PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

Quote:

---

Putin's view is that he's taking a stand against the new world-order. So thats ultimately what it boils down to,

---

Unfortunately, Putin almost assuredly right.

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

Putin's view is that he's taking a stand against the new world-order. So thats ultimately what it boils down to,

---

Unfortunately, Putin almost assuredly right.

---

That's what the Russian milbloggers tell us.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

---

So...you agree that they weren't making 200 tanks a month, now? Because that started over a year ago...so there should be about 2400 of them available.

Surely they wouldn't be sending 50+ year old fresh out of mothballs surplus T-62s to the front if they had those brand spanking new T-90s would they?

The claim of being stronger did not rest solely on new tanks. But, it WAS part of the claim.

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

---

So...you agree that they weren't making 200 tanks a month, now? Because that started over a year ago...so there should be about 2400 of them available.

Surely they wouldn't be sending 50+ year old fresh out of mothballs surplus T-62s to the front if they had those brand spanking new T-90s would they?

The claim of being stronger did not rest solely on new tanks. But, it WAS part of the claim.

---

I know it was. I said the exact same thing.

"I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used."

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

---

So...you agree that they weren't making 200 tanks a month, now? Because that started over a year ago...so there should be about 2400 of them available.

Surely they wouldn't be sending 50+ year old fresh out of mothballs surplus T-62s to the front if they had those brand spanking new T-90s would they?

The claim of being stronger did not rest solely on new tanks. But, it WAS part of the claim.

---

There have been plenty of tanks in the inventory of both sides during this conflict. Can you give one example from this war where tanks were decisive in the outcome of a battle?

lb3 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

---

So...you agree that they weren't making 200 tanks a month, now? Because that started over a year ago...so there should be about 2400 of them available.

Surely they wouldn't be sending 50+ year old fresh out of mothballs surplus T-62s to the front if they had those brand spanking new T-90s would they?

The claim of being stronger did not rest solely on new tanks. But, it WAS part of the claim.

---

There have been plenty of tanks in the inventory of both sides during this conflict. Can you give one example from this war where tanks were decisive in the outcome of a battle?

---

I don't know enough details of each battle to say anything definitively.

However, that doesn't have to do with the subject of this particular discussion. It is about Russian military strength with tanks a proxy example.

Ag with kids said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

---

So...you agree that they weren't making 200 tanks a month, now? Because that started over a year ago...so there should be about 2400 of them available.

Surely they wouldn't be sending 50+ year old fresh out of mothballs surplus T-62s to the front if they had those brand spanking new T-90s would they?

The claim of being stronger did not rest solely on new tanks. But, it WAS part of the claim.

---

There have been plenty of tanks in the inventory of both sides during this conflict. Can you give one example from this war where tanks were decisive in the outcome of a battle?

---

I don't know enough details of each battle to say anything definitively.

However, that doesn't have to do with the subject of this particular discussion. It is about Russian military strength with tanks a proxy example.

---

Tanks as a proxy for military strength in this and future conflicts seems to be a meaningless metric.

I would argue that the time from target identification to target engagement is a better metric. And in this regard Russia has significantly improved their use of combined arms. At the start of the war it would take Russia hours to relay new target information to command and back down to their artillery or even a day or more to engage targets using air power.

Today Russian soldiers can relay a target's location from infantry drone footage to their command and engage with whatever assets are best suited for the target be it artillery, suicide drones, rockets, or glide bombs, and do so in a single digit number of minutes.

It's foolish to laugh at the age of Russian tanks while ignoring the major strides Russia has made in incorporating new technologies into their units, reorganizing their military away from isolated and ineffective BTG structures, and sharpened their EW systems against actual NATO weapons to the point that entire classes of our smart weapons are now ineffective and obsolete.

There is no doubt in my mind that the 500k Russian soldiers involved in this special military operation today would kick the ass of the 200k strong unit that invaded Ukraine a few years ago. And by that metric I think even you would agree that the Russian military today is stronger today.

Let me get you another yoke so you can carry more water for our friends the Russians. I'll be right back. Hold on.

Quote:

---

Putin's view is that he's taking a stand against the new world-order. So thats ultimately what it boils down to,

---

Not at all, and you talk about me doing and ad homin attack!!

I can assure you brother I have done more for my country then you will in hundred years!

Having said that, the government of my country is no longer either for the best interest of our country or even legitimately in power there.

But you just keep going on with your Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense.

