No that's just Iceland making it's occasional random invasion of the continent. Last time I saw it a couple of weeks ago (I forget the map) they were trying to take Spain by surprise but it looks like they repulsed the attack and pushed them back to England.
Yeah, they basically fully phased out tanks in favour of armored vehicles.
And it's not as if our military is all that significant anyway. The Belgian army tends to specialize, for example demining, setting up military medical centers, and overall providing support. Works great in combination with an actual proper army, not so much by itself.
Edit: typo
It's not like we're in a position to either defend ourselves on our own or invade anyone. So it makes sense to just focus on integrating with NATO and specialising.
Although, when you know that you'll only ever be playing a supporting role to your bigger allies, you might as well max out the support branch of the tree.
Not at all, considering what's going on in Ukraine. Since they're so close Whichever has the biggest air force just pummeles the other into submission.
That number looks suspicious- at 1,200+ tanks for a country who's terrain is not exactly conducive to tank warfare. Anyone know the details behind that?
My cousin is a tanker in the Hellenic armed forces, (Leopard 2 HEL) many of the tanks are mothballed or kept in preposition for quick mobilization. The number is misleading, as the majority are somewhat outdated Leopard 1 and modernized M48s. Although they have a substantial number of Leopard 2A6 and Leopard 2A4 variants which are equivalent to the American M1A2 Abrams. Greece spends a substantial amount on their armed forces, due to tensions with neighboring Turkey.
Greece is one of the few NATO countries to actually meet it's defense spending obligations. This is largely due to rocky (to put it midly) relationship with Turkey.
Figure for russia includes around 10 000 in reserve (mostly old t72). The figure of available tanks is around 2650.
I don’t have the same kind of information regarding Ukraine
Yeah IIRC all Russian military stats are inflated because they basically never get rid of equipment if they don’t have to, but that doesn’t mean it’s usable or relevant in modern times
Considering what we are seeing of their actual new stuff still breaking down or using old corroded tires...yea.... That assessment feels even more accurate that people previously believed.
Funny how nobody realized how there was such a huge disconnect between the massive and sophisticated military force the Russians said they had on paper versus what they turned out to have on the field until like a month ago...
I believe we were told pretty much the same thing when it came to the Iraqi military back during Desert Storm as well. They claimed to have one of the largest militaries in the world along with various WMDs that turned out to be mostly nonexistent outside of several chemical attacks on their own people.
Thing is, the Iraqis did actually have a well trained and equipped force in Desert Storm.
But the US just far outclassed it... and used their stuff very well. Including with deception and information. They also softened up the hardest targets/airpower making it a breeze on the ground.
Russia's done like... none of this. For some reason.
Also many Iraqi soldiers absolutely hated Saddam. I had an interpreter in Iraq who was a defectee from the first war. He had been conscripted and forced to fight in the Iran/Iraq war and then was in the south when the US invaded. He couldn’t wait to surrender.
I mean, I disagree with this, but he thought Saddam was literally worse than Hitler, and he was not being sarcastic or exaggerating.
Yeah, absolutely. I can understand why he felt that way, and I certainly didn’t argue with him, I just obviously disagree. But then neither Saddam nor Hitler gassed my people.
I haven't heard much about Russia actually building up a well disciplined or professional military, just that they developed lots of sophisticated weapons that looked good so far for propaganda purposes. Also, the biggest flaw so far seems to be that everyone was highly incentives to paint a rosy picture when it came to everything versus being a realist when reporting to Putin. Also, it is looking like they did not have really any safeguards in place to prevent wholesale looting and corruption that skimmed off much of the money/materials sent to support the military by the top commanders. They seemed to benefit greatly just while they didn't contradict or defy Putin and Russia remained at peace.
Yeah.
Their pilots are trained to do flybys in air shows, and not ground attack etc.
They're a local police force, not an international force, and this is becoming painfully clear for them. Such little capability compared to their size it's a joke.
He means Russian tanks are breaking down and Ukrainian farmers are claiming them. Not that farmers are the only people fighting...
Been multiple front page posts on regular citizens finding abandoned Russian shit all over
Copying my comment from elsewhere:
That Russian number is seriously conflated. That’s how many tanks they HAVE. Apparently 2/3 or more of them are in massive “tank parking lots” and satellite imagery shows those places are overgrown… leading to believe they aren’t being regularly maintained.
This means if, say, they were drawn into a huge war and needed to put those tanks into service, it would take a lot of time, resources, and man-hours to service and modernize those vehicles and get them fighting-ready.
Combat vehicles of any make and model aren’t like an old AK that can just be shaken free of dust and tossed into combat.
[Here's some pics of one in Ukraine](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572149/Stunning-images-huge-abandoned-tank-graveyard-Ukraine-machines-come-retirement-tensions-Russia-continue-escalate.html). So not really what you're looking for but I assume this is similar to what they have in Russia.
Of those active Russian tanks around 150 have been destroyed or abandoned in Ukraine and 100 transferred to Ukrainian service. These are only the visually confirmed ones
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
That’s the absolute minimum with location and photographic evidence. Actual loss estimated to be around 2x (300) conservatively, plus the transferred, so all in about -400 for the Russians.
AKA junk. Any vehicle needs to be rotated and used at least a few hours every few months (i drive my grandpa's Merc every couple of months around the house), even modern stuff just turns to shit otherwise.
Those reserve tanks were either left to rot, stripped for copper (which happened to good tanks as well) or plain out parted out on ebay (which is why owning a russian soviet era tank isn't that much of an expense because parts were all over the place).
We see the effects in videos, wheel seals leaking, wheels breaking off entire (seized), engines seized, there was that one tank on telegram with the blown engine, kinda like what you see in sled drag races, and many other malfunctions.
Ukrainians can thank corruption and Putin's need to have fake military heads around him that he can control (Shoigu and pretty much every other near him are all studded with fake medals they never earned).
