Ukraine

[Agema]

The Russian Army Is Running Out Of Tanks For The War In Ukraine. These 60-Year-Old T-62s Are Proof.

Russian units increasingly will roll into battle with whatever old and obsolete tanks still are in working order. And that could accelerate the rate of loss as the Ukrainians expend less effort, and fewer missiles and artillery rounds, knocking out geriatric tanks.

www.forbes.com

Apparently the Russians are pulling tanks from the 1960's out of storage, which likely means they're running low on the newer stuff. And yeah, you use what you have, but this feels like they're hitting diminishing returns here because if the "Modern" tanks are taking heavy losses, the early cold war era equipment probably isn't gonna turn the situation around at this point.

And by "Storage", that apparently means "Open air vehicle parks completely exposed to decades of Russian weather". I'm not saying none of them work, but I'm not gonna bet on them just coming out of long term storage and going straight to the field without substantial refurbishment. Unless the Russians are trying to play the "We have more tanks then you have anti-tank missiles" AKA the Zapp Brannigan strategy here, in which case.......yeah.......Good luck with that.

I suspect the Russian tactics are based around massive use of long-range firepower to pound Ukrainian forces into submission. Massed artillery at one level, but tanks will work to wreck stuff they have LOS to within a couple of miles. In that sense, I suspect they're using tanks as assault guns, and if all they really want is a mobile cannon, a 60-year-old tank is pretty much as good as a similar calibre gun 20-year-old tank. Aside, of course, from the logistical problems of maintenance and so on.

I suspect Russia is going to be able to claim a guarded "win" from this war. It will eventually shift to the defensive and be hard to remove. In a negotiated settlement it will obviously try to use its occupation of places like Kherson as a bargaining chip to be ceded Donetsk and Luhansk, or it could just let the war go cold and squat indefinitely on Ukraine's territory, then Russify those areas with ethnic cleansing and indoctrination.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ok, Agema has beaten me to it, but "obsolete" depends on what you want to do with it. Lots of nations use vehicles that aren't modern MBTs, but might have counted as one in years gone by, and are useful in modern times in other roles.

By comparison, nobody built any battleships since 1945 (carriers were the way o go), but the US kept theirs until relatively recently. Partially cause the public liked them (and they pretend they can be made war worthy again, which, no), but partially because a ship with big guns was still nice for shore bombardments, even if it wasn't good for a lot of it's other original tasks.

 

[Agema]

By comparison, nobody built any battleships since 1945 (carriers were the way o go), but the US kept theirs until relatively recently. Partially cause the public liked them (and they pretend they can be made war worthy again, which, no), but partially because a ship with big guns was still nice for shore bombardments, even if it wasn't good for a lot of it's other original tasks.

Absolutely. Everyone knew battleships were on the way out in WW2, and by the 1960s, battleships were little more than vanity vessels kept around for symbolic value by countries with naval budgets large enough to soak up the inefficiency.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Absolutely. Everyone knew battleships were on the way out in WW2, and by the 1960s, battleships were little more than vanity vessels kept around for symbolic value by countries with naval budgets large enough to soak up the inefficiency.

IIRC, at the Washington treaty in the 30s, a Japanese diplomat said battleships were like old scrolls kept around for sentimental value (or words to that affect), but nobody took him seriously. I don' know if he was particularly ahead of his time, or it was a matter of lots of people saying lots of things and the ones who turned out to be right got remembered.

 

[Terminal Blue]

By comparison, nobody built any battleships since 1945 (carriers were the way o go), but the US kept theirs until relatively recently. Partially cause the public liked them (and they pretend they can be made war worthy again, which, no), but partially because a ship with big guns was still nice for shore bombardments, even if it wasn't good for a lot of it's other original tasks.

Some of them were actually recommissioned into service in the 1980s.

