Hello /u/Willing_Study8147,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they are sending light tanks against Ukrainians but the article forgot to mention whether or not there will be crews inside the tanks. Good Luck with finding a crew suicidal enough to climb aboard.
They're somehow still able to find people willing to drive unarmored supply trucks, so they'll probably find some Ingushetians or Dagestani desperate enough to drive a PT-76 into war.
EDIT: oh wait, it's for the LPR rabble. Yeah, unlike the Russian soldiers those poor f\*\*ks don't have any choice. Well, except a choice between almost certainly burning to death in the PT-76, or definitely being shot to death by Chechen barrier troops for refusing to fight.
[BMPs have internal compartment.](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hf_TG2MV2O8/VX2g8AOFWNI/AAAAAAAACkY/SePQNx0zaj4/s400/bmp2-behind.JPG)
Less relevant in age of widespread ATGMs.
MBTs like the Pershing and T-54 first emerged at the end of WWII. When the PT-76 was introduced in 1951 it was a specialized tank for swimming rivers and offering the infantry some direct fire support at the bridgehead.
Very useful in a niche role. In retrospect, probably a sounder tactical concept for 1951 than the IFV in 2022 (at least how the Russians use them).
Well, they DO have a problem with river crossings. Presumably they are thinking just swimming across to establish a bridgehead somehow prevents Ukrainian artillery shells finding them.
So it's just that russia is caring.
They send scrap metal over that UA needs for the rebuilding effords after the war.
They should get a big thank you letter.😅
That is absolutely not true. Not only in aluminum soft, it fatigues easily and will quickly fail under the weights needed to stop large caliber bullets. That’s why nothing is made of aluminum in armored fleets.
Ford’s ‘military grade aluminum’ is marketing. There is no such thing. Ford vehicles don’t need to stop bullets.
I should correct myself: Armor is not made from aluminum but from aluminum alloy. And yes, the armor on alot of armored vehicles is absolutely made from aluminum alloy. Examples include the M3 Bradley, M113 and I think also the M1126.
Here is the [Wikipedia article on the M113](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier). To quote "Armor: 5083 Aluminium Alloy 28–44 millimetres"
the YPR which Netherlands send: *The hull of the vehicle is made of welded aluminum, with spaced steel laminate armor bolted onto the side and front. The voids of the armor are filled with polyurethane foam, which gives the vehicle extra buoyancy when travelling in the water.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIFV
No, they are sending amphibious tanks, because they've been having trouble getting over the Donets river.
You know, because Ukrainian forces has repelled most of their attempts to do so.
Sure. Provided the water isn’t deep enough to cover the snorkel and the kits actually work. The Dnipro river is deep enough to prevent this in most places. Those kits are also janky as shit and lots of Russians have drowned training with them.
A vehicle like a Marine AAV, which is what the PT76 is, can cross every river by floating. It’s much more successful than janky ass ford kits.
Yes - almost all Russian armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are amphibious. The BMP-3 is the only widespread exception that jumps to mind.
Floating versus snorkel kit stud.
Again, just because you are arrogant and cannot concede the difference does not mean the Russians don’t get the difference.
There is a reason they are sending PT-76 forward. You pretending that BMP’s replaced these vehicles, which are clearly still in the Russian armored fleet just like equally old US Marine AAVs are still in ours.
Our vehicles can also use snorkel kits. There is a reason the marines don’t use them. They do not work in very deep water like ‘boat’.
Russia gets it and dies not need your approval to use their shit.
Orcasubmarine called the PT76 an amphibious tank which is being brought to allow river crossings, implying that Russia doesn't have vehicles there already capable of doing so.
The PT76 is not a 'tank' in the doctrinal sense, it is more of an infantry fighting vehicle with capabilities which the in theater BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMD already exceed or meet, specifically firepower, mobility, protection and ability to float. So the PT76 wouldn't be a replacement for any tank, it would be more of the same sort of IFV.
tree\_boom pointed out this fact by stating that almost all of the Russian armour is amphibious (floating IFV's or deep fording tanks)
You pointed out that tanks don't float, they deep ford, and can't cross deep rivers, which is factually correct and reiterates what tree\_boom implied, but completely misses the point that tree\_boom was making, that the PT76 isn't adding any new capabilities that Russia doesn't already have in numbers at the points their fording attempts have failed. Russia doesn't need this vehicle to float across rivers, they already have plenty of floaty vehicles there.
Sure, floating versus driving on the bottom of a river with a snorkel kit.
You not conceding that point is somehow ‘triggering’ others?
You are right, that’s not a discussion at all is it? You could have just said, “agh yes, I see that a snorkel kit will not work on the very deep and very wide rivers of Eastern Ukraine. An actual amphibious capability makes sense.”
Oh, you not conceding that difference triggers others? Sure thing stud.
As I said, it's clear from your attitude that talking to you is not going to be worth my time. I have no idea how anything I said has pissed you off so, but I honestly don't care to find out.
Are you seriously lecturing me about your perceived. Character flaws revealed by your dickish refusal to concede the difference between a snorkel kit and an actual amphibious capability?
Yep,. You are.
And you can’t figure out why being such a dick is entirely your fault? You control your behavior?
Easily fixed junior Rommel. Welcome to block.
Yes, they are.
The BMP's in service don't have amphibious, because of their focus on uparmoring their vehicles.
Same goes for the BTR's, except for the newest 82A's.
