The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

tonnyc said:
But is there even enough ammo for that sort of thing? There are no line of production for T-55 ammo and any stored ammo must be decades old.

I guess time will tell. It's not like Russia will tell us how many T-55 ammo they have stored so the only way we will know will be via their performance in the battlefield.
Click to expand...

I am looking for sources now, but my understanding was that the T-55 were all supposed to be in the line to be scrapped as of several years ago, which means there isnt much point in keeping the ammo around. If this is the case, any left over ammo was probably stored in poor conditions.
 
Russia's assaults around Avdeevka failed to take Petrovskoe or secure a foothold inside the town. As a result Russia's 132nd MRBde instead pushed Ukrainian forces out of Novobakhmutovka, and they may be intending a push for Novokalinovo, to approach Petrovskoe from the north or possibly even attack on Berdychy. Unless Ukraine injects fresh forces into the area, it's likely Avdeevka will fall in the end. Of course developments elsewhere will have an impact here.

t.me

Colonelcassad

❗️ Битва за Авдеевку обстановка по состоянию на 20.00 23 марта 2023 года На севере от Авдеевки бойцы 132 отдельной гвардейской мотострелковой бригады ВС РФ (ранее 3 Горловская бригада НМ ДНР) в течение последних дней провдинулись западнее Новобахмутовки, полностью зачистив населенный пункт от...
t.me t.me
 
So looking at the deployment map on top of the 6 brigades I already mentioned Ukrainians have transferred 3 more (71st Jager, 80th AirAssault and 57th Motorized) plus a SF regiment and a battalion from 92nd Mechanized Brigade, although I'm not sure about this battalion, it could be a misidentified unit or they are transferring the brigade from Kupiansk front. In total that's 9 brigades plus several battalions and regiments, and all of that in the last month-month and a half, that's a force of around 50k troops just in reinforcements not counting those already there. This leads me to believe that the Ukrainian counteroffensive at Bakhmut is very likely and would probably start soon (possibly April).

On the other hand unlike at Izium there is a large Russian force in the area facing them. We might be on the precipice of the first pitched battle of the war involving tens of thousands of troops on both sides that could determine a direction in which things develop for the remainder of the year.
 
vonnoobie said:
Even if in the indirect fire role it has to get pretty close to the front line.
T-55 main battle tank technical data fact sheet pictures video | Russia Russian army tank heavy armoured vehicles U | Russia Russian army military equipment vehicles UK
Maximum range in the indirect fire mode is 14,600m. IF they are being bought out to perform such a role then makes one wonder what is happening in terms of mortars and 122mm guns that would usually perform on such ranges.
Click to expand...

To make matters worse, the D-10 gun on the T-55 is rifled, which means the HE payload on the F-412 HE round will be relatively small. if I had to guess, the payload is probably around the size of a 82mm mortar round. Sadly, I would normally use ORDATA to prove this, but since I last looked they took ORDATA behind a wall for reasons I do not understand. Anyone have a fix for this ?

So at this point, as an artillery platform the T-55 has:

- crappy comms
- no built in sighting for indirect fire
- a small HE payload
- ammo that is probably older than me, which even if it works probably has increased dispersion
- crappy range due to poor elevation

Using this as a SPG would probably rank in the top-100 of "nice theory, bad execution".
 
vikingatespam said:
To make matters worse, the D-10 gun on the T-55 is rifled, which means the HE payload on the F-412 HE round will be relatively small. if I had to guess, the payload is probably around the size of a 82mm mortar round. Sadly, I would normally use ORDATA to prove this, but since I last looked they took ORDATA behind a wall for reasons I do not understand. Anyone have a fix for this ?

So at this point, as an artillery platform the T-55 has:

- crappy comms
- no built in sighting for indirect fire
- a small HE payload
- ammo that is probably older than me, which even if it works probably has increased dispersion
- crappy range due to poor elevation

Using this as a SPG would probably rank in the top-100 of "nice theory, bad execution".
Click to expand...

I would agree using a T-55 in this way makes no sense, however there are ways to explain its use if indeed it is shipped to the front. If T-55 or T-62 comes up against modern tanks results would be the same, in other words there would be no difference in performance between those two tanks when facing modern/semi-modern armor, but just the same if either of these tanks comes up against light vehicles and even APCs/IFVs that have used or aren't carrying their ATGMs the results would also be the same, as such there is not a big difference in performance between the two tanks, so if you are using one why not the other.

