got? They lost 35 leopard in 6 months of getting them which is 40% it’s now over 40 leopards, ukraine lost 20% of its abrams stock in 1 week after them getting to the front line, and don’t get me started on the infamous challenger tank that’ seen the front for 5 mins, then got destroyed and never seen again ahaha
@@dannyjayke8695 They can control the steppe as much as they want, Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk were occupied back in 2014, so there hasn’t been much progress in 2 years, but now tell me how many nanoseconds did walking fertilizer control Mykolayiv and Zaporozhye?
My best guess is that a lot of the T-80s from storage are being cannibalized for parts more than anything else. The embargoes have made it almost impossible for Russia to produce new tanks so they are essentially piecing ones together Frankenstein style.
They are producing about 90 tanks a month, including brand new t90s. Sanctions have not held up production thanks to India and China.
Why would russia rely on western parts to build its tanks? The soviet union produced tanks without western components why would you think they need western parts to build tanks now? Im curious
@u2beuser714 at the beginning of the war, Russia was short of optical lenses for its targeting systems, night vision systems and some computer chips.
They solved that problem pretty quickly by trading with China, so it was a bit of a nothing burger as things turned out.
@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110they are refurbishing 90 tanks a month. Like the US Russia doesn’t produce new hulls only refurbish old ones with new equipment. That’s why older variants of tanks dry up quickly as not only are they being lost on the front lines they’re also being sent to the factory to be refurbished/uograded. Russia will run out of t72 tanks before t90 why? Because they both share the same hull albeit minor differences. The more t90m tanks Russia fields the less t90 base models and t72’s they have to work with.
@sniperfi4532 they are making new chasis. Some of the vehicles are not refurbished but melted down to make literally new tanks. They have the metallurgical capacity to make new steel if/as needed. They have the raw materials in country.
Ofcourse they are getting what they can from existing stock, but don't be confused, they have the capacity to build new.
They've been converted from T-80B to T-80S(unflower).
T-80B(lyat)
Or T-80S(crap)
The metric I’ve been using for “Russian tank strength” is the number of T-62/64 variants lost so far in Ukraine. According to Oryx, it’s an ever increasing amount of losses, now outpacing other tank models. If they’ve dipped into the T-62/64 pool, and are losing a lot that gives a glimpse into just how bad the tank situation is.
That’s just reversed survivor bias.
It only makes sense that you lose less good equipment than bad equipment
@@yarnickgoovaerts That would be correct in other scenarios but in this war the majority of tanks are immobilized by mines and later destroyed with FPV drones or artillery. An AT mine will knock out a track on a T-90 just as well as a T-62.
@@yarnickgoovaerts
I doubt that Russia's more modern tank variants are that much more survivable vs ATGMs, drones, mines and artillery.
@@yarnickgoovaerts That's true at a moment in time, but we are talking about trends here. If the losses of older material start shooting up relative to newer stuff, it's that more of the older material is being used.
'According to Oryx' you do know he was rumbled for double counting, plus counting Ukrainian T-xx losses as Russian? Like this channel, you have taken a lie and ran with it. The best evidence of tank losses is on the battlefield. Where Russian units are fully equipped and there are zero shortages. NATO however.....
Five! Oh! Clock! Enemy! T-80! 300! (Always the most scary thing I heard in Operation Flashpoint's stuttering cluttered-together radio messages.)
Oh my God, I loved Operation Flashpoint so much.
Absolutely groundbreaking at its time.
The wierd pauses it Sometimes had.
Enemy! ....... Man!
But they were clear and couldn't be misunderstood 😅
@@Ganiscol Absolutely; they worked exactly the way they were meant to. And considering this was 23 years ago or so, at the time it didn't even feel _too_ janky (just a little).
*pulls out AT4*
"T80 is history."
From "Kyiv in three days" to a three-year asymptoting towards zero in some arms categories. That Putin... what a strategic genius!
Who ever said Kiev would fall in 3 days? I’m genuinely wondering
@@yarnickgoovaerts Most western media outlets when the war broke out i think
You're so delusional. Wasn't the SHHHhhh offensive going to be eating baluga in Crimea last summer..? Only to LOSE more territory even though it's a war of attrition..? How is it that Russia is "losing" its way to Odessa ..? And the Dnieper..? Smoking your own supply, makes its hard to make sense of why the future never reflects your expectations.🤣
@@yarnickgoovaertsthat horse mouthed Lavrov. He drank the same kool-aid as his predecessor Molotov.
It is truly an achievement - Lavrov lied even more than Molotov did, who in turned lied even more than Bobrikov.