I'm a pretty big cheerleader for Ukraine on the other thread but I'm still objective enough to recognize that Russia has improved significantly since the start of the war.

I fully expected Ukraine's offensive last summer to drive their newly constituted and NATO trained battalions straight through Russia's defensive lines to the Sea of Azov and cut Crimea off from the mainland.

Instead Ukranian units got smashed against a Russian anvil, suffering nearly 20k casualties in the first week of the offensive. Russia used their defensive fortifications to feed the attacking units into a withering array of combined arms fire that had not been seen previously in any Russian battle. Russian helicopters which were nearly useless in the battle of Hostomel for example were quite effective in wrecking Ukraine's armor formations.

Don't confuse Russia's inability to achieve their political goals in Ukraine with the relative strength of their military. They aren't nearly as inept as they were in 2022.

This is true, and another thing to consider here that no one really seems to be talking about. This is a direct confrontation (if by proxy by one side) of modern warfare that we have not seen in many years.

It's kind of like our Civil War or WWI in some ways. What do I mean by that?

When our Civil war and WWI started there was an established way of warfare that was quickly found to be not effective any more. In both case there were massive adjustment THAT YOU HAD TO DO.

I am seeing something similar in the Uke/NWO vs Russia theater. Low cost Drones and munitions that can take out large areas of clustered soldiers are now absolutely reaping havoc and have changed the battle field tactics. Armor is almost obsolete just like the battle ship became obsolete and I am afraid unless we can really find way to securely protect them 'aircraft carriers' and manned airplanes as well.

I consider myself 'pro-Ukraine.' I just don't think the Zelensky/Biden/Nuland/Harris etc. governments align with my thoughts on that. I also don't hate Russians/Russia.

nortex97 said:

---

I consider myself 'pro-Ukraine.' I just don't think the Zelensky/Biden/Nuland/Harris etc. governments align with my thoughts on that. I also don't hate Russians/Russia.

---

Agree. You can be pro-Ukraine and against spending our money to secure their border while ours is left wide open.

There is a unique dichotomy with respect for the T62. It is an older tank but also was much more advanced and expensive to produce than the follow on T64 and T72. A modernized T62 is easily better than a T64 and many updated T72s.

I don't think this is true, though. The T-64 also was from a different lineage, essentially the Ukrainian side of the USSR. Updated T-64's are 'better' than -62s yet it's a silly metric.

To LB3's post above I think the entirety of the war is a tragic cost to Ukrainians as a people, first and foremost, who are a victim of their government and foreign proxies alike. I find no joy at all in believing I've been correct as to the ultimate outcome for them. Blame/attribution/politics of it all between two very corrupt/totalitarian 'principle' countries don't really matter…at all.

lb3 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

---

So...you agree that they weren't making 200 tanks a month, now? Because that started over a year ago...so there should be about 2400 of them available.

Surely they wouldn't be sending 50+ year old fresh out of mothballs surplus T-62s to the front if they had those brand spanking new T-90s would they?

The claim of being stronger did not rest solely on new tanks. But, it WAS part of the claim.

---

There have been plenty of tanks in the inventory of both sides during this conflict. Can you give one example from this war where tanks were decisive in the outcome of a battle?

---

Exactly, this isn't Montgomery in North Africa in 1942, tanks are still very relevant, but maybe not the most relevant right now vs an initial exploitation thru a hole punched in the Ukraine defensive line

chiphijason said:

---

There is a unique dichotomy with respect for the T62. It is an older tank but also was much more advanced and expensive to produce than the follow on T64 and T72. A modernized T62 is easily better than a T64 and many updated T72s.

---

Come on man. Literally the first line on Wikipedia:

"The T-64 is a Soviet tank manufactured in Kharkiv, and designed by Alexander Morozov. The tank was introduced in the early 1960s. It was a more advanced counterpart to the T-62"

The T-64's have 125mm guns with autoloaders, the T-62's have rifled 115mm guns and a four man crew. Ukraine's T-64's and its derivatives have been extensively modernized over the years. Russia's T-62's are pulled out of a field and other than a cope cage they might get a new sight. They weren't upgraded over the years because they were in war reserve in case Russia lost thousands of its front line tanks and couldn't produce replacements.

It's the 50 year old auto loaders that are difficult to maintain and why T-62s are more prevalent than T64s.

Yes I've seen some articles supposing that's why Russia is bringing T-62's out of storage instead of other options including T-72's. Not really an issue for Ukraine since their T-64's were in active service instead of storage for decades

Yep no I got it backwards.

lb3 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

The backbone of Ukraine's tank force was T-64's to start the war. T-62's were not in service at all with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. Only now is their much stronger military equipped with relics pulled from a field in Siberia. Nice attempt at a hand wave though.

