id like to see these scenarios: Modern Present day Germany in ww1 ww2 and cold war modern day Estonia in the estonian war of independence modern day russia in ww1 ww2 cold war modern day america in ww1 ww2 cold war and others set in an alternate timelines
USA still stores shit tons of old planes, and Russian conspiracy theorists think it’s for a build up pre emotive strike on Mexico. It’s a mix of civilian and military aircraft.
I am an old tank commander so it hurts to see this, but it is true. We just became attached to our tanks so it is hard to admit that both the men and vehicles have passed our time of service. This was well presented.
By the time stored tanks became reasonably valuable in a long war your side should already have facilities for mass production of new tanks online and new ones rolling off the assembly line. While I'm sure that right now Lima tank plant takes an ungodly amount of time to produce a single Abrams this would be accelerated to multiple Abrams a day in a SHTF war that tank units actually started taking casualties in not to mention new factories and production lines would be set up as fast as humanly possible for all kinds of AFV production and if they could achieve even a fraction of the production rates we saw in WW2 stored tanks will be valuable precisely until we could roll out new tanks in numbers.
All the little towns around me have tanks. My town has an M 60. The one down the road has an M 48. I expect to see a raid on the enemys Dairy Queen one day.
In my hometown (pop 10,000 at the time) the Dairy Queen franchise owner was trying to make his DQ into a mini NASA! There were big metal tube steel vehicle gates, a mockup of the Apollo capsule, a mockup of a Nike missile, and other stuff.
As an ex Abrams M1A1 crewmember I can answer this easily without watching the video: Tanks suck. They are NOT easy to upkeep. They are NOT long lasting. They break down constantly. You hit the wrong button while it runs, it catches fire. The engines are fragile. The internals breakdown constantly.The hoses are cheap and decay/leak quickly. The electronics an wire harnesses rot. They are old tanks just refurbished again and again. They don't build new tanks. They just cannibalize 3 tanks to refurbish 1 tank. That's why the numbers of tanks decrease. When I was in we started with 30. Then decommissioned and harvested parts of 10 of them dropping us to 20. I've heard since I been out they have taken 5 for parts reducing down to 15 for the unit.
Tbh M1 serie is a nightmare in terms of maintenance compared to any other western MBT. Agreed that a tank still has a lot of components that can breakdown fast
The real reason you don't store tanks is, money. In tanks hoses rot, seals degrade, lubricants break down, fuels vaporize and water infiltrates electronics. The only way to keep this from happening is constant maintenance. This means running up the engines periodically, driving the tanks to keep the running gear from rusting solid and powering up the electronics. You are constantly sinking money into servicing 2nd line tanks that are probably never going to see service again. More than that, you are diverting money from your 1st line tanks to do it. Problems are made worse if you try to upgrade the systems in your obsolete 2nd line tanks to make them slightly less obsolete. Now you got old tanks with expensive new bits rusting in a field somewhere. Its the law of diminishing returns in action.
At 3:00 those are 70 year old T-34-85 Tanks that were restored to working condition with original reconditioned parts for WW2 anniversary/memorial day(May 9th) parades at the 61st Vehicle Repair and Storage Depot in Russia. Newer tanks retain commonality between old and new versions for quick parts replacements, those are usually stored in long term storage for in service tanks.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 look at the mechanical complexity of a T-34 and compare it to a M48A5 or M60A1. Yes, you can get a museum piece running because it's all mechanical and rather crude. However, unless your enemy is fielding Panzer 4's or Sherman's, all you done is sentence the crews to death. Same with every Russian tank up to the T-62.
@@abdulabdanahib9617 It seems that way, but I'm not jazzed about the idea of rolling that thing into a platoon of M1's hoping my HE round does more than scratch the paint...
Yeah, it's better to essentially give them away to nations within your sphere of influence or that are fighting for a cause that benefits you. Keeping the old stock assumes you're going to end up in a fight for survival, which most "power player" nations don't expect to be in for the foreseeable future. So it's unnecessary costs.
You can make back some of the cost of development by selling modernized surplus tanks to allies at a significantly lower cost than they’d spend buying contemporary models plus you can market them as being fully developed technology with a large, inexpensive pool of replacement parts, technical data and expertise available for support throughout their service life too.
@@doomguy9049 To a point you can, for sure, but it is worth noting that arms sales are highly competitive and you may end up pumping money for a large client and get out bid. The "easy" sales, in terms of the client buying what they can get, are with clients that are most likely on arms embargo lists. Needless to say, this is risky even for nations that pretend they don't care what the world thinks, as sanctions hurt. A bunch of the "upgrade" sales are upgrading pre-existing armoured vehicles the client owns (either donated to them during the cold war, or purchased) rather than buying new stock. There are exceptions to this, some nations are trying to shift old stock in package deals with longer term support for training and logistics but this is mostly with planes. Syria is an interesting situation though as it involves large scale loss of pre-existing stock that does need replacing on a budget. There are just some vehicles which are past their date. It's worth keeping older vehicles for Russia, as they can use them as a basis for alternative vehicles like thr T-55 APC variants. Russia is not the Soviet Union and while they're still a player on the geopolitical scene, they're a budget version that needs to get the most they can out of any resources or political actions they do.
Russia is not getting rid of T-72s, there is still about 6000 of them in maintained storage (in addition to over 2000 in active service). Remaining T-62s are also being maintained for reserve forces. The T-55s and T-64s have been decommissioned in 2012, but some are still present in unmaintained storage (for export (in case of T-55s) and source of spare parts for allies possibly).
Keeping old tanks are a waste of resources, period. Unless you spend the money on upgrading the armor, gun, ammo, and engine on an older vehicle, it is just not feasible on the battle field. Would YOU climb into a T-55 and move out to hold the line against the M1 SERP?
2 Things: 1. This Was Explained In The Video In Detail. 2. Well I Mean, A Modernized T-55? Yeah I Would, I Would Be Enough Of A Distraction For Infantry To Take It Out With Some Anti-Tank. A T-55 Without Any Modernization? At That Point Just Tell Me To Try And Ram It With A BT-7, I Would Have A Better Chance Than Trying To Fight In A Ranged Ranged Encounter Against An M1 SERP. Unless Of Course It's An Ambush And We're Doing The Ambush.
There are fewer T-55's out there than you think. "Basic" T-54/55's would only be found today in some African and Asian countries. A T-55 is only as effective as it was maintained and supplied. Ammunition for this Tank has been manufactured since the 1940's and there are great differences in effectiveness between a 100mm APHE(high explosive anti-tank) BR-412 round from 1945 and a 100mm APFSDS(dart shaped sub-caliber anti-tank projectile) BM25 round from 1985. The T-55's D-10 100mm Gun has 1 advantage over modern Russian 125mm Guns - it has Smoke shells and Shrapnel(Air Burst) shells. Allowing it to create a smoke screen ahead of itself and to take out Infantry positions from a distance beyond the range of its coaxial Machinegun. Besides that there is a greater variety of 100mm HE(high explosive) rounds to clear obstacles and buildings(and anyone inside).
I have often wondered why US military doesn’t take its M 60s, and captured Iraqi tanks like T 72s, as well as APCs, artillery pieces, RPGs , machine gun and small arms and simply store them until a crisis arises somewhere in the world such as Taiwan or Ukraine. I have to think that any of these tanks in defensive positions would be of immense value to these countries in warding off an invasion and in gorilla warfare. I’m sure the Ukrainians would be thrilled to have a couple hundred M 60s hidden along main invasion routes, as the Russians amass forces on three sides of the country. It seems even relatively inexperienced tank crews could Wreak havoc against softer targets in a Russian Column like APCs, personnel and fuel trucks.
Money…money U.S left 30,000 M16A1’s & other equipment in Vietnam the Russians did the same in Afghanistan this is no different than what happened with the taliban today. U.S is better off buying a bunch of surplus Akm’s & ak74m’s and ammo from some east Europe country at this point for Ukraine probably be cheaper and enemy combatants use same weapons.
It's not so simple. Tons of money to keep those in repairable condition. And work. Plus, it's not taking into account the realities of many smaller issues. Ammo compatibility, training on said weapon system for Taiwanese soldiers, the transportation of the tanks to Taiwan etc.
Jonny- B Johnny B Goode: no need to maintain, train, any of it. Just store them in the desert if necessary put them on a ship unload them and let the Ukrainians or the Taiwanese figure it out. I have to think that storage and transport would be a whole lot cheaper then give them front line US weapons or nothing at all , Letting them fend for themselves
Part interchangeability and sourcing, degradation of rubber or polymer components, corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement, storage costs and conditions, lubricants and fuel going bad, and 10,000 other practical reasons are why this is not done.
Nowadays there are too many weapons that are a tanks nightmare. In earlier wars tanks were able to wreak havoc amongst opposing infantry, nowadays infantry units have lots of toys they love to play with that are definitely bad for a tank crew's health. I suspect smaller tanks that use AI instead of crews will make an appearance on the battlefield, smaller faster and can operate without rest for longer periods of time.
@@VeeZee777 a lot of the developed worlds armies make sure they to have those, but for guerilla fighters who don't have the backing of these nations they either find a weakness or they're fucked. As I understand it tanks tend to be rather thirsty beasts of war, they also require regular maintenance which is another weakness. Simple, deprive their crews of supplies and you can limit their actions.
The tanks are still stored, but not counted. They are stored as static displays around the country, owned by the Army. A running M60 was recently added to our local WW2 static display tanks, in our war memorial park. All those tanks are still owned by the Army, but not counted as active. Even the old WW2 tanks, still have their engines installed and are complete. Several armored personel carriers are also displayed in my area.
@@johnw5584 None of the tracks are welded, on any of the tracked vehicles, on display in my area. They spot weld or lock the hatches shut. The M60 drove itself off the delivery semi trailer and onto it's new cement pad. Smells and leaks a little diesel on the pad and it has cracked down the center from the track weight on each side. The WW2 tanks have radial engines. Can crawl up the back and see the tops of the engines. I don't know much about the tracked APC's. They are displayed in front of small local national guard posts.
Indeed. I think the MBT will have a place for the foreseeable future don’t get me wrong, having said that todays tanks are fighting yesterday’s wars and Ukraine is proving that against Russia. The Russian tank excluding a couple of the new tanks that are on paper at least and are not being used on the battlefield, are old and dated and are for easy pickings for a Ukrainian grunt with a Javelin or the German antitank gun, even their own in house antitank gun is doing well against Russian tanks. The US is picking up on this quickly and I have no doubt that the army will soon triple the orders from Israel the trophy system. The marines got rid of the tank all together. If you are in rough terrain or open fields and deserts the tank can still be an effective weapon on the battlefield, in the cities especially without something like a trophy system they are sitting ducks.
