god please help me posted:

what the gently caress is going with the avatars in this thread

Deteriorata posted:

Someone with more money than brains thinks it's hilarious.

Youth Decay posted:

I can't tell who mine is supposed to be

Tuna-Fish posted:

Even given the shape it's in, I'd bet that the tank will get fixed and reach the front. As the last tank of the T-55 series, T-62 was a lot mechanically simpler than the tanks that followed. It's not necessarily "reliable" as such (especially now), but it is much easier to repair than the later tanks.

Shes Not Impressed posted:

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1533638521717723136?s=20&t=PnJi_Q-gUlDrKEtPJ6i29Q

Dandywalken posted:

The T-62s we are seeing are literally from 1973 at latest. The 62M variant was an upgrade of existing tanks, not new builds. These tanks are absolutely ancient.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Can anti material rifles pop these things?

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Can anti material rifles pop these things?

Warbadger posted:

They'll undoubtedly get these to the front even they have to move them on trucks to get there. That's when the real fun begins:

You say they should be comparatively easy to repair - and I guess on a surface level that makes sense as they lack a lot of the complicated electronics and such the newer vehicles have. The problem is they don't share parts or ammunition with anything active in the Russian inventory (probably why these were still intact) and will require their own logistics train. You want ammo? Well you need to pull out some super old 115mm ammo because the 125mm ammo the T-64/72/80/90 use won't work. You want to fix an engine? Well, bad news because this thing is a stretched T-55 chassis with its own special engine nothing else uses and practically every other component is unique too because this is a stopgap design and 1960's Soviet politics were insane. This lack of commonality hits even harder because they haven't been in service for several decades meaning not only has nobody been maintaining these particular vehicles, but nobody around has been trained to maintain them and any replacement parts you do have kicking around are also all ancient. Vehicles like tanks tend to break down periodically even without leaving it out to rust in a yard for a couple decades, especially in hard use like in combat.

Even if they go through all the trouble to run a parallel logistics effort to keep these things running they aren't especially capable, even by 1980's standards. These T-62's were the bottom of the barrel and even the eventual modernizations were a "well, what can we do to make them a bit less obsolete without spending much money" kinda deal. No electronic sensors to spot threats and even the traditional optics aren't great compared to 1970's productions like an original T-64 or an old export T-72M. No fancy fire control computer or stabilizer here so it has to stop to fire or reload, plus no autoloader in a vehicle where loading was infamously difficult. The armor is poor by even by early 1970's standards so you have these gigantic, ridiculous applique armor kits slapped on to the front of the turret so that at least one part of the vehicle would be protected, at the expense of adding a bunch of off-center extra weight to the chassis/suspension. It's basically a vehicle with the capabilities of a late WWII heavy tank.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Can anti material rifles pop these things?

Warbadger posted:

They'll undoubtedly get these to the front even they have to move them on trucks to get there. That's when the real fun begins:

You say they should be comparatively easy to repair - and I guess on a surface level that makes sense as they lack a lot of the complicated electronics and such the newer vehicles have. The problem is they don't share parts or ammunition with anything active in the Russian inventory (probably why these were still intact) and will require their own logistics train. You want ammo? Well you need to pull out some super old 115mm ammo because the 125mm ammo the T-64/72/80/90 use won't work. You want to fix an engine? Well, bad news because this thing is a stretched T-55 chassis with its own special engine nothing else uses and practically every other component is unique too because this is a stopgap design and 1960's Soviet politics were insane. This lack of commonality hits even harder because they haven't been in service for several decades meaning not only has nobody been maintaining these particular vehicles, but nobody around has been trained to maintain them and any replacement parts you do have kicking around are also all ancient. Vehicles like tanks tend to break down periodically even without leaving it out to rust in a yard for a couple decades, especially in hard use like in combat.

