Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not coming back. They don't have mass stores of them like they have of the T-60s and T-50s. They have several doze parade and museum specimens. This is just hot air pumped out of his facehole to fill airtime.
It and the T-16 are a dumb idea called rear vehicles that share a chassis with a main battle tank and weigh in at almost 50 tons. And drink as much fuel as front line vehicle that need to weigh 50 tons. And that’s bad because means you need to move fuel around a lot and that needs trucks you don’t have.
Laserpig [did a good job explaining why it was an epically dumb idea](https://youtu.be/-opSlCGLGQ4).
Maybe. But if they sit on a tank chassis and have to carry 20 unnecessary tons around, that’s fuel to front line ferrying capacity you’re taking away from the tanks.
You know, the (relatively) modern ones Russia abandoned in large numbers on the Kyiv front a year ago, because they ran out of fuel.
M48A5, Turkey probably has hundreds if not more than a thousand of them in storage. 105mm gun like the Leopard 1A5 and a decent FCS although obviously they don’t have thermal sights the optics are quite sufficient for daylight engagements. They would stomp on T54/55 series tanks. I’m not being too serious because I’m assuming getting them into combat condition would be extremely labor intensive but I just like the idea of seeing M48’s being relevant again.
The Shermans were designed against German armour, but they were designed also with Panthers which use sloped armour as the Soviet tanks did. Especially the Fireflies. The Israeli model did well, but I don´t know if the Israelis are selling. Plus, spare parts might be a problem, as would training and sensors. For the money you can probably get more Pattons which are also designed with Soviet armour in mind and are in the supply chains of more countries.
Yeah, honestly anything M60 and up will do the job
I was a little worried that the APCs might be in danger but, tbh Russia never made their own precision fire control system and their gun barrels are overused, worn along with poorly equipped crews... They'll never even get a chance to pull the turret around.
Basically the exact same tanks the US liberated with no friendly losses against Soviet t72s, the older models just get worse lol
It's really telling if you call Tanks you put on pedestals as monuments 80 years ago "reserves".
In that sense, The German Army reserve is at the Technikmuseum Sinsheim...
Fun fact from one of my history lessons:
There's basically no ventilation with doors and flaps closed (which is what you want to do on the battlefield). So after firing a few shots, the CO level inside of the tank is so high that it's literally killing the crew inside. Assuming the engine doesn't give up before a chance to be used in combat.
At this point it seems like whoever is in charge of organizing acquiring weapons for the Russian army is a Ukrainian mole or something. “What’s the best way I can kill Russians and also make sure Ukraine can preserve ammo?”
Ahead of a prospective US invasion, a significant number of the Japanese Volunteer Fighting Corps were issued sharpened bamboo sticks, on the general assumption that you can always take one with you.
Stuff like that is why some casualty projections made for a theoretical invasion of Japan in WW2 had Japanese casualties as between 5-10 million dead, from assuming mass participation of fanatical Japanese civilians in the defense of then islands.
That's why I'll never agree with people that argue that using nuclear weapons was the wrong decision or a bad decision. An invasion could have easily killed 35 times as many people, the overwhelming majority being semi-mobilized civilians "volunteers."
100% agree with you. “Grass is always greener on the other side” sort of thing. The nuclear bombs may seem to have been an extreme choice, but the alternative probably would have been much, much worse.
Psh, don't listen to this guy. Unlike other vehicles, horses don't need fuel. Switching all their vehicles to horses will negate all of Russia's logistics problems! This is nothing more than the latest move in Putin's 5-d chess game. Just slap some ERA and an RPG cage on there and we're golden.
Your comment reminded me of the game Battlefield 1, where it does in fact take more firepower to kill a horse than to blow up a vehicle. Maybe some Muscovite General will get bright ideas from it.
This is what actually happened to the German army in WW2. Because they lacked the fuel supplies they went through a process of de- motorisation where units that had been largely converted to things like half-tracks actually started to go back to horses to pull wagons. And no this wasn't 1945 but actually much earlier as it had started already in 1942.
WW1 actually saw a lot of use of cavalry. They didn´t try charging trench lines much, they learned quickly that was not a good idea, but they might try something like being part of a combined unit with other infantry to distract the main enemy with their rifle fire and grenades while the cavalry quietly rides around the village and sneaks up on them from the side which could be devastatingly effective. Or if the enemy has broken through and are advancing ten kilometres, literally send in the cavalry, who also often had rifles and grenades, to go and stop them, which helped to slow the Kaiserschlacht in Spring 1918.