---

I'm certain the idea of a stronger Russia is based on a much more in depth analysis than the age of the tanks used. Your post is not convincing.

---

I'm certain you're incorrect in that assessment.

---

Respectfully, I question if you have been reading the links. This war has taught the people paying attention that tanks aren't what they used to be. Drones on the other hand are much more important.

I do recall the 200 tanks per month trope, but I've never once seen someone argue the only reason is Russia is stronger is because they have more and/or newer tanks. Maybe I'm forgetting something that was posted that you could point me to?

---

So...you agree that they weren't making 200 tanks a month, now? Because that started over a year ago...so there should be about 2400 of them available.

Surely they wouldn't be sending 50+ year old fresh out of mothballs surplus T-62s to the front if they had those brand spanking new T-90s would they?

The claim of being stronger did not rest solely on new tanks. But, it WAS part of the claim.

---

There have been plenty of tanks in the inventory of both sides during this conflict. Can you give one example from this war where tanks were decisive in the outcome of a battle?

---

I don't know enough details of each battle to say anything definitively.

However, that doesn't have to do with the subject of this particular discussion. It is about Russian military strength with tanks a proxy example.

---

Tanks as a proxy for military strength in this and future conflicts seems to be a meaningless metric.

I would argue that the time from target identification to target engagement is a better metric. And in this regard Russia has significantly improved their use of combined arms. At the start of the war it would take Russia hours to relay new target information to command and back down to their artillery or even a day or more to engage targets using air power.

Today Russian soldiers can relay a target's location from infantry drone footage to their command and engage with whatever assets are best suited for the target be it artillery, suicide drones, rockets, or glide bombs, and do so in a single digit number of minutes.

It's foolish to laugh at the age of Russian tanks while ignoring the major strides Russia has made in incorporating new technologies into their units, reorganizing their military away from isolated and ineffective BTG structures, and sharpened their EW systems against actual NATO weapons to the point that entire classes of our smart weapons are now ineffective and obsolete.

There is no doubt in my mind that the 500k Russian soldiers involved in this special military operation today would kick the ass of the 200k strong unit that invaded Ukraine a few years ago. And by that metric I think even you would agree that the Russian military today is stronger today.

---

We will have to agree to disagree on this assessment, then.

OPAG said:

---

Quote:

---

Putin's view is that he's taking a stand against the new world-order. So thats ultimately what it boils down to,

---

Not at all, and you talk about me doing and ad homin attack!!

I can assure you brother I have done more for my country then you will in hundred years!

Having said that, the government of my country is no longer either for the best interest of our country or even legitimately in power there.

But you just keep going on with your Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense.

---

a) You deleted too much during your post. That is not my quote.

a.1) There was no ad hominem attack in my post. I never referenced you.

b) That is EXACTLY what the Russian milbloggers have been saying.

c) I believe you so much. You've told lots of us that.

d) Okaaaayyyy? That has nothing to do with the thread.

e) What Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense? That the milbloggers are propagating propaganda?

lb3 said:

---

I'm a pretty big cheerleader for Ukraine on the other thread but I'm still objective enough to recognize that Russia has improved significantly since the start of the war.

I fully expected Ukraine's offensive last summer to drive their newly constituted and NATO trained battalions straight through Russia's defensive lines to the Sea of Azov and cut Crimea off from the mainland.

Instead Ukranian units got smashed against a Russian anvil, suffering nearly 20k casualties in the first week of the offensive. Russia used their defensive fortifications to feed the attacking units into a withering array of combined arms fire that had not been seen previously in any Russian battle. Russian helicopters which were nearly useless in the battle of Hostomel for example were quite effective in wrecking Ukraine's armor formations.

Don't confuse Russia's inability to achieve their political goals in Ukraine with the relative strength of their military. They aren't nearly as inept as they were in 2022.

---

They have improved some of their tactics.

However, their materiel has been severely degraded.

And looking at recent events, it doesn't appear their logistics has improved that much.

Quote:

---

The only way to stop what happens AFTER NOW is for Ukraine to join NATO.

---

thats ultimately what it boils down to.

Reminds me of Homer Simpson's famous quote 'beer is the cause and solution to all of life's problems.'

Ukraine joining NATO is both the cause and solution to all of Ukraine's problems.