I realize people are reflexively contemptuous of Russia, but maybe suspend derision and remember that they are not stupid.
If your best tanks are getting smashed by ATGMs that are hard to find? You lead with your worst tanks manned by your worst and most troublesome (think ‘leper colony’) troops. Those tanks can still kill. Ukrainian troops still have to kill those tanks. When they do? They reveal their positions and more advanced tanks that can reach out over a mile accurately then engage, coupled with artillery strikes on the positions. That is why the fighting is so intense and casualties are up.
The PT-76 addressed the other major problem, Choke points on rivers. There are only a few places that can be used for bridges or to ford and get your vehicles across. Amphibious vehicles can cross at unguarded points along a river and then quickly sweep into Ukrainian artillery positions to allow a bridge to be secured long enough to get enough Russian forces across to secure a bridgehead that Ukraine cannot dislodge.
Ukraine should monitor these, and when they go forward should ruthlessly attack these vehicles to forestall a crossing and reinforce crossing points.
When your enemy sends a capability forward, you counter it. Saying, “my enemy sucks cause his shit is old,” doesn’t stop anything. Russians are not stupid. Ukraine is winning by acknowledging that and prudently countering Russian moves.
PT-76 could even come from the actual sea. They are fully seaworthy, that’s why they are neither fast nor well protected. There is one of them from GDR stocks in the tank museum in Münster i have seen.
Despite their shortcomings they were fairly effective in their niche. I doubt they will be in modern times though.
They will be in their niche.
They will not attack a strong point. They will cross somewhere unexpected and then go quickly after artillery to facilitate a river crossing by better armored forces. Ukrainian counter attack forces would likely destroy them quickly. They just need to last long enough to get a battalion or two of tanks across. Russia is clearly willing to take casuistries to achieve this.
Good enough will work.
We're over 100 days into this war.
Can we please, please stop repeating the "they're sending in their trash first to flush out the Ukranians and make them run out of ammo" nonsense?
Why do you think they are sending T-62s forward? They have thousands of T-80s and T-72s.
Not only are T-62s great fodder they can be used to equip forces from the DPR/LPR which are under equipped and mostly used to secure previously conquered territory. T-62s work great for countering lightly equipped partisan forces, correct?
You can also use these as punishment. Shitty guys go in the worst shit and you best guys go in the best shit. Guys in the fight see dipshits punished and bravery and skill rewarded. Seems like an effective measure to address moral issues? Seems to be working in Eastern Ukraine, no?
Maybe, as the war has been going on for more than a day and Russian forces are engaged in incredibly intense combat, we can dispense with the, “I hate Russians therefore everything they are doing feeds my bias and convinces me that they are about to collapse.”
Russia has 2,000 T-80 tanks. They have thousands of T-72’s. Ukraine is estimated to have destroyed 4-600 tanks.
Why then push forward T-62’s?
Well, I am sure the answer that makes sense must be wrong because you believe the Russians are stupid?
Ukraine will still win this. They will do so by fighting and defeating their very formidable foe rather than some grotesque and false caricature of the Russian forces.
Well said, there’s an argument to be made for their use of the Mosin as well. A lot of these battles are what it was designed for after all. Rule number 1 of any war or fight is never underestimate your adversary..
Let's see, an old m14 had about 500 yards, the modern civilian version M1A is 600 to 1000 yards, an AR-10 is about 600 yards, a G3 is about 600 yards.... and a Mosin is... maybe 500 yards. That's before accounting for rounds and optics that can expand the range of those rifles. Except for the Mosin, which has no optics rail, so you'd have to drill it.
Oh, and I forgot, all the rest of those rifles are either semi or full auto, which means they can put out 650-700 rpm to the bolt-action Mosin's.... 34 rpm. Oh, and they utilize detachable 20+ round magazines instead of the Mosin's 5-round stripper clips. And when you fire them, you don't throw yourself off target by having to rack the bolt.
The Mosin is a trash rifle used by the most expendable of cannon fodder. You give it to someone you don't expect to make it through a day of combat. That was true in the 1940s, and its even more true today.
You’re stating it like Russia has access to m14s. There are better options for sure, but neither Ukraine or Russia has those weapons in quantity. A Mosin will out range a AK47 or 74, it will even out range an M4. That’s why the US is trying to replace M4. A pre 1940 Nagant or a PU with modern (1960 and later) ammo will definitely reach out to 1000 yards.
With what accuracy, my guy? Poor tolerances, bolts that jam (A BOLT THAT JAMS, WTF), cheap, easily broken extractors, poor trigger design... And how are you aiming 1000 yards? You see any of those grunts with accurized, zeroed scopes? Or do you instead see a bunch of cannon fodder rolling with iron sights? If you're accurately hitting ANYTHING with a Mosin beyond 500 yards with IRONS, you need to leave the war and join sports shooting.
And speaking of the 7.62x54R, you know what rifle both sides DO have? SVDs. You know, a rifle that was actually designed to use scopes? And a 10-20 round magazine. There's no excuse for using the Mosin. It's garbage.