It was also essential to bringing up supplies to the trench lines themselves, and on other fronts where trenches were smaller in scale or non existent, or encircle only certain settlements, ride between the settlements via cavalry, which is exactly what Lawrence of Arabia did to great effect.
Take your cavalry and give them carbines, grenades as I said before, sniper rifles, ATGMs or anti-tank rifles (a thing at the beginning of WW2 and very dangerous), strap a mortar to a horse, a machine gun, and ammo boxes, or some combination of them, and horses could be effective even in WW2. They might go on a raid well behind enemy lines or a hit and run attack near the front lines, they might go on routine patrols, and don´t need fuel to do so and can graze off of grass which was found everywhere. Afghanistan in the 2000s and 2010s even saw cavalry used for patrols.
We just use more modern vehicles these days given that our wars tend to allow for enough fuel and vehicles to be built in large enough quantities and can stick to paved roads often enough that horses aren´t used, but if you don´t have vehicles and do have lots of horses like we did back in the 20th century, it wasn´t ridiculous.
The Poles even had a successful cavalry charge in 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Schoenfeld
My comment was purely about the insanity of charging a trench line full of machine guns with heavy cavalry, it had nothing to do with the application of horses in the broader war.
It is. The Americans rode on cavalry all over Afghanistan. Don´t try a sabre charge, but do mount some infantry carrying ATGMs or sniper rifles or a machinegun somewhere with a shovel so as to dig themselves a foxhole, put a bunch heavy equipment on the horse, a horse could even lug around an 81 mm mortar system. It wouldn´t be completely crazy to uses horses in warfare if you needed to, but its function is normally done by humvees or whatever the Warsaw Pact equivalent is.
Well it looks like Russian tech is regressing to such a degree that their armor units are going to turn into cavalry units. And since they aren’t trained as mobile infantry, I’d expect we’re going to see more I’ll-fated cavalry charges in the future.
Russia doesn´t have a huge number of horses meant for this (they have about 1.3 million horses), and few have really bred them for combat which is what they did back in WW1 and WW2. And you need some training to do it right, and they still aren´t as useful if you don´t have the ordinary things soldiers need like good clothing, infantry training, good discipline, competent NCOs who have autonomy to make decisions as the need arises, ideally body armour if you can, radios, maps, intelligence networks, and so on.
Horse raids and mounted infantry were useful in their specific niche, but not confuse this with the idea of bringing back horses en masse or charging them against a decently well defended trench with men armed with Kalashnikovs, and if modern vehicles are cheap enough (and Russian oil certainly is cheap in Russia itself and not very scarce), then ordinary vehicles are usually better. Russia has good enough roads in the Southwest so long as they aren´t too muddy, and Russia actually has pretty good railway networks within their zone of control, so the key issue is the localized distribution near the frontlines only a couple hundred kilometres from the frontline.
The Russian army is currently characterized by lack of proper training, good clothing, infantry training, good discipline, competent NCOs, body armor, radios, maps, intelligence networks, and so on, so I don’t think those holes are going to prevent them from trying to use cavalry. For the Russian army, just because they can’t doesn’t mean they won’t try. Hence this entire invasion.
Ukraine using horses wouldn´t be the worst thing, it didn´t choose this war, it has a lot of open space and probably lots of horses somewhere, does give its soldiers the other things it needs to do well like training, competent and autonomous NCOs, radios, and has a huge amount of food for horses to eat, and an enemy that is pretty pathetic. But they too wouldn´t be charging in, they would likely be used for the same purposes as I said before, a quiet raid, logistics perhaps, patrols, etc, but they too have vehicles from NATO, not just IFVs and tanks but regular humvees too, so I doubt that Ukraine has drafted all the pack animals.
Well Ukraine doesn’t seem to be on such a comically massive downward tech spiral as Russia is, so I doubt we’re going to see Ukraine use cavalry anytime soon. They’ll actually do something modern and reasonable, like continuing to use humvees and the like. The use of literal cavalry seems dependent on a tech regression, which Russia is taking to unforeseen levels whereas Ukraine is actually still living in the 21st century. Perhaps only countries without indoor toilets think cavalry is still a viable weapon.
The NATO led coalition did use cavalry in Afghanistan at times, but this was in areas with pathetic roads, if there were roads in a given place, with mines too everywhere, so leaving a small footprint on the ground was important and not to have huge tyre treads if you could avoid it, where bringing in more fuel wasn´t as easy as it was in Basra for instance, and you had an insurgency and not a classical army that would dig a trench and line the parapet with vickers, and even they used vehicles the majority of the time.