As this is an attrition battle it makes kind of sense to use weapon systems that are near obsolete, and yet can produce some benefit on the battlefield, as losing them would not be a big deal. On a flip side I imagine the moral and prestige issues associated with using this tanks could outweigh the benefits. Although the Russians are wielding naval AAA guns to their vehicles so maybe they don't care about this issues.

One more thing we should consider, there are a lot of volunteers fighting on the Russian side, which would have experience with the tank. For example I know there is a significant volunteer group from my country of whom some are veterans of Yugoslav wars, in which the T-55 was extensively used and actually quite liked within the ranks. As such these tanks could be meant for them and wouldn't require any crew training at all.
 
vikingatespam said:
To make matters worse, the D-10 gun on the T-55 is rifled, which means the HE payload on the F-412 HE round will be relatively small. if I had to guess, the payload is probably around the size of a 82mm mortar round. Sadly, I would normally use ORDATA to prove this, but since I last looked they took ORDATA behind a wall for reasons I do not understand. Anyone have a fix for this ?

So at this point, as an artillery platform the T-55 has:

- crappy comms
- no built in sighting for indirect fire
- a small HE payload
- ammo that is probably older than me, which even if it works probably has increased dispersion
- crappy range due to poor elevation

Using this as a SPG would probably rank in the top-100 of "nice theory, bad execution".
Click to expand...

If you have an alternate explanation, please share. So far I've seen 3 btlns of T-62Ms shipped to the front. So "they're out of tanks" doesn't work as an argument. Where are the T-72As, T-72 Urals, and T-80A/Bs? Where are the rest of the T-62Ms?

I've only got two explanations. One is that they're running low on ammo and are willing to put these in service to utilize their 100mm caliber shells. The other is that they're planning an increase in the size of the armed forces, and need gear for them in a hurry. Neither one is a particularly neat explanation, especially when you consider that T-90Ms are in mass production.
 
Feanor said:
If you have an alternate explanation, please share. So far I've seen 3 btlns of T-62Ms shipped to the front. So "they're out of tanks" doesn't work as an argument. Where are the T-72As, T-72 Urals, and T-80A/Bs? Where are the rest of the T-62Ms?
Click to expand...

I would think any T-72A/Urals and T-80A/B are in an upgrade path.

T-62M - maybe they already sent the easily renovated units and the rest are in line at a tank plant?

Feanor said:
I've only got two explanations. One is that they're running low on ammo and are willing to put these in service to utilize their 100mm caliber shells. The other is that they're planning an increase in the size of the armed forces, and need gear for them in a hurry. Neither one is a particularly neat explanation, especially when you consider that T-90Ms are in mass production.
Click to expand...

Heck if I know. Im baffled by half the events I have seen in this conflict. Our options seem to be:

- mobile pillbox
- crappy SPG
- poor mans tank (better than nothing as long as you can find 4 guys to use it)
- maybe being sent for conversion to useful vehicles, such as bridge-layer or mine-clearer ?

Last year I joked about seeing T-55. I was only half serious, but here we are.

If I could get to ORDATA, there might be info on the last time those D-10 shells were produced.
 
tonnyc said:
But is there even enough ammo for that sort of thing? There are no line of production for T-55 ammo and any stored ammo must be decades old.

I guess time will tell. It's not like Russia will tell us how many T-55 ammo they have stored so the only way we will know will be via their performance in the battlefield.
Click to expand...
A good gunner and spotter can achieve the desired effect quickly, as long as they are able to communicate. I have a relative who was a Battery Sergeant Major with the Royal NZ Artillery Regiment and he used the M119 105mm howitzer before fancy electronic devices entered the field gunnery domain. He was good and said that if the tank gunners and arty spotters are trained well then it shouldn't be a problem.
 
ngatimozart said:
A good gunner and spotter can achieve the desired effect quickly, as long as they are able to communicate. I have a relative who was a Battery Sergeant Major with the Royal NZ Artillery Regiment and he used the M119 105mm howitzer before fancy electronic devices entered the field gunnery domain. He was good and said that if the tank gunners and arty spotters are trained well then it shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

I think that this is a salient point, some may laugh at the Russians for recommissioning T55's, but if it gets them desired effects, even from a less than ideal platform, then its not necessarily a wasted effort.

A Historical context might be seen in the adaption of RN naval artillery for use on land in the Boer war by Captain, later Admiral, Percy Scott.