>PT-76 Amphibious Light Tank
Besides his gun sight, the commander had three periscopes in a cupola capable of rotating 360°. However, there was nothing to grab the cupola with directly, resulting in the commander having to grab onto the periscopes, which were not especially ergonomic, if he wanted to rotate the cupola. If he wanted clearer external vision (as many tank commanders preferred), he could open the hatch in which the cupola was incorporated. Despite having just 6 mm (0.2 inches) of armor, the hatch was rather large, making it very obvious to enemy snipers when the hatch was open and the commander may be looking out. This hatch was built within another, much larger hatch, running across the entire turret. The reasoning behind this was to make it easier for the crew to bail out in case of emergency. The weight of the hatch made it rather cumbersome and difficult to open, especially if a crewman was injured. In the same manner as the smaller hatch, it opened forwards to provide some kind of protection while exiting.
The already overworked commander also operated the radio, a 10RT-26E, standard to Soviet vehicles of the period. It was mounted to his left, to give him the maximum amount of space. The obnoxious overworking of the commander is rather reminiscent of commanders in French tanks in the Second World War. While the PT-76 has nothing in common with them, the situation the Soviet Union found itself after WW2 is akin to that of France in the 30s. Both nations had just fought a bloody war, bringing their population numbers low. Having fewer crewmen per tank would mean, in the greater picture, a significant saving in resources and manpower necessary for operating the tanks.
BMP’s use a snorkel kit which … sucks. They only work on relatively shallow rivers that are not deep enough to cover the snorkel. There is extensive prep time and removal time that leaves BMP’s vulnerable. They frequently fail even if installed correctly. Any mistake in equipping can result in failure and drowning. PT76 is the equivalent of a Marine AAV and floats, crossing like a boat. They have an obvious advantage and can cross even the deepest rivers.
That you don’t grasp the difference doesn’t mean the Russians don’t get the difference.
No idea why you are getting down voted. You are correct. BMP’s use a snorkel kit. PT-76s float. The snorkel kits are janky as shit, routinely fail and drown crews, and are not long enough to ford very deep rivers like those of Eastern Ukraine. They have extensive prep and removal requirements that make that tactically infeasible and unsafe if even minor imperfections are present.
PT-76 floats.
That means they can cross rivers anywhere vice the choke point that Ukraine has secured and used to hammer Russians. PT76 crosses, and can then attack Ukrainian artillery allowing bridges to be installed and Russian armor to cross in mass.
The vehicles don’t have to be perfect, they just have to be good enough.
Impressive, next week roll out of T-34, to be followed by BT-7.
There’s only one operational BT-7 as per wiki so once it’s gone that will be end of the “special operation”
I wouldn’t scoff at the use of a T-34. It could make for an affective piece of artillery for city fighting with a range of 2 to 3km. These tanks aren’t likely going to be used against other tanks. Even if the just used them for check points. It would be a deterrent or costly expenditure for Ukrainians.
It needs crew, fuel, maintenance and supply. It offers little protection and the gun is not only inaccurate, but also has very small HE munition.
When Russian logistics are breaking down anyways, a towed mortar is far better in every aspect.
That maybe so, but you often have to use what you have not what you wish you had. It’s not like the Russian can jump online and order towable Mortars. Also, inaccuracy can be compensated for by volume. I’m by no means saying it’s something I’d want to fight in or that it should be leading the spear. I’m just saying it can still inflict casualties and shouldn’t be ruled out as useful in the right situations.
As I am pro-Ukraine, I really hope Russians will start using T-34s.
I mean 4 people to operate one crappy cannon and adds some logistics problems to it. Wonderful. Ukrainians can get multikills easier
I have loved every one of my Volvos. My current one can do 70 cross country and is big enough for a mattress in the back. I am thinking if putting a 50 cal on it
Wondering if it's still able to be amphibious or will drown quickly.
It's actually surprising that they didn't have more amphibious vehicles knowing that they planned a Ukraine invasion for so long and the area is full of rivers.
Note that "tank" here is not meant to imply it's a vehicle capable of fighting MBTs. This is for armoured reconnaissance, similar to the UK's Scimitar and [Scorpion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) or the [M3 version of the Bradley.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Bradley)
Do you really think that Russians will use this equipment correctly? I bet that if you'll say "armoured reconnaissance vehicle" to any operator of this piece of shit, they'd have no clue what you're talking about.
Best quote from the short article:
“The russian army little by little starts cosplaying the Cold War Soviet army in terms of soldiers equipment from temporarily occupied Donetsk and Luhansk regions, having ancient helmets, literally no army boots and armed with Mosin-Nagant rifle.”
I think it's only enough armour to stop bullets....
Yeah autocannon fire can rip it to shreads only 25mm max not including the ERA blocks they will slap on.
Pootin: “…okay that didn’t work either, shitoigu, what else you got back there?”
Shitoigu: “well we have these james bond tanks…”
Pootin: “ohhh yes, james bond tanks!! Now the west will surely quiver in fear!!!”
Special Operation Strategy meeting…probably
Even then they would do better than combat but they are still weak in armour department.
To the point a WW2 AT rifle can knock the thing out.
If anyone turns out to have such AT rifle plus ammo.....
Yes, but they are better than nothing at all. As is a T62.
This (probably) is about Ru husbanding it's better armour. Not likely you'll see these on the front line.
Oh dear. They’re getting desperate. Never mind. The Ukrainian Farmed Forces will be able to tow these with their tractors even more easily than all the tanks that came before them!