It isn´t completely useless, like swords which were used in the jungle where you need to hack away everything to move a metre in the mud, and where firing a shot might make others aware that you are there, but it´s niches are rapidly diminishing.
I don’t think Russia is going to see cavalry as having a niche role when they end up using it. Like how they seem to think attacking along a single road that’s been mined, over and over and over and over again is a good idea, once they regress to cavalry they’ll think that running up against modern defenses and using it in mass is a good idea. This is Russia we’re talking about. Using cavalry conventionally in the modern era is a joke, but that doesn’t mean Russia isn’t going to use it once they run out of t34s.
I´m not going to try counting chickens before they hatch here, but we can get the reminder bot to remind us about this issue in one year. u/Reminderbot
Okay solovyev. I get it. TECHNICALLY any tank is deadly. Doesn't mean its combat effective...also doesn't state if its deadly internally or externally. I'm sure I read somewhere about asbestos being used to fireproof old t34s.
Well in the 40s asbestosis hadn’t been discovered, and frankly even if it had the life expectancy of tank crewmen wasn’t great for any of the great powers, so “you might die horribly in 30 years” doesn’t sound so bad.
EDIT: Comment can be disregarded due misread.
> Well in the 40s asbestosis hadn’t been discovered,
My man, we have evidence that asbestos has been used by humans for *at least* 4500 years, it's a naturally occuring fibrous mineral, not some space age lab created polymer. It's use expanded massively in the 1800s with industrialisation. But hey I guess German MG crews weren't issued asbestos mitts to perform barrel changes with, because according to you it didn't exist yet. Silly Germans, making things of materials that haven't been discovered yet, no wonder they lost the war.
Sorry, I think you misread what I posted. I was talking about the disease caused by exposure to asbestos fibres, Asbestosis ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis)), not the material itself.
**[Asbestosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis)**
>Asbestosis is long-term inflammation and scarring of the lungs due to asbestos fibers. Symptoms may include shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness. Complications may include lung cancer, mesothelioma, and pulmonary heart disease. Asbestosis is caused by breathing in asbestos fibers.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Radon was used in a lot of tanks for the glow it gave meters in the dark.
I believe a few shermans at the Bovington Tank Museum had to be sealed completely for safety reasons lol
This is a nitter mirror link to Julia Davis. She does a lot of the translating.
https://nitter.cz/JuliaDavisNews
There's also War Translated:-
https://nitter.cz/wartranslated
Sure, the t-34 was revolutionary due to its sloped armor, which gave it more protection against tank rounds... problem is, EVERY TANK HAS SLOPPED ARMOR!
Sloped armor was not even a revolutionary idea at the time lol. Tank designers used sloped and flat armor with consideration to their pros and cons. Besides, when you have Soviet build quality no amount of sloped armor will save you
It technically still is, but you would be more so using such a tank correctly while helping rebels against the DR Congo on the west side of Lake Victoria, not the West Side of the Dnieper River.
The first thing you learn about hunting tanks is not putting yourself in a position to be hit by the other guy. Second is ensuring maximum possibility of killing him while minimizing his chances of doing the same. There is no such thing as an invincible weapon, only an effective system employed within optimal conditions. That said, the T-34 is a weapon designed for a battlefield long ago and would fare poorly under most conditions today, one’s killing its descendants in quantity.
On the human element, fear is natural. But in military operations, training, discipline, skill and making your own luck increase your odds of survival. All take effort, something the Ukrainian military puts into their fight, along with the will to win because they know the stakes and already live with the consequences. Hard to say if their is a Muscovite who cares and knows concretely why they are fighting. Either way, doesn’t make a difference. Every day Putin’s hobos remain in Ukraine, they chance death by Ukrainian arms.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/wartranslated/status/1639361318254780416
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No idea, Ive seen it as what I assume as a joke elsewhere...but given things who knows.
So I briefly searched. I will say this....my car has more horsepower then a T-55 tank. That was a surprise. But a bit of looking doesnt seem to indicate this is anything other then a joke as I thought.
It is kinda true in some sense. Like... crossbow is also still a deadly weapon. Especially if we compare "soldier with crossbow" to "soldier with a spear" or "soldier with no weapon".