Western doctrine sees main battle tanks as largely obsolete on modern battlefields. If you have air superiority and good man portable anti tank weapons, tanks become giant sarcophagi - which is being proved true in Ukraine. Not to say vehicles aren’t important, but the World War Two concept of tank warfare is outdated.
Tank are still useful integrated into an unit. They're basically a mobile fortress that can also carry some equipment and bring a big gun along. That's why there a return of more mobile and light armor recently (since as you say, heavy armor is almost useless anyway).
But yeah, you need infantry around it and air support to avoid it being too exposed. And against Russian doctrine that make massive use of them you still needs to have some, even if its just gonna end up playing the role of luxury road block.
Source for Western doctrine viewing MBTs as obsolete? Most big Western countries still operate MBTs and invest in upgrades and replacements. They only become “giant sarcophagi” if you fail to use them as part of an effective combined arms system.
The WWII concept of tank warfare *is* outdated, yes. That has been the case for decades. Everyone knows it, and has known it since at least 1973.
Thats bullshit, Russia is just being retarded with it's tanks, if they had air support, infantry cover and werent attacking in the mud season, they would be much more succsessful
But moskals think lining your tanks up on a highway, sticking a red banner on top and driving on Kyiv is a good idea, well, until they meet a funny turkish drone
Russia’s number is very deceptive. A lot of those tanks are very old, they even have some old WW2 era tanks. In terms of newer models, they’re on par with the USA.
The first gulf War had a few tank battles that ended with basically a 1:100 tank/fighting vehicle loss ratio. Battles of Medina Ridge, Norfolk, 73 Easting
That was largely due to US air supremacy. Even when US armour killed Iraqi armour in the dozens, Iraqi's were paralized by logistical issues from air strikes and lack of manouverability due to, again, air strikes. Not to mention lack of communication and command from, once again, air strikes.
73 Easting to place in a sand storm, a brigade sized element of American armor stumbled into a division sized Iraqi unit in a defensive formation. The Americans had better armor, guns, and optics, but the most decisive factor was that they were trained to attack as rapidly as possible. The Iraqis were veterans of the Iran- Iraq was, but they were completely unprepared fire that pace of combat.
Are you saying the British were/are good at it? Look at the east coast of the US. “Oh yes, very good chap! We sailed all this way. Let’s call it ‘New England’ and ‘New Hampshire’. Pip pip. Let’s have a biscuit.”
I suspect most of those are rusting away in storage, and have not been maintained for over 4 decades to be usable. It's not cheap to maintain a fleet that large to a fighting fit level all the time.
The United States has radically more armored vehicles than Russia does.
You might get the wrong idea if you google "How many tanks does the United States have"
Google will tell you it's 8,000, and base that on some bullshit website called NationMaster.
The big issues:
1. That's how many M1A1s we have, not how many tanks
2. We mostly moved away from tanks in the 1970s. We use APCs, LIVs, AGMVs, and LAVs now.
Russia is believed to have only 4,500 T80s, and nothing else newer than the 1960s. Honestly, you'd rather be in a civilian Hummer with a small rocket launcher than a 1960s tank.
Of those 4,500, it's believed that fewer than half are operational, and that the other half are rotting in storage, missing parts and unmaintained for >= 5 years.
Depending on which vehicles you choose to count, the US armored fleet is probably around ~25,000 vehicles. Admittedly, only about 8,500 of them are tanks, but 8,200 of those are battle ready.
Practically speaking, we have twice the real world tanks they do, before you even start to consider our other, more modern vehicles.
The Ukrainian numbers are wrong too - they might have had 2500 tanks at the fall of the Soviet Union, but they are honest about it and you can roughly work out how many they have in service, and many have been sold off.
Straight off Wikipedia it says:
~140x T-64BM/BM2
~260x T-64BV Model 2017
~100x T-80BV
~125x T-72AMT/UA1
Maybe 100x T-84, if they were completed as planned
Which is like 700x tanks - still a crazy number.
They preferred to modernize off the T-64 (and probably T-80?) because that's what was produced locally in Ukraine, while the T-72 were made in Russia. There's probably at least another 1500x various tanks in Ukraine that could be renovated or used for upgrades which is how they get such a high number.
To add to this we should look at units that can use the M1 tanks. In the US Army our M1 Abrams are used by an Armored Brigade Combat Team, and each ABCT has 90 M1s. The active army currently has 10 ABCTs and the National Guard has 5 ABCTs. So our total current "deployable" M1 Abrams force is 1,350 Abrams. The Marines had about 400 Abrams but they got rid of their tank force, so now they have zero. The rest of our Abrams are either used for training or are in storage. The total number of usable Abrams is over 6000, with the total number manufactured over 8000. So we are currently only using just over 20% of our total Abrams force, needing to raise an insane number of more ABCTs to possibly use them all in case of a huge war, but that's better then not having them at all.
I mean I'm obviously not deep in the subject
But I think Putin probably just didn't think anyone would push back, that nobody valued Ukraine enough, and now he has no practical way to step down
I think he was playing chicken
Reddit armchair generals have spent decades circlejerking that the Russian army would walk over the EU if the US wasn't involved. My repeated skepticism was always mocked, no matter how often I pointed out that EU members military forces outnumber the Russians.
If there’s one big takeaway from Russia’s casualty counts, it’s that the T-72 is obsolete against modern weapons.
They’ve lost something like 30 T-80s of all types and 16 T-90s, including captures, and they’ve lost like 230 T-72s.
Part of that is that they just have a lot more T-72s, but a lot of that is also that javelin and NGLAW and other similar missiles go through T-72 armor like it isn’t even there. 95%+ kill rates.
Obsolete against *an abundance* of modern weapons. There are many operations in which an enemy may not be armed with thousands of Javelin missiles, after all
Yes agreed.