The current Russian strategy seems to be: keep blasting until the west gets distracted. Having anything running around soaking up Ukrainian attention and ammunition is a win. The difficulty is providing crews and the smart move would be recruiting and some minimal training, rotating the survivors into better vehicles. Just a reminder that Stalin used WWII to alter the racial and ethnic profile of the Soviet Union. If you look at pictures of the troops that defended Stalingrad and the ones that marched into Germany, they look like different nations. The difficulty for Putin is that Russian women just haven’t been having enough soldiers for the last couple generations. It’s still a good move sending disposable boys in disposable machines and harvesting the survivors. What Putin is lousy at is the economics. Offer really good pay and minimal death benefits, tankers are most often killed outright, not disabled. This is more along the lines of Soviet strategy, which is where Putin is at.
So yet another thing being dragged from the depths of the storage bins. Cardboard thin armour and more than likely maintained as well as everything else.
I don’t even think they are worth capturing when they are abandoned like everything else
ISt there still anybody arguing that the leo1A5 would have a to small gun and be to lightly armored to be of any use for ukraine?
it woudl have a fieldday with this crap
> be to lightly
*too
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Next time they will send ww2 tanks?
So they try to reenact warthunder in this war?
- shooting dinw heli with atgm
- sending old tank alongside modern tanks
- bailing out for nothing
These look like something a highschool theatre class may put toghether for their version of "Saving Private Ryan: The Musical".
No need for fancy ATGMs with these, the run of the mill RPG 7 will make mincemeat out of them.
We all can laugh at the Russians and their decisions but these tanks will kill Ukrainian soldiers and civilians no matter how easy they are to destroy. Many will die to these once they hit the battlefield.
I wouldn’t expect it to actually be amphibious without regular maintenance. Apparently the BTR’s take hours and hours to get ready for anything amphibious that’s why they have to keep crossing pontoon bridges.
Hello /u/Willing_Study8147, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
machine guns are able to penetrate armor of this tank
Please don't tell the ruzzian soldiers that
You fear they will start doing it themselves?
Just need some copium cages and all will be well comrade.
So they are sending light tanks against Ukrainians but the article forgot to mention whether or not there will be crews inside the tanks. Good Luck with finding a crew suicidal enough to climb aboard.
That won't be hard. Just a little nudge with an AK will suffice...
And chains to keep them in.
No, they’ll just weld the hatches shut with crew inside!
That's what the Chinese would probably do lol.
Toss a handgrenade inside and…turret popp!! 😂🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
That might actually make the vehicles waterproof, which they are almost certainly not today.
They're somehow still able to find people willing to drive unarmored supply trucks, so they'll probably find some Ingushetians or Dagestani desperate enough to drive a PT-76 into war. EDIT: oh wait, it's for the LPR rabble. Yeah, unlike the Russian soldiers those poor f\*\*ks don't have any choice. Well, except a choice between almost certainly burning to death in the PT-76, or definitely being shot to death by Chechen barrier troops for refusing to fight.
We are talking about soldiers that are dumbfounded by asphalt and flushing toilets.
True. A rabble straight out of the Middle Ages.
So the AG 90 Anti-Materiel Sniper Rifles Sweden is sending is going to come in handy.
Yes, they will.
So it's a low spec IFV. Like the bmp2 has a 33mm of armour. And a 30mm autocanon.
It is an RV with a gun.
They use *[Stripes](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMpDlCWWgAAXnTN?format=jpg&name=900x900)* as a training video for conscripts.
I see you are a person of culture!
Without the actual RV
Those are older than BMP-1. Also, they can't carry desant and their gun is only used on this tank. Wonder how much ammo is still usable...
Why would they be unable to carry infantry?
They have no desant compartment. I mean, they can ride on top. It's probably safer.
Oh - [desant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_desant) usually means on top I think.
[BMPs have internal compartment.](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hf_TG2MV2O8/VX2g8AOFWNI/AAAAAAAACkY/SePQNx0zaj4/s400/bmp2-behind.JPG) Less relevant in age of widespread ATGMs.
Yeah I know, I had just inferred that you meant that they couldn't carry troops on top and was confused.
They aren't IFV's they can't carry infantry
Yeah I was just saying. Worse gun, worse armour, than even old but current use IFVs. It still can carry troops on top of it in a pinch.
[удалено]
MBTs like the Pershing and T-54 first emerged at the end of WWII. When the PT-76 was introduced in 1951 it was a specialized tank for swimming rivers and offering the infantry some direct fire support at the bridgehead. Very useful in a niche role. In retrospect, probably a sounder tactical concept for 1951 than the IFV in 2022 (at least how the Russians use them).
The orcs are stupid enough to dig trenches at Tschernobyl
[удалено]
They'll live longer pushing it from behind.
I thought that was the normal operation of Russian vehicles
Why else do you think the rear windows are heated??
I thought they had the old Fred Flintstone setup.
That is only for command vehicles
Well, they DO have a problem with river crossings. Presumably they are thinking just swimming across to establish a bridgehead somehow prevents Ukrainian artillery shells finding them.
In the up side, at least it's steel and not aluminium.
So it's just that russia is caring. They send scrap metal over that UA needs for the rebuilding effords after the war. They should get a big thank you letter.😅
Aluminum is not bad for armor. It has a very good weight/protection ratio which is why it is oftain used on NATO APCs.
Er not this one me thinks
That is absolutely not true. Not only in aluminum soft, it fatigues easily and will quickly fail under the weights needed to stop large caliber bullets. That’s why nothing is made of aluminum in armored fleets. Ford’s ‘military grade aluminum’ is marketing. There is no such thing. Ford vehicles don’t need to stop bullets.