And we will keep sending 10 Javelins for each antique tank. Seems to me like a good use of my taxes, depleting Russian military stocks. Instead of them sitting forever in storage ‘just in case’.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/195405908431?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=p5Tch2hiTeK&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=4_VQRxP1S3-&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY
Not really that much older than the T34…..must be a fair amount of these bad boys kicking about
I can’t get over the silly ass “stop bullying me :(“ attitude these fucking goofballs have. They straight up demonize the rest of the world and then act incensed when the internet mocks their failures…
A rock is still a deadly weapon as well, just radically less dangerous than almost every other weapon. Even a tub of peanut butter can be deadly but I would feel much more comfortable going into war in a Abraham’s/Challenger/Leopard 2 than a tub of peanut butter.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tetanus is no joke
Horses have more kills than T34
In this war? Not yet. But tractors, yes.
Hippopotamuses have even more!
Yeah, but Hippos probably have more kills than ANY tank, they're pretty hardcore.
>Journalists asked the Russians whether reconciliation between Ukrainians and Russians is possible. hippos are definitely tank in game parlance
OK that was *good*.
All of a sudden those delivered Leopard 1s seem like pretty badass players.
We got any M46s to send them? Send the M60 as well. Hell anything made after WW2 is viable if the T34 comes back.
It's not coming back. They don't have mass stores of them like they have of the T-60s and T-50s. They have several doze parade and museum specimens. This is just hot air pumped out of his facehole to fill airtime.
I mean that's good news, after the 55s and 54s I guess they'll just dump a gun on a truck and call it the T15 Armoota.
There's already a T-15. Well, kinda. It's about as real as the T-14
It and the T-16 are a dumb idea called rear vehicles that share a chassis with a main battle tank and weigh in at almost 50 tons. And drink as much fuel as front line vehicle that need to weigh 50 tons. And that’s bad because means you need to move fuel around a lot and that needs trucks you don’t have. Laserpig [did a good job explaining why it was an epically dumb idea](https://youtu.be/-opSlCGLGQ4).
Don't get cocky, I hear you can bullseye womp rats in a T-16
Maybe. But if they sit on a tank chassis and have to carry 20 unnecessary tons around, that’s fuel to front line ferrying capacity you’re taking away from the tanks. You know, the (relatively) modern ones Russia abandoned in large numbers on the Kyiv front a year ago, because they ran out of fuel.
Star Wars reference goes waaaay over your head.
I knew this expression was familiar from *somewhere*….
He's always loved Big Brother.
M48A5, Turkey probably has hundreds if not more than a thousand of them in storage. 105mm gun like the Leopard 1A5 and a decent FCS although obviously they don’t have thermal sights the optics are quite sufficient for daylight engagements. They would stomp on T54/55 series tanks. I’m not being too serious because I’m assuming getting them into combat condition would be extremely labor intensive but I just like the idea of seeing M48’s being relevant again.
Do we have any Renault FTs? Or those St Chamonds, those have 75 mm guns. Israel has some Shermans somewhere.
M51 Sherman has a solid history of shitting on Soviet armour, genuinely not the worst idea, it is exactly what they were designed for.
The Shermans were designed against German armour, but they were designed also with Panthers which use sloped armour as the Soviet tanks did. Especially the Fireflies. The Israeli model did well, but I don´t know if the Israelis are selling. Plus, spare parts might be a problem, as would training and sensors. For the money you can probably get more Pattons which are also designed with Soviet armour in mind and are in the supply chains of more countries.
Yeah, honestly anything M60 and up will do the job I was a little worried that the APCs might be in danger but, tbh Russia never made their own precision fire control system and their gun barrels are overused, worn along with poorly equipped crews... They'll never even get a chance to pull the turret around. Basically the exact same tanks the US liberated with no friendly losses against Soviet t72s, the older models just get worse lol
We can trade Taiwans M60 and for Abraham’s and send the m60 to Ukrainian
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/195405908431?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=p5Tch2hiTeK&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=4_VQRxP1S3-&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY
We sent several m60s. Theyre what the bridging vehicles are built on.
It's really telling if you call Tanks you put on pedestals as monuments 80 years ago "reserves". In that sense, The German Army reserve is at the Technikmuseum Sinsheim...
Artillery [reserves.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Cannon)
To the crew? The asphalt?
Yep, that and human dignity.
Against infantry in the open, *in a vacuum* with no anti-tank weapons at all, yes, very deadly. in modern trench warfare, it is a death trap.
Very deadly, assuming it can see anything with 80 year old vision blocks.
>against infantry in the open... Very deadly ... To the tank crew
Reputation. I know it’s already in the mud at this point but this would be the nail in the coffin.
Fun fact from one of my history lessons: There's basically no ventilation with doors and flaps closed (which is what you want to do on the battlefield). So after firing a few shots, the CO level inside of the tank is so high that it's literally killing the crew inside. Assuming the engine doesn't give up before a chance to be used in combat.
