Blyatskrieg

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Mon May 23, 2022 8:44 pm

After catching up on some of the details of helicopter re-supply of Mariupol, over 100km of Russian occupied territory, I'm not sure the idea that Severodonetsk is completely cut off is a particularly sound one.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Tue May 24, 2022 2:16 pm

Thread on the use by Russia of venerable T62 tanks: https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/ ... yv9Y1xAEQg

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue May 24, 2022 2:33 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:16 pm
Thread on the use by Russia of venerable T62 tanks: https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/ ... yv9Y1xAEQg
The key thing this tells us is the condition of the T-64/72/80/90s in storage. Nobody would pick a T-62 over any of those models, it's got thinner armour - thin enough that British Scimitars penetrated their frontal armour with 30mm RARDEN autocannons during the Gulf War - a less powerful gun, is slower, needs a manual loader (but still has vulnerable ammunition stowage) etc. If they are dusting off T-62s, it's because they don't have enough viable examples of the more modern models.

That said, the thread is right; they are still dangerous to people without anti-tank weapons. They are still useful in a second line role, at least compared to no tanks.

The same can be said of Leopard 1s, which should be sent to Ukraine to free up more modern tanks for the frontlines. Some commentators were scoffing at the idea of sending Abrams from storage as the ones in storage are the less upgraded older models - I think in light of the growing use of older T-72 models and now even T-62s we can reject that argument.

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue May 24, 2022 2:54 pm

The Russian advance from Popasna is looking very worrying right now. It isn't likely to change much on a strategic level, but locally, it could make it much more difficult to defend Lysychansk and Severodonetsk.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3881
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Tue May 24, 2022 3:21 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:33 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:16 pm
Thread on the use by Russia of venerable T62 tanks: https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/ ... yv9Y1xAEQg
The key thing this tells us is the condition of the T-64/72/80/90s in storage. Nobody would pick a T-62 over any of those models, it's got thinner armour - thin enough that British Scimitars penetrated their frontal armour with 30mm RARDEN autocannons during the Gulf War - a less powerful gun, is slower, needs a manual loader (but still has vulnerable ammunition stowage) etc. If they are dusting off T-62s, it's because they don't have enough viable examples of the more modern models.

That said, the thread is right; they are still dangerous to people without anti-tank weapons. They are still useful in a second line role, at least compared to no tanks.

The same can be said of Leopard 1s, which should be sent to Ukraine to free up more modern tanks for the frontlines. Some commentators were scoffing at the idea of sending Abrams from storage as the ones in storage are the less upgraded older models - I think in light of the growing use of older T-72 models and now even T-62s we can reject that argument.
Logistically it seems a bit silly to keep ammunition specifically for an obsolescent tank or to keep them in the field
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue May 24, 2022 4:16 pm

jimbob wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 3:21 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:33 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:16 pm
Thread on the use by Russia of venerable T62 tanks: https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/ ... yv9Y1xAEQg
The key thing this tells us is the condition of the T-64/72/80/90s in storage. Nobody would pick a T-62 over any of those models, it's got thinner armour - thin enough that British Scimitars penetrated their frontal armour with 30mm RARDEN autocannons during the Gulf War - a less powerful gun, is slower, needs a manual loader (but still has vulnerable ammunition stowage) etc. If they are dusting off T-62s, it's because they don't have enough viable examples of the more modern models.

That said, the thread is right; they are still dangerous to people without anti-tank weapons. They are still useful in a second line role, at least compared to no tanks.

The same can be said of Leopard 1s, which should be sent to Ukraine to free up more modern tanks for the frontlines. Some commentators were scoffing at the idea of sending Abrams from storage as the ones in storage are the less upgraded older models - I think in light of the growing use of older T-72 models and now even T-62s we can reject that argument.
Logistically it seems a bit silly to keep ammunition specifically for an obsolescent tank or to keep them in the field
It is, which is why it's likely that Russia's T-64/72/80/90 fleet is unavailable, otherwise they'd leave the T-62s in storage.