@@spidervito997 Russia used 180,000 soldiers in Ukraine, Ukraine has 350,000 soldiers, 1,000,000 reserves, + 60,000 National Guard, why are Russians still in Ukraine if Russians are not effective?
@@ВладимирВ-э3п why don’t you ask Putin? It’s obvious the tanks and vehicles that are being used right now by Russia aren’t the top they could come up with. A single soldier can destroy a tank with an nlaw, that negates its advanced allot if you ask me
I'd pay good money for one of those British Scorpion tanks. Those little scout tanks are so cool. Wish there was more half tracks available those would be fun as hell to drive around.
Yes. Russian tanks, ships and aircraft are generally second rate. People largely over-estimate Russia's arms technology. Some of their stuff is okay, their rocket artillery and guided missiles are pretty good, but most of their equipment is not up to par with that of western powers, especially the US.
Simplified: When you would need substitute tanks because the ones you used in a battle those old tanks are inferior to the ones that you already lost and couldn't defeat the enemy, so there's no point in storing coffins on tracks
@@timpalmer-logstolumber1999 A good example of what? That Iraq by itself was facing the US, UK, French, Saudi Arabian, and Kuwaiti Forces with Iraq's Military worn out by almost 9 years of war with Iran?
RE the training - the History Channel had a special on armor in Korea. A number of American crews were using M4 Shermans and came into contact with North Korean T-34/85s. The Americans had expected to suffer some punishment from the T-34s, having heard of their reputation; but the North Koreans lacked the training and experience the Americans had with their own tanks, and subsequently took heavy losses to the Americans. On the other hand, as you probably know, old T-34 tanks were taken from monument status to runners, by Ukrainians who needed anything that had armor on it. I do not know if these vehicles were actually committed to battle, but they must have been desperate to start them up again. Impressive, nevertheless. ruclips.net/video/jQ5Va_F3jx0/видео.html
@N Fels I'm sorry to hear of your complete distaste for the History Channel - they have earned criticism in some areas, but that does not discredit them entirely. Their interviews of veterans are still worthy of viewing. Perhaps you did not completely read through my comment, which was essentially to say that the T-34 (76mm) was overrated. In fact, this Russian video compares the M4 Sherman with the T-34 and concludes that the M4 was better. The narrators go on to say that the Soviets lost 4-5 tanks, for every panzer they killed, because of the design flaws. The US Korean War tank crews were surprised, because they had heard of the legendary reputation of the T-34, and it did not live up to all the hype. The T-34/85, which American crews faced, corrected some of those deficiencies, particularly by adding another crewman - with an experienced Soviet crew, it may have been formidable, but with hastily-trained North Koreans, that was another story. Here is the Russian video. I have to find the translation I made for it. ruclips.net/video/OVXMe0CUEmc/видео.html
While I don't expect russia and the united states to maintain ancient tanks I would still expect them to be used in proxy-wars around the world. In empovrished countries there are plenty or resourceful people who can keep old tanks operational, and tanks are exactly the kind of equipment used in those kind of conflicts
Its especially true in the African Bush Wars, granted they primairly use APCs and improvised armed technicals, but still its not uncommon to see t-72s.
Interesting analysis. I wonder if AI and autonomous tanks will change the calculus in the future. It could extend the shelf life of vehicles and platforms like this if done well. A meat shield that has no meat in it but is still dangerous could be useful for Russia that has a lot of land to cover with limited budget.
Every country needs to equip and train for their own specific battle scenario. Tanks are useless if the country in question Cannot secure their own skies and even more useless if most of the countryside is mountainous one track terrain. Some countries really shouldnt even use tanks period. Others like the U.S and E.U could still use repurposed older varients as armored recovery vehicles, mobile emplacements etc.
A good tank crew can work wonders with any tank. Yes there are drones and other weaponry that could destroy a tank easily but a good tank crew would know where it’s disadvantage are. And I’m a modern war against huge powers drones aren’t gonna be everywhere if the air is contested. No tank crew is gonna chose to go head on with another tank if it’s not necessary. Nor will they abandon concealment or cover for any unnecessary reason.
@@HarrDarr the Iraqi crews were severely undertrained. Their tactics were also flawed. The modern tanks provide a edge but what really matter is the crew, command and tactics. Which the Americans were vastly superior not to mention the air superiority.
A tank on its own is weak. That is the reason why all parts of the armed forces are interconnected and work together. AA to protect the tank from airstrikes, a tank to protect AA from groundstrikes.
@@neodym5809 my point exactly u can have the best tank but if it’s in the open with no defense it’s cooked regardless of how modern or old it is. People think it’s like in the video games or movies where there are massive tank battles and shit. I’m real life situations tanks avoid each other because if they meet it’s one or two shots and the engagement is over.
Today, tanks are sitting ducks unless you have air dominance. Once you have that, tanks are useful, but no more so than other heavy machinery. Not saying tanks aren't important, just not more important than other fighting vehicles.
Not to mention the proliferation of powerful man portable AT weapons, ATGMs, and IEDs. Tanks simply aren't undisputed kings of the battlefield anymore. Upgunned APCs and IFVs are simply more cost effective than tanks.
Sure if u deploy a modern MBT in a third world country against some terrorists with sheeps and bombs will be effective But if its a modern combat scenario they are indeed somewhat obsolete
You of course failed to name a single "other vehicle". So you are leading your attack with what? Humvees? They will get annihilated by Infantry with simple large caliber(12.7mm or otherwise known as .50 caliber) Machineguns or Rifles if you have no armored vehicles. The simplest AT Grenades(RPG's) will neutralize them, including ancient German Panzerfausts from WW2. You won't lose a single Tank, but you will lose 100's of Humvees, especially if facing "other" Tanks. The only Humvee that comes even remotely close to acting in the same role as a "tank" is the Hawkeye 105mm Mobile Gun vehicle, which today are only prototypes. They lack ammunition storage, have no armor for crew, have to stop and emplace themselves to fire, use a complex firing system(with a remote control), and use only 105mm Howitzer ammunition - which means no "specialized" anti-armor AP(Armor Piercing) ammunition. So the Hawkeye vehicles have all the weaknesses of a Tank, and none of the strengths. The Hawkeye vehicles are lighter than Tanks and the US really has no other 105mm Self-Propelled Howitzer so other options aren't really there. In Combined Arms Warfare everybody works together filling their specific role, nobody is better or worse.
It's probably a logistics issue. You'd need a lot of whearehouse space with some climate control so the internals don't get damaged. That's allot of money to spend.
Well the reason why we don't store m60s no more it's cuz we got over 6,333 , m1a1's m1a2s and then the new version, so we don't have room for old m1 through the m60s
"Simply giving old stored tanks to people with little training, will result in those tanks being horrendously misused." As what we see in Ukraine today. Russian tanks being driven straight into ambushes, failing to spread out when engaging, being driven into mud and getting stuck, broken down and abandoned along roads, ...
I feel like Russian tankers may have played too much tank games like WoT and WT because I see a lot of the same kind of bad habits. And no infantry so driving right into a city is fine.
Back in the 70s and 80s, Bulgaria (and I assume other Warsaw Pact countries) kept ALL tanks and APCs in storage. From T-34s used in the Second World War to T-55s. Old Panzers were used as stationary turrets as well. Absolutely nothing was thrown out, let's keep it "just in case" - artillery and anti-tank guns, Mig-19s, etc.. But the military budget was much bigger and it was a national priority since in an event of a war we'd be facing two NATO members simultaneously. The idea was that in case of a war all men would be mobilized and that a person who had trained on a T-34 back in his youth would be back in that type of a tank - so people who just got out of the mandatory 2 year service and had fresh memory would technically get the best equipment. In the Bulgarian-Soviet "friendship" regiment in Elhovo during the 70s, there was a story that told of a high ranking Soviet general who came to inspect the troops. He then went to the storage bunkers and found the T-34 in which he had fought during WW2 and began crying :)
I would imagined the guys having to crew it incase of ww3 would also be crying, due to different reasons of course. I know I would be if I had to use a t34 in the 1970s.
We have a legend of some Russian general visiting some Finnish army event (can't tell if during or after Cold War), and he was absolutely confused by our ZiL trucks having refillable gas tanks. The story told about those trucks was that they were supposed to be airdropped over Africa by the thousands with sealed gas tanks. Survival rate for drop was projected to be around 40-60%, so refueling the vehicle was simply installing a fuel tank from a totaled truck.
there was a report saying Pakistan bought 282 older T55 tanks from Serbia and deployed them on Afghanistan boarder and keep then keep the newer modern tanks on the Eastern side facing India. makes good to put assets in positions where they are less challenged and have advantage over adversity in the limited budget.
Back in the day Quwait also used our M84 tanks. Which were made in Yugoslavia and still serve to this day. Few days ago we saw those tanks in Rijeka, T72s and M84s are being sent to Croatia and Chezchs for remont. M84 also recieved new robotics, and new Serbian tank M84 AS1 is the newest tank that came out year or two ago.
Also Serbia, Russia and other middle east countries have been trading in weapons and armor. Turkey and Greece for example while NATO and US dictate them what is best for them (turkey is under US sanctions btw) they now look on the other side and what is best for them. Serbia has interest in Barjaktar drones from Turkey and they have been putting some funds into drones.
Some smarty-pants in the Pentagon wrote a paper that concluded: The logistical costs of a tank force goes up to the fifth power of tank tonnage. So if one increases tonnage by X of tanks, the cost to maintain them goes up X^5! I never understood how in the heck this could be the case, until I watched this video!
@@Ikbeneengeit I remember that factoid from someone's video about The Russian Armata (sp?) tank, and why there isn't a continuing stampede of armed forces up-gunning their MBTs past 120mm to 140mm to redonkulous. Bigger guns require bigger and heavier tanks, and heavier tanks get way more expensive with an aggressive polynomial 5th power cost curve!
@@hellomoto1426 That's what my wife says. Except she says it more like, "You SEEM like a smarty pants." She does have 3 degrees, though, one of which is a Stanford PhD. Then, if you ask if she's a "smarty pants," I suspect she'd just say, "Yes." Like Spock would have, except she's a Chinese woman and not Leonard Nimoy.