The thing is though, ships are relatively easy to adapt. They're very big and have a lot of interior space which can be used for anything. If something doesn't work or is obsolete, you can rip it out and replace it. As silly as it may seem for world war 2 battleships to be sailing around in the late 80s armed with 16 inch guns, they were also fitted with missiles which would have been a threat to modern ships, so there is a degree of sense in it. Heck, it's not just the US either, one of the weird things the Russian government has spent its military budget on is recomissioning the Kirov class battlecruisers (despite their questionable usefulness in Russia's current situation). Propaganda and public appeal is definitely a part of it, yeah, but the concept of obsolescence in naval terms is a bit more granular when individual systems and parts can be easily replaced.

Tanks on the other hand are really difficult to redesign or adapt because they're built to be as compact as possible. A lot of the systems a tank carries will be integrated into its construction and/or involve quite fine engineering tolerances, so you can't just rip a tank's parts out and replace them with whatever you have available, you essentially have to design a whole new tank.

In this case I'm not sure it's relevant as Ukraine also has very few tanks and those it has are also mostly old ex-soviet tanks donated by other former eastern-bloc countries. You're probably not going to see Germany or France sending their main battle tanks to Ukraine because they're extremely expensive and training crews to use them would take too long.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Some of them were actually recommissioned into service in the 1980s.

The thing is though, ships are relatively easy to adapt. They're very big and have a lot of interior space which can be used for anything. If something doesn't work or is obsolete, you can rip it out and replace it. As silly as it may seem for world war 2 battleships to be sailing around in the late 80s armed with 16 inch guns, they were also fitted with missiles which would have been a threat to modern ships, so there is a degree of sense in it. Heck, it's not just the US either, one of the weird things the Russian government has spent its military budget on is recomissioning the Kirov class battlecruisers (despite their questionable usefulness in Russia's current situation). Propaganda and public appeal is definitely a part of it, yeah, but the concept of obsolescence in naval terms is a bit more granular when individual systems and parts can be easily replaced.

While that is true, you can't replace the hull without replacing the ship. And the cost of the hull is, I'm led to believe, relatively very small compared to the cost of everything else, so you may as well just get a new ship, especially when ideas on hulls change (radar cross section and less armour becoming issues after WW2). Warships which aren't big and prestigious like battleships get replaced a lot faster because nobody minds so much and its cost efficient to just get a new ship rather than refurbish a worn out one.

As an aside, IIRC, the British Navy apparently got the idea of building ships with a lesser expected lifespan and then replace them more often, but then there were cutbacks and were told to just keep operating worn out ships that weren't designed to be run that long.

Tanks on the other hand are really difficult to redesign or adapt because they're built to be as compact as possible. A lot of the systems a tank carries will be integrated into its construction and/or involve quite fine engineering tolerances, so you can't just rip a tank's parts out and replace them with whatever you have available, you essentially have to design a whole new tank.

In this case I'm not sure it's relevant as Ukraine also has very few tanks and those it has are also mostly old ex-soviet tanks donated by other former eastern-bloc countries. You're probably not going to see Germany or France sending their main battle tanks to Ukraine because they're extremely expensive and training crews to use them would take too long.

Well, that would depend on doctrine. Not familiar the modern Russian doctrine, but if the intent is not to counter enemy tanks, but to, say, support infantry (which is a common tank objective), than less modern tanks would be less capable, but not incapable of doing that.

(Assuming that you've got tank crews sitting around waiting for their delivery of old tanks. Preferably who have trained with the museum pieces for some reason)

 

[Dalisclock]

I suspect the Russian tactics are based around massive use of long-range firepower to pound Ukrainian forces into submission. Massed artillery at one level, but tanks will work to wreck stuff they have LOS to within a couple of miles. In that sense, I suspect they're using tanks as assault guns, and if all they really want is a mobile cannon, a 60-year-old tank is pretty much as good as a similar calibre gun 20-year-old tank. Aside, of course, from the logistical problems of maintenance and so on.