Even if they go through all the trouble to run a parallel logistics effort to keep these things running they aren't especially capable, even by 1980's standards. These T-62's were the bottom of the barrel and even the eventual modernizations were a "well, what can we do to make them a bit less obsolete without spending much money" kinda deal. No electronic sensors to spot threats and even the traditional optics aren't great compared to 1970's productions like an original T-64 or an old export T-72M. No fancy fire control computer or stabilizer here so it has to stop to fire or reload, plus no autoloader in a vehicle where loading was infamously difficult. The armor is poor by even by early 1970's standards so you have these gigantic, ridiculous applique armor kits slapped on to the front of the turret so that at least one part of the vehicle would be protected, at the expense of adding a bunch of off-center extra weight to the chassis/suspension. It's basically a vehicle with the capabilities of a late WWII heavy tank.

god please help me posted:

what the gently caress is going with the avatars in this thread

Raenir Salazar posted:

Warbadger posted:

Even if they go through all the trouble to run a parallel logistics effort to keep these things running they aren't especially capable, even by 1980's standards.

Cable Guy posted:

===
With the Predator Gray Eagle being confirmed (..ish) as going to be supplied, I was wondering if anyone had an answer about my previous question about them operating with Brimstones instead of Hellfires. Are they compatible?

Budzilla posted:

Thus is one of the things that really bothers me. Doesn't the Russian army have staff to say 'this is stupid and not worth the effort'? There would have to be some internal push back from fielding obsolete equipment that isn't compatible with more modern equipment.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Brimstones can be fired from Reapers (aka second generation Predators). Adjusting Grey Eagles to fire Brimstones might involve some modifications, but it seems like a solved problem. They're about the same weight as a Hellfire and everything is designed to use NATO rails.

god please help me posted:

what the gently caress is going with the avatars in this thread

edit: ok, at least I'm safe from the ai generated bidens.

edit2: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Wibla posted:

What point are you really trying to make here?

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

lol the finnish/russian border guards are less harsh than the time I flew back to Canada from France while not being canadian

Vox Nihili posted:

Getting a paid av change is a posting badge of honor. Embrace it.

Charliegrs posted:

Re: T62 tanks. Can tank crews trained in more modern tanks like T72s, T80s etc just hop in an old obsolete T62 and operate it no problem? Or does Russia need to keep crews specifically trained just for the T62s as long as they have them in storage for possible usage?

Charliegrs posted:

Re: T62 tanks. Can tank crews trained in more modern tanks like T72s, T80s etc just hop in an old obsolete T62 and operate it no problem? Or does Russia need to keep crews specifically trained just for the T62s as long as they have them in storage for possible usage?

Randarkman posted:

That it's been a long rear end time since the Marshall Plan, and you shouldn't take that kind of stuff for granted.

dominoeffect posted:

Yours looks pretty ok compared to some of the others. I was trying to find the worst looking one but they all look awful

Fritz the Horse posted:

edit: also probably enough chat about avatars. Yes, someone appears to have dropped hundreds of dollars on avs for this thread. No, mods will not be blanking them. You can spend 5bux to replace them if you want.

Deltasquid posted:

Not sure I can post the vid alone. But this article has a clip of a Russian political scientist on a talk show telling them to cool it with the nuclear hot takes (literally) re American arms shipments: https://www.hln.be/buitenland/exper...ummer~a2c0b4df/

My loose translation from the Dutch subs (happy if any Ru speaker could confirm):
“There is a flood of information, also in our mainstream media, about how scary and terrible everything is. About 500 times per day, on every channel, on every talk show it’s about how many more weapons were sent and how terrifying they are. “

“People ask ‘what’s next?’ and their answer is ‘don’t worry, a nuclear war will follow.’ What is that? Is that a normal approach? Is that the way you want to deal with public opinion? I think this is something to think about.”

Paladinus posted:

There's always a guy like this on these shows. 99/100 times he's being shouted down by everyone else, including the host, right after voicing something resembling a moderate position.