@@yarnickgoovaertsIt was said on the main tv station, for example Kabajeva said it. 😂
Always a slightly unexpected pleasure when one of your videos pops up 😅
I remember seeing those garages, seemingly abandoned seas of tanks. It felt they will never run out of them and also that they won't ever use them. I took them as a monument of past that will slowly erode. Boy how times have changed.
“not enough t72s” I never thought I would hear this
These videos always make me feel like I'm in a CIC under Red light 😅
All have been converted into mobile garden sheds
And Ukraine will convert them into immobile plant pots, with the turrets attempting to break the high jump record.
i thought the 62's and 64's were the turtle tanks.. did they find one that had a T-80 under it recently?
@@rongarzon7295 i dont think the russians care about which tanks are made into assult sheds
I absolutely love your vidoes. The quality is simply unseen elsewhere on youtube.
Keep up the good work I really appreciate it!
Btw will you make another video on russian artillery remaining in storage or maybe bmps? I would love to see that
China and north Korea have many old tanks. I'm sure we will see russia buying this outdated stuff from them. They need the cash . I could see russia exchange oil for military gear from north Korea but the stuff will be crap
Well this is a war of attrition so it doesn’t matter how good the gear u have it just numbers tha matter reason why Russia decided to level everything with bombs and artillery so their trash unit don’t have to deal with the main forces
@shintaidenthat cause Russia need their arms, after the war I’m sure people will want to start buying their equipment again especially their good bombs and thermobarric weapons, and drones, we like to say Russian weapons are crap but in reality they just as good as western, really it all depends on having good generals and good combat doctrine to fight any conflict, be mind the US military main strength isn’t the army or land base forces, it the air force, long range guided weapons, and just the sheer number of weapons that been made since the Cold War, something that only china can come close to
The war is lost any way. There is nothing Russia can do to win this war.
Russia PAID DOWN their National Debt in 2022 & 2023 while adding to their gold reserves. Russias growing at a rate faster than ANY Western nation. Look it up. Granted, the USD is very strong right now (confusingly strong), but Russia's Debt to GDP is 20%. We have a debt to GDP of 122% !!! Russia also makes >1,500 tanks per year. And refurbishes more. And everything I said is fact checkable from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc. WE JUST BORROWED FROM China to give to Ukraine. Not Russia. So in what world is it Russia who's cash desperate..? We have a $35T debt. You're completely out of touch.
@@123456qwfulif Russian weapons are so good, how have they lost so many s400 and even s500 to 30 year old missiles? 😂
They _are_ in trouble already. Attempts with a dozen vehicles or more are gone, now we see ones with one or two tanks. And these often with enormous cope cages ("turtle tank"), usually blocking turning the turret.
The shed attacks seem to be a field attempt to make an assault gun. Some of the videos I’ve seen of them have been them leading a line of BMPs and other vehicles in positional assaults. The other problem is how risky it is to take any kind of vehicle to the front lines now, with all the drone surveillance and attacks
@@andrewreynolds4949 They're not making an assault gun...you'll notice most of the Turtle tanks have mine plows....the 'Turtle' protection is an attempt to keep the tank alive long enough for it to cleear a safe land for the assault troops on BMP/MTLB and BTR behind. Basically get them close to launch the assaults. The Ukrainian's were, sensibly, concentrating on killing the lead tanks with the mine plows before, which effectively ended assaults before they started. If the Turtle lasts for 1 mile longer the Russian's must judge it worthwhile....
We've also begun to see more of what is underneath...a lot of T-62's being used...(the initial Turtles were T-72 and T-80 that had broken turrets/guns).
The turtle tanks appear to be being used primarily as troop transport. The one Ukraine captured wasn't carrying any ammo and didn't have a functional main gun.
@@andrewreynolds4949 And just wait until the F16s start arriving in numbers and their pilots are all trained up. The drones may well end up being the least of their problems. The Ukrainians are also supposed to be getting up to 1,000 ATACMS missiles.
And imagine what could happen if the US decided to donate a wing or two of A-10 Warthogs/ The turtle tanks would be shredded in no time flat.
@@SylviusTheMad They usually have the mine plow's mounted on the front tracks and lead the assault. Clearing a mine free lane for the troop transports behind and absorbing Ukrainian munitions.
It is estimated russia has thousands T34 tanks in storage. These tanks are capable of being gotten running again. as russia likes to keep tanks no matter how old. Woudnt it be a sight to see T34s back in combat. At least for the couple hours they would survive.
Just like the bulgarian t34 62
.
.
.
.
.