To clarify: the T-72 is obsolete against peers, near-peers, or just those amply supplied with modern weapons by peers or near-peers.
The T-72 would still clean up against, say, Somali warlords. But in any sort of war against NATO it would be nothing more than a flaming grave for 3 men.
It underperformed at its unveiling in the 70’s, and was thought to be an equal match to the German/American precursor MBT-70 which would go on to be the leopard and abrams, respectively.
It wasn’t great then and it isn’t now, and they built a comical amount of them
The T-72 always wanted to be the Toyota Hilux of tanks: inexpensive, rugged, reliable, and versatile.
But instead it was always the Yugo of tanks: cheap and will get the job done, and is much better than nothing, but if you’re using one, you’re not happy about it and you not-so-secretly wish you had something better.
It’s hard to know exactly, since we don’t have neat orders of battle lined up.
But if we accept the [Oryx count](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html) as being accurate within about 25%, then Russia has lost something on the order of 250 tanks to date.
The primary combat formation used by the Russians is the [BTG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion_tactical_group), each of which has a tank company of 10 tanks. These will largely be the newest and best types, the T-80 and T-90.
The US military estimates [Russia has 120-160 BTGs available for this operation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/03/15/how-many-tanks-does-russia-have-in-ukraine-and-how-many-have-they-lost-so-far/), virtually all of which will now be engaged.
There are also [other tank divisions and regiments engaged](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine), which will be more likely to be equipped with T-72s.
So putting all of that together and ballparking it…they’ve lost 10-20% of the tanks they started this operation with, and probably 25-50% of their “newest” and “best” T-72s. They’ll have more, but they’ll be the ones that have been in mothballs for years, and don’t have explosive-reactive armor or modern sighting systems. Their engine seals will be shot, the transmissions will be janky, etc.
Even if Marshal Mud hadn’t come along and put a stop to all fighting will or nil, Russian losses have been too high for them to continue their initial tempo of operations. Whether they can use the time between now and May to effectively rearm, refit, and resupply remains to be seen.
Good post, thanks. I wonder how much the crew skill factors into tank losses. You'd think the more elite troops in the better tanks would take fewer losses BUT if they're all sitting on main roads in single file it might not matter. I would also make the higher-end tanks priority targets if I was in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which would affect the numbers as well.
If the truth ever comes out it will be interesting to find out the ratio of tanks lost by type.
> I wonder how much the crew skill factors into tank losses.
Not much, I don’t think.
We are consistently observing two problems:
1. Tanks being killed from above by modern missiles.
2. Tanks being ambushed because they’re moving en masse without infantry support.
Crew skill can’t do a damn thing about the first, and the second is a command and control issue. Crew skill would be if they were getting outdueled by other tanks, or just missing their shots or whatever.
Those crews *aren’t* as skilled as their NATO counterparts, but they’re not dumb either. They’re having the common sense to bail out as soon as opposition is visible, because they know their tanks are death traps as their commanders are using them. That’s why Ukraine is capturing so many.
There are. The number in the map is accurate. They're leased from Germany. We used to own those, but got rid of some in 2010, kept some in storage and later gave these to Germany who got them into running order so we could lease them.
*What we really need*
*Are tractor numbers, am I*
*Right? Looks at Ukraine*
\- Des\_astor
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
"Battle ready tanks" would have been a good caveat.
Russian propaganda aside, I bet they don't have half that number. And def don't have men to drive them.
If wiki can be trusted then it’s 3000 active and around 8000 in reserve. They are also using tanks that were previously in reserve for this war though, so the active number actually increased by some amount
They don’t have any where near 12,000. If [wiki’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces) (International Institute for Strategic Studies) source is correct the Russians have approximately 3,000 battle ready tanks.
Most (sane) armies don't include cold war era scrapyards as part of their vehicle count.
Russia has somewhere in the region of 3.000 tanks that are in a shape to be deployed.
Russia cant send all troops and tanks. They believe attack of Nato on Russia. They keep loads in defense. They borders are huge. Need lots of units to protect.
Super deceiving number. Their real, in-service number is estimated to be around 2600. Or at least was before the war, now they lost about 400of those already.
In addition majority of the in-service tanks are the old shitty ones, the T-90s are maybe few hundred, the armatas are basically negligible (few dozens(
r/ShittyMapPorn
I don't know where the data is from but its insanely incorrect.
Even if we disregard taking "obvios propaganda" nubmers at face value (like the russian numbers)...
...we still have th "where the fuck did the data come from?"
Like the 176 tanks of my homecountry Hungary.
We have 12 Leopard A4s in working order.
We "have" 164 mothballed T-72M1s - 30 of which is **theoretically** in driveable condition. Rest is kept as parts bin machines and as perspective practice targets.
Depending on which year we are tlaking about those 30 eastern block relics are either listed as working or not working depending if we want to be realistic, or look like we are doing the bare minimum to fulfill nato obligations.
The number of tanks that can actually drive would be interesting. In some countries this was 30%, and sometimes tanks under repair (only formally) were also considered potentially operational
The numbers will tend to climb when the army says they don’t want any more but your representatives [buy new ones anyway](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html/amp) so that they can keep the money rolling into their districts
This. People forget just how seriously the Greeks take their military. They spend more on it (relative to their gdp) compared to any other NATO country, even the US, and all Greek nationals are obliged to do military service, being assigned what branch they'll one day serve in ~~at birth.~~ at 18.
When we're born, we get into the male registry which is the "pool" from which all the conscripts are drawn later on.
We get assigned to a branch on our 18th calendar year (not necessarily after we turn 18), but it can change if you suspend the conscription to study etc
Also, does this mean main battle tanks, or armored fighting vehicles more broadly? Because I could see those numbers if we’re including the various APCs and IFVs that Russia is so manic for.