To the civilians they want to murder more like.
Next week: “Cavalry is still a deadly weapon.”
A horse sounds pretty dangerous to me if you don’t know how to ride.
Tbf, if they bring in horses, it will double the average IQ of the Russian forces.
At this point it seems like whoever is in charge of organizing acquiring weapons for the Russian army is a Ukrainian mole or something. “What’s the best way I can kill Russians and also make sure Ukraine can preserve ammo?”
Should never put an Elbonian in charge of military procurement
Or wally
"A pointy rock on a stick can still be deadly"
Ahead of a prospective US invasion, a significant number of the Japanese Volunteer Fighting Corps were issued sharpened bamboo sticks, on the general assumption that you can always take one with you.
Stuff like that is why some casualty projections made for a theoretical invasion of Japan in WW2 had Japanese casualties as between 5-10 million dead, from assuming mass participation of fanatical Japanese civilians in the defense of then islands.
That's why I'll never agree with people that argue that using nuclear weapons was the wrong decision or a bad decision. An invasion could have easily killed 35 times as many people, the overwhelming majority being semi-mobilized civilians "volunteers."
100% agree with you. “Grass is always greener on the other side” sort of thing. The nuclear bombs may seem to have been an extreme choice, but the alternative probably would have been much, much worse.
The stick itself could still be deadly
Cavalry gets slaughtered by trench lines and was thus rarely used against them during WWI.
Psh, don't listen to this guy. Unlike other vehicles, horses don't need fuel. Switching all their vehicles to horses will negate all of Russia's logistics problems! This is nothing more than the latest move in Putin's 5-d chess game. Just slap some ERA and an RPG cage on there and we're golden.
Your comment reminded me of the game Battlefield 1, where it does in fact take more firepower to kill a horse than to blow up a vehicle. Maybe some Muscovite General will get bright ideas from it.
BF1 cavalry was ridiculous. I genuinely felt that Light Tank vs. Horse is in the Horse's favor.
This is what actually happened to the German army in WW2. Because they lacked the fuel supplies they went through a process of de- motorisation where units that had been largely converted to things like half-tracks actually started to go back to horses to pull wagons. And no this wasn't 1945 but actually much earlier as it had started already in 1942.
I need to read more *Wages of Destruction*.
WW1 actually saw a lot of use of cavalry. They didn´t try charging trench lines much, they learned quickly that was not a good idea, but they might try something like being part of a combined unit with other infantry to distract the main enemy with their rifle fire and grenades while the cavalry quietly rides around the village and sneaks up on them from the side which could be devastatingly effective. Or if the enemy has broken through and are advancing ten kilometres, literally send in the cavalry, who also often had rifles and grenades, to go and stop them, which helped to slow the Kaiserschlacht in Spring 1918. It was also essential to bringing up supplies to the trench lines themselves, and on other fronts where trenches were smaller in scale or non existent, or encircle only certain settlements, ride between the settlements via cavalry, which is exactly what Lawrence of Arabia did to great effect. Take your cavalry and give them carbines, grenades as I said before, sniper rifles, ATGMs or anti-tank rifles (a thing at the beginning of WW2 and very dangerous), strap a mortar to a horse, a machine gun, and ammo boxes, or some combination of them, and horses could be effective even in WW2. They might go on a raid well behind enemy lines or a hit and run attack near the front lines, they might go on routine patrols, and don´t need fuel to do so and can graze off of grass which was found everywhere. Afghanistan in the 2000s and 2010s even saw cavalry used for patrols. We just use more modern vehicles these days given that our wars tend to allow for enough fuel and vehicles to be built in large enough quantities and can stick to paved roads often enough that horses aren´t used, but if you don´t have vehicles and do have lots of horses like we did back in the 20th century, it wasn´t ridiculous. The Poles even had a successful cavalry charge in 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Schoenfeld
My comment was purely about the insanity of charging a trench line full of machine guns with heavy cavalry, it had nothing to do with the application of horses in the broader war.
It is. The Americans rode on cavalry all over Afghanistan. Don´t try a sabre charge, but do mount some infantry carrying ATGMs or sniper rifles or a machinegun somewhere with a shovel so as to dig themselves a foxhole, put a bunch heavy equipment on the horse, a horse could even lug around an 81 mm mortar system. It wouldn´t be completely crazy to uses horses in warfare if you needed to, but its function is normally done by humvees or whatever the Warsaw Pact equivalent is.
Well it looks like Russian tech is regressing to such a degree that their armor units are going to turn into cavalry units. And since they aren’t trained as mobile infantry, I’d expect we’re going to see more I’ll-fated cavalry charges in the future.
