How Russian armored vehicles perform in the Ukrainian conflict

In the last couple of weeks, enthusiasts around the world have been actively discussing another news from the fronts of the Northern Military District: the appearance, first in the rear, and now on the front line of Russian T-62 tanks, vehicles, of course, outdated morally and physically. As usual, there is not so much objective information from the field on this matter, just a few photographs of not the best quality.

Ukrainian propaganda and Russian alarmists at their sight raised a screech about the alleged destruction of all more modern armored vehicles. More or less adequate sources tried to recall the characteristics of the "sixty-two" and suggest why they ended up in the combat zone and how they would be used. In particular, I myself assumed that the T-62 was raised from the reserve for the people's militia of the DPR and LPR to replace the "killed" T-64s, the repair of which is now extremely difficult - but it seems that at least part of the "sixty-two" will still be used and Russian troops, possibly the Russian Guard or "Wagnerites".

Imperial rubbish, tin cans?

We can confidently say that the NWO once again sent to the trash the forecasts of couch futurological congresses about the "war of the future." More precisely, the reality turned out to be much closer to the canon of the “last war”, although updated, than to bright cartoons about “tactical special forces” and thousands of flocks of drones.

You should not think that it is only with us, in "backward Russia", that this is the case. In fact, all the armies of the world still rely on the concepts and materiel left over from the Cold War, modernizing them as far as possible. In the United States and China, the process of material renewal of arsenals is going faster, in other countries it is slower, certain changes are being made to doctrines, but there are no truly revolutionary experiments, as in the 1950s-1960s, anywhere.

The latest high-tech means of communication and surveillance, compact precision-guided munitions certainly make their contribution, but in general the ratio between the most important weapons systems has remained the same: the god of war is still artillery, and the king of battles is still a tank.

It is the "elephant" on the tracks that remains the most heavily armed, protected and tenacious unit in contact combat. To the dismay and horror of the Ukrainian “zahists”, “the holy Javelin turned out to be not a miracle weapon, but exactly what it is, the last means of anti-tank self-defense. There is no question of even successfully repelling tanks with only Javelins and NLAW, not to mention the transition to a counteroffensive. We won’t get exact figures for a long time, but you can be sure that the loss of armored vehicles from the fire of infantry anti-tank weapons and mine explosions does not exceed 10% (however, approximately the same can be said about human losses).

Everything else, as one would expect, on the account of enemy armored vehicles and especially artillery. In view of the active use by the Ukrainians of numerous artillery, the share of tanks in the total number of lost armored units will be relatively large. In the same Afghanistan and Chechnya, where the enemy had almost no heavy guns, tanks with their powerful protection suffered much less than lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which the Mujahideen burned an order of magnitude more.

Some technical and practical solutions for the protection of armored vehicles did not pass the "field exam". First of all, this concerns the dynamic protection in soft containers used on the latest modifications of the T-72B3 and T-80BVM tanks: as they warned in advance, the “bags” on the sides were easily torn, clinging to obstacles, and the vehicles were quickly left without additional protection. As far as one can tell, these "bags" are now out of use. It seems that the turret visors installed on parts of the tanks by the crews did not perform very well either.

With several crossings with a fight, the ability of our light armored vehicles to move by swimming was finally used - there are recorded facts of its use, however, there is no reliable information about how successful it was. The "cardboard" protection once again confirmed its reputation, but what, as it turned out, was missing was solid armored screens that would save some of the vehicles from fragments of enemy shells. The anti-cumulative grilles, actively used by the Ukrainian side, are much less important: they do not protect against artillery ammunition (like those visors mentioned above).

But the own armament of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers showed its best side: the guns showed impressive reliability (there are shots of the BTR-82A, the cannon of which was completely peeled off from overheating during intensive shooting, but continued to work), and ammunition - the ability to reliably hit any targets.

Better no pants than no tanks

And now back to the T-62.

As I said in one of the previous materials, the wide scope of the operation required an extensive and intensive use of all types of weapons and military equipment. The enemy is numerous and approximately equal in quality to the Russian and allied troops. In this regard, the losses of military equipment during hostilities are relatively large, and the consumption of resources (in essence, the same “dying” of machines, only non-violent) is even greater. At the same time, the readiness of the Western “friends” of fascist Ukraine to directly get involved in the conflict is still unclear: it seems that it is declining, but what the hell is not joking.