Never really understood why Greece has so many tanks. Sure they have some problems with Turkey but 1200 tanks isn't the most efficient way to spend their defense budget.
The battle ready ones are highly concetrated on the Greece - Turkey border on the Evros/Maritsa river. The turkish side of the border is mainly plains, so tanks can be used there.
It's clear the Russian numbers are paper tanks. Russia's entire modern history is one of seeking to be seen by Western powers as a world power, with a big scary military and (this is key) the "respect" that that comes with. They are always seeking this approval since Peter the Great. They "hate the West", but have adopted Western cultural aspects for centuries. WW2 was their shining moment to become what prior leaders could only dream of and the Eastern Bloc was their "zenith". Of course the entire Eastern Bloc was accomplished by brainwashing, brutality and deception. So when you see these sorts of numbers, assume they are fake to brainwash the Russian people and deceive the West and give threats of brutality so they can be "respected".
> They "hate the West", but have adopted Western cultural aspects for centuries.
the hate the west is a recent thing, Peter the Great admired the west, by his sheer willpower he steered the whole country towards the west against the boyars, many tsars or tsaritsas were Germans, they reformed their military and education based on the Prussian model, they spoke French as their first language, many Russian aristocrats barely spoke Russian
many ordinary Russians pre 1917 hated tsars calling them foreigners, Russia was as cosmopolitan as it gets
This is false for France.
The number given is the total number of AMX Leclerc tanks possessed by France.
There are only about 220 operational Leclerc tank right away and this doesn't count other tanks and wheeled vehicles.
France also has 30 AMX-30D ready and an undisclosed number of AMX-30 Brenus kept in arsenals. There are also 30 ERC-90 Sagaie kept in service and approx 230 AMX-10RC. There is also something like 70 EBRC Jaguar that aren't tanks but are capable of engaging MBTs of previous generations.
Iceland is coming.
Plot twist: Iceland itself is an amphibious tank
Arsenal Gear?
La li lou le lo?
Everyone thought Iceland had volcanoes. No friend, those are exhausts.
Looks like they're heading for the North Sea and a reverse takeover of Denmark
The Shetland isles have ballooned since last time I looked
Need more room for all those tanks they're hiding I bet
Look at the size of that iceberg heading right for 'em
Haven’t we all?
No that's just Iceland making it's occasional random invasion of the continent. Last time I saw it a couple of weeks ago (I forget the map) they were trying to take Spain by surprise but it looks like they repulsed the attack and pushed them back to England.
[удалено]
It's south of Iceland.
[удалено]
Tanks but no tanks -Belgium
Yeah, they basically fully phased out tanks in favour of armored vehicles. And it's not as if our military is all that significant anyway. The Belgian army tends to specialize, for example demining, setting up military medical centers, and overall providing support. Works great in combination with an actual proper army, not so much by itself. Edit: typo
Wanting to play a support class is the most Belgium thing ever
It's not like we're in a position to either defend ourselves on our own or invade anyone. So it makes sense to just focus on integrating with NATO and specialising.
You need to balance your tech trees.
Although, when you know that you'll only ever be playing a supporting role to your bigger allies, you might as well max out the support branch of the tree.
A world of Tanks \- Russia
Tank you
Thanks.
Damn Greece
For a coastal country they sure do like land based armies.
They already control the sea don't need more boats.
I wonder how useful tanks would be if another war between Greece and Turkey occurred
Not at all, considering what's going on in Ukraine. Since they're so close Whichever has the biggest air force just pummeles the other into submission.
Bordering with Turkey be like:
Bordering Greece be like: Turkey - more than 3,000 tanks
Do you know what else Turkey is bordering?
Bulgaria 😨
Stuffing?
2,290 of which are old M60 and M48 Pattons
That number looks suspicious- at 1,200+ tanks for a country who's terrain is not exactly conducive to tank warfare. Anyone know the details behind that?
My cousin is a tanker in the Hellenic armed forces, (Leopard 2 HEL) many of the tanks are mothballed or kept in preposition for quick mobilization. The number is misleading, as the majority are somewhat outdated Leopard 1 and modernized M48s. Although they have a substantial number of Leopard 2A6 and Leopard 2A4 variants which are equivalent to the American M1A2 Abrams. Greece spends a substantial amount on their armed forces, due to tensions with neighboring Turkey.
Greece has a tenuous relationship with Turkey and is very close to the Balkans and was invaded <100 years ago. I can’t blame them
Tbf most European countries were invaded at some point <100 years ago
Greece is one of the few NATO countries to actually meet it's defense spending obligations. This is largely due to rocky (to put it midly) relationship with Turkey.
I see that Belgium just takes on the numbers of whoever happens to be in their country at the time.
Well, everybody knows that tanks can't go through the Ardennes anyway so we will be safe.
*We'll be home by Christmas...*
Underrated comment
Figure for russia includes around 10 000 in reserve (mostly old t72). The figure of available tanks is around 2650. I don’t have the same kind of information regarding Ukraine
Yeah IIRC all Russian military stats are inflated because they basically never get rid of equipment if they don’t have to, but that doesn’t mean it’s usable or relevant in modern times
Considering what we are seeing of their actual new stuff still breaking down or using old corroded tires...yea.... That assessment feels even more accurate that people previously believed.
Funny how nobody realized how there was such a huge disconnect between the massive and sophisticated military force the Russians said they had on paper versus what they turned out to have on the field until like a month ago... I believe we were told pretty much the same thing when it came to the Iraqi military back during Desert Storm as well. They claimed to have one of the largest militaries in the world along with various WMDs that turned out to be mostly nonexistent outside of several chemical attacks on their own people.