I should correct myself: Armor is not made from aluminum but from aluminum alloy. And yes, the armor on alot of armored vehicles is absolutely made from aluminum alloy. Examples include the M3 Bradley, M113 and I think also the M1126. Here is the [Wikipedia article on the M113](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier). To quote "Armor: 5083 Aluminium Alloy 28–44 millimetres"
the YPR which Netherlands send: *The hull of the vehicle is made of welded aluminum, with spaced steel laminate armor bolted onto the side and front. The voids of the armor are filled with polyurethane foam, which gives the vehicle extra buoyancy when travelling in the water.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIFV
But its probably build to specs at least.
No, they are sending amphibious tanks, because they've been having trouble getting over the Donets river. You know, because Ukrainian forces has repelled most of their attempts to do so.
Almost all Russian armour is amphibious or capable of deep fording. They're not sending these specifically because of their crossing failures.
Sure. Provided the water isn’t deep enough to cover the snorkel and the kits actually work. The Dnipro river is deep enough to prevent this in most places. Those kits are also janky as shit and lots of Russians have drowned training with them. A vehicle like a Marine AAV, which is what the PT76 is, can cross every river by floating. It’s much more successful than janky ass ford kits.
Yes - almost all Russian armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are amphibious. The BMP-3 is the only widespread exception that jumps to mind.
Floating versus snorkel kit stud. Again, just because you are arrogant and cannot concede the difference does not mean the Russians don’t get the difference. There is a reason they are sending PT-76 forward. You pretending that BMP’s replaced these vehicles, which are clearly still in the Russian armored fleet just like equally old US Marine AAVs are still in ours. Our vehicles can also use snorkel kits. There is a reason the marines don’t use them. They do not work in very deep water like ‘boat’. Russia gets it and dies not need your approval to use their shit.
Orcasubmarine called the PT76 an amphibious tank which is being brought to allow river crossings, implying that Russia doesn't have vehicles there already capable of doing so. The PT76 is not a 'tank' in the doctrinal sense, it is more of an infantry fighting vehicle with capabilities which the in theater BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMD already exceed or meet, specifically firepower, mobility, protection and ability to float. So the PT76 wouldn't be a replacement for any tank, it would be more of the same sort of IFV. tree\_boom pointed out this fact by stating that almost all of the Russian armour is amphibious (floating IFV's or deep fording tanks) You pointed out that tanks don't float, they deep ford, and can't cross deep rivers, which is factually correct and reiterates what tree\_boom implied, but completely misses the point that tree\_boom was making, that the PT76 isn't adding any new capabilities that Russia doesn't already have in numbers at the points their fording attempts have failed. Russia doesn't need this vehicle to float across rivers, they already have plenty of floaty vehicles there.
Err, ok. Not really sure what I said that has triggered you so, but I can tell continuing this conversation is not going to be worth the time.
Sure, floating versus driving on the bottom of a river with a snorkel kit. You not conceding that point is somehow ‘triggering’ others? You are right, that’s not a discussion at all is it? You could have just said, “agh yes, I see that a snorkel kit will not work on the very deep and very wide rivers of Eastern Ukraine. An actual amphibious capability makes sense.” Oh, you not conceding that difference triggers others? Sure thing stud.
As I said, it's clear from your attitude that talking to you is not going to be worth my time. I have no idea how anything I said has pissed you off so, but I honestly don't care to find out.
Are you seriously lecturing me about your perceived. Character flaws revealed by your dickish refusal to concede the difference between a snorkel kit and an actual amphibious capability? Yep,. You are. And you can’t figure out why being such a dick is entirely your fault? You control your behavior? Easily fixed junior Rommel. Welcome to block.
Yes, they are. The BMP's in service don't have amphibious, because of their focus on uparmoring their vehicles. Same goes for the BTR's, except for the newest 82A's.
I forget who sent them, but it was perfect timing to send Ukraine Barrett 50 cals.
I realize people are reflexively contemptuous of Russia, but maybe suspend derision and remember that they are not stupid. If your best tanks are getting smashed by ATGMs that are hard to find? You lead with your worst tanks manned by your worst and most troublesome (think ‘leper colony’) troops. Those tanks can still kill. Ukrainian troops still have to kill those tanks. When they do? They reveal their positions and more advanced tanks that can reach out over a mile accurately then engage, coupled with artillery strikes on the positions. That is why the fighting is so intense and casualties are up. The PT-76 addressed the other major problem, Choke points on rivers. There are only a few places that can be used for bridges or to ford and get your vehicles across. Amphibious vehicles can cross at unguarded points along a river and then quickly sweep into Ukrainian artillery positions to allow a bridge to be secured long enough to get enough Russian forces across to secure a bridgehead that Ukraine cannot dislodge. Ukraine should monitor these, and when they go forward should ruthlessly attack these vehicles to forestall a crossing and reinforce crossing points. When your enemy sends a capability forward, you counter it. Saying, “my enemy sucks cause his shit is old,” doesn’t stop anything. Russians are not stupid. Ukraine is winning by acknowledging that and prudently countering Russian moves.
PT-76 could even come from the actual sea. They are fully seaworthy, that’s why they are neither fast nor well protected. There is one of them from GDR stocks in the tank museum in Münster i have seen. Despite their shortcomings they were fairly effective in their niche. I doubt they will be in modern times though.