@@stcredzero my mom is a teacher and has a doctorate degree and finally made it to $65000 a year...my dad was a teacher for 35 years and retired 9 years ago with no degrees at $161,000....degrees don't make you smart lol For the record the departure from tanks on the battlefield I feel has been a huge mistake...as was the additional technology being constantly integrated...More tech means more problems...emp bursts wouldn't have had much effect on WW2 tanks but they would absolutely destroy everything on the battlefield today including the guns soldiers are carrying... Simple solution to take over the world today...find a bunch of King Tiger tanks and rebuild them...then build a bunch of EMPs....job done...
You can buy old tanks in the U.S. Obviously you need a special license/ permit. Other than that I don't know the qualifications but you can def own certain tanks and artillery pieces. I know one thing, the average citizen cannot afford such things so they're not common place, but they're out there.
An armored brigade has plenty of fuel trucks, the problems is, ensuring the tanks/ Bradley's can go far enough before breaking down. Fuel wasn't a problem in my brigade, the lack of funding of our vehicles being reset and the lack of major parts to keep the tanks going. 2nd bde 1st armored divsion was at less then 50% vehicle operstional status only 10 days into the box at NTC.
@Jacky138 yep. I bet all the "trainers" have never even operated a T-62, if they receive any training (a big if) it's all from an ancient manual they dusted off a month ago.
This is a ridiculously complex video when all that’s needed is one word - obsolescence. You might as well ask, “Why don’t militaries store thousands of 1950s fighter jets ?” 🤦🏻♂️
The North Koreans use 50s fighters. While obsolete they could still deliver first strike payloads. Plus If nothing is left, an f86 or f4 would be better than nothing, for something
@@johnfaris5376 nope, the 50s jets won’t even make it to their targets - they’re only used as trainers anyway and the Phantom probably isn’t in any fit state to fly. Regardless, Unless it is up against a third world enemy it’s getting shot down in minutes.
MARTIN WOOD you’re assuming older aircraft would be pitted against top line defenses and aircraft. What about the scenario where there’s nothing left? The S 400s have all been fired and the front line migs are all gone. I sure rather have a Sky raider flying top cover than nothing, that is the only scenario where older aircraft and tanks would be useful, when everything else is either somewhere else or already gone
As we see in Syria, obsolete tanks can still be used as Infantry support, and do a damn good job of it (when the skies are clear). Even holding them in the 2nd or 3rd line of defence, only to be moved up when contact is made and reinforcements and firepower is needed so as to keep them hidden from drones. They still have a use, but they have to be used differently than your 'modern' tanks.
C'mon Binkov, give us something on the Ukraine situation mate! Regardless of your affiliation, I'd love to hear your perspective, or even a balanced perspective.
Not entirely unreasonably. Modern warfare is becoming about aircraft. Tanks nowadays are becoming less and less useful considering they're huge targets an aircraft can take out with a single missile reliably, not considering relatively cheap drones whos pilots are constantly gaining experience and can't be killed (which is very important for a pilot.)
Question : Why is no one storing old tanks ? Video answer : starts by listing the number of tanks in storage in some countries. Binkov, you complete muppet !
That manscape stuff is crap! The battery does not last long at all, and trust me don't try to shave your balls with it unless you want lots of cuts and pain. Balls are not balloons.
@@vauxdoublemaxim Why would balls need aerodynamics? They have hair to keep them warm. This whole thing about shaving balls comes from the porn industry where an actor shows his junk to the camera and it looks more clean.
@vauxdoublemaxim Lol aeroynamics have no impact if its COVERED BY CLOTHES, and afaik, athletes do wear underwear or shorts so there is zero impact if there is hair.
It's similar, to a lesser extent in Australia. While they look impressive isn't hard not to imagine a Javelin team being able to take it out in-between eating lunch.
@@somethinglikethat2176 And I think that's what a lot of Joe Public doesn't realize. While modern tanks still have a place on the battlefield, that's because they are modern or at least modernized, tanks serving in a combined arms force. There is a minimum threshold capability that needs to be met for different intensities of warfare and below that, sending obsolete equipment is just wasting men and material.
I was stationed in the Army in the early 80's Attack helicopter unit Ah1S tows. We were about 35 miles form Fulda. There were underground bunkers all over Germany stored with everything. The 11th ACR was expected to have 60-75% causality rate in the first 15 min. The joke was the 11th ACR was going to slow down the Russians by them tripping over their bodies.
In Australia in the 2006-7, I was posted to 1st ARMD and we conducted the transfer from the leopard to the Abraham's and the reason we were told is that due to stress fractures and metal fatigue the leopard was getting punched through with 30mm rounds in tests.
Is the Leopard a tank or something more akin to an APC? Sorry I know nothing, just beginning to explore tanks and vehicles. Bit of a naval history buff.
@@depth386 It's a modern German Tank replaced now with the Leopard 2 in Germany and others. Australia went with the Abraham's at USA's request so that if at war, Australian soldiers would use American equipment overseas so Australia can train troops of the same design at home.
@@leviathansnemesis3742 ah okay so if the Leopard was a proper battle tank then the 30mm rounds penetrating was super unacceptable. When AA guns can kill tanks lol
@@depth386 Yes, understanding that it was used by Australia for over 30 years, one could extrapolate that most tanks that are getting long in the tooth would be facing the same problem.
I still think it’s worth keeping most if not all tanks. Without maintance and spare parts it would cost just warehouse upkeep which is nothing for governments. Granted most wouldn’t even work during the war, but few that would, would still be useful. Even WW2 tanks pose a massive threat to suprised soldiers or urban targets. Just beacuse you will trash 99/100 old tanks doesn’t make the last one useless. Granted in a grand scope of things it won’t matter. But you never know.
@@yagami1134 Not really, how effective is that is junk when a squad of inf can do the same? A light cannon and mg vs a squad with lmg and anti armor missles. It's a minor nusiance to be removed like a tick on a dog.
Depends what tanks you are referring to. A unit of T-34-85's used mainly for WW2 anniversary parades(shown in this video) in Russia conducted live fire exercises recently(to maintain tank crewman skills) with their old 85mm Guns. The crews were mostly under 20, the tanks were around 70 years old, from the last production batches post-WW2 and recently rebuilt.
The most important reasons IMO: 1) Nobody expects a long conventional war anymore (this was addressed towards the end of the video), if they did it would make sense storing older tanks because having an old tank is better than having no tanks, and if you're not losing badly the enemy's best tanks would be gone too after a while. But if you don't expect that scenario the maintenance costs just feel like dead weight. 2) Manufacturers make more money building newer tanks (also for export) and the defense industry having a powerful voice in politics is definitely not limited to American/Western politics.
More precise Russia is sending these old tanks to the Peoples republic of Donets And Luhansk. The Russian armed forces itself uses more modern equipment.
I understand that older M-1 tanks are being retrofitted with diesel engines. With upgrades sensors / fire-control equipment, etc, should be useful for decades. Similar to upgraded Shermans the Israelis' used for multiple conflicts after WWII. Just because equipment is old doesn't necessarily mean useless. Such as B-52, oftentimes older than the air crew.
@@xzqzq 🤣 that’s our military philosophy bud. In peace time we shrink our armed forces to a level that makes us unable to respond to large threats quickly. We then need to spend billion on weapon programs to catch up. See ww2 in 1940 for evidence. During the Falklands war the month before Argentina invade we decommissioned 2 amphibious assault ships and were about to decommission the Aircraft carrier HMS Hermes. All three ships were pivotal in our victory. If Argentina had waited a few months they might have won.
Infantry AT weapons seem to be doing a number on Russian tanks in Ukraine. I think the US might of been ahead of the Russians in realizing that tanks just don't provide the value they used to. What good is a modern main battle tank if its going to be knocked out by the same weapon that a infantry support vehicle would be.
they are using old tanks only, there's no tank with APS system nor T14 Armata, they are throwing old equipment and conscripts for the most part. A modern tank with APS is immune to most missiles thrown at him. All of Israel Merkava IVs have it I would argue it's better to sell a part of your tanks to equip the rest with APS, there's no point in using them without it.
@@Welterino with enough rockets fired from the same direction even APS will eventually fail. The cost would still be much lower for the antin tank infantry
@@lukas081559 Exactly, and Ukraine has plenty. They can shoot first with cheaper, more avaiable non guided AT weapons like the RPG-7 and AT-4 in order to make the target waste their active protection hard-kill systems or to destoy any missile jamming devices. Then a NLAW will take care of the tank itself. Not to mention that the T-14 Armatta is more of a legend. They only have them in small numbers, not enough to make a big difference, and their combat readyness is still to be seen.
@@Welterino Russia does have both reactive armor bricks and extra grid armor on most of its tanks. Doesn't provide enough protection. Also, the T-14 Armata still can't be mass produced. Finally, any tank needs a long line of fuel trucks supporting it, which can easily be taken out by light man-portable drones. Finally, none of those are particularly effective against anti tank mines, which are still a significant issue for the Russians. Which also means that a painted dinner plate on the road is enough to force a tank crew to stop.
The 3 M4 Tanks are upgraded Argentinian versions - M4SR(Sherman Repotenciado). They have French diesel engines and French 105mm Guns. If I were Paraguay I would order "replacement" 105mm Gun barrels(which Argentina produced locally through a French license) and place them on a motorized Artillery carriage or modified Truck to create an Anti-Tank and Assault Gun with 105mm tank ammunition. The M3 Stuarts are apparently just training vehicles. The main "tank" of Paraguay is still the Brazilian made EE-9 Cascavel wheeled "light" armored vehicle with 90mm Gun.
The improvements in guided munitions and their proliferation across every unit on and above the battlefield has made big armored units a liability (mostly financial) rather than an asset. Historically tanks were a force multiplier that was very difficult to remove from the battlefield. Now two 19 year olds with a $200k man portable missile can pretty much get a guaranteed kill on $7M MBT, then flee on foot.
In an open deserted field with no obstacles, no rain, no fog, no smoke, no snow, and no other combatants armed with things like Sniper rifles. Those two 19 year olds can also be vaporized by an HE shell fired from 4km away from that same tank, especially if it has a thermal imaging sight or a UAV(drone) overhead detecting threats for the Tank unit and warning it ahead of time.