With arms to Ukraine, obviously sending Leopard 1s isn't ideal compared to, say, Leopard 2s. On the other hand, they could available as there are some held in stock, with German politics the main impediment at this point to getting them ready to go (and if Ukraine will be using Gepards, there's parts commonality there). For Ukraine, any tank is a help, and tanks like the Leopard 1 could be assigned to Odesa or the northwest, where they are needed to stop Transnistria/the Black Sea Fleet/Belarus from getting ideas, but won't be doing much moving around, and that means their ammunition can be stockpiled roughly where they'll operate and the T-64s/72s/80s/94s can be freed up to fight in the east.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Tue May 24, 2022 4:54 pm

Could training of available personnel be an issue that leads to older tanks being brought out of storage? The timing here seems a bit too far off, but maybe they are calling up those that fought in Georgia and Chechnya, and who have used these in the past?

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue May 24, 2022 5:54 pm

dyqik wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 4:54 pm
Could training of available personnel be an issue that leads to older tanks being brought out of storage? The timing here seems a bit too far off, but maybe they are calling up those that fought in Georgia and Chechnya, and who have used these in the past?
I'd say it's very unlikely. Adapting from one tank to another generally isn't that long a process for the crews - IIRC it took about a month for crews to transition from Shermans to Comets - and any advantage is more than offset by the supply chain complexity and inferior qualities of the T-62.

For those wondering what tanks they are seeing, by the way, T-62s are very easy to distinguish from the T-64 derived tanks (T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 and the Ukrainian T-94). All the T-64 derivatives have six road wheels per side, while the T-62 and the T-55 it is descended from have five.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Tue May 24, 2022 6:31 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 5:54 pm
dyqik wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 4:54 pm
Could training of available personnel be an issue that leads to older tanks being brought out of storage? The timing here seems a bit too far off, but maybe they are calling up those that fought in Georgia and Chechnya, and who have used these in the past?
I'd say it's very unlikely. Adapting from one tank to another generally isn't that long a process for the crews - IIRC it took about a month for crews to transition from Shermans to Comets - and any advantage is more than offset by the supply chain complexity and inferior qualities of the T-62.

For those wondering what tanks they are seeing, by the way, T-62s are very easy to distinguish from the T-64 derived tanks (T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 and the Ukrainian T-94). All the T-64 derivatives have six road wheels per side, while the T-62 and the T-55 it is descended from have five.
Maintenance - parts, equipment and training - would be the other question, I guess, but I can't imagine that being a good enough reason either.

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue May 24, 2022 6:57 pm

dyqik wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 6:31 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 5:54 pm
dyqik wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 4:54 pm
Could training of available personnel be an issue that leads to older tanks being brought out of storage? The timing here seems a bit too far off, but maybe they are calling up those that fought in Georgia and Chechnya, and who have used these in the past?
I'd say it's very unlikely. Adapting from one tank to another generally isn't that long a process for the crews - IIRC it took about a month for crews to transition from Shermans to Comets - and any advantage is more than offset by the supply chain complexity and inferior qualities of the T-62.

For those wondering what tanks they are seeing, by the way, T-62s are very easy to distinguish from the T-64 derived tanks (T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 and the Ukrainian T-94). All the T-64 derivatives have six road wheels per side, while the T-62 and the T-55 it is descended from have five.
Maintenance - parts, equipment and training - would be the other question, I guess, but I can't imagine that being a good enough reason either.
I doubt maintenance crews would be up to scratch on equipment that's nominally been withdrawn. Spare parts might be a factor - but a relative spare parts advantage for 62s vs 64s/72s/80s/90s bodes ill for Russia's tank fleet.

One thing it could be, I suppose, is that it is possible these had been reconditioned for use in Syria, and are thus in better condition than the stored 72s etc. Whatever the cause, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Tue May 24, 2022 7:37 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 6:57 pm
dyqik wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 6:31 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 5:54 pm


I'd say it's very unlikely. Adapting from one tank to another generally isn't that long a process for the crews - IIRC it took about a month for crews to transition from Shermans to Comets - and any advantage is more than offset by the supply chain complexity and inferior qualities of the T-62.

For those wondering what tanks they are seeing, by the way, T-62s are very easy to distinguish from the T-64 derived tanks (T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 and the Ukrainian T-94). All the T-64 derivatives have six road wheels per side, while the T-62 and the T-55 it is descended from have five.
Maintenance - parts, equipment and training - would be the other question, I guess, but I can't imagine that being a good enough reason either.
I doubt maintenance crews would be up to scratch on equipment that's nominally been withdrawn. Spare parts might be a factor - but a relative spare parts advantage for 62s vs 64s/72s/80s/90s bodes ill for Russia's tank fleet.