.
What do you mean all t34 62s are rusted out hunks of metel ?
(T34 62 - a t34 with a t62 turret only photos seem to be from bulgaria, currently though to have been used as bunkers
Current condition is unknown)
Russia doesn't have any T-34 left in storage, at least not any in working conditions, they had to buy T-34s from Vietnam for their recent victory day parades.
Ok I got the wrong information thank you.
I knew Russia was in real trouble once the turtle tanks started showing up 🤣 the Soviet stocks are running low
The turtle tanks are a good idea tho. And as far as the wirldnis concerned, its the best way to deal with drones right now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Turtle Tanks are actually meant to address IFV & APC losses, which have been apocalyptic even in comparison to the tank situation
@@engineerenginering8633 While the basic idea is indeed good, it comes with a number of severe drawbacks:
- Drones can always hit the tracks. A tank which can't move isn't of much use.
- Most of these turtles can't turn the turret, doing something useful with the cannon is severely limited.
- Already seen drones with two grenades: one for punching a hole, the other for dropping through that hole.
The Ukrainian approach appears to work much better: reactive armor everywhere. Tank still fully functional. Recently there was a video of a Bradley which continued after no less than 5 drone hits. This Bradley is incredible anyways.
@@traumflugturtle tanks usually have drone jammers to counter FPV drones and they don’t use their gun anyways. They are used as breaching vehicles, not MBTs.
And you realize that putting ERA all over your tank is a very Russian thing to do as well right? They’ve covered aml their tanks with ERA, except for the T-55s and T-62s which they don’t use as MBTs anyway
@@traumflug They put a bunch of radio jammers inside the turtle tanks which makes it harder for drones to get a precise hit. Of course the limitations are severe but they're probably most cost-effective option Russia has available in sufficient masses.
Also there might tanks from storage which have a nonfunctional turret anyways, so they can potentially improve their repair yields by converting some of them to "armored" personell carriers.
And yet they brag about destroying less than 10 old Abrams
18 at least a month ago and yeah they are winning 🤷🏼♂
@@kell7195Are they? They might well “beat Ukraine” by annexing its eastern territory and forcing Ukraine to accept a treaty but would Ukraine really have been worth the cost? Russia was feared globally before this war, and had huge reserves of armoured vehicles. Now it does not.
@@thatonelocalauthority2809 Yes "They" meaning Russia are, big time, The United States/NATO/West was also seen as Invincible with its expensive, top class "invincible" Tanks and weapon systems, not any more, Billions of people in the Global South have seen first hand what a Paper Tiger the West is, this is going to have huge flow on effects over the next few years.
May not realized that the US sent 30 tanks
@@suvahomescape4665 31 actually, I wonder how many are left by now?
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the latest installment of the "Russia Is Running Out Of™" franchise.
Russia has lost a lot of T-80B, BV and BVM variants. 764 confirmed on oryx at the time of writing. it's not really surprising they're running low.
confirmed by a ukrainian site
totally believable haha
@@tavish4699 More believable than Russia saying they wouldn't invade Ukraine, oh wait
@@tavish4699Oryx it's not from Ukraine, little Muscovy serf.
Confirmed by a pro Ukrainian site that has photographic evidence of all those losses, yes
@@tavish4699oryx isn't run by Ukrainians. They also have photos of every loss. You can verify it for yourself.
The long awaited video finale there. Thanks a lot. Hopefully you can also cover the tanks, Atelier someday.
Wow! You're getting a whole lot of hate Covert Cabal. You know you're doing something right when the trolls hate you this much. Keep up the great work.
I wonder how many T72 hulls are being built with T90M "turrets", hence a drop-off in Russian T72 presence.
Recent T90M captures does demonstrate significant downgrades in the gun, autoloader, and optics. The former two are often straight up T72B contemporary examples, and the latter are import substituted uncooled thermals. Some of them non-integrated into the main sight but rather replaces the night passive sights, much like on T72B3.
At least they aremt useing active night vision
Yet
Love the analysis. Keep up the good work!
Great have been waiting for your next update video about the numbers. Hyped for it as always. Keep the great contenct up
I was waiting for a video for so long .
If Russia is having this much trouble with an underfunded and under-epuipt foe, how well could they have possibly performed against NATO?!
Under funded and under equipped? What are you talking about?
Tank wise, pretty poorly. NATO would face the same problems with their already low stockpiles of tanks though.
@@yarnickgoovaerts Ukraine is operating on a budget of, give or take, 120 billion a year. Can you stop a supposed superpower in its tracks for that money?
