Any tanks will be effective to work against bunkers and buildings. It is best weapon to support the infantry storming a defensive position. Having a modern tanks will be much help though , but as you said they will use available assets upgrade it rather than being obsolete in storage. Maybe once the mobilisation reached a specific number the Russian may initiate another stage of advance. Times will tell.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Stryker A1 Initial Manuever Short Range Air Defence. Bit of a mouthful but that's the official designation.
Something like these would also be useful.
Last edited:
None of that gives any figures or indications on casualties for either side. Literally the only figure mentioned in the first video is for a small hospital that increased it's bed capacity by 66% with 84% on the total capacity after increase occupied by UA personnel some of whome had been there for months. If you really want to run with this and hospital beds are the basis in your thinking then I suggest researching it deeper into Ukrains hospital bed numbers, what increase has been since the start of conflict and what % are occupied by UA personnel.
Yes Russia loves artillery, rockets, tanks etc etc etc but the artillery has lost its effectiveness as older shells have started to be used (With out even going into barrel wear and tear, They only have a life span so long and that gets reduced if over used on a daily basis), The rockets are largely down to less accurate ones so they to have lost their effectiveness, Tanks have also suffered heavy losses (large number due to abandonment) and now have Russia bringing in T-62's so also not nearly as effective, And that doesnt go into matter they heavy armor doctrine loses its effectiveness with out adequate infantry support which their lacking is well documented.
Should also point out in your second video where the heavy Ukraine losses are mentioned that is in regards to the Kherson AO which I have yet to see any one on here deny. How exactly does heavy losses in Kherson when attacking across flat open ground against dug in RU forces equal RU forces attacking dug in UA forces in Bakhmut leave UA with higher losses and RU with lower losses? By sheer logic the argument would be the force attacking the dug in defender would suffer more casualties.
You started this particular debate by stating as if it was a fact the RU losses attacking Bakhmut were lower then UA defenders and so far all you have done is taken UA-RU casualties from Kherson and made the giant leap that they must be the same at Bakhmut. It does not work that way at all, Ever.
There's always China, & current Chinese tanks should be a lot better than the T-62.
Good point. I'm not aware of anything else which could use the ammunition of the T-62 gun.
But still runs into issue ammunition has a lifespan, So if they have an excess stock exactly how much of it is still of use and how much of it is two decades or more out of date and likely useless?
There is difficulty accessing information that can be considered or accepted without bias on casualties and perhaps this recent United Nations report provides some
Ukraine: More than 14,000 casualties to date but ‘actual numbers are likely considerably higher' | | 1UN News
Ukraine: More than 14,000 casualties to date but ‘actual numbers are likely considerably higher' | | 1UN News
Certain types of ammo can last longer than others and at times; if stored in the right conditions ammo can still be used well past their shelf life.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Outside of some PR shots, I cant see the RU introducing an additional logistical drag, and run the risk of a UKR tractor dragging one off the battlefield.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
The assertion of heavy casualties at Bahkmut is not backed up by any third party source. I wouldnt trust the RU or UKR MOD statements, why would anyone else ?
Given the relentless attacking posture of the RU at Bahkmut, and an almost complete lack of advancement, I would guess they are taking far worse casualties than the dug-in UKR.
RU is on a clock - its economy is being run down faster than any of the western ones.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Thats a fair point, however, I suspect:
- any 115mm main gun ammo is in poor general condition given the age
- the T-62 requires 4 crewmen, and the RU are hurting for trained soldiers
- its an additional logistics burden
Again, I have to wonder - if the modernized T-72 requires enough electronics that it has become an issue with the sanctions. However, I dont know how to go about trying to prove that.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
C-RAM would likely be a good choice to hit drones, however....its a point defense system and has only a relatively small engagement window (2000m). You would need a string of C-RAM systems in an arc around a major city.
The Israelis have the most relevant experience in this type of situation (Counter UAS/C-RAM protection for cities).
Given that they are close US allies and they already have the Phalanx in service, they have not choosen to use a gun based solution C-RAM, I would presumbly because of the limited coverage and range.
Remember, gun based C-RAMs were derived from the naval ones that started life as a point defence system for a single ship. Therefore, they are useful for defending a single building (hence the US embassy in Afghanistan deployed them), they would not be useful to defend an entire city.
Instead, Israel went for a purpose built, missile based system, the Iron Dome. This would give you sufficient range, short reaction time and lower cost compared to a full blown SAM.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5,355
Yes there was. There was stubborn fighting in Balakleya itself, around Kupyansk, and Izyum. Russia ultimately withdrew forces to prevent encirclement but there was definitely heavy fighting. Liman itself was besieged for a couple of weeks prior to Russian troops withdrawing.
I agree but do not underestimate the technical training needed to maintain an autoloader or modern equipment.
T62s may be simpler to handle by regional militias and mobilized men and offer decent infantry support.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
What I am trying to look into is what fraction of of the RU tank industry is being taken up by T-62 repair/upgrade/renovation.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5,359
1-2 repair plants probably. There aren't that many repair plants that do MBTs, and if the one in Chita is doing 800, there might be another one doing work in the European part of Russia but even that's not guaranteed. There are (were?) a number of T-62Ms that were already in high readiness (Cat 1/2) and might be able to get brought online without a repair plant at all.
Both of those sources are fine. The Austrian Army Colonel is very good actually. "It was generally acknowledged that the Russias practiced war of attrition and gaining ground little by little to avoid heavy casualties," Who says that? How about a source for that? In this war there's been a tad large difference between the long standard VDV strategies and planning requirements and the actual practice on the battlefield.