One thing it could be, I suppose, is that it is possible these had been reconditioned for use in Syria, and are thus in better condition than the stored 72s etc. Whatever the cause, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Could ammunition supplies be another reason? Maybe there's stocks of fairly new 115mm ammunition intended for Syria, and not enough new 125mm ammunition. Again, not a good sign though.

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue May 24, 2022 10:23 pm

Few things fit the title of this thread better than the tale of the late Major General (ret) Kanamat Botashev.

A few years back, he took a Sukhoi 27 "Flanker" for a joyride, lost control and lost the plane, presumably bailing out, given he survived.

This cost him his military career.

Now, flying for the fascist Wagner group, he was shot down over Ukraine in a Sukhoi 25. This time, he did not survive.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed May 25, 2022 1:14 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 4:16 pm
jimbob wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 3:21 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:33 pm


The key thing this tells us is the condition of the T-64/72/80/90s in storage. Nobody would pick a T-62 over any of those models, it's got thinner armour - thin enough that British Scimitars penetrated their frontal armour with 30mm RARDEN autocannons during the Gulf War - a less powerful gun, is slower, needs a manual loader (but still has vulnerable ammunition stowage) etc. If they are dusting off T-62s, it's because they don't have enough viable examples of the more modern models.

That said, the thread is right; they are still dangerous to people without anti-tank weapons. They are still useful in a second line role, at least compared to no tanks.

The same can be said of Leopard 1s, which should be sent to Ukraine to free up more modern tanks for the frontlines. Some commentators were scoffing at the idea of sending Abrams from storage as the ones in storage are the less upgraded older models - I think in light of the growing use of older T-72 models and now even T-62s we can reject that argument.
Logistically it seems a bit silly to keep ammunition specifically for an obsolescent tank or to keep them in the field
It is, which is why it's likely that Russia's T-64/72/80/90 fleet is unavailable, otherwise they'd leave the T-62s in storage.

With arms to Ukraine, obviously sending Leopard 1s isn't ideal compared to, say, Leopard 2s. On the other hand, they could available as there are some held in stock, with German politics the main impediment at this point to getting them ready to go (and if Ukraine will be using Gepards, there's parts commonality there). For Ukraine, any tank is a help, and tanks like the Leopard 1 could be assigned to Odesa or the northwest, where they are needed to stop Transnistria/the Black Sea Fleet/Belarus from getting ideas, but won't be doing much moving around, and that means their ammunition can be stockpiled roughly where they'll operate and the T-64s/72s/80s/94s can be freed up to fight in the east.
Michael Kofman has an alternate take, which also has some important implications. He suggests that T-62s are used by reserve units so their appearance is due to the deployment of those units, not because Russia is running out of more modern tanks. https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/statu ... EpFAHEYPng

IMHO, that though would instead imply that Russia is running out of soldiers, at least those who are part of the regular army and can be redeployed from other areas.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3881
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Wed May 25, 2022 2:08 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:23 pm
Few things fit the title of this thread better than the tale of the late Major General (ret) Kanamat Botashev.

A few years back, he took a Sukhoi 27 "Flanker" for a joyride, lost control and lost the plane, presumably bailing out, given he survived.

This cost him his military career.

Now, flying for the fascist Wagner group, he was shot down over Ukraine in a Sukhoi 25. This time, he did not survive.
Looks like he had also done the same with a Su-34 as well
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Martin Y
After Pie
Posts: 2540
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin Y » Wed May 25, 2022 2:12 pm

I did momentarily wonder if deploying T62s was a Zap Brannigan tactic, trying to make the killbots run out of NLAWs while leaving the Russians with some modern tanks.

User avatar
TopBadger
Fuzzable
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TopBadger » Wed May 25, 2022 3:14 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 2:12 pm
I did momentarily wonder if deploying T62s was a Zap Brannigan tactic, trying to make the killbots run out of NLAWs while leaving the Russians with some modern tanks.
I doubt the reserves will be happy about that
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3881
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Wed May 25, 2022 3:46 pm

TopBadger wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 3:14 pm
Martin Y wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 2:12 pm
I did momentarily wonder if deploying T62s was a Zap Brannigan tactic, trying to make the killbots run out of NLAWs while leaving the Russians with some modern tanks.
I doubt the reserves will be happy about that
That's the thing, even the Nazis at the end of WWII were better able to replace tanks than trained tank crews.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed May 25, 2022 4:43 pm

I get the idea that if you've got reserves trained on a system, maybe that's the system to use.