Tanks may not be as prolific with as many variations and models as WW2, but the tank will always be a combat unit maintained at some level. When the tenchnology catches up for tanks to combat missiles it will swing the other way again
@@alexmaclean6132 that’s a fair assessment. I just think, for now, it’s too cheap and easy to take them out. If armor or active defensive capability technology improves, that very well could change.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 Not only is this example ridiculously hypothetical, why would any military ever put a Javalin team in such an absurd position? Look, it isn't difficult to understand why Javalin teams are efficient and in what conditions they are best used. Are they ideal in densely clustered urban environments with no surround hills? Not really. Are they well suited for miles and miles of open desert? Nope. However, if tanks have to bunker themselves into cities or stay out in open deserts to keep from getting swatted by them, then the Javalin teams have done their job simply by containing the tanks in ways that limit their utility. Again, I would never say that tanks don't have a well earned and well deserved place on the battlefield. I'm simply saying that, in the modern age, they can't operate without a healthy amount of caution. Even the toughest tanks can be taken out relatively easily via a dozen different options. Go watch videos of how the Syrian tanks fared in areas littered with TOW missile launchers. Each time you see that fireball blast out of the hatch, that's $10M worth of equipment and a handful of lives going up in smoke. Tanks are no longer indestructible juggernauts unleashed en masse onto the battlefield. They are a victim of their own success. When they became dominant, every major nation set itself to finding efficient and effective counters. We are now near the apex of that endeavor, and it will likely remain so until major advancements are made in armor or active countermeasures.
Simply, even reserve tanks still need maintenance and it's not cheap, also in modern combat, those old tanks especially from 1950's-1960's can be destroyed by cheap RPG
The Sky is the future of modern warfare. Have you seen what the Azerbaijani did with their drones? Armenian air defense may be partly to blame but still, those little devils cracked open soldiers, ordnances, and tanks alike.
Binkov made an elaborate video about it. I'll say his video is the only one that's not over-hyped and analyzes the situation from various angles. Just search YT with keywords like "Binkov", "Azerbizan vs Armenia", "drone" and you'll find it.
Armenia sent barley anything to help local forces in Karabakh. Their single TOR was obviously going to get destroyed. Alongside older systems meant for planes and not drones. Drones did not stop Syria from beating Turkish arse in the battle of Saraqib. And Libyans shot down more drones than they lost Pantsirs.
Except you can't control Ground from the Sky, a fact made very clear when the US lost Afghanistan, even though it had complete Air Superiority. The drones are only operational as long as their command posts and airfields are intact or radio control channels are not jammed.
You mentioned need for maintenance for tanks (equipment) in storage. There are multiple "levels" of storage, depending on how fast you want to get the equipment working. For fastest recovery you have to have people working on it monthly. Starting it periodically, running all the systems, periodically changing fluids and filters, moving them so soft parts don't develop "flat spots", turning them around so rubber on one side only is not always exposed to sun (that was one problem for russia when the 40 mile convoy to Kyev had lots of flat tires, also cheap junky tires). The US does maintenance, russia doesn't. They pay for it, but the work is not done. US stores tanks (aircraft) in the warm, dry desert. russia stores them in Siberia and various other wet and cold places. Places that actually require more maintenance than desert. And due to corruption in russian military, they tend to strip parts and sell them for extra money. For example, Spain had a bunch of Leopard tanks they wanted to donate to Ukraine. First Germany said no, but later they withdrew the offer because they later discovered the tanks required too much repair work to make them usable.
Before watching: Because they need regular expensive maintenance even if they aren't in use otherwise they won't work when you need them? After watching: And any tank that isn't cutting edge dies to (relatively) cheap RPG's too.
At least if those supposed tanks in Europe work...I mean Germany had to report a ship as armed and ready to NATO a few years ago that was neither armed, nor ready to sail (no fuel, engine problems or something, I don't remember exactly, but it was not useable!), there was also helicopters that wouldn't fly, jets that didn't have spare parts and tanks that were in pieces because spare parts were also not available!...so yeah, frankly I am ashamed of Germany's armed forces! Our government is too much of a cheapskate to spend even 2% of GDP for the armed forces...frankly a rich man on safari is better equipped than some Bundeswehr units -.- and we couldn't defend Germany from an attack even if we wanted to, not with as much disabled or outdate equipment that is still used! My father was an officer in the Bundeswehr (Luftwaffe to be specific, he was the equivalent of a Lt.-Colonel!) and commanded a Patriot-System...that was in the 80's however and Patriot is still the best you have (sadly!) in air-defense in NATO Armies...the Russians have better stuff even, the S400, probably the best air-defense system in world!
That was a really crappy reloading of the Carl Gustaf! I don’t agree with all points made. The offensive power of tanks should not be underestimated and is not easily replaced by heavy squad weapons, and I say this as a former anti-tank-missile platoon commander.
One notable exception to this might be Taiwan where older tanks might make good beach defenses and can be parked a few miles from the coast as driven the the cost as needed and be manned by reservist.
After Operation Desert Storm the US cut its armor in Europe by 1/3 and drew down the active-duty personnel. The dissolved Soviet Union did the same thing. Meanwhile they began upgrading their guns and armor, and the tanks that stayed in active duty began a various system technology climb. This has not really changed much, and Afghanistan was not a tank war. Strikers and hummers were used for infantry support and movement, with various gun trucks. They were taking excess M60's pot to the Pacific and dumping the stripped bodies off boats to make artificial reefs.
Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 Free Gifts with promo code "BINKOV20" at mnscpd.com/binkov
id like to see these scenarios:
Modern Present day Germany in ww1 ww2 and cold war
modern day Estonia in the estonian war of independence
modern day russia in ww1 ww2 cold war
modern day america in ww1 ww2 cold war
and others set in an alternate timelines
USA still stores shit tons of old planes, and Russian conspiracy theorists think it’s for a build up pre emotive strike on Mexico. It’s a mix of civilian and military aircraft.
Thoughts On AI taking driving used/old tanks ?
how does the recoiless rifle factor in ?
You don't need my validation, but your Manscape commercial was well done Comrade👏👩💼🇺🇲🛠️🇷🇺
I am an old tank commander so it hurts to see this, but it is true. We just became attached to our tanks so it is hard to admit that both the men and vehicles have passed our time of service. This was well presented.
Antiques
Stored tanks might not be so useful in a 'big war' but they may be useful in a 'long war'.
I was a tanker. Binkov is right, a tank 20 years old would be easy prey. Look at the gulf war. Plus you need people who have experience.
1 'big long' and 1 coke please
By the time stored tanks became reasonably valuable in a long war your side should already have facilities for mass production of new tanks online and new ones rolling off the assembly line. While I'm sure that right now Lima tank plant takes an ungodly amount of time to produce a single Abrams this would be accelerated to multiple Abrams a day in a SHTF war that tank units actually started taking casualties in not to mention new factories and production lines would be set up as fast as humanly possible for all kinds of AFV production and if they could achieve even a fraction of the production rates we saw in WW2 stored tanks will be valuable precisely until we could roll out new tanks in numbers.
@@daniel17319 more determining was that the Iraqis were poorly trained and commanded compared to Nato or Warsaw pact Militaries
@@josephahner3031 war factories
All the little towns around me have tanks. My town has an M 60. The one down the road has an M 48. I expect to see a raid on the enemys Dairy Queen one day.
Ashamed. You can't use them on looters and MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTERS
In my hometown (pop 10,000 at the time) the Dairy Queen franchise owner was trying to make his DQ into a mini NASA! There were big metal tube steel vehicle gates, a mockup of the Apollo capsule, a mockup of a Nike missile, and other stuff.
As an ex Abrams M1A1 crewmember I can answer this easily without watching the video: Tanks suck. They are NOT easy to upkeep. They are NOT long lasting. They break down constantly. You hit the wrong button while it runs, it catches fire. The engines are fragile. The internals breakdown constantly.The hoses are cheap and decay/leak quickly. The electronics an wire harnesses rot. They are old tanks just refurbished again and again. They don't build new tanks. They just cannibalize 3 tanks to refurbish 1 tank. That's why the numbers of tanks decrease. When I was in we started with 30. Then decommissioned and harvested parts of 10 of them dropping us to 20. I've heard since I been out they have taken 5 for parts reducing down to 15 for the unit.
and tanks are easily destroyed from the air or many infantry anti-tank munitions. Tanks are little more than sitting ducks now days.
@Jack der Hauptsturmführer lol.
Tbh M1 serie is a nightmare in terms of maintenance compared to any other western MBT. Agreed that a tank still has a lot of components that can breakdown fast
Thanks for sharing your insight.
Thanks for sharing
The real reason you don't store tanks is, money.
In tanks hoses rot, seals degrade, lubricants break down, fuels vaporize and water infiltrates electronics.
The only way to keep this from happening is constant maintenance.
This means running up the engines periodically, driving the tanks to keep the running gear from rusting solid and powering up the electronics.
You are constantly sinking money into servicing 2nd line tanks that are probably never going to see service again. More than that, you are diverting money from your 1st line tanks to do it.
Problems are made worse if you try to upgrade the systems in your obsolete 2nd line tanks to make them slightly less obsolete. Now you got old tanks with expensive new bits rusting in a field somewhere.
Its the law of diminishing returns in action.
At 3:00 those are 70 year old T-34-85 Tanks that were restored to working condition with original reconditioned parts for WW2 anniversary/memorial day(May 9th) parades at the 61st Vehicle Repair and Storage Depot in Russia.
Newer tanks retain commonality between old and new versions for quick parts replacements, those are usually stored in long term storage for in service tanks.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 look at the mechanical complexity of a T-34 and compare it to a M48A5 or M60A1.
Yes, you can get a museum piece running because it's all mechanical and rather crude.
However, unless your enemy is fielding Panzer 4's or Sherman's, all you done is sentence the crews to death.
Same with every Russian tank up to the T-62.
ruclips.net/video/n_aDMqFrUV8/видео.html&ab_channel=VasiliyPanasenko
russian tanks dont need maintenance
@@abdulabdanahib9617 It seems that way, but I'm not jazzed about the idea of rolling that thing into a platoon of M1's hoping my HE round does more than scratch the paint...
Yeah, it's better to essentially give them away to nations within your sphere of influence or that are fighting for a cause that benefits you.
Keeping the old stock assumes you're going to end up in a fight for survival, which most "power player" nations don't expect to be in for the foreseeable future. So it's unnecessary costs.
You can make back some of the cost of development by selling modernized surplus tanks to allies at a significantly lower cost than they’d spend buying contemporary models plus you can market them as being fully developed technology with a large, inexpensive pool of replacement parts, technical data and expertise available for support throughout their service life too.
@@doomguy9049 To a point you can, for sure, but it is worth noting that arms sales are highly competitive and you may end up pumping money for a large client and get out bid. The "easy" sales, in terms of the client buying what they can get, are with clients that are most likely on arms embargo lists. Needless to say, this is risky even for nations that pretend they don't care what the world thinks, as sanctions hurt. A bunch of the "upgrade" sales are upgrading pre-existing armoured vehicles the client owns (either donated to them during the cold war, or purchased) rather than buying new stock. There are exceptions to this, some nations are trying to shift old stock in package deals with longer term support for training and logistics but this is mostly with planes. Syria is an interesting situation though as it involves large scale loss of pre-existing stock that does need replacing on a budget.
