T-72 have a ground pressure footprint between 11,8 to 13 psi (0.90 kg/cm²) depending of variant and M1 have between 13.1 PSI to 13.8 PSI. It's not that much different.That seems like a mistake. By the time the tanks arrive it will be spring in Ukraine, and Western tanks are in general much heavier than their Eastern counterparts. If you thought that T-72 getting mired in mud is bad I shudder to think what will happen to a 60 ton tank.
Sure we can. Vast majority of Russian helicopter footage is them shooting unguided rockets during the day. The only time I've seen them undertake strike missions is at night.That we cannot assume they operate at night or day. Even Russian transport choppers have rockets attached to it.
They dont need to show every weopon attached to chopper. This Ka-52M will give them ability of modular missiles like Kh-38MLE or that new cruise missile of extended range.
and there are many more reasons than just "lack of missiles" Like why Russians does not publish every launch of Orlan.
Maybe but.. SEAD is hard when your target is doing EMCON. Soviet SAM's have been designed with that in mind and with proper training as in 1999's demonstrated by Serbians.. Very hard to kill even when you practically have unopposed ISTAR. Add phased array.. like one in S-300P's you only detect it when you are the one got illuminated.
The T-72B3 has been iteratively upgraded with a better engine and better gun since it's been first introduced. These are fairly high-ticket upgrades, as opposed to Kontakt-V layout which is really just a matter of welding a proper steel frame so that you can insert Kontakt-V blocks in a uniform way. The way you see in B2 Rogatka variant or the T-80U.
Hence the mostly. But it was mostly for the first tanks; later batches are T-90A'sI don't think this is true. I've read from Russian primary source before that T-90M deliveries before the war, were a mixture of upgraded T-90As and brand new T-90Ms.
Do they have the tooling and the sourcing chain?.They have enough workers to maintain a slow production rate, but to ramp up, you must train more.
T-72 have a ground pressure footprint between 11,8 to 13 psi (0.90 kg/cm²) depending of variant and M1 have between 13.1 PSI to 13.8 PSI. It's not that much different.
The US's main objective in the war is to attrite the Russian military by trading favorably. That's why they are delivering relatively cheap, old NATO and Soviet equipment, while with holding the more expensive, harder to replace pieces.NATO have throughout the conflict just given equipment reflexively, and usually in doses that are maintenance only.
Ukraine is running critically low in tanks, so they will get some tanks, enough so US can keep the war going for a while longer. If Abrams might lose in reputation, this was probably a major concern for the US MIC, but the likely option is that the government assuaged their fears by guaranteeing that negative reports will be swiftly censored, as has been done with the performance of western tanks in the Syria conflict.
America is not going for a win, you can see that based on the sporadic, old and lackluster stuff Ukraine gets. What US wants is to drag the conflict out long enough so that they can say at the end of the day "well, we tried our best, we gave it our best, the Ukrainians were cowards and incompetent".
US has more important claims than trying to fight Russian claims to the last Russian by fully involving on Ukraine, they have their own territorial ambitions where they're gonna need 100% of their forces. US is paying a "we are doing something" old equipment tax to Ukraine.
3rd. Russian MoD has a propensity to advertise as much footage as they can for export and propaganda purposes. Wide-scale usage of LMUR would've likely been advertised similarly to the Lancet.
This is why I believe that the LMUR is in relatively low quantities.
These are platforms that Russians should be very familiar with. Their inability to sanitize at least portions of the airspace is indicative of the level of sophistication that the VKS is capable of. The VKS needs to at least attempt small-scale SEAD operations, though to be fair, they very well could have and we're just not seeing it.
That's why i think the real purpose is for NATO to study how Russia uses its drones and artillery to take out tanks and explore ways to potentially disrupt them, as well as attrition the Russians before any NATO action which is becoming more and more likely.That seems like a mistake. By the time the tanks arrive it will be spring in Ukraine, and Western tanks are in general much heavier than their Eastern counterparts. If you thought that T-72 getting mired in mud is bad I shudder to think what will happen to a 60 ton tank.
I do hope you know that they have metal pads for ice.The last upgrade after the T-72B3 Obr 1989 that was actually introduced into service was the T-72B3M.
The Rogatka included not just the gun from the T-90A, but also a muzzle reference sensor, GLONASS navigation system. The engine upgrade wasn't included in the early T-72B3M but was included in the T-72B2.
You are also missing an important part: timing. The Rogatka project happened in 2006-2007 and back then Russia still hadn't recovered from 90's crisis; most of the T-72B3M, T-90M and T-80BVM project started around 2011.
Hence the mostly. But it was mostly for the first tanks; later batches are T-90A's
Do they have the tooling and the sourcing chain?.
A few weeks ago the Germans were whinning they couldn't get cotton for artillery from China fast enough.
M1's seem to have less grip, partially thanks to their rubber pads, its seems. There is a reason Russians have never been big fans of them, even if its screws up their streets during parades.
Also, keep coping, Janiz.
Looking at what those from the AFU on the front say right now, it certainly doesn't seem like they're trading anywhere near favorably.The US's main objective in the war is to attrite the Russian military by trading favorably. That's why they are delivering relatively cheap, old NATO and Soviet equipment, while with holding the more expensive, harder to replace pieces.
If the US wanted an overwhelming technological advantage for Ukraine, they'd have offered top of the line equipment from day one - Abrams tanks, Patriot missiles, F-16s/F-35s, Predator/Reaper drones, A-10s, etc.
They certainly had enough time to train the Ukrainians on it, seeing as the US has been involved in the region since 2014.
But they did not.
Even after the Russian attack became inevitable, the US did not choose to send its best to Ukraine. Militarily, this indicates a certain level of discomfort at the prospects of losing these military assets or at least the surprise factor behind them (since it is safe to say that much of Ukraine is compromised). But if the US wanted victory quickly and at all costs, why wouldn't it go for maximum pressure? The most sensible answer is that the US's strategy is, ironically, to "conduct a proxy war on the cheap". That is, to maximize expense ratio by trading old Soviet/US equipment for "cheap wins" against newer Russian equipment.
I'll be honest and I don't really know why "timing" would be a significant factor here. The T-72B3 was developed and put into production under a year. If I remember correctly, the first "models" were put together for the Army expo 2010 or 2011, and the tank entered service in 2012.The last upgrade after the T-72B3 Obr 1989 that was actually introduced into service was the T-72B3M.
The Rogatka included not just the gun from the T-90A, but also a muzzle reference sensor, GLONASS navigation system. The engine upgrade wasn't included in the early T-72B3M but was included in the T-72B2.
You are also missing an important part: timing. The Rogatka project happened in 2006-2007 and back then Russia still hadn't recovered from 90's crisis; most of the T-72B3M, T-90M and T-80BVM project started around 2011.
How many is much tho ?
Well unfortunately it is hard to make any form of conclusion without hard numbers.
US and NATO have been familiar with 2K12 Kub and S-125 for so long even British have opportunity to test it.. yet in 1999.. Serbia apparently still retain most of their 2K12 batteries despite NATO SEAD attempt.
NATO achieved air superiority over Serbian airspace. They destroyed their intended targets. Russia would've beyond happy if they could achieve such results, but they can't. Not even close.
There's probably been somewhere around 100 clips of the Lancet loitering munition since it's been mass adopted into RuAF.
I could be wrong of course, I've been wrong lots of times over the course of this war.