What I do not get is why the hell Russia would have reserves trained on T-62s rather than T-72s or T-80s, or T-64s for that matter, when all those are available in storage instead. The T-64's old, but it was groundbreaking when it was introduced, a leap ahead of the T-62, which really was just the tail end of a development program started in WWII.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed May 25, 2022 5:19 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 4:43 pm
I get the idea that if you've got reserves trained on a system, maybe that's the system to use.

What I do not get is why the hell Russia would have reserves trained on T-62s rather than T-72s or T-80s, or T-64s for that matter, when all those are available in storage instead. The T-64's old, but it was groundbreaking when it was introduced, a leap ahead of the T-62, which really was just the tail end of a development program started in WWII.
As far as I know the huge Russian reserve forces (2 million strong) are made up of veterans. However they aren’t being regularly trained or sent of refresher courses. So the leadership wouldn’t want to give them the expensive modern high tech equipment as they might break it.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Wed May 25, 2022 5:51 pm

OTOH, leadership wouldn't want to leave expensive modern tech in storage, because it won't be maintained, and will be raided for parts to sell on the black market.

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed May 25, 2022 6:11 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 5:51 pm
OTOH, leadership wouldn't want to leave expensive modern tech in storage, because it won't be maintained, and will be raided for parts to sell on the black market.
There's thousands of more modern tanks in storage, however, some reports suggest that parts have been raided, and it certainly hasn't always been maintained.

User avatar
Martin Y
After Pie
Posts: 2540
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin Y » Wed May 25, 2022 6:42 pm

I think storage is where Russia expects most of its tanks to spend their lives. Unlike Western armies which train crews in their own tanks and maintain them as needed, Russia has designated training tanks which take all the wear and tear while the fighting tanks get kept pristine in storage (or perhaps scavenged for saleable parts).

User avatar
Martin_B
Dorkwood
Posts: 1289
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin_B » Thu May 26, 2022 1:35 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 4:43 pm
I get the idea that if you've got reserves trained on a system, maybe that's the system to use.

What I do not get is why the hell Russia would have reserves trained on T-62s rather than T-72s or T-80s, or T-64s for that matter, when all those are available in storage instead. The T-64's old, but it was groundbreaking when it was introduced, a leap ahead of the T-62, which really was just the tail end of a development program started in WWII.
dyqik wrote:
Wed May 25, 2022 5:51 pm
OTOH, leadership wouldn't want to leave expensive modern tech in storage, because it won't be maintained, and will be raided for parts to sell on the black market.
As the T-64s onwards are more compatible with the current tanks, they may be more likely to have been cannibalised for parts than the older, less-compatible T-62s. So, conversely, the older tanks may be in better shape after being in storage.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1862
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu May 26, 2022 12:30 pm

Though the situation in the east is unclear, it looks pretty bad. Russia have been able to concentrate their artillery fires, and their logistics are much safer and easier in this region, at least when attacking the south of the Kramatorsk salient.

Ukrainian forces need the range to attack Russian logistics and starve their artillery of ammunition. M777s and the CAESAR artillery guns are arriving at the front, and as more of the M777s arrive it will make some difference, but it isn't good enough to hope that it will do the trick. More aid is needed.

In the nineties, Ukraine wasn't just pressured to give up nukes, but bomber aircraft and long range missiles were also destroyed under pressure from nations that promised security guarantees. Now is the time to make good those losses with modern equipment. The Ukrainians are begging for HIMARS and M270 - the two compatible MLRS used by much of the west - and for good reason; they would give Ukraine the range to hit Russian logistics, even without the MGM-140, which can be fired from those systems, and ought to be supplied to make good the destruction of Ukraine's SCUDs as part of this misguided push to disarm a newly independent country next to a belligerent major power.

As for aircraft, they are still needed. If SU-25s are useful, A10s will be useful, and they are supposedly easy to fly. F15s/16s/18s won't be as easy, but this war isn't going to be over soon. If Ukraine can spare pilots for training, they should be trained sooner rather than later. Training on other systems has been achieved outside Ukraine successfully, there is no reason to think it would be any different with aircraft.

User avatar
TopBadger
Fuzzable
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TopBadger » Thu May 26, 2022 12:42 pm

Starving Russian supply lines seems to be the way to go in terms of fewest Ukrainian losses. Assaults to push out Russian held positions is going to be tough going - better to force them to abandon positions due to supply issues whilst political and economic pressure builds on the Kremlin.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

Post Reply