As a result, the Russian army is in a position where it needs both efforts in the main theater of operations and readiness to repel the aggression of an enemy better equipped than the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

That is why it is necessary to save some of the modern technology (not all!) For "dear guests", and in Ukraine to use, among other things, junk from the reserve. This is the case not only with armored vehicles, but also with artillery systems and combat aircraft (the Air Force also strikes with the help of the Su-24, also of a fairly respectable age).

Of course, this is not the most pleasant situation. It turns out that the Soviet generals were not so wrong, demanding from the industry boundless herds of military vehicles and entire Elbrus of spare parts for them. And those who “cut” all this heritage and the Armed Forces as a whole not so long ago, in turn, were very wrong, and this is putting it mildly.

In fairness, the Russian command did not risk letting people on a completely horse-drawn iron into action until the Ukrainian stocks of military equipment and anti-tank weapons were seriously thinned out. According to the latest reports, Ukrainian artillery is no longer feeling the best, and imported anti-tank missiles are running out and almost no longer come across as trophies - which means that the crews of the "sixty-two" will be able to operate with acceptable risk.

But the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine now absolutely does not care about the lives of their tankers. However, it looks like it wasn't. From the very beginning of the operation, as soon as the first captured T-64s appeared, it turned out that many of them went into battle with empty - that is, useless - dynamic protection boxes. With a huge PR of the "Ukrainian" BTR-3/4 armored personnel carriers (actually built on the basis of the BTR-70 hulls from the Soviet legacy) and various armored cars, several hundred quite combat-ready BMP-2s disappeared somewhere. Ukrainian propaganda is trying to avoid this topic, since it is not clear whether the cars have been sold somewhere for a long time (or quite recently), or whether they have rotted and remained “dead souls” only on paper. As a result, the main equipment of the Ukrainian motorized infantry are the old "seventies" and BMP-1, inherited from the hated communists.

Like armored vehicles on the front line, the factory facilities and repair funds of the Ukrainian tank industry continue to be methodically destroyed. There is nothing to restore the resource of even standard equipment, not to mention foreign gifts, the flow of which, moreover, begins to dry up. Everything goes to the fact that in three months the last defenders of the Kyiv regime, if any, will be driven into battle in personal cars.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    EVYN WIXH (EVYN WIXH) 8 June 2022 16: 37
    This is how the current politicians and military of Russia need to be grateful to the Soviet Union. The huge backlog that was created then still ensures the defense capability (and not only) of this country.
  2. aslanxnumx Offline aslanxnumx
    aslanxnumx (Aslan) 8 June 2022 20: 58
    Su 24 will still serve, sorry no MiG 27 and Su 17
  3. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 8 June 2022 22: 37
    Wah! reminiscent of the maxim of a child from the USSR:
    And in the US, stuntmen are not protected, unlike the USSR. really dying...
  4. 1_2 Offline 1_2
    1_2 (Ducks are flying) 9 June 2022 00: 16
    all tanks of the Russian Federation (and NATO) are easily hit by anti-tank missiles from above. moreover, it detonates the ammo and tears off the tower, infantry fighting vehicles of armored personnel carriers without any dynamic protection at all, count from cardboard against anti-tank systems.
    the loss could have been avoided if KAZ Arena was installed. but it also needs to be modernized in order to protect the upper hemisphere, none of this was done before the NMD ... it is partly saved by the fact that air defense officers shoot down bayraktars and UAV gunners like nuts, preventing them from chopping nut tanks like in Karabakh, as well as powerful art training before an offensive that suppresses ATGM operators, and where there is none, there "how the card will fall" to the boys. turntables also turned out to be helpless against anti-aircraft missiles (laser guidance), it is necessary to develop a KAZ for a helicopter in order to shoot down incoming missiles, for example, with a cloud of shot
  5. Pavel57 Offline Pavel57
    Pavel57 (Paul) 9 June 2022 03: 32
    So you can walk to PT-76.
    1. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 9 June 2022 08: 45
      And they will come. Blitzkrieg failed, a war of attrition began - plundered Russia, against the whole world. There is nothing to think about - who will outweigh whom.
    2. whitebeard Offline whitebeard
      whitebeard 9 June 2022 13: 40
      From the PT-76, make a howitzer self-propelled gun with additional armor from fragments - and you can also put it into action;)
  6. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 9 June 2022 12: 45
    - Once upon a time, a very long time ago - I personally wrote that I consider it a big mistake to put smooth-bore guns on tanks - and put only rifled guns on tanks!
    - That's how it would be now from these rifled guns - our Russian tanks would click very accurately and from a great distance, all these Natsik tanks (and imported ones, if they were delivered to Ukraine)! And a tank from a rifled gun can very accurately hit any target at a great distance! - And now - they are firing from these smooth-bore guns - into the white light like a pretty penny (and the ability to shoot shells with plumage from smooth-bore guns does little)! - Whatever one may say - but rifled guns shoot much more accurately - and even in tank duels, rifled guns have a big advantage!
    1. Alexey Proshchalykin (Alexey Proshchalykin) 9 June 2022 19: 47
      BPS from a rifled gun will not penetrate the armor of a modern tank, the projectile speed is about 1300 m / s, versus 1800 m / s for a smooth-bore gun, plus gun wear at such gun energies, for rifled guns it’s hardly more than 200 shots, with such a rapid fire of the barrel it is unlikely that the accuracy of a rifled gun will exceed a smoothbore. Well, in itself, the accuracy of modern smooth-bore guns is quite high, together with the calculator it ensures hitting a tank from 3 km. It was not for nothing that even in the first Chechen one, they said that the best sniper rifle is the T-72.
      1. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
        gorenina91 (Irina) 9 June 2022 20: 15
        plus the wear and tear of the gun at such energies of the gun, the rifled ones hardly have more than 200 shots, with such a rapid fire of the barrel, the accuracy of the rifled gun is unlikely to exceed the smoothbore.

