The mighty T-62 with added cope cage has entered the battlefield

Oct 6, 2022 1:10 AM

kakivara

Views

48023

Likes

496

Dislikes

11

Russia is actually attempting to fight a real war using a tank fielded in 1961. Since the T-62 was developed, they have also developed the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, and T-14. And they're already down to using the T-62s with improvised missile "armor."

Ukraine isn't even using NATO tanks. Yet. If that happens then the Russian armor is going to become about as useful as a Hilux with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back.

Russia has lost no fewer than 1,280 tanks. That includes at least 17 T-62s.

Darth Putin remains a master strategist.

Source:
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

surelytheressomethingmoremodern

ukraine_conflict

thereissomethingmoremodern

dontcallmeshirley

ukraine

twitter

3 years ago | Likes 58 Dislikes 0

Stingers in Afghanistan. Javelins in ukraine. Russia never gets a break

3 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 4

Ukraine got stingers too. Maybe explains lack of Russian helicopter missions

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Hmmm. How many of these will come back to haunt us?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 7

Those missiles probably cost more than the T-62.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's not their tanks I'm worried about, it's their SRBMs and ICBMs, which are now being moved to the border.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Maybe. If they want to give their T-62s a rest and bring in the oldest missiles I've ever seen, the variety would at least be interesting.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

T-72 is technically a NATO tank if I'm jot mistaken since several countries are using it

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 6

The T-72 was designed by the Soviets, which makes it the opposite of a NATO tank. NATO tanks include the US Abrams and DE Leopard.

3 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

The Toyota won’t break down?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Eventually we'll see the captured Panzer Mk. III's the Germans lost in 1941.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why not weld a box spring mattress on top, so that instead of blocking the missile, the missile is bounced back at the Ukrainians? -Acme

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Please don't post actionable intelligence online.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

You think Wile E Coyote is our only client! -Acme

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Wile E Coyote is a certified genius compared to this guy v

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

improvised missile armour who knew that could mean fuzzy dice and a pine tree air freshener

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Soviet tanks were designed to be 10% less effective but 50% cheaper than western tanks, the T-64 was even superior at the time ...in the 60s

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's doubtful that Ukraine will be using NATO tanks any time soon. They require pretty insane amounts of logistical support.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's not a Hilux, it's a 70 series Land Cruiser.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lol javelin goes zoom

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

There's not a ton of big tank battles going on. Even older tanks can still be useful when up against pockets of infantry.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yup, op premise is silly. No understanding of armour’s purpose and ignoring the fact most armour kills have been artillery and atgms.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Still a positive sign tho, as you said.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Still a bad sign that they're having to trot these out at all, though.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Anyone else getting like... Mood whiplash from Putin and the russkis switching between *animated* Starscream/Megatron and

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*comic* Starscream/Megatron?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hiluxes are indistructible though

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not really, you would fire a APFSDS at the tank and a HEAT at the technical...

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

7.62 mm for the Hilux; even .50 is overkill

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't matter, the T-62's armour is just steel. Rolled, homogenous steel.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

HEAT on a technical is over kill, just slam them with an HE round and watch the fireworks.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I want to see explosion-y thingies tho... we need cannister shot... or flechettes

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Maxim 37: There is no "overkill." There is only "open fire" and "reload."

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Point, how about over penetration then? A HEAT would blow a hole out the other side, HE will leave a flaming crater and cook off the ammo.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh, overpenetration and collateral damage are definitely things.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can fire HEAT at both.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

You can. But the sabot seems cooler.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

TBH, you can take out the technical with coax.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Gunner! Co-ax! Truck!

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

With 2K rounds, ready to go... 20-30 round bursts kind of nuke the 'I'm up, he sees me, I'm down...'

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 78 Dislikes 0

and amazingly, only 7 whole russians have died in this war.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

How many little bitty pieces of Russians tho

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

To be fair, 20 of those Abrams just catastrophically failed on their own without enemy interference...

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I mean any military operation at any size will see random stuff break down for no reason. (then comes the question on how large % that is).