There are just some vehicles which are past their date. It's worth keeping older vehicles for Russia, as they can use them as a basis for alternative vehicles like thr T-55 APC variants. Russia is not the Soviet Union and while they're still a player on the geopolitical scene, they're a budget version that needs to get the most they can out of any resources or political actions they do.
Russia is not getting rid of T-72s, there is still about 6000 of them in maintained storage (in addition to over 2000 in active service). Remaining T-62s are also being maintained for reserve forces.
The T-55s and T-64s have been decommissioned in 2012, but some are still present in unmaintained storage (for export (in case of T-55s) and source of spare parts for allies possibly).
Keeping old tanks are a waste of resources, period. Unless you spend the money on upgrading the armor, gun, ammo, and engine on an older vehicle, it is just not feasible on the battle field. Would YOU climb into a T-55 and move out to hold the line against the M1 SERP?
2 Things:
1. This Was Explained In The Video In Detail.
2. Well I Mean, A Modernized T-55?
Yeah I Would, I Would Be Enough Of A Distraction For Infantry To Take It Out With Some Anti-Tank.
A T-55 Without Any Modernization?
At That Point Just Tell Me To Try And Ram It With A BT-7, I Would Have A Better Chance Than Trying To Fight In A Ranged Ranged Encounter Against An M1 SERP.
Unless Of Course It's An Ambush And We're Doing The Ambush.
There are fewer T-55's out there than you think. "Basic" T-54/55's would only be found today in some African and Asian countries. A T-55 is only as effective as it was maintained and supplied. Ammunition for this Tank has been manufactured since the 1940's and there are great differences in effectiveness between a 100mm APHE(high explosive anti-tank) BR-412 round from 1945 and a 100mm APFSDS(dart shaped sub-caliber anti-tank projectile) BM25 round from 1985.
The T-55's D-10 100mm Gun has 1 advantage over modern Russian 125mm Guns - it has Smoke shells and Shrapnel(Air Burst) shells. Allowing it to create a smoke screen ahead of itself and to take out Infantry positions from a distance beyond the range of its coaxial Machinegun. Besides that there is a greater variety of 100mm HE(high explosive) rounds to clear obstacles and buildings(and anyone inside).
8:31 - Artillery unit blows away own commander. "Great Success!" LOL!
I have often wondered why US military doesn’t take its M 60s, and captured Iraqi tanks like T 72s, as well as APCs, artillery pieces, RPGs , machine gun and small arms and simply store them until a crisis arises somewhere in the world such as Taiwan or Ukraine. I have to think that any of these tanks in defensive positions would be of immense value to these countries in warding off an invasion and in gorilla warfare. I’m sure the Ukrainians would be thrilled to have a couple hundred M 60s hidden along main invasion routes, as the Russians amass forces on three sides of the country. It seems even relatively inexperienced tank crews could Wreak havoc against softer targets in a Russian Column like APCs, personnel and fuel trucks.
Money…money U.S left 30,000 M16A1’s & other equipment in Vietnam the Russians did the same in Afghanistan this is no different than what happened with the taliban today. U.S is better off buying a bunch of surplus Akm’s & ak74m’s and ammo from some east Europe country at this point for Ukraine probably be cheaper and enemy combatants use same weapons.
It's not so simple. Tons of money to keep those in repairable condition. And work. Plus, it's not taking into account the realities of many smaller issues. Ammo compatibility, training on said weapon system for Taiwanese soldiers, the transportation of the tanks to Taiwan etc.
Jonny- B Johnny B Goode: no need to maintain, train, any of it. Just store them in the desert if necessary put them on a ship unload them and let the Ukrainians or the Taiwanese figure it out. I have to think that storage and transport would be a whole lot cheaper then give them front line US weapons or nothing at all , Letting them fend for themselves
Jonny- B very simple. Don’t fix, maintain, train at all, just store and deliver, let the Ukrainians , Taiwanese figure it out.
Part interchangeability and sourcing, degradation of rubber or polymer components, corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement, storage costs and conditions, lubricants and fuel going bad, and 10,000 other practical reasons are why this is not done.
Even keeping an army, is expensive.
Nowadays there are too many weapons that are a tanks nightmare. In earlier wars tanks were able to wreak havoc amongst opposing infantry, nowadays infantry units have lots of toys they love to play with that are definitely bad for a tank crew's health. I suspect smaller tanks that use AI instead of crews will make an appearance on the battlefield, smaller faster and can operate without rest for longer periods of time.
I agree that tank crews are now sitting ducks. I'd rather just be on my feet if I had to be anywhere near the front line!
@@Ryan-lk4pu I don't think I'd like to spend so much time in a metal coffin, those things are a large target you'd have to be a bit dim to miss.
If they don't have good training or tactics against tanks than it's useless.
Israeli UGVs agree with you
@@VeeZee777 a lot of the developed worlds armies make sure they to have those, but for guerilla fighters who don't have the backing of these nations they either find a weakness or they're fucked. As I understand it tanks tend to be rather thirsty beasts of war, they also require regular maintenance which is another weakness. Simple, deprive their crews of supplies and you can limit their actions.
The tanks are still stored, but not counted.
They are stored as static displays around the country, owned by the Army.
A running M60 was recently added to our local WW2 static display tanks, in our war memorial park.
All those tanks are still owned by the Army, but not counted as active.
Even the old WW2 tanks, still have their engines installed and are complete.
Several armored personel carriers are also displayed in my area.
But the tracks are welded, so together.
@@johnw5584 None of the tracks are welded, on any of the tracked vehicles, on display in my area.
They spot weld or lock the hatches shut.
The M60 drove itself off the delivery semi trailer and onto it's new cement pad.
Smells and leaks a little diesel on the pad and it has cracked down the center from the track weight on each side.
The WW2 tanks have radial engines.
Can crawl up the back and see the tops of the engines.
I don't know much about the tracked APC's.
They are displayed in front of small local national guard posts.
12:15 Putin should have watched this
7:22 guy going wheeeeee
"we could do senshadou tournaments if people store tanks!!!"
-My friend
Replace shell with compressed air and a heavy shell paint projectile and there you go.
I think the Ukraine-Russia war is a perfect example of surplus equipment being used in a modern setting.
Indeed. I think the MBT will have a place for the foreseeable future don’t get me wrong, having said that todays tanks are fighting yesterday’s wars and Ukraine is proving that against Russia. The Russian tank excluding a couple of the new tanks that are on paper at least and are not being used on the battlefield, are old and dated and are for easy pickings for a Ukrainian grunt with a Javelin or the German antitank gun, even their own in house antitank gun is doing well against Russian tanks. The US is picking up on this quickly and I have no doubt that the army will soon triple the orders from Israel the trophy system. The marines got rid of the tank all together. If you are in rough terrain or open fields and deserts the tank can still be an effective weapon on the battlefield, in the cities especially without something like a trophy system they are sitting ducks.
@@randenrichards5461 especially since Russian tanks haven’t evolved past the 80s or auto-loaders they’re not top tier anymore.
@@spidervito997 Russia used 180,000 soldiers in Ukraine, Ukraine has 350,000 soldiers, 1,000,000 reserves, + 60,000 National Guard, why are Russians still in Ukraine if Russians are not effective?
@@ВладимирВ-э3п why don’t you ask Putin? It’s obvious the tanks and vehicles that are being used right now by Russia aren’t the top they could come up with. A single soldier can destroy a tank with an nlaw, that negates its advanced allot if you ask me
@@ВладимирВ-э3п Putin said they’d capture the capital in 72 hours, it’s been a month. How effective are they again?
It's a difficult job keeping tanks that are used working. All of the hoses, fluids and electronics would degrade to tons of junk rather quickly.
Well the only alternative is use horses.
I'd pay good money for one of those British Scorpion tanks. Those little scout tanks are so cool. Wish there was more half tracks available those would be fun as hell to drive around.
Putin is shrinking it further in Ukraine.
Russian tanks can be restored to be as good as new.... except they were crap as new.
Yes. Russian tanks, ships and aircraft are generally second rate. People largely over-estimate Russia's arms technology. Some of their stuff is okay, their rocket artillery and guided missiles are pretty good, but most of their equipment is not up to par with that of western powers, especially the US.
@@Kitkat-986 bullshit russian technology last for decades
At 7:19.... did you see the guy riding the cart 😆 🤣 😂
What does 61k tanks even look like... Wow...
Imagine a huge field with lots of tanks...Like that
Imagine the fuel bill
Imagine the amount of kills the pilot would have
Tanks a lot Binkov!
Excellent video - thanks a lot. Really interesting. It's always interesting seeing how tactics change when technology changes.
Simplified: When you would need substitute tanks because the ones you used in a battle those old tanks are inferior to the ones that you already lost and couldn't defeat the enemy, so there's no point in storing coffins on tracks
A good example is 73 easting
When the other side only has Humvees left and you still have Tanks.
@@timpalmer-logstolumber1999
A good example of what? That Iraq by itself was facing the US, UK, French, Saudi Arabian, and Kuwaiti Forces with Iraq's Military worn out by almost 9 years of war with Iran?
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 a good example of modern tanks destroying older tanks
Im pretty sure russia still has thousands of stored T72B's and T80BV'S
This is such a timely video. I was wondering why there’s no surplus to give Ukraine.
RE the training - the History Channel had a special on armor in Korea. A number of American crews were using M4 Shermans and came into contact with North Korean T-34/85s. The Americans had expected to suffer some punishment from the T-34s, having heard of their reputation; but the North Koreans lacked the training and experience the Americans had with their own tanks, and subsequently took heavy losses to the Americans. On the other hand, as you probably know, old T-34 tanks were taken from monument status to runners, by Ukrainians who needed anything that had armor on it. I do not know if these vehicles were actually committed to battle, but they must have been desperate to start them up again. Impressive, nevertheless. ruclips.net/video/jQ5Va_F3jx0/видео.html
The history channel huh ?
@N Fels I'm sorry to hear of your complete distaste for the History Channel - they have earned criticism in some areas, but that does not discredit them entirely. Their interviews of veterans are still worthy of viewing.