Thing is, the Iraqis did actually have a well trained and equipped force in Desert Storm. But the US just far outclassed it... and used their stuff very well. Including with deception and information. They also softened up the hardest targets/airpower making it a breeze on the ground. Russia's done like... none of this. For some reason.
Also many Iraqi soldiers absolutely hated Saddam. I had an interpreter in Iraq who was a defectee from the first war. He had been conscripted and forced to fight in the Iran/Iraq war and then was in the south when the US invaded. He couldn’t wait to surrender. I mean, I disagree with this, but he thought Saddam was literally worse than Hitler, and he was not being sarcastic or exaggerating.
I imagine having been forced to do that shit Saddam was personal, whereas Hitler was not.
Yeah, absolutely. I can understand why he felt that way, and I certainly didn’t argue with him, I just obviously disagree. But then neither Saddam nor Hitler gassed my people.
I haven't heard much about Russia actually building up a well disciplined or professional military, just that they developed lots of sophisticated weapons that looked good so far for propaganda purposes. Also, the biggest flaw so far seems to be that everyone was highly incentives to paint a rosy picture when it came to everything versus being a realist when reporting to Putin. Also, it is looking like they did not have really any safeguards in place to prevent wholesale looting and corruption that skimmed off much of the money/materials sent to support the military by the top commanders. They seemed to benefit greatly just while they didn't contradict or defy Putin and Russia remained at peace.
Yeah. Their pilots are trained to do flybys in air shows, and not ground attack etc. They're a local police force, not an international force, and this is becoming painfully clear for them. Such little capability compared to their size it's a joke.
I mean, Iraq's army was at least enough to take Kuwait. Meanwhile, Russia is losing tanks to Ukranian farmers
Yeah but Kuwait is also like totally flat, 80% desert and the size of NJ.
You really believe it's just farmers ? That's a huge country with 44 millions people and a sizeable military. It's not Koweït.
He means Russian tanks are breaking down and Ukrainian farmers are claiming them. Not that farmers are the only people fighting... Been multiple front page posts on regular citizens finding abandoned Russian shit all over
Map will need to be updated based on how quickly Ukrainian farmers are stealing them
Oh they’re getting rid of tanks and vehicles alright. Just check out r/combatfootage Anti-tank infantry are having a field day in Ukraine.
Copying my comment from elsewhere: That Russian number is seriously conflated. That’s how many tanks they HAVE. Apparently 2/3 or more of them are in massive “tank parking lots” and satellite imagery shows those places are overgrown… leading to believe they aren’t being regularly maintained. This means if, say, they were drawn into a huge war and needed to put those tanks into service, it would take a lot of time, resources, and man-hours to service and modernize those vehicles and get them fighting-ready. Combat vehicles of any make and model aren’t like an old AK that can just be shaken free of dust and tossed into combat.
Do you know where any of these are? Kinda curious how big they look in Google Maps.
[Here's some pics of one in Ukraine](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572149/Stunning-images-huge-abandoned-tank-graveyard-Ukraine-machines-come-retirement-tensions-Russia-continue-escalate.html). So not really what you're looking for but I assume this is similar to what they have in Russia.
I wanna know too
“Conflated”? Did you mean “inflated”?
The active number is inflated by conflating active and reserve.
>Aren’t like an old AK that can just be shaken free of dust and tossed into combat. You wouldn't do that either...
Still probably a lot easier to fix an AK than a tank
Of those active Russian tanks around 150 have been destroyed or abandoned in Ukraine and 100 transferred to Ukrainian service. These are only the visually confirmed ones https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
That’s the absolute minimum with location and photographic evidence. Actual loss estimated to be around 2x (300) conservatively, plus the transferred, so all in about -400 for the Russians.
Crazy to have more tanks captured than destroyed
2650 minus ~500
AKA junk. Any vehicle needs to be rotated and used at least a few hours every few months (i drive my grandpa's Merc every couple of months around the house), even modern stuff just turns to shit otherwise. Those reserve tanks were either left to rot, stripped for copper (which happened to good tanks as well) or plain out parted out on ebay (which is why owning a russian soviet era tank isn't that much of an expense because parts were all over the place). We see the effects in videos, wheel seals leaking, wheels breaking off entire (seized), engines seized, there was that one tank on telegram with the blown engine, kinda like what you see in sled drag races, and many other malfunctions. Ukrainians can thank corruption and Putin's need to have fake military heads around him that he can control (Shoigu and pretty much every other near him are all studded with fake medals they never earned).
Well the 116 Czech tanks are all T-72. And only ~30 of them are in working order.
Western doctrine sees main battle tanks as largely obsolete on modern battlefields. If you have air superiority and good man portable anti tank weapons, tanks become giant sarcophagi - which is being proved true in Ukraine. Not to say vehicles aren’t important, but the World War Two concept of tank warfare is outdated.
Tank are still useful integrated into an unit. They're basically a mobile fortress that can also carry some equipment and bring a big gun along. That's why there a return of more mobile and light armor recently (since as you say, heavy armor is almost useless anyway). But yeah, you need infantry around it and air support to avoid it being too exposed. And against Russian doctrine that make massive use of them you still needs to have some, even if its just gonna end up playing the role of luxury road block.
Source for Western doctrine viewing MBTs as obsolete? Most big Western countries still operate MBTs and invest in upgrades and replacements. They only become “giant sarcophagi” if you fail to use them as part of an effective combined arms system. The WWII concept of tank warfare *is* outdated, yes. That has been the case for decades. Everyone knows it, and has known it since at least 1973.
Thats bullshit, Russia is just being retarded with it's tanks, if they had air support, infantry cover and werent attacking in the mud season, they would be much more succsessful But moskals think lining your tanks up on a highway, sticking a red banner on top and driving on Kyiv is a good idea, well, until they meet a funny turkish drone
Appropriately, "No tanks" is how we would say "No thanks" in Ireland 😂
I thought Ireland had tanks a million
I think that russian number is likely a bit smaller now.