I suspect Russia is going to be able to claim a guarded "win" from this war. It will eventually shift to the defensive and be hard to remove. In a negotiated settlement it will obviously try to use its occupation of places like Kherson as a bargaining chip to be ceded Donetsk and Luhansk, or it could just let the war go cold and squat indefinitely on Ukraine's territory, then Russify those areas with ethnic cleansing and indoctrination.

Oh if you just want a gun platform sure. I'm more concerned about the 60 year old sitting in a storage yard somewhere part of it.
That can't be good from a maintenance POV and we've already seen that Russia is having noticable logistical problems. Maybe they have a bunch of T62 parts lying around or maybe they're just gonna cannibalize non operable tanks to get others running. I don't know.

I've heard that tanks are maintenance hogs and maybe T62s were easier to fix and maintain, but I'm just trying to imagine Russian mechanics duct taping shit together to get the damn thing to move, even if only a few miles, but it's still missile fodder if it's not properly protected and Ukraine is not currently lacking for javelins.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I've heard that tanks are maintenance hogs and maybe T62s were easier to fix and maintain, but I'm just trying to imagine Russian mechanics duct taping shit together to get the damn thing to move, even if only a few miles, but it's still missile fodder if it's not properly protected and Ukraine is not currently lacking for javelins.

Well, everything is cannon fodder if not protected. And hasty repairs to get something out of a damaged vehicle has precedent, the UK military, with a rather better reputation than the current Russian ones made training films on the subject.

Sending the things out alone is a terrible idea, sure, but if you are a Russian commander and you have been given a mission, having some kind of tank added to your force is likely to be a good thing compared to not having one, even if it's not in great condition. Not like people are going to be too mad at you if you lose it.

 

[Agema]

Oh if you just want a gun platform sure. I'm more concerned about the 60 year old sitting in a storage yard somewhere part of it.
That can't be good from a maintenance POV and we've already seen that Russia is having noticable logistical problems. Maybe they have a bunch of T62 parts lying around or maybe they're just gonna cannibalize non operable tanks to get others running. I don't know.

I was going to say: they've got lots of T62 parts, if nothing else the parts in all those T62s they left lying around.

IIRC, at the Washington treaty in the 30s, a Japanese diplomat said battleships were like old scrolls kept around for sentimental value (or words to that affect), but nobody took him seriously. I don' know if he was particularly ahead of his time, or it was a matter of lots of people saying lots of things and the ones who turned out to be right got remembered.

That wasn't a diplomat, that was Admiral Yamamoto. He was definitely foresighted in his interest in aircraft carriers, as the attack on Pearl Harbour illustrated.

 

[Silvanus]

https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/An-Independent-Legal-Analysis-of-the-Russian-Federations-Breaches-of-the-Genocide-Convention-in-Ukraine-and-the-Duty-to-Prevent-2-1.pdf

A report produced by two independent bodies (one research/academic institute, one rights think-tank) setting out an argument for how various actions of Russia in Ukraine contravene the Genocide Convention. In part through the wholesale denial of the existence of a Ukrainian identity, and the expressed aim to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty; and in part through actions such as forcible mass deportation, and deliberate targeting of shelters/residential areas/humanitarian corridors.

 

[Agema]

A report produced by two independent bodies (one research/academic institute, one rights think-tank) setting out an argument for how various actions of Russia in Ukraine contravene the Genocide Convention. In part through the wholesale denial of the existence of a Ukrainian identity, and the expressed aim to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty; and in part through actions such as forcible mass deportation, and deliberate targeting of shelters/residential areas/humanitarian corridors.

I think one of the difficult things for the West in terms of this is our own awkward recent history in terms of Iraq (and Libya and Syria to a lesser degree).

Nevertheless, it seems plain to me that despite the basic injustice of invading a place and devastating it without good cause, in the complete lack of care, brutality, and raw destruction, the overt attempt to annihilate culture and national identity, Russia is an order of magnitude worse. For all that the West was slovenly and careless (until moved by public pressure) to do things like protect historical sites, it ultimately did so. It is a far cry from Russia's overt disinterest in the lives of Ukrainians, the rampant abuses of its soldiers, and actively destroying and looting Ukraine's cultural heritage by intent.