The expansion of NATO into former Soviet states was a mistake.

NATO will have caused the very war that it was designed to prevent.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

The expansion of NATO into former Soviet states was a mistake.

NATO will have caused the very war that it was designed to prevent.

---

Meh.

Russia is just being shown their ass at this point.

Pokrovsk Axis is absolutely shredding the AFU

The turnover appears even much worse than during Bakhmut's strangulation, though that impression is probably heightened by their severe force disarray into composites and Alarmeinheiten

— Matt Davies (@MNormanDavies) August 11, 2024

Situation: no longer critical.

⚡️🇷🇺Analyst:

The situation in the Kursk region has ceased to be critical, despite all the complexity.
The advance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces has been stopped in 3/4 directions, slowed down in some places and burdened by the incessant strikes of our Aerospace Forces and…

— SIMPLICIUS Ѱ (@simpatico771) August 11, 2024

Since for some reason we are stuck on tanks this weekend, here is an interesting interview. I think the T-72 is still the numerically most significant Russian tank on the front lines (but also T-80's), and have seen some fascinating 'anti-drone' improvisations on newly (re-)delivered models; new fire control electronics as well.

⚡️🇷🇺Tankers of the "North" group spoke about the peculiarities of their work in the Kharkiv region.

The tank crew is working in the Volchansk direction, covering the advancing Fearless infantry and firing from closed firing positions at enemy strongholds.

Tankers work around… pic.twitter.com/9iwCfmXe00

— SIMPLICIUS Ѱ (@simpatico771) August 10, 2024

Depending how you count, you can see there's anywhere from 14-20 or so blank hulls on the shop floor. Given that they've confirmed 1 month restore time, we can conclude that Russia is producing minimum 14-20 per month or 168 - 240 per year. https://t.co/W90rBgoLxC pic.twitter.com/HaYxr1f1ki

— SIMPLICIUS Ѱ (@simpatico771) August 10, 2024

Quote:

---

Ukraine has lost up to 1,120 servicemen and 140 armored vehicles since the start of the incursion, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday.

---

Resident: Kursk incursion failed to force Russia to move forces to Kursk theater.

Quote:

---

#Insider information
Our source in the OP said that on Friday, the stavka did not make a decision on the start of the second stage of the counteroffensive, at the moment the enemy has not withdrawn reserves from Ukraine. Syrsky suggested continuing the Kursk operation and strengthening the AFU grouping, so that the Russian army would be forced to transfer forces and aircraft to this area.

---

Syrsky is a reckless, yet also incompetent commander, imho.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

The expansion of NATO into former Soviet states was a mistake.

NATO will have caused the very war that it was designed to prevent.

---

It wasn't that NATO "expanded" in to former Soviet states.

It was former Soviet states WANTING to join NATO as protection against future annexation. They'd already been there done that and didn't want a repeat.

hsjnlssmith89 said:

---

lb3 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I consider myself 'pro-Ukraine.' I just don't think the Zelensky/Biden/Nuland/Harris etc. governments align with my thoughts on that. I also don't hate Russians/Russia.

---

Agree. You can be pro-Ukraine and against spending our money to secure their border while ours is left wide open.

---

I am pro Ukraine and pro controlled southern border. I can be both!! I am able to separate dem/rep politics from this and still know that both are good and want positive outcomes for both our border and the plight of an invaded country trying to escape the grip of the old USSR.

---

Well said. That's exactly how I feel about both issues, and that's how I'd think most American should feel.

hsjnlssmith89 said:

---

lb3 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I consider myself 'pro-Ukraine.' I just don't think the Zelensky/Biden/Nuland/Harris etc. governments align with my thoughts on that. I also don't hate Russians/Russia.

---

Agree. You can be pro-Ukraine and against spending our money to secure their border while ours is left wide open.

---

I am pro Ukraine and pro controlled southern border. I can be both!! I am able to separate dem/rep politics from this and still know that both are good and want positive outcomes for both our border and the plight of an invaded country trying to escape the grip of the old USSR.

I also don't hate Russians. I hate the controlling regime that oppresses Russians.

---

I think SOME of the Russians fighting right now are probably *******s.

But, I'd bet the rest are just doing it because they have to.

I blame Putin for everything in this war.

such a weird dichotomy between the two threads here, this thread the invasion is a failure, other thread Russia's is feeling the pain and high-ranking officers being killed.

Now the war spread inside Russian territory. 50-years from now Ukraine will look like the opening scene from Terminator 2.