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

14 were damaged and 9 were destroyed. Of the ones destroy 7 were caused by friendly fire and 2 demolished by crew

3 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 0

Ya, we’ve actually lost one from enemy fire. They get disabled to the point we destroy them though

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Doesn't sound very friendly me

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Friendly fire, isn't. -Call of Duty quote when you die sometimes

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

most people dont know what blue on blue means.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sadly the American air force thought because the Canadians have red on their flag it makes it blue on red fire.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Rumored that they will mobilize T-34s via Lazerpig https://youtu.be/kT_ljkO3adY (comedy video)

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

lol funny video

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I lost it on the ad read alone.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Time to bust out the T-34’s

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I'm rooting for KV-2 making a comeback.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Never bring a tank to a guerrilla warfare. Russia would have been more devastating had they used technicals in the first place!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I wouldn't categorize the Ukrainian military as guerrilla warriors. They're using plenty of armor themselves. Russian armor, even.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

About NATO Tanks https://www-tagesschau-de.translate.goog/ausland/europa/panzer-eu-ukraine-101.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Someone needs to step up and be the first to send tanks. Hopefully there's a wealthy, heavily-armed country politically-willing to do that.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The unsaid part about donating tanks is that it would be seen as being unfair, because of how superior the tanks are. It's kind of funny.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"Hilux with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back." Dudes in pajamas stopped America with those.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Stopped America from doing what?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Using a twenty year war to launder money. Last I checked America lost the war in terror in Afghanistan. The point was to remove the Taliban.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

America did remove the Taliban, within 2 months. We set up a government, trained the military and police, and left. That's not a US defeat.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Last time I checked, anyway. That's an Afghan defeat.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Kyiv Independent has Russia down for 2,449 tanks lost, as of October 06. Where are you getting your 1,280 figure from?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The Oryx site I linked to. They document each vehicle loss with photo evidence, and that is their number. It is a minimum number, not lower.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The real number is also certainly higher, but not lower.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Those numbers are most likely inflated. Russian has visually confirmed to have lost 1292 tanks so far. The real number is between 1292-2449

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The T-62 is a better tank than the T72. No autoloader so fewer Jack in the box internal explosions.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Every standard NATO 120mm tank round will defeat the T-62.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

There are no NATO tanks on the Ukraine battlefield.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I know, that's the point. If NATO tanks DO show up on the battlefield, a T-62 isn't going to help Russia.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Even the HE ones?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My list of standard ammo was incomplete, haha. I give HE and tracer rounds a 49% chance to defeat a T-62. So probably not.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Keep in mind that an HE round still has a very high chance to cause a Russian crew to either surrender or retreat.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Weren't British HESH rounds designed to kill crews of T-62s? The shockwave rips off pieces of armour inside, filling it with shrapnel.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm going to go with my gut on this one and say that yeah, that's true.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The cope cages aren't missile armor. They're grenade armor for urban fighting. Russia learned some lessons from Chechnya, but obviously not

3 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 2

Enough lessons.

3 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 2

You might as well have just posted Red Effect's video, considering that article just reposts his video. But the cages first saw

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Use in Syria as protection from small drones. Yes slat armor is a thing, but it wouldn't do much against a more dedicated ATGM system.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's correct, it doesn't. I think the point though is what the Russians intend the armor to do, and that the armor does not do that.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I thought they were meant to defend against top-down ATGM attacks. They aren't really fighting in urban areas.

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

They WOULD fight in urban areas, despite tanks generally not faring well at all in urban areas

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They did, Ukrainian grandmas killed a few with molotovs and modified grenades with 3d printed tails.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh, and since I did a bit more digging, reports suggest the T-62s are being used defensively in hull down positions rather than on the attac

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Oh, and the M60 is still in use with some countries (albeit heavily upgraded) despite being two years older than the T-62.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The M60 Sabra did actually perform better than Leopard 2 in Syria, but even I wouldn't count that as a legacy platform.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Russia knows how ATGMs work, including top attack. They know it wouldn't work against them. However, during the Chechen wars they had

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Immense difficulty in urban areas. It was particularly easy for fighters to drop what would otherwise be in effective AT grenades and such

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Directly on the tops of tanks. Two conclusions were drawn: there needs to be better dedicated anti-infantry vehicles (BMP-T) and tanks

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Iraq had T-72s in the Gulf War. They didnt do shit to the Abrams. Shots where bouncing off their armor. While I would love to see Ukraine

3 years ago | Likes 152 Dislikes 1

*T-72 export versions* which were significantly inferior to the Soviet built ones.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

were* fuck

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

*allegedly* at least some Iraqi's were firing training rounds. So the main problem is an abhorrent lack of training. Although, I'd like to..