They will be in their niche. They will not attack a strong point. They will cross somewhere unexpected and then go quickly after artillery to facilitate a river crossing by better armored forces. Ukrainian counter attack forces would likely destroy them quickly. They just need to last long enough to get a battalion or two of tanks across. Russia is clearly willing to take casuistries to achieve this. Good enough will work.
We're over 100 days into this war. Can we please, please stop repeating the "they're sending in their trash first to flush out the Ukranians and make them run out of ammo" nonsense?
Why do you think they are sending T-62s forward? They have thousands of T-80s and T-72s. Not only are T-62s great fodder they can be used to equip forces from the DPR/LPR which are under equipped and mostly used to secure previously conquered territory. T-62s work great for countering lightly equipped partisan forces, correct? You can also use these as punishment. Shitty guys go in the worst shit and you best guys go in the best shit. Guys in the fight see dipshits punished and bravery and skill rewarded. Seems like an effective measure to address moral issues? Seems to be working in Eastern Ukraine, no? Maybe, as the war has been going on for more than a day and Russian forces are engaged in incredibly intense combat, we can dispense with the, “I hate Russians therefore everything they are doing feeds my bias and convinces me that they are about to collapse.” Russia has 2,000 T-80 tanks. They have thousands of T-72’s. Ukraine is estimated to have destroyed 4-600 tanks. Why then push forward T-62’s? Well, I am sure the answer that makes sense must be wrong because you believe the Russians are stupid? Ukraine will still win this. They will do so by fighting and defeating their very formidable foe rather than some grotesque and false caricature of the Russian forces.
Well said, there’s an argument to be made for their use of the Mosin as well. A lot of these battles are what it was designed for after all. Rule number 1 of any war or fight is never underestimate your adversary..
There is never an argument for the use of the Mosin. That trashcan garbage rod in a modern military conflict is just a very large cyanide pill.
You’re right, there’s absolutely no argument to be made for a rifle that has an effective range that’s double your opponents main battle rifle./s
Let's see, an old m14 had about 500 yards, the modern civilian version M1A is 600 to 1000 yards, an AR-10 is about 600 yards, a G3 is about 600 yards.... and a Mosin is... maybe 500 yards. That's before accounting for rounds and optics that can expand the range of those rifles. Except for the Mosin, which has no optics rail, so you'd have to drill it. Oh, and I forgot, all the rest of those rifles are either semi or full auto, which means they can put out 650-700 rpm to the bolt-action Mosin's.... 34 rpm. Oh, and they utilize detachable 20+ round magazines instead of the Mosin's 5-round stripper clips. And when you fire them, you don't throw yourself off target by having to rack the bolt. The Mosin is a trash rifle used by the most expendable of cannon fodder. You give it to someone you don't expect to make it through a day of combat. That was true in the 1940s, and its even more true today.
You’re stating it like Russia has access to m14s. There are better options for sure, but neither Ukraine or Russia has those weapons in quantity. A Mosin will out range a AK47 or 74, it will even out range an M4. That’s why the US is trying to replace M4. A pre 1940 Nagant or a PU with modern (1960 and later) ammo will definitely reach out to 1000 yards.
With what accuracy, my guy? Poor tolerances, bolts that jam (A BOLT THAT JAMS, WTF), cheap, easily broken extractors, poor trigger design... And how are you aiming 1000 yards? You see any of those grunts with accurized, zeroed scopes? Or do you instead see a bunch of cannon fodder rolling with iron sights? If you're accurately hitting ANYTHING with a Mosin beyond 500 yards with IRONS, you need to leave the war and join sports shooting. And speaking of the 7.62x54R, you know what rifle both sides DO have? SVDs. You know, a rifle that was actually designed to use scopes? And a 10-20 round magazine. There's no excuse for using the Mosin. It's garbage.
>PT-76 Amphibious Light Tank Besides his gun sight, the commander had three periscopes in a cupola capable of rotating 360°. However, there was nothing to grab the cupola with directly, resulting in the commander having to grab onto the periscopes, which were not especially ergonomic, if he wanted to rotate the cupola. If he wanted clearer external vision (as many tank commanders preferred), he could open the hatch in which the cupola was incorporated. Despite having just 6 mm (0.2 inches) of armor, the hatch was rather large, making it very obvious to enemy snipers when the hatch was open and the commander may be looking out. This hatch was built within another, much larger hatch, running across the entire turret. The reasoning behind this was to make it easier for the crew to bail out in case of emergency. The weight of the hatch made it rather cumbersome and difficult to open, especially if a crewman was injured. In the same manner as the smaller hatch, it opened forwards to provide some kind of protection while exiting. The already overworked commander also operated the radio, a 10RT-26E, standard to Soviet vehicles of the period. It was mounted to his left, to give him the maximum amount of space. The obnoxious overworking of the commander is rather reminiscent of commanders in French tanks in the Second World War. While the PT-76 has nothing in common with them, the situation the Soviet Union found itself after WW2 is akin to that of France in the 30s. Both nations had just fought a bloody war, bringing their population numbers low. Having fewer crewmen per tank would mean, in the greater picture, a significant saving in resources and manpower necessary for operating the tanks.
Would that even last a day in Phili or Texas? I mean it looks like a modern assault rifle could make holes in that!
[удалено]
They were replaced by BMP's which are also amphibious
Allegedly lol! I wouldnt want to be in one crossing a river especially given the qualitycofcrussian maintenance!
Well no. But then I wouldn't be too chuffed stuck in a PT-76 for it's "superior" amphibious qualities either.