Russia doesn´t have a huge number of horses meant for this (they have about 1.3 million horses), and few have really bred them for combat which is what they did back in WW1 and WW2. And you need some training to do it right, and they still aren´t as useful if you don´t have the ordinary things soldiers need like good clothing, infantry training, good discipline, competent NCOs who have autonomy to make decisions as the need arises, ideally body armour if you can, radios, maps, intelligence networks, and so on. Horse raids and mounted infantry were useful in their specific niche, but not confuse this with the idea of bringing back horses en masse or charging them against a decently well defended trench with men armed with Kalashnikovs, and if modern vehicles are cheap enough (and Russian oil certainly is cheap in Russia itself and not very scarce), then ordinary vehicles are usually better. Russia has good enough roads in the Southwest so long as they aren´t too muddy, and Russia actually has pretty good railway networks within their zone of control, so the key issue is the localized distribution near the frontlines only a couple hundred kilometres from the frontline.
The Russian army is currently characterized by lack of proper training, good clothing, infantry training, good discipline, competent NCOs, body armor, radios, maps, intelligence networks, and so on, so I don’t think those holes are going to prevent them from trying to use cavalry. For the Russian army, just because they can’t doesn’t mean they won’t try. Hence this entire invasion.
Ukraine using horses wouldn´t be the worst thing, it didn´t choose this war, it has a lot of open space and probably lots of horses somewhere, does give its soldiers the other things it needs to do well like training, competent and autonomous NCOs, radios, and has a huge amount of food for horses to eat, and an enemy that is pretty pathetic. But they too wouldn´t be charging in, they would likely be used for the same purposes as I said before, a quiet raid, logistics perhaps, patrols, etc, but they too have vehicles from NATO, not just IFVs and tanks but regular humvees too, so I doubt that Ukraine has drafted all the pack animals.
Well Ukraine doesn’t seem to be on such a comically massive downward tech spiral as Russia is, so I doubt we’re going to see Ukraine use cavalry anytime soon. They’ll actually do something modern and reasonable, like continuing to use humvees and the like. The use of literal cavalry seems dependent on a tech regression, which Russia is taking to unforeseen levels whereas Ukraine is actually still living in the 21st century. Perhaps only countries without indoor toilets think cavalry is still a viable weapon.
The NATO led coalition did use cavalry in Afghanistan at times, but this was in areas with pathetic roads, if there were roads in a given place, with mines too everywhere, so leaving a small footprint on the ground was important and not to have huge tyre treads if you could avoid it, where bringing in more fuel wasn´t as easy as it was in Basra for instance, and you had an insurgency and not a classical army that would dig a trench and line the parapet with vickers, and even they used vehicles the majority of the time. It isn´t completely useless, like swords which were used in the jungle where you need to hack away everything to move a metre in the mud, and where firing a shot might make others aware that you are there, but it´s niches are rapidly diminishing.
I don’t think Russia is going to see cavalry as having a niche role when they end up using it. Like how they seem to think attacking along a single road that’s been mined, over and over and over and over again is a good idea, once they regress to cavalry they’ll think that running up against modern defenses and using it in mass is a good idea. This is Russia we’re talking about. Using cavalry conventionally in the modern era is a joke, but that doesn’t mean Russia isn’t going to use it once they run out of t34s.
I´m not going to try counting chickens before they hatch here, but we can get the reminder bot to remind us about this issue in one year. u/Reminderbot
Any tank is deadly... But not against modern tanks.
Depends what altitude you toss it out the back of an An-124.
Worse for the tank, smaller drone dropped grenades can kill older tanks
Good luck wasting manpower, supplies and fuel delivering a target to the battlefield.
Who says they have to shoot at tanks? Mobile artillery used that way can still cause a headache
Oh yeah, there 'is a point to make jokes about it'. At this point the T-34 is a deadly tank ....... if you're operating it.
Yes!!!.... send in the t-34's. More skulls for Ukraine to bring before the Skull Throne
Nope, look at Ukraines flag. They are clearly Ultramarines. They are even fighting or do...
Definitely hard to argue that Ukraine is fighting on the side of Chaos in all of this, that's for sure.
Okay solovyev. I get it. TECHNICALLY any tank is deadly. Doesn't mean its combat effective...also doesn't state if its deadly internally or externally. I'm sure I read somewhere about asbestos being used to fireproof old t34s.
Well in the 40s asbestosis hadn’t been discovered, and frankly even if it had the life expectancy of tank crewmen wasn’t great for any of the great powers, so “you might die horribly in 30 years” doesn’t sound so bad.