        - From Maryinka and Avdeevka they fire every day without ceasing !!! - There, all the trunks should already be "burned" - but something will not burn them in any way !!!
        - It is unlikely that artillery systems are changed there so often - you just can’t get enough - but they fire every day - and even at what a huge distance! - Smooth-bore artillery cannot shoot at such a distance, and even at a long distance, smooth-bore artillery has a sharp drop in accuracy! - so that the Nazis from Marinka and Avdiivka are firing from rifled artillery without ceasing !!!
  7. zuuukoo Offline zuuukoo
    zuuukoo (Sergei) 9 June 2022 12: 49
    How I like these passages about "acceptable risk" and "economic inexpediency of using modern technology." It remains to be hoped that our Ministry of Defense will still recruit a separate regiment from such experts, issue economically viable PPSh and kirzachs, put them on economically viable T34s and send them somewhere to the thread where it comes to them that "acceptable losses" are not an abstract wording, but wounded or killed PEOPLE.

    And then such an "expert" sits on a cozy sofa and talks about the "acceptability" of losses. Evil is not enough for these well-fed faces that used to shit in the ears about ultra-modern armats, which everyone is afraid of, and now they explain that modern technology is not needed.
  8. whitebeard Offline whitebeard
    whitebeard 9 June 2022 13: 39
    By and large, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers should not transport motorized riflemen at all, they are too weak for this. Of these, you can make howitzer self-propelled guns and all sorts of mobile mortars (armored personnel carriers are good) - and then with additional armor from fragments, as indicated in the article. For the infantry, heavy tank-based infantry fighting vehicles are needed - at least for assault squads. In the 2nd line you need at least something medium-armored, Bradley level, i.e. Kurgan, which ours cannot launch into the series
  9. wasp Offline wasp
    wasp 9 June 2022 16: 44
    RDG of Ukraine is already using civilian vehicles.
  10. zenion Offline zenion
    zenion (zinovy) 9 June 2022 22: 33
    In the Ivano-Frankivsk region, the plants and factories were so stripped, that at least where. The same thing happened in Bukovina, Chernivtsi region. The gentlemen do not like to work, the gentlemen love panuvats and spoilers. Everything went into scrap metal, and scrap metal abroad.
  11. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 10 June 2022 09: 20
    The best forces are concentrated in the main direction, because old but still formidable tanks can be used in secondary sectors or in the second line of attack and defense, as well as in operations to "clean up" the rear areas.
  12. Ivanushka-555 Offline Ivanushka-555
    Ivanushka-555 (Ivan) 11 June 2022 04: 01
    We win thanks to tanks?! Of course not. Thanks to high-precision weapons, air defense and aviation! I consider this question closed.
  13. Pavel57 Offline Pavel57
    Pavel57 (Paul) 11 June 2022 09: 55
    Quote: Pavel57
    So you can walk to PT-76.

    Put a tower from the BMP-3 or from Nona.
  14. dunce123 Offline dunce123
    dunce123 (Charlie) 11 June 2022 10: 33
    you tell this to the gray-haired parents of those boys who were burned along with the "tin cans" by the boys with their "useless" Javelins and Stugnas! It's easy to say sitting on the couch and away from all this tin!