Perhaps you did not completely read through my comment, which was essentially to say that the T-34 (76mm) was overrated. In fact, this Russian video compares the M4 Sherman with the T-34 and concludes that the M4 was better. The narrators go on to say that the Soviets lost 4-5 tanks, for every panzer they killed, because of the design flaws. The US Korean War tank crews were surprised, because they had heard of the legendary reputation of the T-34, and it did not live up to all the hype. The T-34/85, which American crews faced, corrected some of those deficiencies, particularly by adding another crewman - with an experienced Soviet crew, it may have been formidable, but with hastily-trained North Koreans, that was another story. Here is the Russian video. I have to find the translation I made for it. ruclips.net/video/OVXMe0CUEmc/видео.html
Because those old tanks are too vulnerable to man portable antitank weapons. It would be a waste of tank crews to put them in obsolete equipment.
Manpaws
Nice one
While I don't expect russia and the united states to maintain ancient tanks I would still expect them to be used in proxy-wars around the world. In empovrished countries there are plenty or resourceful people who can keep old tanks operational, and tanks are exactly the kind of equipment used in those kind of conflicts
Its especially true in the African Bush Wars, granted they primairly use APCs and improvised armed technicals, but still its not uncommon to see t-72s.
Yet again, an interesting question with a comprehensive answer. Thank you!
Interesting analysis. I wonder if AI and autonomous tanks will change the calculus in the future. It could extend the shelf life of vehicles and platforms like this if done well. A meat shield that has no meat in it but is still dangerous could be useful for Russia that has a lot of land to cover with limited budget.
Every country needs to equip and train for their own specific battle scenario. Tanks are useless if the country in question Cannot secure their own skies and even more useless if most of the countryside is mountainous one track terrain. Some countries really shouldnt even use tanks period. Others like the U.S and E.U could still use repurposed older varients as armored recovery vehicles, mobile emplacements etc.
5:17 damn that was a Ryanair landing
A good tank crew can work wonders with any tank. Yes there are drones and other weaponry that could destroy a tank easily but a good tank crew would know where it’s disadvantage are. And I’m a modern war against huge powers drones aren’t gonna be everywhere if the air is contested. No tank crew is gonna chose to go head on with another tank if it’s not necessary. Nor will they abandon concealment or cover for any unnecessary reason.
have you seen what modern tanks did to obsolete tanks in desert storm?
@@HarrDarr the Iraqi crews were severely undertrained. Their tactics were also flawed. The modern tanks provide a edge but what really matter is the crew, command and tactics. Which the Americans were vastly superior not to mention the air superiority.
A tank on its own is weak. That is the reason why all parts of the armed forces are interconnected and work together. AA to protect the tank from airstrikes, a tank to protect AA from groundstrikes.
u guys are actually fucking deluded if u think old cold war era soviet tanks hold a candle to anything modern.
@@neodym5809 my point exactly u can have the best tank but if it’s in the open with no defense it’s cooked regardless of how modern or old it is. People think it’s like in the video games or movies where there are massive tank battles and shit. I’m real life situations tanks avoid each other because if they meet it’s one or two shots and the engagement is over.
Today, tanks are sitting ducks unless you have air dominance. Once you have that, tanks are useful, but no more so than other heavy machinery. Not saying tanks aren't important, just not more important than other fighting vehicles.
Not to mention the proliferation of powerful man portable AT weapons, ATGMs, and IEDs. Tanks simply aren't undisputed kings of the battlefield anymore. Upgunned APCs and IFVs are simply more cost effective than tanks.
@@lordsheogorath3377 Very true
UAVs makes both tanks and attack helicopters irrelevant. Only artillery and MLRS are useful when it comes to ground assets
Sure if u deploy a modern MBT in a third world country against some terrorists with sheeps and bombs will be effective
But if its a modern combat scenario they are indeed somewhat obsolete
You of course failed to name a single "other vehicle".
So you are leading your attack with what? Humvees? They will get annihilated by Infantry with simple large caliber(12.7mm or otherwise known as .50 caliber) Machineguns or Rifles if you have no armored vehicles. The simplest AT Grenades(RPG's) will neutralize them, including ancient German Panzerfausts from WW2. You won't lose a single Tank, but you will lose 100's of Humvees, especially if facing "other" Tanks.
The only Humvee that comes even remotely close to acting in the same role as a "tank" is the Hawkeye 105mm Mobile Gun vehicle, which today are only prototypes. They lack ammunition storage, have no armor for crew, have to stop and emplace themselves to fire, use a complex firing system(with a remote control), and use only 105mm Howitzer ammunition - which means no "specialized" anti-armor AP(Armor Piercing) ammunition. So the Hawkeye vehicles have all the weaknesses of a Tank, and none of the strengths. The Hawkeye vehicles are lighter than Tanks and the US really has no other 105mm Self-Propelled Howitzer so other options aren't really there.
In Combined Arms Warfare everybody works together filling their specific role, nobody is better or worse.
It's probably a logistics issue. You'd need a lot of whearehouse space with some climate control so the internals don't get damaged. That's allot of money to spend.
In Russia you have Igor and shed at best
What if we got all the old M60s and converted them to heavy IFV like Russia did with the Terminator?
BMPT isnt a IFV, its more a tank support vehicle.
8:35 “Great Success” aightt who let Borat become an Artillery observer?
If I had the money those tanks would be turned into unmanned armored vehicles and old Jet fighter 😈🤣 used as a last stand
Well the reason why we don't store m60s no more it's cuz we got over 6,333 , m1a1's m1a2s and then the new version, so we don't have room for old m1 through the m60s
Most wars are not like wwii. Countries don't want to fight to the end on either side.
7:18 😆
Goes to show; no matter the industry, workers are the same. 😂
U must come and see the Bulgarian army storages full of old t55
Can I buy one?
@@Rivenshield I think so, as far as you have access to airforce or army assets surely...
The Netherlands: 0 tanks... germany: 2500 men personel, how many tanks is that? Not much...
And the Geramns lack of milltary funding means like 1/3rd is operational... and that is the story of Europe exacpt FGrance ,Swizzerland and Sweden...
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough what about UK?
@@SgtAndrewM UK has less than 100 tanks.
Great video, the true cost of a tank is the sealift to move it for the US at least.
Wtf were those long pink things in the sponsor segment? Your skin tone is clearly bluish gray with fur but that was some other species...
Old tanks are nothing more than metal coffins in a conventional war.
Old tank is better than no tank, the Russians are sending them to Syria where T-62Ms and T-55s can see use
@@Archer89201 That's not a conventional war, that's an insurgency. That's different.
Not really, any tanks are really helpful if your enemy doesnt have an airforce.
Better than having no tank though
I'll store one at my house. Please give me one
"Simply giving old stored tanks to people with little training, will result in those tanks being horrendously misused." As what we see in Ukraine today. Russian tanks being driven straight into ambushes, failing to spread out when engaging, being driven into mud and getting stuck, broken down and abandoned along roads, ...
I feel like Russian tankers may have played too much tank games like WoT and WT because I see a lot of the same kind of bad habits. And no infantry so driving right into a city is fine.
Back in the 70s and 80s, Bulgaria (and I assume other Warsaw Pact countries) kept ALL tanks and APCs in storage. From T-34s used in the Second World War to T-55s. Old Panzers were used as stationary turrets as well. Absolutely nothing was thrown out, let's keep it "just in case" - artillery and anti-tank guns, Mig-19s, etc.. But the military budget was much bigger and it was a national priority since in an event of a war we'd be facing two NATO members simultaneously. The idea was that in case of a war all men would be mobilized and that a person who had trained on a T-34 back in his youth would be back in that type of a tank - so people who just got out of the mandatory 2 year service and had fresh memory would technically get the best equipment.
In the Bulgarian-Soviet "friendship" regiment in Elhovo during the 70s, there was a story that told of a high ranking Soviet general who came to inspect the troops. He then went to the storage bunkers and found the T-34 in which he had fought during WW2 and began crying :)
I would imagined the guys having to crew it incase of ww3 would also be crying, due to different reasons of course. I know I would be if I had to use a t34 in the 1970s.
We have a legend of some Russian general visiting some Finnish army event (can't tell if during or after Cold War), and he was absolutely confused by our ZiL trucks having refillable gas tanks.
The story told about those trucks was that they were supposed to be airdropped over Africa by the thousands with sealed gas tanks. Survival rate for drop was projected to be around 40-60%, so refueling the vehicle was simply installing a fuel tank from a totaled truck.
Well it turned out that this approach is useless, better to convert T-34, T-55 in APV/IFV.
there was a report saying Pakistan bought 282 older T55 tanks from Serbia and deployed them on Afghanistan boarder and keep then keep the newer modern tanks on the Eastern side facing India. makes good to put assets in positions where they are less challenged and have advantage over adversity in the limited budget.
Boarder ≠ border
Well explained
Back in the day Quwait also used our M84 tanks. Which were made in Yugoslavia and still serve to this day. Few days ago we saw those tanks in Rijeka, T72s and M84s are being sent to Croatia and Chezchs for remont. M84 also recieved new robotics, and new Serbian tank M84 AS1 is the newest tank that came out year or two ago.
Also Serbia, Russia and other middle east countries have been trading in weapons and armor. Turkey and Greece for example while NATO and US dictate them what is best for them (turkey is under US sanctions btw) they now look on the other side and what is best for them. Serbia has interest in Barjaktar drones from Turkey and they have been putting some funds into drones.
@@yugoslavia_operator128 yeah buying Chinese drones
Some smarty-pants in the Pentagon wrote a paper that concluded: The logistical costs of a tank force goes up to the fifth power of tank tonnage. So if one increases tonnage by X of tanks, the cost to maintain them goes up X^5! I never understood how in the heck this could be the case, until I watched this video!
You remembered the perfect fact at the perfect time, well done
@@Ikbeneengeit I remember that factoid from someone's video about The Russian Armata (sp?) tank, and why there isn't a continuing stampede of armed forces up-gunning their MBTs past 120mm to 140mm to redonkulous. Bigger guns require bigger and heavier tanks, and heavier tanks get way more expensive with an aggressive polynomial 5th power cost curve!
You seem like a smarty pants
@@hellomoto1426 That's what my wife says. Except she says it more like, "You SEEM like a smarty pants." She does have 3 degrees, though, one of which is a Stanford PhD. Then, if you ask if she's a "smarty pants," I suspect she'd just say, "Yes." Like Spock would have, except she's a Chinese woman and not Leonard Nimoy.
@@stcredzero my mom is a teacher and has a doctorate degree and finally made it to $65000 a year...my dad was a teacher for 35 years and retired 9 years ago with no degrees at $161,000....degrees don't make you smart lol
For the record the departure from tanks on the battlefield I feel has been a huge mistake...as was the additional technology being constantly integrated...More tech means more problems...emp bursts wouldn't have had much effect on WW2 tanks but they would absolutely destroy everything on the battlefield today including the guns soldiers are carrying...