The Ukrainian war budget is chump change in relation to the attrition they're leveling against RF. If this was an investment, it'd be a deal of a century.
But it's not just a financial investment. It's a human imperative. At a fundamental level, Russia invaded Ukraine, for Ukraine dared to persistently demand accountable governance, and one that respects basic human dignities at their own home. Ideas are contagious, and these are ideas Russia don't want to spread to Russians. That's all there is to it. Ukraine has her faults, the people will see to that. Russia too has her faults, but the people vowing to see to that are held at gunpoint. Now Russia hold Ukrainians at gunpoint, in part to make an example to those inconvenient, freedom seeking Russians, and Ukrainians answered with the mouths of their cannons. All Ukraine asks is more powder and lead to shoot at the enemy. Give them everything we got.
But NATO told us that russia will inevitably invade nato once they finished with ukraine. Cognitive dissonence seems to be a nato trait
Wont be much different. Most of the Nato states doesnt have the capabilities to produce or maintain old stock. Pretty much the biggest armies are USA ,Turkey, Germany, Poland ,France and UK. Of those UK is in a bancrupt state , Turkey is still bogged down in Syria , France just entered into a politcal crysis , Germany was slacking so much over the years that they still cant keep up. Poland is trying to be the next biggest ,but their problem is money - they cant afford the equipment they want to have.
The rest of Nato? Well most of the eastern block countires only produce small arms and artilery while still relying on Warsaw pact stock. The Czech are trying to modernize with local stuff. The Romanias are repurpusing old equipment (converting BMP1 and 2 into Sriker varians with new turrents). Bulgaria has noting left. We are canabalizing the remaing T72s for spare parts , we sold most of our SU25s to Georgia during the Russian invasion, our Mi-24s ware abandoned to rote to the point that last year we offered them Ukraine and they declined.
Most of Nato is not far behind Russia in capabilities. You have to understand that the 30 years of piece of the Cold war made everybody lazy in terms of military. Remember that most Nato members still dont cover the NATO requirement for GDP spend for defence and that has been going on for the last 25 years.
According to Oryx, a website that’s documenting vehicles and heavy equipment lost by both sides, the T-80BV is the specific model of tank that Russia has been losing the most in the invasion, with a total of *575* (specifically, 411 destroyed, 21 damaged, 68 abandoned, and 75 captured)!
And this is only with what’s been confirmed via photographic or video evidence, so the actual number is probably even higher!
Ah yes oryx the most reliable source of vehicle losses(NOT) also they stop counting when the counter offensive begun because they dont want to count NATO tank loses
@@wonkagaming8750
Lol. You have no evidence. In fact the losses of NATO supplied tank are litterly on the website.
Yeah a guy walks past one T-80 ten times this website reports 10 losses
The difference between losses photographed and losses that werent isnt that big given that the battlefield is so transparent and there are cameras everywhere from actual drones to satellite images to individual phones
@@eioclementi1355Really? Why don’t you prove it? Go to the list and find me such examples where a loss has been documented multiple times.
You people always claim the list is nonsense yet you always fail to prove it.
Gone doesn’t mean all are destroyed. Some are being modernised for readiness in anticipation of a wider conflict
Seeing the number of Russian tank losses per day drop while the number of artillery losses seems higher than usual and Russian casualties still high makes me suspect that they are supply constrained for tanks (they still have them but can’t get them to the front fast enough to lose) and are compensating by using their artillery closer to the front to cover the meat wave attacks where they get lost more often.
They went from sending tanks in without infantry support early on to conserve tanks to now sending infantry in without tank support because they don’t have the tanks.
I’d be interested in how well their numbers of Russian supply trucks and related vehicles are doing. Those losses seem high like the artillery losses since the tank losses started dropping.
You have some incredible fantasy
Or is it meat-waves as in a lot of Russians rushing a Ukrainian position knowing they’ll achieve high losses of personal?
@@yarnickgoovaerts and your assessment sounds like that of a dipshit 😅
The issue of supply trucks isnt that bad for them yet but the more dificoult thing is frontline ressuply which from many videos the russians themselves post they complain that due to fpv drones considering trucks fat targets they are not used to resuply near front. Thats why weve seen so many chineese desertcross, bukhanka minivans, ATVs and even recently motorbikes. Armored vehicles like bmp or mtlb are out of the question even more than trucks as they atract every fpv in the area and artilery barages too.
This is an incisive observation. Adapting tactics to a lack of logistics is very informative. Ukrainians have done it to preserve fighting strength. The russians have done it the other way around.