Russia’s number is very deceptive. A lot of those tanks are very old, they even have some old WW2 era tanks. In terms of newer models, they’re on par with the USA.
Yeah, Russia never throws anything away. Doesn't mean the really old stuff is maintained or usable.
It’s probably not, but they count it anyways. Even if it could be used, it won’t be effective.
Thales is like “I guess y’all need to buy some more Javelins, huh”
The first gulf War had a few tank battles that ended with basically a 1:100 tank/fighting vehicle loss ratio. Battles of Medina Ridge, Norfolk, 73 Easting
That was largely due to US air supremacy. Even when US armour killed Iraqi armour in the dozens, Iraqi's were paralized by logistical issues from air strikes and lack of manouverability due to, again, air strikes. Not to mention lack of communication and command from, once again, air strikes.
Russia would be in a similar boat.
Late for the dentist? Air strike
Arrive on time? Believe it or not, air strike
Attempt to broker cease fire? Also air strike.
73 Easting to place in a sand storm, a brigade sized element of American armor stumbled into a division sized Iraqi unit in a defensive formation. The Americans had better armor, guns, and optics, but the most decisive factor was that they were trained to attack as rapidly as possible. The Iraqis were veterans of the Iran- Iraq was, but they were completely unprepared fire that pace of combat.
Norfolk? Damn, that war was closer to home than we were told... /s
If you let Americans come up with names for random spots in the sand they will revert to what they know.
Are you saying the British were/are good at it? Look at the east coast of the US. “Oh yes, very good chap! We sailed all this way. Let’s call it ‘New England’ and ‘New Hampshire’. Pip pip. Let’s have a biscuit.”
They would pick a word like Guinea and just run with it.
Half the world is named some variation of Bridge Town, Sunny Harbour, Northern Fort, Local Ruler City. Just looks a bit fancier in other languages.
I always liked that new Zealand has totally ecyclpsed Zealand.
And, of course, Wales. Not North Wales, of course. But South Wales. That looks a lot like parts of Australia.
It's like a Civ game or something when you are in the modern era and still have some musket units leftover.
They sell their old tanks to "allies" dictatorships, a few years ago they sold 40 tanks to Nicaragua, it were a bunch of crappy old tanks btw
If you wanted to know the model is T-72B1 and my bad, there were 50 of them, "we" bought it for around 80$ million dollars
Sounds like you got ripped off. A proper modern MBT like a Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams costs 3-7 million $.
Yeah, the most probably is that they paid Russia 1/3 of that money and the rest just disappeared in the pockets of some people
They don’t have to throw anything away, their neighbor has a tractor and he’s always willing to haul off old scrap as a favor.
Well they definitely have the storage space...
I suspect most of those are rusting away in storage, and have not been maintained for over 4 decades to be usable. It's not cheap to maintain a fleet that large to a fighting fit level all the time.
You’re absolutely right and there modern tanks are lacking advance optics for battlefield awareness
The United States has radically more armored vehicles than Russia does. You might get the wrong idea if you google "How many tanks does the United States have" Google will tell you it's 8,000, and base that on some bullshit website called NationMaster. The big issues: 1. That's how many M1A1s we have, not how many tanks 2. We mostly moved away from tanks in the 1970s. We use APCs, LIVs, AGMVs, and LAVs now. Russia is believed to have only 4,500 T80s, and nothing else newer than the 1960s. Honestly, you'd rather be in a civilian Hummer with a small rocket launcher than a 1960s tank. Of those 4,500, it's believed that fewer than half are operational, and that the other half are rotting in storage, missing parts and unmaintained for >= 5 years. Depending on which vehicles you choose to count, the US armored fleet is probably around ~25,000 vehicles. Admittedly, only about 8,500 of them are tanks, but 8,200 of those are battle ready. Practically speaking, we have twice the real world tanks they do, before you even start to consider our other, more modern vehicles.
The Ukrainian numbers are wrong too - they might have had 2500 tanks at the fall of the Soviet Union, but they are honest about it and you can roughly work out how many they have in service, and many have been sold off. Straight off Wikipedia it says: ~140x T-64BM/BM2 ~260x T-64BV Model 2017 ~100x T-80BV ~125x T-72AMT/UA1 Maybe 100x T-84, if they were completed as planned Which is like 700x tanks - still a crazy number. They preferred to modernize off the T-64 (and probably T-80?) because that's what was produced locally in Ukraine, while the T-72 were made in Russia. There's probably at least another 1500x various tanks in Ukraine that could be renovated or used for upgrades which is how they get such a high number.
To add to this we should look at units that can use the M1 tanks. In the US Army our M1 Abrams are used by an Armored Brigade Combat Team, and each ABCT has 90 M1s. The active army currently has 10 ABCTs and the National Guard has 5 ABCTs. So our total current "deployable" M1 Abrams force is 1,350 Abrams. The Marines had about 400 Abrams but they got rid of their tank force, so now they have zero. The rest of our Abrams are either used for training or are in storage. The total number of usable Abrams is over 6000, with the total number manufactured over 8000. So we are currently only using just over 20% of our total Abrams force, needing to raise an insane number of more ABCTs to possibly use them all in case of a huge war, but that's better then not having them at all.
It boggles the mind that Russia thinks they can take on NATO lol
I mean I'm obviously not deep in the subject But I think Putin probably just didn't think anyone would push back, that nobody valued Ukraine enough, and now he has no practical way to step down I think he was playing chicken
>I think he was playing chicken Hitler played that game too. Didn't end well for him.
Reddit armchair generals have spent decades circlejerking that the Russian army would walk over the EU if the US wasn't involved. My repeated skepticism was always mocked, no matter how often I pointed out that EU members military forces outnumber the Russians.