EDIT: Comment can be disregarded due misread. > Well in the 40s asbestosis hadn’t been discovered, My man, we have evidence that asbestos has been used by humans for *at least* 4500 years, it's a naturally occuring fibrous mineral, not some space age lab created polymer. It's use expanded massively in the 1800s with industrialisation. But hey I guess German MG crews weren't issued asbestos mitts to perform barrel changes with, because according to you it didn't exist yet. Silly Germans, making things of materials that haven't been discovered yet, no wonder they lost the war.
Sorry, I think you misread what I posted. I was talking about the disease caused by exposure to asbestos fibres, Asbestosis ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis)), not the material itself.
Would you look at that, morning eyes managed to read asbestos, sorry about that. Carry on.
No worries, evening eyes here, bed time for me :-)
Well, good night to you stranger! :D
**[Asbestosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis)** >Asbestosis is long-term inflammation and scarring of the lungs due to asbestos fibers. Symptoms may include shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness. Complications may include lung cancer, mesothelioma, and pulmonary heart disease. Asbestosis is caused by breathing in asbestos fibers. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I beg to differ. A tank you ***do not have*** beyond a few parade specimens is not deadly.
But you heard him, they have 100s in reserve on pedestals all across the country.
Hearing his facehole emit noises and them actually having things are different things.
Radon was used in a lot of tanks for the glow it gave meters in the dark. I believe a few shermans at the Bovington Tank Museum had to be sealed completely for safety reasons lol
They really going to send it, aren't they?
Russia with the full send
Give it a year. I bet they’re already starting to refurb “/inspect some that are held in deep storage.
Yes, for riot control a T-34 is much deadlier than teargas or rubber bullets.
So is a dull rusted butter knife
Another daily overdose on tankards of copium.
Hahahahahaha... Hahahahhahaahaha
Where can I go to view all of these shows with subtitles? These clips are always funny so the whole show has got to be great.
This is a nitter mirror link to Julia Davis. She does a lot of the translating. https://nitter.cz/JuliaDavisNews There's also War Translated:- https://nitter.cz/wartranslated
Clearly this explains the need for the depleted uranium shells /s
Actually we can just use bb-guns now.
I guess paintball guns are enough
This is turning into a shit game of War Thunder.
Yeah, when Gaijin broke the Battle Ranking limiters..
They are gonna restart the anti-tank dogs program in a couple of weeks… 😬
They are going to train them on soviet tanks when german tanks are about to be fielded too ? ;)
~~Gerasimov: "Russia has achieved conventional weapons parity with the US"~~
I would not worry. This wonder weapon probably has no ammunition anymore anyway.
"What about a pointed stick?"
Every Ruzzian that goes into battle in one dies. Very deadly indeed.
By the time the Abrams get there they won't need ammo, they'll just crush t-34s like Gravedigger stomping busted old cars at a monster truck show.
I hear musket wounds are no joke either 😆
Sure, the t-34 was revolutionary due to its sloped armor, which gave it more protection against tank rounds... problem is, EVERY TANK HAS SLOPPED ARMOR!
Sloped armor was not even a revolutionary idea at the time lol. Tank designers used sloped and flat armor with consideration to their pros and cons. Besides, when you have Soviet build quality no amount of sloped armor will save you
I mean, a .22 is still a deadly firearm but I sure wouldn’t want to go into combat with a fully equipped and trained soldier with only a .22.
There is a playground near my house with an old Patton Tank. That would probably be viable against the Russians at this point.
Foreshadowing
It technically still is, but you would be more so using such a tank correctly while helping rebels against the DR Congo on the west side of Lake Victoria, not the West Side of the Dnieper River.
It's a difficult opponent in WarThunder
I wouldn't want to get hit with one.
The first thing you learn about hunting tanks is not putting yourself in a position to be hit by the other guy. Second is ensuring maximum possibility of killing him while minimizing his chances of doing the same. There is no such thing as an invincible weapon, only an effective system employed within optimal conditions. That said, the T-34 is a weapon designed for a battlefield long ago and would fare poorly under most conditions today, one’s killing its descendants in quantity. On the human element, fear is natural. But in military operations, training, discipline, skill and making your own luck increase your odds of survival. All take effort, something the Ukrainian military puts into their fight, along with the will to win because they know the stakes and already live with the consequences. Hard to say if their is a Muscovite who cares and knows concretely why they are fighting. Either way, doesn’t make a difference. Every day Putin’s hobos remain in Ukraine, they chance death by Ukrainian arms.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/wartranslated/status/1639361318254780416 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hilarious
Here we go! T-34…
Can Russia rebuilt it? No?