There is bad, and there is worse. And Russia is worse.

 

[Hawki]

I think one of the difficult things for the West in terms of this is our own awkward recent history in terms of Iraq (and Libya and Syria to a lesser degree).

What responsibility does the West have for Syria though? If anything, the main controversy seems to be that when Obama declared his red line, no-one acted when it was crossed.

That said, I actually mostly agree if you take the last twenty years into account, and if you feel like it, you can take the last 5 centuries into account. There's a reason why so many nations have refused to condemn Russia, many of them in places like Africa and Asia. On the other hand, none of that changes what's happening now, and who's doing it.

 

[Agema]

What responsibility does the West have for Syria though?

We didn't start it, but we bombed it.

We'd be fools not to consider that the most important underlying reason was not humanitarianism, but that Syria is allied to countries our leaders view as geopolitical opponents. Overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad would have significantly weakened the influence of these, principally Iran, whilst assisting securing our own. And I would not underestimate the motivation of helping Israel's security interests either, as Israel has unusual influence over US policy, even with the Democrats in control.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That wasn't a diplomat, that was Admiral Yamamoto. He was definitely foresighted in his interest in aircraft carriers, as the attack on Pearl Harbour illustrated.

Ah, thanks, I had misremembered it.

 

[Silvanus]

What responsibility does the West have for Syria though? If anything, the main controversy seems to be that when Obama declared his red line, no-one acted when it was crossed.

Further to what Agema said, according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, bombings and airstrikes carried out by the US-led coalition killed ~3,800 non-combatants/ civilians over the course of the war. As always, that estimate is almost certain to be an underestimate (and then we have injuries and displacements on top of that).

It's difficult for the US and UK to take moral stances on incidents such as the bombing of civilian infrastructure/ residential areas, because the US and UK have a history of wracking up civilian death tolls as well. Not usually through deliberate targeting like Russia, but through rank carelessness and lack of concern.

Still, nobody should buy into any false equivalences here. That Coalition death toll in Syria is utterly reprehensible, and should be leading to war crimes tribunals-- and Russia managed to exceed that civilian death toll (which took 10 years) in under 4 months.

 

[Lykosia]

Tanks on the other hand are really difficult to redesign or adapt because they're built to be as compact as possible. A lot of the systems a tank carries will be integrated into its construction and/or involve quite fine engineering tolerances, so you can't just rip a tank's parts out and replace them with whatever you have available, you essentially have to design a whole new tank.

Not entirely true. Tanks do get lot of upgrades during their service life. T-72 has like 7 different versions, T-80 has like 10 and T-90 has 8. I think Leopard 2 has almost 20 different versions by now. Tanks are expected to be in service for decades and they get upgraded with new systems, when those are invented. Upgrading an old tank is much cheaper than designing completely new. Some changes are more difficult, like a bigger gun usually means a new turret too.

 

[Hawki]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/putin-sick-with-cancer-has-three-years-to-live-says-russian-spy/news-story/9efddce88fb9d8c89f211169fbb903e5

One can hope.

 

[Thaluikhain]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/putin-sick-with-cancer-has-three-years-to-live-says-russian-spy/news-story/9efddce88fb9d8c89f211169fbb903e5

One can hope.

So, Putin now has little left to lose?

 

[Hades]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/putin-sick-with-cancer-has-three-years-to-live-says-russian-spy/news-story/9efddce88fb9d8c89f211169fbb903e5

One can hope.

That's three years too long though.

 

[Agema]

That's three years too long though.

That puts another perspective on this invasion: the vanity and clouded thinking of a dying man who thought it would cement his legacy. And in a way it will cement his legacy: just possibly not in the way he might have hoped.