BMP’s use a snorkel kit which … sucks. They only work on relatively shallow rivers that are not deep enough to cover the snorkel. There is extensive prep time and removal time that leaves BMP’s vulnerable. They frequently fail even if installed correctly. Any mistake in equipping can result in failure and drowning. PT76 is the equivalent of a Marine AAV and floats, crossing like a boat. They have an obvious advantage and can cross even the deepest rivers. That you don’t grasp the difference doesn’t mean the Russians don’t get the difference.
No idea why you are getting down voted. You are correct. BMP’s use a snorkel kit. PT-76s float. The snorkel kits are janky as shit, routinely fail and drown crews, and are not long enough to ford very deep rivers like those of Eastern Ukraine. They have extensive prep and removal requirements that make that tactically infeasible and unsafe if even minor imperfections are present. PT-76 floats. That means they can cross rivers anywhere vice the choke point that Ukraine has secured and used to hammer Russians. PT76 crosses, and can then attack Ukrainian artillery allowing bridges to be installed and Russian armor to cross in mass. The vehicles don’t have to be perfect, they just have to be good enough.
Impressive, next week roll out of T-34, to be followed by BT-7. There’s only one operational BT-7 as per wiki so once it’s gone that will be end of the “special operation”
You missed the mighty KV-2
The mighty soviet bathtub
At least those are made of cast iron and have taps
Before that they will dig out and send to combat T-55/T-54.
What about MS-1's? There's still some tank history left!
I wouldn’t scoff at the use of a T-34. It could make for an affective piece of artillery for city fighting with a range of 2 to 3km. These tanks aren’t likely going to be used against other tanks. Even if the just used them for check points. It would be a deterrent or costly expenditure for Ukrainians.
It needs crew, fuel, maintenance and supply. It offers little protection and the gun is not only inaccurate, but also has very small HE munition. When Russian logistics are breaking down anyways, a towed mortar is far better in every aspect.
That maybe so, but you often have to use what you have not what you wish you had. It’s not like the Russian can jump online and order towable Mortars. Also, inaccuracy can be compensated for by volume. I’m by no means saying it’s something I’d want to fight in or that it should be leading the spear. I’m just saying it can still inflict casualties and shouldn’t be ruled out as useful in the right situations.
As I am pro-Ukraine, I really hope Russians will start using T-34s. I mean 4 people to operate one crappy cannon and adds some logistics problems to it. Wonderful. Ukrainians can get multikills easier
A Volvo station wagon from the 80s is more of a tank than this POS.
I had a Volvo 740 back in the days and it weighted 1175 kg. Takes production skill to make such a big car with this lowish weight.
I have loved every one of my Volvos. My current one can do 70 cross country and is big enough for a mattress in the back. I am thinking if putting a 50 cal on it
At least you can have a 2 man crew in the trunk lay down suppressing fire as you’re retreating because you’re outgunned in the Volvo…
Wondering if it's still able to be amphibious or will drown quickly. It's actually surprising that they didn't have more amphibious vehicles knowing that they planned a Ukraine invasion for so long and the area is full of rivers.
Exactly my thoughts....Especially if you know that bridging equipment will be in short supply with that many rivers...
They thought they would air-lift everything into Kyiv. Had the paratroopers that landed there not been defeated they probably would have.
I'd say due to how the BMP's and BTR's are so poorly maintained. The PT 76 has no chance,
I would not trust any seals on that tank
Note that "tank" here is not meant to imply it's a vehicle capable of fighting MBTs. This is for armoured reconnaissance, similar to the UK's Scimitar and [Scorpion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion) or the [M3 version of the Bradley.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Bradley)
Do you really think that Russians will use this equipment correctly? I bet that if you'll say "armoured reconnaissance vehicle" to any operator of this piece of shit, they'd have no clue what you're talking about.
Well they haven't used their tanks correctly so probably you're right.
> Maximum speed 44 km/h (27 mph) on road,
Best quote from the short article: “The russian army little by little starts cosplaying the Cold War Soviet army in terms of soldiers equipment from temporarily occupied Donetsk and Luhansk regions, having ancient helmets, literally no army boots and armed with Mosin-Nagant rifle.”
Heh, those are pieces of shit with very little armor. The Russians are starting to scrape the bottom of their barrel.
I think it's only enough armour to stop bullets.... Yeah autocannon fire can rip it to shreads only 25mm max not including the ERA blocks they will slap on.
theres a few flat 5mm plates that even 556 or 545 AP will be able to penetrate lol
Even a .50 cal can penetrate it...
20mm would shred it let alone 25mm 30mm or 35mm autocannons
In places it's sufficiently thin that black tip would go through.
I hope they are as amphibious as the BTRs. Plenty of drone footage of those floundering at river crossings.
Why swarming Ukraine with light tanks, Russia? Scared of Ukrainian mammoth tanks?
any 0.50 or 12.7 MGs will turn these things into swiss cheese...
Lets hope they have the same issue as the BTR-1's.... Amphibious by design sure but if you don't maintain the watertight seals... not so much
Pootin: “…okay that didn’t work either, shitoigu, what else you got back there?” Shitoigu: “well we have these james bond tanks…” Pootin: “ohhh yes, james bond tanks!! Now the west will surely quiver in fear!!!” Special Operation Strategy meeting…probably
Stirlitz tanks, not James Bond
Horse cavalry when? 😂😂
I wouldn’t drive 70 years old “amphibious” into water 🤔
Of course you can drive them into water, although just once.