3:44 From an electronics repair perspective, the pretty line on the left of the screen is the "Good/Out" shelf. They are nicely parked because the mechanics are proud, and they have to be accepted by the other party. It is possible that the donut in that row was to check if a related complaint was effectively repaired.
The rows in the pens to the left of buildings, before the road, are the inbound "Bad/In" supply. These haven't been examined by a tech yet.
When a unit has been checked and a descriptive "trouble ticket" is made for it, it is moved to the right of these buildings. This avoids wasteful re-checking & rejecting tendencies. These are parked wherever there is a spot open over there, and the reason why they are not in neat rows is because technicians will select the ones that have the quickest and easiest repairs, while some will be irritating repairs and "waiting for parts" cases. The others are in neat rows because they come/go via train in quantity, by comparison.
The APC-looking vehicles appear to be getting a uniform engine modification or tune-up/service, which is why they all have their engine decks removed.
In general, this picture looks like the normal maintenance section, which would expect to have a lot of activity with the vehicles being used more frequently at the time period around when the photo was taken. I'm not saying this about the base in general, but the area in the photo is just throughput, not storage. If tanks are unaccounted for in your assessment, look to see if they are assigned to training facilities for the new guys that will be more successful with hands-on training/practice.
The remaining vehicles are in transit, or dispersed among hundreds of residential and commercial garages/barns/warehouses. Not only does it make for an eventual strength surprise, and they don't need every tank at all times, but appearing to be almost defeated at all times seems to be effectively bleeding strength from our own 3rd and 2nd string supplies.
Dude, you need a channel membership option, even if it doesn't have any member benefits.
Woo more satellite counting
Still find it crazy how the war didnt end in the first month like everyone thought.
You mean after 3 days, as Putin and his bunch of dumb orcs believed?
Well when Russia encircled Kiev with tanka they signed a deal and Russia left Kiev. Then Ukraine tear up the deal.
@@AndreDiasRJ you would only sing a deal when you know you cant win without losing a lot if you can win at all, so i still stand in how crazy is the fact that one of the most populous countries whit a wealth of resources couldn't win a war with a small country easily, and they cant anymore, not when most of the developed world is siding and helping Ukraine.
@@maickelvieira i am honestly surprised at how well russia is doing, hundreds of billions in aid, lots of war equipment, ground and air vehicles, rocket systems provided to ukraine and more. And russia keeps winning and holding more and more territories without mobilizing its citizens, their economy grows faster than ever before under all those sanctions, and all those deals russia is doing with china/india/north korea. Expected them to be doing way worse
@@fzzz9527 i agree with you on one thing, russia is holding its ground and even pushing back, but the value of rupples keeps falling, china cant really help since it is about to start its own war, north korea can only send wwii era weapons, and india and china hate each other so much that it will interfere in the russia relationships. I can see a future where russia still stands without being slice like a pizza in internal wars but not one where it wins. Also, the populous is so saturated that now they are needing north korean and chinese soldiers on the frontline.
And one thing you havent mentioned here is military doctrine for self defense. Wouldnt russia like ALL countries have doctrine that dictates how much tanks/trucks/troops/ammo MUST be kept in Russia in case of an invasion from ANYWHERE?....so with that in mind, can russia ever actually go to ZERO tanks in storage? Can they send every last one to Ukraine? I dont think so.....and in that case russia runs out of tanks a lot sooner....
Correct.
I think its fair to assume that as an absolute minimum they think they need 3,000 tanks. Thats the rough amount of tanks in the active force at the start of the war in 2022 (estimates range from 2,800 to 3,200). But those 3,000 were also backed up by the threat of re-activation of the thousands in storage...which is quite a deterrent effect...
Ultimately you need tanks elsewhere as well; in other parts of Russia, you need training schools, some will always be in for major repair/upgrade. So even then the number might actually be higher still. All they can count on at present is 90-120 entirely new tanks produced a year, so even if they were prepared to cut into that baseline they could only really risk it for a limited number of tanks....
Bottom line is Russia is definitely not a conventional threat to NATO....and won't be for decades, if ever...
They do have doctrine, and it's defensive one. But one can't really build the conclusions on it because it appears to be fake. Ruzzians lie as always. Even if they have it, they don't seem to follow their doctrine.
@@dogsnads5634 I agree, Russia itself is running so low that it will take decades to rebuild the massive stockpiles they had and until then, NATO can easily out-produce them. Personell-wise, even the EU alone (if USA reduces support due to Trump or Taiwan) is reasonably well equipped for deterring any direct conflict.