Simple solution to take over the world today...find a bunch of King Tiger tanks and rebuild them...then build a bunch of EMPs....job done...
they should sell them to civilians honestly id love to buy a tank
yeah
You can buy old tanks in the U.S. Obviously you need a special license/ permit. Other than that I don't know the qualifications but you can def own certain tanks and artillery pieces. I know one thing, the average citizen cannot afford such things so they're not common place, but they're out there.
You can purchase a septic tank with a construction permit...
An armored brigade has plenty of fuel trucks, the problems is, ensuring the tanks/ Bradley's can go far enough before breaking down. Fuel wasn't a problem in my brigade, the lack of funding of our vehicles being reset and the lack of major parts to keep the tanks going. 2nd bde 1st armored divsion was at less then 50% vehicle operstional status only 10 days into the box at NTC.
Congress just passed $725 Billion military budget. Hopefully it included some wrenches and spare parts.
It’s so strange to have a puppet tell me to shave my balls
Man literally uploaded at 00.00 in my timezone, classic history channels stuff
You from singapore?
Malaysian?
SEAns unite
East don't exist lol
With Russia now shipping T62 tanks to the front, it seems at least Russia had all their old tanks in storage.
@Jacky138 yep. I bet all the "trainers" have never even operated a T-62, if they receive any training (a big if) it's all from an ancient manual they dusted off a month ago.
t-55 now lmao
This is a ridiculously complex video when all that’s needed is one word - obsolescence. You might as well ask, “Why don’t militaries store thousands of 1950s fighter jets ?” 🤦🏻♂️
You most probably didnt watch the vid or didnt understand it.
@@prashanthb6521 yes I did to both. My comment stands 🤦🏻♂️
The North Koreans use 50s fighters. While obsolete they could still deliver first strike payloads. Plus If nothing is left, an f86 or f4 would be better than nothing, for something
@@johnfaris5376 nope, the 50s jets won’t even make it to their targets - they’re only used as trainers anyway and the Phantom probably isn’t in any fit state to fly. Regardless, Unless it is up against a third world enemy it’s getting shot down in minutes.
MARTIN WOOD you’re assuming older aircraft would be pitted against top line defenses and aircraft. What about the scenario where there’s nothing left? The S 400s have all been fired and the front line migs are all gone. I sure rather have a Sky raider flying top cover than nothing, that is the only scenario where older aircraft and tanks would be useful, when everything else is either somewhere else or already gone
Interesting how Russia is now using T62 models from the early days of the cold war in Ukraine
yep :)))
T62 is not from early Cold War. And T62s in Ukraine are heavily modernized variants from the 80s
@@tetraxis3011 well made in 1961 so kinda early-but the modernised versions from the 80s are still obsolete
Not sure what you're talking about. Ukraine is currently building up a nice collection of Russian tanks gifted to them (fuel not included).
Funny.
About as real as the snake Island hoax and the "ghost of Kiev"
@@hmmm3210 so how long can you blow Putin?
@@hmmm3210 the difference is there are more than 300 proven siezed vehicles with photographies
As we see in Syria, obsolete tanks can still be used as Infantry support, and do a damn good job of it (when the skies are clear). Even holding them in the 2nd or 3rd line of defence, only to be moved up when contact is made and reinforcements and firepower is needed so as to keep them hidden from drones. They still have a use, but they have to be used differently than your 'modern' tanks.
When skies are clear? Asymmetric warfare's technology would make that implausible at best. Impossible otherwise.
@@jeffglenn7609 Clearly not impossible.
Obsolete tanks are pretty useful against unprofessional insurgents.
@@aussiemilitant4486 only if its muslim against muslim countries...
@@jeffglenn7609 pure ignorance.
C'mon Binkov, give us something on the Ukraine situation mate! Regardless of your affiliation, I'd love to hear your perspective, or even a balanced perspective.
The US isn't storing old tanks because they need the room to store all the newly built M1s the Army and Marines don't want to use.
Not entirely unreasonably. Modern warfare is becoming about aircraft. Tanks nowadays are becoming less and less useful considering they're huge targets an aircraft can take out with a single missile reliably, not considering relatively cheap drones whos pilots are constantly gaining experience and can't be killed (which is very important for a pilot.)
That Manscape grooming kit is cheap Chinese crap.
Don’t buy it!
Question : Why is no one storing old tanks ?
Video answer : starts by listing the number of tanks in storage in some countries.
Binkov, you complete muppet !
😹
The US just recently decided to "store" a bunch of tanks and other military vehicles in Afghanistan!
Except not really because they scuttled most of them
Good thing that they were the import version with the steel armour only.
The Taliban has them now ,
That manscape stuff is crap! The battery does not last long at all, and trust me don't try to shave your balls with it unless you want lots of cuts and pain. Balls are not balloons.
lmao
The only thing i shave is my beard. Why on earth would a man shave his balls anyway?
@@Mr820121 aerodynamics?
@@vauxdoublemaxim Why would balls need aerodynamics? They have hair to keep them warm. This whole thing about shaving balls comes from the porn industry where an actor shows his junk to the camera and it looks more clean.
@vauxdoublemaxim Lol aeroynamics have no impact if its COVERED BY CLOTHES, and afaik, athletes do wear underwear or shorts so there is zero impact if there is hair.
Well, we now see the use of old tanks in a real war…scrap metal
North Korea has been storing old tanks since day 1. Even it's "new" tanks are old designs, so...
I'm from Wisconsin and it feels like every other small town has a decomissioned M60 or older in the center of some town square.
It's similar, to a lesser extent in Australia. While they look impressive isn't hard not to imagine a Javelin team being able to take it out in-between eating lunch.
@@somethinglikethat2176 And I think that's what a lot of Joe Public doesn't realize. While modern tanks still have a place on the battlefield, that's because they are modern or at least modernized, tanks serving in a combined arms force. There is a minimum threshold capability that needs to be met for different intensities of warfare and below that, sending obsolete equipment is just wasting men and material.
This video aged as a good old wine
I was stationed in the Army in the early 80's Attack helicopter unit Ah1S tows. We were about 35 miles form Fulda. There were underground bunkers all over Germany stored with everything. The 11th ACR was expected to have 60-75% causality rate in the first 15 min. The joke was the 11th ACR was going to slow down the Russians by them tripping over their bodies.
The real question is : why nobody's selling old tanks to the populace?
because we dont want a madman driving over people, cars and property with a near unstopable tank
@@hannesranta-nilkku95 would you argue the same about cars?
@@РыгорБородулин-ц1е of course not they are complitely different things
@@hannesranta-nilkku95 I see, you just want a madman driving over people and ramming into crowds full speed
@@РыгорБородулин-ц1е stopping a car or making a blockades for cars in crowded areas is A LOT easier than doing the same for tanks
Aged like fine wine.
In Australia in the 2006-7, I was posted to 1st ARMD and we conducted the transfer from the leopard to the Abraham's and the reason we were told is that due to stress fractures and metal fatigue the leopard was getting punched through with 30mm rounds in tests.
Is the Leopard a tank or something more akin to an APC? Sorry I know nothing, just beginning to explore tanks and vehicles. Bit of a naval history buff.
@@depth386 It's a modern German Tank replaced now with the Leopard 2 in Germany and others. Australia went with the Abraham's at USA's request so that if at war, Australian soldiers would use American equipment overseas so Australia can train troops of the same design at home.
@@leviathansnemesis3742 ah okay so if the Leopard was a proper battle tank then the 30mm rounds penetrating was super unacceptable. When AA guns can kill tanks lol
@@depth386 Yes, understanding that it was used by Australia for over 30 years, one could extrapolate that most tanks that are getting long in the tooth would be facing the same problem.
I still think it’s worth keeping most if not all tanks. Without maintance and spare parts it would cost just warehouse upkeep which is nothing for governments. Granted most wouldn’t even work during the war, but few that would, would still be useful. Even WW2 tanks pose a massive threat to suprised soldiers or urban targets. Just beacuse you will trash 99/100 old tanks doesn’t make the last one useless.
Granted in a grand scope of things it won’t matter. But you never know.
Yes!
Someone with a fkn brain
Like... even a ww1 Renault tank is a trouble if that surprises ya
@@yagami1134 Not really, how effective is that is junk when a squad of inf can do the same?
A light cannon and mg vs a squad with lmg and anti armor missles. It's a minor nusiance to be removed like a tick on a dog.
Most experienced tank crews from those old tanks are now in their 60's and 70's, those old timers just can't do it anymore.
Punk 18 year old kids were able to learn how.. i think i will manage
Depends what tanks you are referring to.
A unit of T-34-85's used mainly for WW2 anniversary parades(shown in this video) in Russia conducted live fire exercises recently(to maintain tank crewman skills) with their old 85mm Guns. The crews were mostly under 20, the tanks were around 70 years old, from the last production batches post-WW2 and recently rebuilt.
Ruzzia did not believe you and now they suffer.
The most important reasons IMO:
1) Nobody expects a long conventional war anymore (this was addressed towards the end of the video), if they did it would make sense storing older tanks because having an old tank is better than having no tanks, and if you're not losing badly the enemy's best tanks would be gone too after a while. But if you don't expect that scenario the maintenance costs just feel like dead weight.
2) Manufacturers make more money building newer tanks (also for export) and the defense industry having a powerful voice in politics is definitely not limited to American/Western politics.
Russia is using old t-62 tanks right now in Ukraine war, many of those t-62 are not eve m version (modernized) , same with bmp1 etc
More precise Russia is sending these old tanks to the Peoples republic of Donets And Luhansk. The Russian armed forces itself uses more modern equipment.
@@ChrisRedfield-- Russians are using T-62s, not just PR forces
@@looinrimsRussia only uses T62M2. A HEAVILY modernized variant.
I understand that older M-1 tanks are being retrofitted with diesel engines. With upgrades sensors / fire-control equipment, etc, should be useful for decades. Similar to upgraded Shermans the Israelis' used for multiple conflicts after WWII. Just because equipment is old doesn't necessarily mean useless. Such as B-52, oftentimes older than the air crew.
I wish the U.K. kept the Challanger 1 in storage. It’s armour is still better than pretty much every modern tank.
@@scottwhitley3392 Brits are weird about throwing away perfectly good weapons...
@@xzqzq 🤣 that’s our military philosophy bud. In peace time we shrink our armed forces to a level that makes us unable to respond to large threats quickly. We then need to spend billion on weapon programs to catch up. See ww2 in 1940 for evidence. During the Falklands war the month before Argentina invade we decommissioned 2 amphibious assault ships and were about to decommission the Aircraft carrier HMS Hermes. All three ships were pivotal in our victory. If Argentina had waited a few months they might have won.