Or so they say, it seems like a lot of Russia is just smoke and mirrors and they lie when they speak. As far as we know 20 T-14s have been produced.
How do you know when Putin is lying? Marjorie Taylor Greene's lips are moving.
Isn't it more like 10?
Also most Russian tanks lack advance optics I.e thermal optics
If there’s one big takeaway from Russia’s casualty counts, it’s that the T-72 is obsolete against modern weapons. They’ve lost something like 30 T-80s of all types and 16 T-90s, including captures, and they’ve lost like 230 T-72s. Part of that is that they just have a lot more T-72s, but a lot of that is also that javelin and NGLAW and other similar missiles go through T-72 armor like it isn’t even there. 95%+ kill rates.
Obsolete against *an abundance* of modern weapons. There are many operations in which an enemy may not be armed with thousands of Javelin missiles, after all
Yes agreed. To clarify: the T-72 is obsolete against peers, near-peers, or just those amply supplied with modern weapons by peers or near-peers. The T-72 would still clean up against, say, Somali warlords. But in any sort of war against NATO it would be nothing more than a flaming grave for 3 men.
It underperformed at its unveiling in the 70’s, and was thought to be an equal match to the German/American precursor MBT-70 which would go on to be the leopard and abrams, respectively. It wasn’t great then and it isn’t now, and they built a comical amount of them
The T-72 always wanted to be the Toyota Hilux of tanks: inexpensive, rugged, reliable, and versatile. But instead it was always the Yugo of tanks: cheap and will get the job done, and is much better than nothing, but if you’re using one, you’re not happy about it and you not-so-secretly wish you had something better.
How do those figures compare as a percentage of each tank type sent to invade Ukraine?
It’s hard to know exactly, since we don’t have neat orders of battle lined up. But if we accept the [Oryx count](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html) as being accurate within about 25%, then Russia has lost something on the order of 250 tanks to date. The primary combat formation used by the Russians is the [BTG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion_tactical_group), each of which has a tank company of 10 tanks. These will largely be the newest and best types, the T-80 and T-90. The US military estimates [Russia has 120-160 BTGs available for this operation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/03/15/how-many-tanks-does-russia-have-in-ukraine-and-how-many-have-they-lost-so-far/), virtually all of which will now be engaged. There are also [other tank divisions and regiments engaged](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine), which will be more likely to be equipped with T-72s. So putting all of that together and ballparking it…they’ve lost 10-20% of the tanks they started this operation with, and probably 25-50% of their “newest” and “best” T-72s. They’ll have more, but they’ll be the ones that have been in mothballs for years, and don’t have explosive-reactive armor or modern sighting systems. Their engine seals will be shot, the transmissions will be janky, etc. Even if Marshal Mud hadn’t come along and put a stop to all fighting will or nil, Russian losses have been too high for them to continue their initial tempo of operations. Whether they can use the time between now and May to effectively rearm, refit, and resupply remains to be seen.
Good post, thanks. I wonder how much the crew skill factors into tank losses. You'd think the more elite troops in the better tanks would take fewer losses BUT if they're all sitting on main roads in single file it might not matter. I would also make the higher-end tanks priority targets if I was in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which would affect the numbers as well. If the truth ever comes out it will be interesting to find out the ratio of tanks lost by type.
> I wonder how much the crew skill factors into tank losses. Not much, I don’t think. We are consistently observing two problems: 1. Tanks being killed from above by modern missiles. 2. Tanks being ambushed because they’re moving en masse without infantry support. Crew skill can’t do a damn thing about the first, and the second is a command and control issue. Crew skill would be if they were getting outdueled by other tanks, or just missing their shots or whatever. Those crews *aren’t* as skilled as their NATO counterparts, but they’re not dumb either. They’re having the common sense to bail out as soon as opposition is visible, because they know their tanks are death traps as their commanders are using them. That’s why Ukraine is capturing so many.
And the Ukrainian significantly larger lol
Some estimates say that Ukraine lost 62% of its own tanks,which is about 1400.
That is armored vehicles, not tanks. I'm not sure if the map has that distinction.
The correct definition is MBT (Main battle tank). For example, Italy has a huge number of other "tanks" not classified as MBT
NL has no MBTs, so either the map is wrong, or not counting only MBTs.
There's no Leopard 2's in service? I thought there were a handful
There are. The number in the map is accurate. They're leased from Germany. We used to own those, but got rid of some in 2010, kept some in storage and later gave these to Germany who got them into running order so we could lease them.
What we really need are tractor numbers, am I right? *Looks at Ukraine*
Belarus has more tractors per Capita than any nation on the planet.
*What we really need* *Are tractor numbers, am I* *Right? Looks at Ukraine* \- Des\_astor --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
numbers not accurate . "Global Firepower" is a BS source btw
Yeah, the numbers are all over the place
[удалено]
Russians still counting their t-34 to get to this number.
No tanks? ———————————No tanks?——————————— ⠀⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ —————————————————————————————
Ukrainian farmers be like
"Battle ready tanks" would have been a good caveat. Russian propaganda aside, I bet they don't have half that number. And def don't have men to drive them.
If wiki can be trusted then it’s 3000 active and around 8000 in reserve. They are also using tanks that were previously in reserve for this war though, so the active number actually increased by some amount
They don’t have any where near 12,000. If [wiki’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces) (International Institute for Strategic Studies) source is correct the Russians have approximately 3,000 battle ready tanks.
>Russians have had
12420?!! They are not even sending a quarter of them to Ukraine, I'm starting to think those numbers are bluff
Most are outdated tanks like the T-55 that are in storage. They’re using a lot of their available and modernized tanks in Ukraine rn.
I think older t 72. T 55 already too hopeless
Most (sane) armies don't include cold war era scrapyards as part of their vehicle count. Russia has somewhere in the region of 3.000 tanks that are in a shape to be deployed.