The Boer War (gunteam.co.uk)

Fortunately for the General, Captain P.Scott RN of HMS Terrible was a gunnery expert and he quickly designed a carriage that could hold 6 inch, and 4.7 inch, 12 pounder naval guns for transit and in action. Following initial tests, all the necessary guns and equipment were transported to Durban by HMS Terrible; the carriages were then speedily manufactured in the Durban Railway workshops. The contingent was soon ready and under the command of Captain H.Lambton RN, the 280 officers and men with two, 4.7 inch guns, four long range 12 pounders and four maxim guns the Naval Brigade as they were now called, left Durban by rail for Ladysmith. Their train was the last to complete the journey to Ladysmith on the 30th October just as the siege and bombardment started.
Click to expand...
 
Stuart M said:
I think that this is a salient point, some may laugh at the Russians for recommissioning T55's, but if it gets them desired effects, even from a less than ideal platform, then its not necessarily a wasted effort.

A Historical context might be seen in the adaption of RN naval artillery for use on land in the Boer war by Captain, later Admiral, Percy Scott.

The Boer War (gunteam.co.uk)
Click to expand...

Our problem is that we can't even figure out what the desired effects are. Hence the discussion around why Russia is reactivating them. Personally I don't see how they can be a good thing. Again loading up the Chita armored repair plant with T-62s, especially when upgraded with thermals and modern comms, and sent to secondary positions (like the defenses along the Dnepr) makes a certain amount of sense. Providing them to irregular volunteers and LDNR reservists who otherwise would have gotten no armor at all is also logical. But the T-62 stockpile isn't anywhere near exhausted. And to the best of my knowledge there isn't a repair plant currently active with a line for T-54/55 overhauls. Presumably some are in good enough shape that they can be put back into service with less effort, but it's still questionable at best. And what their intended battlefield role is remains unclear.
 
Feanor said:
Our problem is that we can't even figure out what the desired effects are. Hence the discussion around why Russia is reactivating them.
Click to expand...

I think Ngati gives a plausible use for them, I don't think we need to overthink it.

Personally I don't see how they can be a good thing. Again loading up the Chita armored repair plant with T-62s, especially when upgraded with thermals and modern comms, and sent to secondary positions (like the defenses along the Dnepr) makes a certain amount of sense. Providing them to irregular volunteers and LDNR reservists who otherwise would have gotten no armor at all is also logical. But the T-62 stockpile isn't anywhere near exhausted. And to the best of my knowledge there isn't a repair plant currently active with a line for T-54/55 overhauls. Presumably some are in good enough shape that they can be put back into service with less effort, but it's still questionable at best. And what their intended battlefield role is remains unclear.
Click to expand...

Perhaps its just as simple as the Russians are having problems with supplying protected indirect fire support?

Heres' Pershings demoted to playing at Artillery in Korea.

M26 Pershing tanks in the indirect fire role in Korea on August 24th 1950 - YouTube

If you can do it with a Pershing, why not a T55? I'm sure you wouldn't want to use them as tanks anymore, and as you say the T62 stocks are not exhausted.
 
Feanor said:
Our problem is that we can't even figure out what the desired effects are. Hence the discussion around why Russia is reactivating them. Personally I don't see how they can be a good thing. Again loading up the Chita armored repair plant with T-62s, especially when upgraded with thermals and modern comms, and sent to secondary positions (like the defenses along the Dnepr) makes a certain amount of sense. Providing them to irregular volunteers and LDNR reservists who otherwise would have gotten no armor at all is also logical. But the T-62 stockpile isn't anywhere near exhausted. And to the best of my knowledge there isn't a repair plant currently active with a line for T-54/55 overhauls. Presumably some are in good enough shape that they can be put back into service with less effort, but it's still questionable at best. And what their intended battlefield role is remains unclear.
Click to expand...
Feanor you mention reserves is there any information on the reserves of the T72 variants and T-80s? Where are the tanks being restored ,are they near the depots ? Are there any sources that provide a guideline on how this is planned with the new tanks like the T90 do different plants just work on restoration of individual models , I am trying to equate it like car manufacturing plants ,I'm sure whole process this has to be very manpower intensive
 
seaspear said:
Feanor you mention reserves is there any information on the reserves of the T72 variants and T-80s? Where are the tanks being restored ,are they near the depots ? Are there any sources that provide a guideline on how this is planned with the new tanks like the T90 do different plants just work on restoration of individual models , I am trying to equate it like car manufacturing plants ,I'm sure whole process this has to be very manpower intensive
Click to expand...