But China still has plenty of tanks, likely in better condition than North Korea's tanks too. I'm curious as to what China is going to do once Russia can't sustain the current losses anymore. They might not be that eager to give away their tanks, looking at a possible conflict with NATO over Taiwan.
Russia knows it won't be attacked by anyone, so they do t give a f.. about your doctrine.
@@lordkekz4 I think the fact Chinese banks stopped doing business with russia, and China is pissed at russia signing a deal with north korea is making china less of a threat to NATO and more of a threat to russia to be honest.....secondary sanctions and cutting off 95% of chinas profits from exports to the west is a larger motivator.... than russias 5% profit loss to china, if china dumps them.....
I don't expect there to be much insinde the garrages.
If a tank can't enter and leave a garrage itself, it would be way too much hassle to put inside or pull out of it. This stuff is alrady a hassle with a car, and those at least you can lift up easily enough.
And those that can enter and leave themselves, would be the first ones pulled out for upgrade and refurbishing.
Yes it totally logic to amuse that the tanks inside the garage, was the most well preserved, hence the first to be send to the front or to be refurbish.
Jak zwykle pełna profeska.👍
Would you be able to discuss the damage done to Russia's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) capabilities with the hits on OTH (over the horizon) RADARs, NIP-16, communication sites, TBMs, and perhaps even Putin's semi-confirmed nuclear bunker owned by Gazprom. which recently being burned down?
Love these "state of the tank union" videos BTW.
Let's not confuse tanks out of storage with tanks destroyed.
A country still has to defend itself too, so it's not like all tanks available are available for a quick destruction in war
At some point Russia's army will dwindle to strategically dangerous territory. So they'll have to balance self defence with slamming into attritional war
While you are right, I think Covert Cabal is considering this, when stating that we have to count for several Months of ongoing supply to the battlefield even if the storages are empty.
@@daniel_dumilewhen will that point be? After 10 years when we sent all our equipment and 3/4 of the Ukrainian population has died?
@@yarnickgoovaerts fewer people have died in Ukraine than in Gaza, even with its demographic problem Ukraine wont run out of soldiers before Russia runs out of tanks, especially with recent use of FPV drones instead of ATGMs to take down Russian armored vehicles
@@yarnickgoovaerts cope vatnik
Just to point out.
If I have a 1000 tanks, I won't send all of them to the conflict. I have to consider home defence. I have to maintain a portion of them to protect my countries borders.
So if I withhold 250 of them for that purpose, I can only send 750 of them to the war front.
------------
Turbine tanks require about 15% more fuel then diesel engines. And they require more maintenance.
However they have several advantages.
Higher power to weight ratio. They simply weigh less.
This allows additional armor protection.
They are compact all in one unit. An experienced crew can change them out in about 1 hour or less even on the frontlines. They are basically plug & play.
And the the removed turbines can be sent to a maintenance center and the tank itself remains in use.
In freezing temps, they can be fired up and brought to action in a couple minutes. Where diesel engines need to run for 20 to 30 minutes before being ready to roll. Or you can let them run burning limited fuel supply. Also, the U.S. turbines can run on any fuel you have available with little trade off. Multi fuel Diesels have more limitations.
People say they're noisy.
True. When you're standing near them they are louder then a diesel engine setting at an idle. But that's not an accurate perception.
You have to consider the sound/pitch.
Diesel engines have a deep tone like a bass drum. You can hear a diesel powered tank coming from miles away and a unit of tanks from 6 or 7 miles away. You can be ready for them when they arrive.
Turbines have a high pitch, thus noisy up close. But that noise drops off exponentially fast with distance.
The Iraqis called them whispering death.
As in by the time you heard them coming, you were already being hit with incoming rounds.
Of course with the volume of drones on the frontlines, this isn't as effective, but it's still a benefit.
-------------
Note some people said Ukraine didn't have the expertise to deal with turbines. The Abrams turbines were originally designed for helicopters. Thus Ukraine has the expertise. Just as any diesel mechanic can easily adapt to any diesel engine design, Ukraine's helicopter mechanics can easily adapt to these turbines.
--------------
If the U.S. so chose, they could replace the current turbines with more advanced turbines. They made a lot of improvements over the decades.
Even quieter. Smaller, more powerful, more fuel efficient and more reliable. Less maintenance required and even more plug and play friendly. So should you have a problem, it could be changed out in 30 minutes or less.
And you never know when the next Prigozhin will pop up and take a joy ride to Moscow requiring tanks for road blocks, or trouble in one of the stans, or Georgia, or however unlikely it seems now, China puts pressure on the eastern border but Putin can't leave it undefended regardless of how friendly they currently seem. You simply can't commit everything to the frontline, reserves are required, training units require tanks, and Russia's borders with NATO just increased by 1,340km thanks to Putin encouraging Finland to join NATO.