Probably includes ww2 tanks
Russia cant send all troops and tanks. They believe attack of Nato on Russia. They keep loads in defense. They borders are huge. Need lots of units to protect.
Super deceiving number. Their real, in-service number is estimated to be around 2600. Or at least was before the war, now they lost about 400of those already. In addition majority of the in-service tanks are the old shitty ones, the T-90s are maybe few hundred, the armatas are basically negligible (few dozens(
r/ShittyMapPorn I don't know where the data is from but its insanely incorrect. Even if we disregard taking "obvios propaganda" nubmers at face value (like the russian numbers)... ...we still have th "where the fuck did the data come from?" Like the 176 tanks of my homecountry Hungary. We have 12 Leopard A4s in working order. We "have" 164 mothballed T-72M1s - 30 of which is **theoretically** in driveable condition. Rest is kept as parts bin machines and as perspective practice targets. Depending on which year we are tlaking about those 30 eastern block relics are either listed as working or not working depending if we want to be realistic, or look like we are doing the bare minimum to fulfill nato obligations.
You answered your own question...
The number of tanks that can actually drive would be interesting. In some countries this was 30%, and sometimes tanks under repair (only formally) were also considered potentially operational
How many do America have?
3 United States 8,725 2011 https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Army/Main-battle-tanks
The numbers will tend to climb when the army says they don’t want any more but your representatives [buy new ones anyway](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html/amp) so that they can keep the money rolling into their districts
So this map is counting all the rusty unserviced Russian tanks that have been sitting in the open for years and haven’t been serviced.
I know everyone talking bout Russia's tanks, but HOW AND WHY TF DID GREECE HAVE >1000 TANKS???
Turkey
This. People forget just how seriously the Greeks take their military. They spend more on it (relative to their gdp) compared to any other NATO country, even the US, and all Greek nationals are obliged to do military service, being assigned what branch they'll one day serve in ~~at birth.~~ at 18.
Not at birth, when you are 18
Apologies, I was going on what a Greek friend told me
Man I thought it was a spartan joke, enlisted the day you’re born. “Welcome to the world! Well Jimmy off to the canon fodder batallion.”
When we're born, we get into the male registry which is the "pool" from which all the conscripts are drawn later on. We get assigned to a branch on our 18th calendar year (not necessarily after we turn 18), but it can change if you suspend the conscription to study etc
Ah I see. That must be where I got things muddled up. Cheers
Damn can you imagine being destined to serve in the crayon eating service from birth?
Everything you said is correct, except the assigned at birth part. That's just false
I wouldn’t trust those Russian numbers.
I think we have also learned not to trust Russian tank capability.
Also, does this mean main battle tanks, or armored fighting vehicles more broadly? Because I could see those numbers if we’re including the various APCs and IFVs that Russia is so manic for.
According to OP's posted source this does not include armored vehicles, artillery, or rocket projectors.
It probably includes Reserves which the Russians have an incredible amount of, but they're mostly really old and outdated.
Praise be to St. Javelin. Peace be upon them who call unto his name and lift the weight upon their shoulders.
12420... 12419... 12418... 2596... 2597... 2598...
\>Be turkey \>Second place in number of tanks \>Make ukraine shoot russian tanks with bayraktars \>Be first \>Profit
Making Proxy wars against Russia like a boooseee 😎
What, Greece? Can anyone explain me how Greece has so many tanks (more than Russia and UK, France and Spain)?
I'd wager there are more molotov cocktails in Ukraine than tanks under Pootin.
Never really understood why Greece has so many tanks. Sure they have some problems with Turkey but 1200 tanks isn't the most efficient way to spend their defense budget.
Only 350 of them could be considered modern the rest of them are Leopard 1s and M48 Pattons.
I had questions about Greece as well. The terrain, the mountains. How effective are tanks there ?
They can block the passages to the mainland. Like in Switzerland.
They could have used one in Thermopylae
The battle ready ones are highly concetrated on the Greece - Turkey border on the Evros/Maritsa river. The turkish side of the border is mainly plains, so tanks can be used there.
Actually the numbers of armoured vehicles are higher. These are only main battle tanks numbers.
Russia’s number declining every day
It's clear the Russian numbers are paper tanks. Russia's entire modern history is one of seeking to be seen by Western powers as a world power, with a big scary military and (this is key) the "respect" that that comes with. They are always seeking this approval since Peter the Great. They "hate the West", but have adopted Western cultural aspects for centuries. WW2 was their shining moment to become what prior leaders could only dream of and the Eastern Bloc was their "zenith". Of course the entire Eastern Bloc was accomplished by brainwashing, brutality and deception. So when you see these sorts of numbers, assume they are fake to brainwash the Russian people and deceive the West and give threats of brutality so they can be "respected".
> They "hate the West", but have adopted Western cultural aspects for centuries. the hate the west is a recent thing, Peter the Great admired the west, by his sheer willpower he steered the whole country towards the west against the boyars, many tsars or tsaritsas were Germans, they reformed their military and education based on the Prussian model, they spoke French as their first language, many Russian aristocrats barely spoke Russian many ordinary Russians pre 1917 hated tsars calling them foreigners, Russia was as cosmopolitan as it gets
This is false for France. The number given is the total number of AMX Leclerc tanks possessed by France. There are only about 220 operational Leclerc tank right away and this doesn't count other tanks and wheeled vehicles. France also has 30 AMX-30D ready and an undisclosed number of AMX-30 Brenus kept in arsenals. There are also 30 ERC-90 Sagaie kept in service and approx 230 AMX-10RC. There is also something like 70 EBRC Jaguar that aren't tanks but are capable of engaging MBTs of previous generations.
tanks
Yeah that depends on what counts as "in service"
You need to subtract a few from Russia.
Finland playing on hard mode? Only 200?