Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

I'm wondering if the new Russian offensive has started or not. With an exact date we would be able to easily calculate the end of this war, which would then be three days later.

Even now I can't see ruling out the possibility. Ukraine's astonishing success is based on a huge variety of lucky breaks, fragile strengths and unreliable advantages.

[Geronimo]

Russia is busy pulling up ancient obsolete aT-62s (800 of them) because they just can't get the parts to manufacture enough modern tanks. They are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point. Don't gete wrong, Russia could still win a long war of attrition if the west loses interest but we're talking about well over a million dead Russians for a phyric victory.

I wonder if they are applying any sort of quick upgrade package or if they are just being sent as RPG fodder? I doubt ukraine will waste modern anti tank systems on t‐62s.

[Geronimo]

A possible motive is not an actual motive.

When is attempting to make such a distinction actually helpful to explain anything?

could you clarify the difference between observing a possible motive and observing an actual motive?

[Dinner]

I wonder if they are applying any sort of quick upgrade package or if they are just being sent as RPG fodder? I doubt ukraine will waste modern anti tank systems on t‐62s.

Russian media claims they are being upgraded but refused to say what those upgrades are. My guess is they are only adding an IR sight and maybe improved gun sites. If they are lucky a radio. I just don't see them spending much on obsolete garbage who's armor won't stop a single modern round.

I guess even junk tanks are better than no tanks though.

[Dinner]

I did find this article from Ian Bremmer's outfit, The Eurasian Times.

https://eurasiantimes.com/biggest-up...g-arsenal/?amp

"Gurulyov said that the T-62s in question would be upgraded, including modern thermal and night vision optics, additional armor, and other protection measures, particularly for defense against anti-tank guided missiles such as the US-made Javelin."

My guess is the "other protection measures" is a cope cage which has proven to be ineffective over and over and over in this war. The addition of I.R./Thermals is a definite step up and it sounds like they claim to be adding some type of reactive armor but Russia reactive armor tends to be crap. Many of the captured Russian tanks were found to have no reactive elements in the supposed reactive armor so it was just extra weight. Corruption bites Russia in the backside every time.

[Dauphin]

Someone in Russian procurement: "It may look like cardboard, but I have an invoice here that says 'reactive armour'. "

[BeBMan]

IIRC it's been reported that they had overall much more than 10000 tanks before the war, even only a part of them battle-ready. Of all the reserve stuff they opted for them T-62s...which begs the question is the rest even older, or are they just unable to reactivate more modern stuff in sufficient numbers (edit: or is the reserve not really that large).

[Dinner]

I have heard the Russians lack the parts and capability to manufacture new tanks in appreciable numbers. That is why T-90s are so rare on the battlefield plus T-90's are just renamed and ever so slightly upgraded T-72s so they are crap anyway. Russia had something like 3200 active duty tanks at the start of the war and the remain 7000 or so reserve tanks were just old tanks parked in a muddy field and left to rust away to pieces. They would be exceedingly lucky if they could revive even half of them after rusting away, exposed to the elements, for 30-50 years depending on how old the model is.

Norway's defense minister recently claimed half of all usable tanks available to Russia have now been destroy or captured. The remaining stock is pretty much all old T-62s and T-55s both of which have been obsolete since the Vietnam era.

[Broken_Erika]

Modernized T-55's can be somewhat useful, unfortunately for Russia, all the good upgrade packages are made by western countries like Slovakia.

And Russia's tank production relies on electronics and optics sourced from France.

[Berzerker]

Are people still relying on western sources for information about the war?

[pchang]

No. we just accept everything that Serb says as gospel.

[Dinner]

Given the all Russian media is state controlled and this filled with lies...

[Dinner]

Modernized T-55's can be somewhat useful, unfortunately for Russia, all the good upgrade packages are made by western countries like Slovakia.

And Russia's tank production relies on electronics and optics sourced from France.

Slovenia was trying to get rid of some T-55s for the last decade or so. Eventually, Germany give them some trucks in exchange for those ancient tanks (modestly upgraded in the 90's) and supposedly gave them to Ukraine.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

The T-54/55 tanks are mechanically simple and robust. They are very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and do not require a high level of training or education in their crewmen. The T-54/55 is a relatively small main battle tank, presenting a smaller target for its opponents to hit. The tanks have good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permits easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allows crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which give lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allows river crossings. In numbers... they can be a force.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

On the other hand... T-54/55 tanks had their drawbacks. Small size is achieved at the expense of interior space and ergonomics, which causes practical difficulties, as it constrains the physical movements of the crew and slows operation of controls and equipment. This is a common trait of most Soviet tanks and hence height limits were set for certain tank crew positions in the Soviet Army, whereas other armies may not include crew member height limits as standards.

The low turret profile of the tanks prevents them from depressing their main guns by more than 5° since the breech would strike the ceiling when fired, which limits the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull down position on a reverse slope. As in most tanks of that class/generation, the internal ammunition supply is not shielded, increasing the risk that any enemy penetration of the fighting compartment could cause a catastrophic secondary explosion. The T-54 lacks NBC protection, and a turret basket, which meant that crewmen had to physically rotate and keep up with a rotating turret as the hull in which they stood didn't move with the turret. Additionally, early models also lacked gun stabilization. Most of these problems were corrected in the otherwise largely identical T-55 tank - but not to a level that makes a real difference on the battlefield against western armor.

Even in numbers they can't hold off a superior force.

[Dinner]

The T-54/55 tanks are mechanically simple and robust. They are very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and do not require a high level of training or education in their crewmen. The T-54/55 is a relatively small main battle tank, presenting a smaller target for its opponents to hit. The tanks have good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permits easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allows crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which give lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allows river crossings. In numbers... they can be a force.

Modern tanks ammo will go right through the existing armor on them.

[BeBMan]

Are people still relying on western sources for information about the war?

Fascinating video: chief Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov explains to a 2008 Moscow theatre audience why war between Russia and Ukraine would be the greatest crime imaginable