>>65225703 NTA; it's been that way for a long time.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)17:37:56
>>65225703 Technically untrue, those 3 t90s at uralgovnozavod are STILL there.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)17:43:45
sometimes I wonder if the purpose of those threads is for some mad Russian to leak the real numbers, like with the classified manuals leaks in warthunder forums
>>65225726 Anon, with the indoor garages empty and only a limited number of storage bases to begin with, these are the real numbers. Of course, there are additional tanks that are stored at BTRZ's and are in service with active units.
>>65225687 >Those T-54/55 numbers Yikes. I thought that they still had several hundred of those things at the minimum >>65225703 its been like that for years now.
>>65225804 Can you conclusively prove those do not exist? That's right, you can't, checkmate.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)18:13:11
>>65225791 >Still more than all of europe combined Da comrade, tank is tank, weak degenerate wectoid non-binary tank cant defeat mighty PUCCIA sturdy and trad armor.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)18:15:45
pour one out for the end of russias seemingly inexhaustible horde of tanks. We never would have developed the Abrams, Apache, or A-10 (among many others) without the fear of it. It really did shape much of the Wests military doctrine and tech. Kinda sad to see the end of it in a way.
Next time I feel like getting plastered, Ill do so with cheap vodka in memory of the foe that never got a chance to try and roll across europe. Da svidania you poor russian rustbuckets
>>65225686(OP) Turns out leaving your tank force out in the open, exposed to the elements and illiterate kleptomaniacs that will missionkill a tank for a hundred bucks in copper wire is not a great idea. Specially when such environments are cold and humid. Doubly so when you haven't inspected them or maintained them properly, if at all, since the time Brezhnev was alive.
Who would have thunk it?
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)18:18:55
>>65225686(OP) >>65225804 >oversaturate the battlefield with old and busted museum pieces >overexhaust the enemy >bum rush with the top of the art modern tanks you saved up until now Two more weeks and everything will be known.
>>65225832 it's sad and ironic in a way, that the inexhaustable horde of machinery meant to roll over all of europe, ended up being exhausted by a part of the union that created it, not even the foes it was designed to fight.
>>65225790 Lol no At best the Ukrainians are reporting no. of tanks hit rather than destroyed
>>65225686(OP) Jompy also wrote this: >https://fronts.co/article/deconstructing-the-myth-that-russia-is-running-out-of-armour/ >Estimates put new production at roughly 200-250 T-90Ms, some 400-480 BMP-3Ms, around 100-120 BMD-4Ms and some 500-700 BTR-82s, on top of several hundred more IMVs and MRAPs, and 2,000-3,000 refurbished armored vehicles taken from storage just in 2025. By now the Russian tank fleet likely surpasses in size the prewar fleet by a few hundred tanks, yet the overall quality has gone down considerably, with it today being a mix of high-low tech equipment, from plain, unmodernized T-54/55s to newly-made T-90Ms.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)18:43:36
>>65225894 >by now the russian tank fleet likely surpasses in size the prewar fleet by a few hundred tanks KEK no.
I hope it doesn't go extinct. Yes, it is shit, but I always found the useless eye things to be funny looking and endearing. I hope a few end up in museums somewhere where they won't get blown up.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)18:45:54
How long do 1000 tanks last on the frontline? Ukraine makes thousands of FPV drones each day
>>65225813 That is amazing, like watching a dinosaur walk out of the woods.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:10:10
>>65225874 >>the help of a single A-10 >Retire this pig dog NOW The seethe the Warthog causes is more than enough to force the Chair Force to keep flying it. Some day, they will turn them over to the Army, where they belong. >Papa Trump should fun the A-100 next
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:12:46
>what the FUCK happened? Fuckin' khokhols, man, I don't know what to tell you.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:12:56
>>65225894 >Jompy also wrote this: >>https://fronts.co/article/deconstructing-the-myth-that-russia-is-running-out-of-armour/ >>the Russian tank fleet likely surpasses in size the prewar fleet by a few hundred tanks Gentlemen, I believe this is the most highly distilled, purified, and clarified cope that we have ever encountered.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:15:56
>>65225832 >pour one out for the end of russias seemingly inexhaustible horde of tanks, destroyed because the country of those dumb hillbilly cucks turned out to be lions and warriors
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:17:07
>>65225853 We live in the cucked clown world, bro. These planes and helicopters should've been in Ukraine the first week of the invasion.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:26:16
>>65225894 >Estimates put new production at roughly 200-250 T-90Ms >some 400-480 BMP-3Ms >100-120 BMD-4Ms >some 500-700 BTR-82s I'm assuming he means in total and not just the 2025 yearly output >and 2,000-3,000 refurbished armored vehicles all taken in 2025 And they probably like 2-2.5k of those refurbished vehicles >https://fronts.co/article/deconstructing-the-myth-that-russia-is-running-out-of-armour/ Having read the article, it's 3/4 fluff piece where it does nothing but talk about prewar numbers and the events of 2022 with the remaining 1/4 being a mix of 1/8 cope with another 1/8 actually talking about hard numbers at the very end. As much as I can appreciate Jompy's desire for people to not call out Russia's mechanized forces as non-existent, he needs to get off Russia's cock when it comes to his delusions regarding their manufacturing capabilities. >>65225930 Ukraine has so far destroyed/disabled 42 tanks in June alone so they will most likely have reached a total of 420 tanks destroyed/disabled by Junes end
>To sum it up, this will be the last great war fought with Soviet-era armor. Russia is managing to reform their core armored formations, but there are some caveats: >1. Clearly they are thinking in the long run, predicting that eventually a solution to the current drone saturated environment will be reached that allows them to bring back fast, mobile warfare via armored vehicles, and preserving and rebuilding the mechanized corps in the meantime. They could also be forced to go back to mechanized warfare if Russia fails to meet its recruitment target for this year. >2. Even if new production has surged (it is estimated that Russia barely produced 60–70 T-90Ms in 2022, rising to 140–180 in 2023), it probably has by now reached its maximum capacity and in itself won’t be able to replenish all those huge fields of Soviet tanks accumulated over decades of war economy production. >3. Russia’s war economy itself is already showing its cracks and won’t be able to maintain its current arms production rate in the long run. However, that doesn’t mean Russia won’t be able to again field huge tank formations in Ukraine if it ever finds a workaround for the current threats to armor. >4. The loss of the vast Soviet legacy stockpiles means the capability to quickly regenerate after high attritional warfare won’t be there anymore for Russia and they’ll have to change their approach to mechanized warfare, not being able to throw massive armored pushes at the enemy anymore nor waste any piece of equipment (including as a way of diplomacy by giving armor for free to friendly/satellite regimes). >In short, the death of Russian armor has been greatly exaggerated. But the impact of these last four years of fighting has not been negligible, and the impacts will echo through the Russian armed forces for years or decades to come.
>>65226183 >I'm assuming he means in total and not just the 2025 yearly output No, just saw that he literally meant annually. I'm not sure where he's getting these numbers for new build T-90s because they haven't fucking shown up on the front lines at all. Nor are we aware of entire tank regiments just sitting behind Russian lines waiting for the call to rush B again
These threads always wrap back around to the definition of "new-build." IMO, if you are pulling a T-72 hull from storage to make a T-90M, that is NOT a new-build.
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:49:08
>>65226183 my math is way off, I meant to put in 126 or so
00
Anonymous06/10/26(Wed)20:49:42
>>65226208 not like it matters. bet they're already at the point where they're not using the few tanks they have because commanders don't want be singled out as the tank unit with zero tanks