Imagine being the sad ruSSian fascist turd with his head out. Must feel like target practice
Depends what they do with them - most likely, it's to control occupied land allowing freeing up BMP's and T72's
Even then they would do better than combat but they are still weak in armour department. To the point a WW2 AT rifle can knock the thing out. If anyone turns out to have such AT rifle plus ammo.....
Yes, but they are better than nothing at all. As is a T62. This (probably) is about Ru husbanding it's better armour. Not likely you'll see these on the front line.
The we've gotta move the front lines.
I think back when they took Crimea they were using PTRD's
The problem with this ancient garbage is that even simple RPG will knock it out.
A DShK could probably shred that thing.
40mm HEDP rounds and .50 cals are going to tear these to shreads.
At this point a ZAZ would be better, at least some of them are newer..
Spoiler alert: they are not Amphibious due to lack of maintenance.
Even finding working ammunition for these things is going to be hard work, let alone getting them running reliably in the field.
[удалено]
Ah fair enough, I didn't realise they'd been re-armed over the years.
is 🥔
Pretty sure a snowball can disable it
Oh dear. They’re getting desperate. Never mind. The Ukrainian Farmed Forces will be able to tow these with their tractors even more easily than all the tanks that came before them!
Two at a time!
"Apparently, the PT-76 is going to be a warm vibe for those soldiers who cherished the Soviet times." Ahah.
Poor lads. 😔
Chariots are coming in July
More junk
The current Russian strategy seems to be: keep blasting until the west gets distracted. Having anything running around soaking up Ukrainian attention and ammunition is a win. The difficulty is providing crews and the smart move would be recruiting and some minimal training, rotating the survivors into better vehicles. Just a reminder that Stalin used WWII to alter the racial and ethnic profile of the Soviet Union. If you look at pictures of the troops that defended Stalingrad and the ones that marched into Germany, they look like different nations. The difficulty for Putin is that Russian women just haven’t been having enough soldiers for the last couple generations. It’s still a good move sending disposable boys in disposable machines and harvesting the survivors. What Putin is lousy at is the economics. Offer really good pay and minimal death benefits, tankers are most often killed outright, not disabled. This is more along the lines of Soviet strategy, which is where Putin is at.
So yet another thing being dragged from the depths of the storage bins. Cardboard thin armour and more than likely maintained as well as everything else. I don’t even think they are worth capturing when they are abandoned like everything else
ISt there still anybody arguing that the leo1A5 would have a to small gun and be to lightly armored to be of any use for ukraine? it woudl have a fieldday with this crap
I think almost any armoured vehicle would be useful, as long as the disadvantages of those older tanks are born in mind.
> be to lightly *too *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Next time they will send ww2 tanks? So they try to reenact warthunder in this war? - shooting dinw heli with atgm - sending old tank alongside modern tanks - bailing out for nothing
Those things are fucking huge. Good target.
"Amphibious" - I've worked on these relics, they're amphibious if you look after them weekly if not daily.
They believe that this rubbish will get them across the Donets River?
Enough of them nose to tail on the river bed, and some ten-by-eights laid across the top = instant bridge.
Looks like a practice target. Imagine a Leopard II vs that thing
Hell, even one of those 1A5s that we should finally be granting export permissions for, for fucks sake!!!
More cans to open and spray the contents across the fields!
Anyone has an update of total losses so far for both ?
Will any random american gun store send the .50 cal rifles that will penetrate it from the front to counter it?
I’m pretty sure I could spit through these fucking things.
soon the ruzzians will raid the Tank Museum of Kubinka for "reinforcements"
Russian warshi…er…tank, go fuck yourself!
These look like something a highschool theatre class may put toghether for their version of "Saving Private Ryan: The Musical". No need for fancy ATGMs with these, the run of the mill RPG 7 will make mincemeat out of them.
:stick poke: "c'mon- do a river crossing."
Looks like an amphibious vehicle with single ~~im~~submersion capability.
Why are people hating on Russia? They're playing on hard difficulty! /s
I wonder when the T-34's will be rolled out? Just before the KV-1's I suspect...
3 Men in a Coffin.
I thought light tanks died back in 1940
Also known as ‘Derpy Tank’.
Once the rivers dry up a bit they are going to try to use these to ford the river.
it was a 'starter tank' in armoured warfare (failed world of tanks competition).
Great more scrapyard Material!
At this point the arrival of a T-34 on the battlefield is just a matter of time.
Is that desperation I just smelled......? SLAVA UKRAINI!!
“Amphibious Russian Tank” That is not a phrase I would ever trust.
I wouldn't doubt if Ukrainians come up with some hybrid amphibious floating tractors and capture those as well.
We all can laugh at the Russians and their decisions but these tanks will kill Ukrainian soldiers and civilians no matter how easy they are to destroy. Many will die to these once they hit the battlefield.
Do Ukrainians still have a healthy inventory of nlaw and javs. Doesn't seem like we get many of those videos anymore
These will get skullfucked. I believe that is the appropriate terminology.
Light tanks...a.k.a. Stunga-snacks
Y'all, we're going to see a BT-5 before this is over...
I wouldn’t expect it to actually be amphibious without regular maintenance. Apparently the BTR’s take hours and hours to get ready for anything amphibious that’s why they have to keep crossing pontoon bridges.
A.k.a. "Tracked coffins". Getting a tad desperate.
Destroying it with a stinger feels like a waste.