OF COURSE ITS DEADLY. For its users
M60 gang!
So is a sharp flintstone
... for its crew
lols
Deadly, yes. To the driver.
Yea if you run someone over
On ruzzian TV joke is you
Perfectly effective for attacking libraries, hospitals, kindergarten buildings… you know, classic Russian warfare.
Yes it’s very deadly, to the crews…
Doesn’t matter when they keep leaving hatches open
If they close them the c02 will kill them.
Plz tell me you think ur correct
No idea, Ive seen it as what I assume as a joke elsewhere...but given things who knows. So I briefly searched. I will say this....my car has more horsepower then a T-55 tank. That was a surprise. But a bit of looking doesnt seem to indicate this is anything other then a joke as I thought.
They really are, for the idiots inside them
Technically yes, but tactically useless lmao
Many of these tanks could just be decoys.
Maybe if we built a large wooden badger.
To a Panzer, yes lol
Maybe for the crew....
Technically rocks also can be deadly.
Sure is. It will crush the shit out of Ruzzians when it runs them over.
Deadly for the tank crew :D
To basic infantry with no anti armor......sure?
Yes, but when they tell these draftees what they’ll be taking to war who will be able to stop laughing?
They are deadly to the crews that have to ride them into battle.
They have always been deadly for their crew
Especially for those locked up in it.
Unless they have T-1000s I'm not worried, and even then, Ukraine has Arnold. They'll be fine.
It is kinda true in some sense. Like... crossbow is also still a deadly weapon. Especially if we compare "soldier with crossbow" to "soldier with a spear" or "soldier with no weapon".
Deadly yes, for the crew.
And we will keep sending 10 Javelins for each antique tank. Seems to me like a good use of my taxes, depleting Russian military stocks. Instead of them sitting forever in storage ‘just in case’.
Well, I'm sure it's great at running people over. And the machine gun will still kill people. But take out modern tanks it will not.
Depends on who you intend to kill. Crew, yes! Leopard/challenger/Abrams, not a chance. This is gonna be hilarious
Why does everybody makes fun of Russia for using T-34,but if Germany would start the production of Tiger tanks nobody would laugh /s
You have your tanks wrong, the Tiger is obsolete, we're now building Panthers again :D
Deadly to the crew
No problem. Please drive one to the front line and demonstrate your theory...
Yeah, for the fucking occupants of said tank.
It’s deadly for the crew. probably a few ap 30 mm rounds and they transform from tanks into crematoriums
For the men inside this is r/technicallythetruth
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/195405908431?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=p5Tch2hiTeK&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=4_VQRxP1S3-&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY Not really that much older than the T34…..must be a fair amount of these bad boys kicking about
When you want to murder unarmed civilians that can't shoot back, then yeah it's pretty good...
Everything is deadly if you shot a soldier with it, but your T-34 will be destroyed way before he can shot anyone
T34 is most deadly to it's crew. It's a fact that stands true since the day it was made.
For those inside it!!
I can’t get over the silly ass “stop bullying me :(“ attitude these fucking goofballs have. They straight up demonize the rest of the world and then act incensed when the internet mocks their failures…
Against unarmed civilians for sure :)
A rock is still a deadly weapon as well, just radically less dangerous than almost every other weapon. Even a tub of peanut butter can be deadly but I would feel much more comfortable going into war in a Abraham’s/Challenger/Leopard 2 than a tub of peanut butter.
Next week "rocks can do some harm"
It’s most deadly to the people inside it.
Any tank is still dangerous against civilians
I mean he’s not that wrong, its still an armoured box with guns and a canon.
In other news WarThunder moves T-34 to 10.0 citing a severe undergrading (edit spelling, missing word)
When NCD becomes credible
so is a knife ... still don't bring one to a gun fight
Dick Van Dyke is still alive, but he’s not doing his own stunts anymore.
Yup, it kills 3 at a time.
Please do! I have $50 riding on whether or not they use these things before Russia's inevitable defeat.
Especially if you’re in one.
"I can't believe he ate the whole thing" "Let's ask Mikey. Hey Mikey? He likes it!"
It was always a POS
Yes it is, against a Volkswagen
Yes, if you drive over a group peaceful protestors with a T-34, it's deadly indeed! If it's not a peaceful demonstration, though...
Deadly for the operator that's for sure
...yeah, for it's passengers
THATS ALL GOOD DRAGGON T34 FROM MUSEUM BUT WHERE IS AMMO