Tanks are stored as storage bases. Some maintenance can be done on those bases, but any major repairs or overhauls are done at Armored Vehicle Repair Plants. Typically each repair plant specializes in a few vehicle types and works on those. The 103rd BTRZ in Chita for example works on T-80BVs (one of the reason the Far East had so many T-80s), T-62s, and BRDM-2s. This is why it makes sense if you have say 4 plants that can do T-72/80/90 work and they're all fully busy, but you have another repair line that's set up for T-62s and is in good shape (recently used for Syria/Libya) you load it up too with T-62Ms. There's also the question of storage category. Cat 1 and 2 stored vehicles are typically in relatively good shape and a lot easier to bring online. Cat 1 in particular is sometimes used in training exercises with called up reservists. Cat 3 and 4 are much harder to bring online. So if you have Cat 2 T-62Ms available, you might be able to bring a btln online in a couple of months, on a secondary line at the 103rd BTRZ. Cat 3-4 T-72As might take longer, and might need to be done at a facility that's already busy resurrecting T-72Bs from Cat 1-2 storage. Again this is where it makes some sense to do that. But I don't believe there is a line for T-54/55 work anywhere, at least not in good shape or active recently. Tiny quantities of T-62Ms taken from storage, upgraded with thermals, and put on secondary positions makes sense. Mass-pulling of T-54/55s doesn't. It will be interesting to see where they take them and who ends up doing the work to bring them back online.

EDIT; Zaporozhye Update.

After a couple of probing attacks, Ukrainian forces entered the village of Novodanilovka in no-man's land and began digging in. There were also reports of significant reinforcements brought into Orekhov, the town directly north of it. Now we have reports of a series of large Russian strikes against Ukrainian forces massed in Orekhov with a claim of up to 500 casualties (KIA+WIA) and destruction of munition storage. Reportedly they also struck a school and a hotel being used as staging area (claimed total of 20 targets). Allegedly Ukraine has disabled internet access in Orekhov to keep a lid on this. So far we just have Russian claims, nothing concrete yet. Moving into no-man's land to fortify positions, and massing forces near the front to exploit any weak spots identified by probing attacks makes sense. If we see Ukrainian probing attacks in this area continue or even a full offensive develop, then this strike was probably far less impactful then Russian sources are claiming. If on the other hand we see a cessation of Ukrainian offensive movements in the Orekhov area for some length of time, as they reinforce and rotate out units that suffered significant casualties, that could indicate that Russia did in fact score a significant blow. Ideally we would get some follow up footage. Even with the internet being out, 1) it can't be out forever and 2) it could be uploaded from another location as witnesses who took photos leave the area.

t.me

Colonelcassad

Сорванное наступление ВСУ на Положско-Ореховском направлении На 23-24 марта на Запорожском направлении командованием ВСУ планировалось начало контрнаступления. По замыслу противника, основной удар должен был прийтись на Ореховский участок: в городе была создана ударная группировка численностью...
t.me t.me
 
Last edited:
Larry_L said:
Lack of electronic components one factor slowing down Russian armor factories. Patricia Marins reports on the Uralvagonzavod, Omsktransmash and Kurganmashzavod factories, and some component issues.
Click to expand...

I would love to find some corroboration on this. Can FIRMS look at these RU AFV plants to get a rough idea of the activity over time ?
 
Last edited:
Feanor said:
Our problem is that we can't even figure out what the desired effects are. Hence the discussion around why Russia is reactivating them. Personally I don't see how they can be a good thing. Again loading up the Chita armored repair plant with T-62s, especially when upgraded with thermals and modern comms, and sent to secondary positions (like the defenses along the Dnepr) makes a certain amount of sense. Providing them to irregular volunteers and LDNR reservists who otherwise would have gotten no armor at all is also logical. But the T-62 stockpile isn't anywhere near exhausted. And to the best of my knowledge there isn't a repair plant currently active with a line for T-54/55 overhauls. Presumably some are in good enough shape that they can be put back into service with less effort, but it's still questionable at best. And what their intended battlefield role is remains unclear.
Click to expand...

This article suggests that due to commonality on wheels, engines, and other components, they will be used as donors of spare parts for T-62s. Reportedly Russia has already pulled 200+ T-62s from storage. I'm not well familiar with the designs so I don't know if this is true, but for wheels at least the 62/64/72/80 can all be swapped around to some extent. It would make sense if the T-54/55s could as well. This does offer a logical explanation.

topwar.ru

Куда поедут Т-54?

Итак, видео с составом, на платформах которого везут куда-то танки Т-54, видели, наверное, уже все. Заурчали от радости украинские блогеры, как всегда, просто шедеврально отмолчалась наша патриотическая z-сетка, а эксперты всех уровней начали обсуждение на тему того, что все это значит. Мнения
topwar.ru topwar.ru
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top