@@scottwhitley3392 Is it true that the Brits dumped most or all of their small arms in the ocean following WWI ?
Bro the armour is not capable of withstanding new projectiles
Infantry AT weapons seem to be doing a number on Russian tanks in Ukraine. I think the US might of been ahead of the Russians in realizing that tanks just don't provide the value they used to. What good is a modern main battle tank if its going to be knocked out by the same weapon that a infantry support vehicle would be.
they are using old tanks only, there's no tank with APS system nor T14 Armata, they are throwing old equipment and conscripts for the most part. A modern tank with APS is immune to most missiles thrown at him. All of Israel Merkava IVs have it
I would argue it's better to sell a part of your tanks to equip the rest with APS, there's no point in using them without it.
tanks need fuel - and quite alot - and if you have a nice gazzprom tankpass - you can get a little discount or else its a heavy walking home.
@@Welterino with enough rockets fired from the same direction even APS will eventually fail. The cost would still be much lower for the antin tank infantry
@@lukas081559 Exactly, and Ukraine has plenty. They can shoot first with cheaper, more avaiable non guided AT weapons like the RPG-7 and AT-4 in order to make the target waste their active protection hard-kill systems or to destoy any missile jamming devices. Then a NLAW will take care of the tank itself.
Not to mention that the T-14 Armatta is more of a legend. They only have them in small numbers, not enough to make a big difference, and their combat readyness is still to be seen.
@@Welterino Russia does have both reactive armor bricks and extra grid armor on most of its tanks. Doesn't provide enough protection. Also, the T-14 Armata still can't be mass produced. Finally, any tank needs a long line of fuel trucks supporting it, which can easily be taken out by light man-portable drones.
Finally, none of those are particularly effective against anti tank mines, which are still a significant issue for the Russians. Which also means that a painted dinner plate on the road is enough to force a tank crew to stop.
Take the tank's and give them to citizens. A well armed populace is a polite citizens.
The most gun hating man in Texas
Based
Well USA give 80 Billions worth of weapons, vehicles and helicopters to Taliban .
Why not give their own Citizen old tank
Yet, here in paraguay we still have M3 stuarts and shermans in active service
Lol
Paraguay not alone, chill. Consider the stuarts is an IFV
@@rkadi6540 not really, its thin armour makes it barely better than a truck with a machinegun
@@springkiller1475 having something to cover infantry is better than nothing tho
The 3 M4 Tanks are upgraded Argentinian versions - M4SR(Sherman Repotenciado). They have French diesel engines and French 105mm Guns. If I were Paraguay I would order "replacement" 105mm Gun barrels(which Argentina produced locally through a French license) and place them on a motorized Artillery carriage or modified Truck to create an Anti-Tank and Assault Gun with 105mm tank ammunition.
The M3 Stuarts are apparently just training vehicles.
The main "tank" of Paraguay is still the Brazilian made EE-9 Cascavel wheeled "light" armored vehicle with 90mm Gun.
The improvements in guided munitions and their proliferation across every unit on and above the battlefield has made big armored units a liability (mostly financial) rather than an asset. Historically tanks were a force multiplier that was very difficult to remove from the battlefield. Now two 19 year olds with a $200k man portable missile can pretty much get a guaranteed kill on $7M MBT, then flee on foot.
In an open deserted field with no obstacles, no rain, no fog, no smoke, no snow, and no other combatants armed with things like Sniper rifles. Those two 19 year olds can also be vaporized by an HE shell fired from 4km away from that same tank, especially if it has a thermal imaging sight or a UAV(drone) overhead detecting threats for the Tank unit and warning it ahead of time.
Tanks may not be as prolific with as many variations and models as WW2, but the tank will always be a combat unit maintained at some level. When the tenchnology catches up for tanks to combat missiles it will swing the other way again
@@alexmaclean6132 that’s a fair assessment. I just think, for now, it’s too cheap and easy to take them out. If armor or active defensive capability technology improves, that very well could change.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 Not only is this example ridiculously hypothetical, why would any military ever put a Javalin team in such an absurd position?
Look, it isn't difficult to understand why Javalin teams are efficient and in what conditions they are best used. Are they ideal in densely clustered urban environments with no surround hills? Not really. Are they well suited for miles and miles of open desert? Nope. However, if tanks have to bunker themselves into cities or stay out in open deserts to keep from getting swatted by them, then the Javalin teams have done their job simply by containing the tanks in ways that limit their utility.
Again, I would never say that tanks don't have a well earned and well deserved place on the battlefield. I'm simply saying that, in the modern age, they can't operate without a healthy amount of caution. Even the toughest tanks can be taken out relatively easily via a dozen different options. Go watch videos of how the Syrian tanks fared in areas littered with TOW missile launchers. Each time you see that fireball blast out of the hatch, that's $10M worth of equipment and a handful of lives going up in smoke.
Tanks are no longer indestructible juggernauts unleashed en masse onto the battlefield. They are a victim of their own success. When they became dominant, every major nation set itself to finding efficient and effective counters. We are now near the apex of that endeavor, and it will likely remain so until major advancements are made in armor or active countermeasures.
@@alexmaclean6132 Laser point defense on vehicles will be a thing very soon.
The indians still use heavily upgraded version of the T72. And the old t55 is used for mine plugging work
@@MrMingyong24 who said he died?
@@MrMingyong24 it's his clone
Simply, even reserve tanks still need maintenance and it's not cheap, also in modern combat, those old tanks especially from 1950's-1960's can be destroyed by cheap RPG
even so a tank is still a tank and is still a useful asset against an infantry group with no competent anti tank weapons
Outside a few parade and display units most of the non-upgraded Tanks from that period are long gone.
Yeah I'd rather have a beater tank than no tank
Drinking game: take a shot every time he says "more fuel"
Belgium sold their Leopard tanks at scrap iron prices to a dealer who later sold them at a greater profit as they're being refurbished for Ukraine
The Sky is the future of modern warfare. Have you seen what the Azerbaijani did with their drones? Armenian air defense may be partly to blame but still, those little devils cracked open soldiers, ordnances, and tanks alike.
Binkov made an elaborate video about it. I'll say his video is the only one that's not over-hyped and analyzes the situation from various angles. Just search YT with keywords like "Binkov", "Azerbizan vs Armenia", "drone" and you'll find it.
Armenia sent barley anything to help local forces in Karabakh. Their single TOR was obviously going to get destroyed. Alongside older systems meant for planes and not drones.
Drones did not stop Syria from beating Turkish arse in the battle of Saraqib. And Libyans shot down more drones than they lost Pantsirs.
Except you can't control Ground from the Sky, a fact made very clear when the US lost Afghanistan, even though it had complete Air Superiority.
The drones are only operational as long as their command posts and airfields are intact or radio control channels are not jammed.
Because it's too low BR and they know better..
You mentioned need for maintenance for tanks (equipment) in storage. There are multiple "levels" of storage, depending on how fast you want to get the equipment working. For fastest recovery you have to have people working on it monthly. Starting it periodically, running all the systems, periodically changing fluids and filters, moving them so soft parts don't develop "flat spots", turning them around so rubber on one side only is not always exposed to sun (that was one problem for russia when the 40 mile convoy to Kyev had lots of flat tires, also cheap junky tires).
The US does maintenance, russia doesn't. They pay for it, but the work is not done.
US stores tanks (aircraft) in the warm, dry desert. russia stores them in Siberia and various other wet and cold places. Places that actually require more maintenance than desert. And due to corruption in russian military, they tend to strip parts and sell them for extra money.
For example, Spain had a bunch of Leopard tanks they wanted to donate to Ukraine. First Germany said no, but later they withdrew the offer because they later discovered the tanks required too much repair work to make them usable.
Before watching: Because they need regular expensive maintenance even if they aren't in use otherwise they won't work when you need them?
After watching: And any tank that isn't cutting edge dies to (relatively) cheap RPG's too.
At least if those supposed tanks in Europe work...I mean Germany had to report a ship as armed and ready to NATO a few years ago that was neither armed, nor ready to sail (no fuel, engine problems or something, I don't remember exactly, but it was not useable!), there was also helicopters that wouldn't fly, jets that didn't have spare parts and tanks that were in pieces because spare parts were also not available!...so yeah, frankly I am ashamed of Germany's armed forces! Our government is too much of a cheapskate to spend even 2% of GDP for the armed forces...frankly a rich man on safari is better equipped than some Bundeswehr units -.- and we couldn't defend Germany from an attack even if we wanted to, not with as much disabled or outdate equipment that is still used! My father was an officer in the Bundeswehr (Luftwaffe to be specific, he was the equivalent of a Lt.-Colonel!) and commanded a Patriot-System...that was in the 80's however and Patriot is still the best you have (sadly!) in air-defense in NATO Armies...the Russians have better stuff even, the S400, probably the best air-defense system in world!
At least your budget isn’t being completely hurled into a corrupt military-industrial complex like my country’s (the US).
Der Bundestag hat aber VIEL GELD für "FLÜCHTLINGE, und ISLAMISTIN" und neue Mosques bauen
Russia's equipment is in much poorer shape compared to Germany. Who else would attack Germany? Britain?
That was a really crappy reloading of the Carl Gustaf! I don’t agree with all points made. The offensive power of tanks should not be underestimated and is not easily replaced by heavy squad weapons, and I say this as a former anti-tank-missile platoon commander.
I imagine that with a plow attached, these old tanks would be great to clear snow from the road's.
Jeremy Clarkson, is that you ?
and damage the roads in the process, roads don't handle tanks driving on them very well.
@@millerrepin4452 and costs several times more in fuel
One notable exception to this might be Taiwan where older tanks might make good beach defenses and can be parked a few miles from the coast as driven the the cost as needed and be manned by reservist.
After Operation Desert Storm the US cut its armor in Europe by 1/3 and drew down the active-duty personnel. The dissolved Soviet Union did the same thing. Meanwhile they began upgrading their guns and armor, and the tanks that stayed in active duty began a various system technology climb.
This has not really changed much, and Afghanistan was not a tank war. Strikers and hummers were used for infantry support and movement, with various gun trucks. They were taking excess M60's pot to the Pacific and dumping the stripped bodies off boats to make artificial reefs.
No one wants to go to war in a M60, plus we need some production to keep the Lima plant open to make M1A3's or newer.
surplus tanks should be sold off at gun shows.
For the price of guns!
@@looinrims affirmative
Only if the country is called Somalia or Congo.
The average person has no reason to own a Battle Tank.
@@legatvsdecimvs3406 this is America
No one fucking needs a reason to own a tank