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

I kinda doubt the Russians are trained any better.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Day 244 of their 3 day invasion, and Russia is back to where they were on day 3. I think it goes without saying their training is abysmal

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

point out, in terms of AT systems; western missiles and defences are better. Russian defences won't stop western AT missiles...

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

And western defences (Trophy) HAVE taken down the latest Russian AT missiles, the Kornet

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

73 easting was a one sided battle because the T72s lack of thermal sight and sub par targeting system, the T90 is still no match for the...

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Abrams because it's gun cannot fire accurately without putting itself within the M1A1 Killzone.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The T-14 is a hell of a machine, though. All 10 of them.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

If, i said IF they managed to run long enough to get out of the parking lot.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

An LPR soldier in Lyman uploaded a video a bit before it was retaken.. complained his bullets wouldn't even go through Ukrainian body armor.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Seems like there’s a shitty reason for him to be aware of this.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well at least they have this awesome helmet: https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSE/status/1578016055842127873

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Holy lee, that is some cheap ass garbage they are using.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

jfc

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

with a few hundred of them, there could be operational limitations with the Abrams as they way a fuck ton

3 years ago | Likes 91 Dislikes 1

Yeah Rheinmetall would love to sell them some better suited Leos, but unfortunately our government does not seem to want to authorize it.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

weigh* Fuck me I need to stop trying to type so late at night

3 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

I remember a few years ago reading that the Ukranian homebuilt tanks were similar in performance to the T80's. They did have a better tank

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

that they primarily used as exports because selling one of those would allow them to build 5 of their homegrown tanks.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I had both of those transformers! The green one pictured was ‘warpath’ and was red for some reason

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I believe the latest version is up to a fuck and a half tons

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

How many kilofucks is that?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Iraq mostly had T-60 family tanks. The M1-ip & M1-heavies used in the Gulf War had armor that could defeat the soviet tungsten sabots.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Did iraq even get sabot? Aka the good stuff. I know that iraq had lots on heat. Which the M1 had no issues stopping

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

There were reports of them being used.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Which mix with Ukraine's terrain and bridges, idk how well they would do. Also army of mechanics you will need to train to keep them

3 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 1

Well right now it’s the rainy season. This past week a swift advance was halted due to rain because the tanks could only use the roads

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And the Ukrainians were not about to risk being as stupid as the Russians at the start of the war

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yeah, tanks are essentially squishy DND wizards. Excellent support for about 3 shots, have to be constantly healed, and useless up close

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

operational as well as the logistical issues of getting parts and supplies as compared to soviet tanks, a lot of that stuff was standardized

3 years ago | Likes 56 Dislikes 1

across the generations

3 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 1

The Abrams was designed to fight a land war in Europe. It's sole purpose was to crush the red army. It will excel in that environment.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Look at the damage that 9 Abrams and 13 Bradleys can do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72XLTfmcaAw

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Didn't a Hilux with an anti-aircraft gun drive the US with its Abrams out of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Somalia?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Great question! No. If you have any other questions, no matter how stupid, just shout them out!

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Why did the US go into Afghanistan other then to kill brown people?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I'm brown I think you're clueless about the reasons for Afghanistan. There was alot of easier "brown people" targets than Afghanistan.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

To kill Osama bin Laden and topple those protecting him. Any other super-intelligent questions?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Osama was in Pakistan, has Pakistan government been toppled? Has the taliban been toppled?

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Osama was in Pakistan in 2001? No, he wasn't, he was in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban. Are you really that ignorant of

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1