That means nothing. They can lose all tanks, still dont mean nothing, trust me. If needed they can pump out insane numbers of anything.
Fodder?..
more people should be talking about this
I absolutely HATE how difficult it is for me to see your videos in a timely manner after releasing them.
I subscribe, I hit the notification bell. I comment on and like every single video. I rarely run across one less than a week after it's released.
I'm not sure what else to do to get it to where it pops up a soon as it's released
Russia running out of tanks is like Jamaica running out of marijuana, Mexico running out of cocain😂
You mean, Colombia running out of cocaine? Mexico is known for marijuana and meth (and apparently fentanyl now, though their supply seems to be coming from China).
In the past 3 years, Russia has stolen 29km of land from Ukraine that is the furthest point from the frontline to the Russian/Ukraine border not land as a whole, 546,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in action, and 2.6 million have been wounded, with over half of them too injured to return to the frontline. The storage of armoured vehicles is depleting, Russia's Oil reserves are down 68% and Russian soldiers are turning against their own commanders. There are reports of Russia seeking help from North Korea, indicating that Russia is losing this war. Despite these facts, some people still refuse to admit that Russia is losing.
I’ve heard 240,000 casualties (not including wounded) from Ukraine, 210,000 from the CIA, and 180,000 from the Kremlin themselves.
Still horrific, especially considering American fighting in the Middle East and Vietnam it’s around 80,000 that’s a 60 year time span. But just saying I haven’t heard 500,000.
Oh, another internet analyst speaks about Russian storages 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
When counting becomes Western propaganda you know you're down bad.
Yes I have waiting for this update for awhile
what update ? 😂😂 a guy sitting in Usa will tell you how many tanks russians have 😂its all guess and speculation
Intelligence agencies the world over have been waiting for this video 😂
All those poor crew members just snuffed out for the sordid ambitions of an old man
Woohoo a new CC vid
Russia has tens , maybe hundreds, of thousand of tanks in the Alpha Quadrant, but can't access them until they the Wormhole back open.
lol
In actuality, Russia won't run out of tanks in a year. As they have fewer and fewer working tanks, Russia will husband the dwindling supply of tanks for use that they deem worthwhile with the bar for what is "worthwhile" rising as the supplies dwindle.
Russia: We need to go to the T1 storage.
T1: The Tricycle 1 tires have not been maintained.
Any chance you could do a BTR-60/70/80 and MTLB count? Cause between using turtle tanks, BMPs with turrets removed, golf carts and trucks to carry infantry into combat and BRDMs showing up on the Russian side, I have a feeling they're somewhat struggling with "battle taxis" as well.
IISS Military abalance 2024 put the number of BTR80/80A/82A at 2770 if I remember correctly. That's published in February, and I'm actually kind of unimpressed with how slow they update their data. But Russia has lost around 1000 BTR-80s so far of all types, and virtually no 70s or 60s suggesting theres no need to withdraw them. They're losing 1 a day roughly which means probably several years more battle taxis.
On the other hand BMP losses are much higher, including some BMP-1s, and a staggering number of BMP3s each month. At this rate (30-40/month) Russia likely won't have any BMP3s left in a years time. They started with around 640 and have lost ~485!
@@lukejackson1575 Military Balance is a very questionable source.
And you didn't address any of the points I actually made that let me to conclude Russia has issues with APCs.
All of the Russian trolls below have converted their rubles into dollars and yuan. LOL.
the Ukraine war started in 2014
So? The full on war starter in 2022
Ruzzians haven't been throwing many t-72 and t-80 into the battle before 2022 though. Just maybe couple of dozens in Ilovaisk (2014) and Debaltseve operations (2015). Before that I believe ruzzians supplied insurgents/separatists mostly with t-64 tanks from storages and with some t-72 in critical moments as they were more available and combat ready.
The war started in 2014, but the invasion occurred in 2022. Before that it was largely just a proxy war
@@andriianashovam7070 I think you almost couldn't be more wrong on this. In fact since early 2022 in average every other tank in the battles was a T72 (early 2022 even 70% of Tanks on the front) and on top of that approx. every fifth was a T80. So about 70% of all tanks on the frontlines for soon 2.5 years is one out of the 2 types. This can be estimated from their portion in losses.
@@beatreuteler He probably ment 2022 rather than 2024.
the satellite guy is talking. finally.
Insane to think Ukraine is making such a huge dent in russian tank inventory using $300 radio shack drones.
Not "less and less" but "fewer and fewer"
"Hey guys, they've run out of tanks... again... but this time we promise. Trust." CIA
Lol, I don’t know how true this video is, probably been hundreds of articles claiming Russia dosent have this anymore, but then new footage a week later comes out of the tank being used, what I’ve notice from Russia and the Soviet Union that they do better than any other country, is the ability to flip to a war economy.
It was about artillery ammo, and Putin get some from North Korea. So there was a true problem in 2023 but somehow solved.
@@michaczajka5873 yeah..... Right.
No one has claimed every single one is destroyed. The satellite imagery is clear that the depots are being emptied. How many Russian tanks do you think have been lost in Ukraine?
@@Polkem1tank reserve does not mean active duty force. After the reserve depots are depleted, the active duty force needs to be destroyed.
Depleted reserve means that there are not enough replacements.
Imagine the phone call from HQ: "How many tanks from storage across Russia can you make ready, preferably right now. This is from the highest level. You have two hours to reply!"
Technically the US has two tanks now, Abrams has the turbine engine but the M10 Booker uses a diesel.
The M10 isn't an MBT (ie. what one would *use* as a tank) though.
@@MajinOthinus Yes it's more an armored SPG, Self Propelled Gun. It will support troops to take out enemy defenses and light vehicles. It will only take on tanks if no other option is on hand.
M10 is a gun motor carriage.
M10 is not a tank
@@johannbezuidenhout2976 Looks like a tank, works like a tank, and will be used like a tank. It's a tank. Which is good, as the US Army needs something to do tank things, as the Abrams is a brilliant heavy tank, but it's a heavy tank that does heavy tank things.
Russia can’t just use all of its tanks. It has to maintain them to protect the country. It has massive borders.
True. But I don't think long term planning was considered prior to Ukraine.
That sounds logical until you realise the Russian boarders to NATO countries are already on skeleton crews as most are conscripted or growing sunflowers now.
If the visible border with 'scary expansionist' Finland is neglected what faith do you have in those tank reserves?
China just waiting to walk in and take back Manchuria !!!!
Putin is all in he has his flanks secured. Russia pulled most of their armies from the far east and Finland
They only need to protect their war front. No one is going to invade Russia.
This is a very cogent and complete analysis, thank you very much!
SHOIGU GERASIMOVVV WHERE IS THE T-80!!!
Putin grown up as kgb agend with military education in a communist era cant deform its past and get over it still thinks he is a superpower of his time😂😂😂
Another point is theft of parts while in storage that are sold . This has been a big problem in Russia .
Very thorough update. Thanks for posting
indeed, another class example of taking what you want to be true and bending all your information to suit. While offering no counter argument or battlefield facts.
Yes, been waiting for a upload
Poland still has modernized t55 in storage that are better than russian t72 XD
When you beg North Korea for help then you have big problems.
Tank you for his info
its propaganda
@@lawngnome777 **Purchases literal satellite imagery over many years, counting storage drops with high and low estimates realistically calculated**
"Propaganda"
At least attempt to refute it with something besides "Nuh uh"
Thanks again....
Old F-4 II Shoe🇺🇸
Coomenting for engagement. Also hoping you earn enough to buy more satellite images!
burning through the soviet legacy like this is wild. if armor becomes rationed, how will strategy change? probably just more trench and arty, i assume. the Ukrainian situation might end up as another stalemate.
Strategy changed already. Even more meat wave assaults.
guess the fields of eastern europe will have rusted wrecks hidden in mud for centuries to come...
So you mean... there MIGHT be a day when South Korea has more T-80 tanks than Russia if this war goes on long enough?😮
On their way to North Korea for trade...
It's estimated that North Korea has around 4000 T-55s and T-62s, I imagine Russia will be buying them back really soon.
@@MistyKathrineheared by a first hand source that dud shells rate increased from around 1 in 100 to 1 in 10 after nk ammo got there
And shells are easyer to store
I have no hope for those engines
And there's go for what suppost to be vs NATO-case storage... damn
The T80 is just a upgraded T64 with a turbine engine. The T64 was originally supposed to be a more sophisticated tank but since it was expensive the T72 was created to arm the majority of the Soviet army with the T64/T80 being used by more specialized units.
They concentrated the T64s into the GSFG, (and sold them to the DDR), both to simply logistics, and because front line units were expected to take the heaviest casualties. It was rare to see T64s deployed elsewhere.
@@michaelf7093 I don't think that East Germany ever bought any T-64.