There's no reason for Russia to pull tanks out of museums when they have fields full of these old tanks from the Soviet era. I think it would be more fair to call some of these tanks museum age rather than saying that they are from museums
The scrapyards are beginning to run out of armor. Not to mention thousands of tanks were scrapped at the end of the USSR lowering that number of tanks. You can subtract from that number even more with tanks that are beyond repair and those tanks that require long term repair then you see why they're just taking tanks out from museums and stuff like that. The tanks that are easily repairable have likely all been pulled from the yards
My cousin is a drone operator in Ukraine, he's destroyed or participated / had a drone present in the destruction of several dozen Russian tanks. Says he's never once seen a T-34 nor heard from other operators about a T-34 in Ukraine.
The T-34 is only usable in prades and for demonstration purposes. There are pictures of the SU-152, T-34 and SU-100 on training grounds. Those are dated and geo located. But they return to the base museum right after the demonstration.
@@BIGHEADjr51 Thorazine comes in vanilla nowadays according to my wife the nurse. Neither side is dominating. The Ukrainian armed forces had reduced the Ru occupation from 27% to 18%. Russia is now slowly enlarging it back to 19% but losing everything in the process. They lost the initial number of troops used to invade and everything modern in the Ru army. The only thing preventing a complete collapse of the Russian armed forces are the private military companies, prisoners and they now are getting weapons and soldiers from North Korea. Russia went from being a well armed trained force to untrained beggars in two years time. They only have local number superiority but that is nearly gone with the loss of 1500 men each day (MIA, WIA, KIA and POWs) for a few meters of gains.
The Leopard A1 is also pretty close to museum ready. In fact a few years ago the Canadian army sold all theirs- one ended up in the possession of a farmer near Edmonton, who was using it as a very heavily armed and armoured device to pull things around his farm. Then Afghanistan happened and after a bit of battlefield experience, the army called up and asked if they might possibly have the thing back.
Strangely appropriate, considering that tanks originated from tractor-type equipment, and were "hidden" early on by the Nazis as "tractors". (Side note: if you want to clear stone or pull stumps, you probably couldn't do much better than a tank! 😄)
@@gedq Tank was just a code name given by the British to the first tanks because the project was top secret. It had nothing to do with their intended purpose or because they looked like some sort of tank, they simply referred to them as water tanks, or just tanks for short, so that nobody would have any clue about what they were really working on.
Covert Cabal has done a number of videos about Russian tank storage facilities using the most recent available satellite images. It's good stuff if you're interested in that sort of thing.
@@vic5015the fact it was the source of the story this video then pulled apart didn't need doing better. They ripped it apart very well and I good detail.
@@vic5015 What more did you want? The only thing missing was a Brain Blaze style tangent about what a POS the Daily Mail is and that wouldn't have been super appropriate in a serious video.
@@zedeyejoe and the main Swedish tank museum contains a Strv122B and Strf 9040C, the latest version of both vehicles that's currently in service both in Sweden and donated to Ukraine.
@@SonsOfLorgarUkraine doesn’t call themselves a world super power…😂 Ukraine is using any weapon they can find. Russia is supposed to be an elite military force according to itself
I've called Russian armour "museum pieces" before, I don't literally mean "tanks pulled from museums." They have massive storage feilds of tanks that the Russians consider serviceable and I would say belong in a museum.
I was extremely surprised that the person on the phone was so candid calling the war in Ukraine an invasion, instead of calling it "a special military operation"
Simon said that they translated it themselves so who knows what he said. Then again if he was convinced he was speaking with people from outside the country, he might have chosen not to use the official terminology.
They might not care as much if it's said to foreigners. Like how Chinese officials can refer to Taiwan as Taiwan if they're talking to western journalists when that's a big NO-NO at home.
The quoted storage numbers for T-55s and T-62s are very obsolete/inaccurate - people like Covert Cabal have repeatedly counted and IDed Russian tanks in storage and actual numbers are far lower.
The T-62 und T-64 are two completely different designs. While the 62 is simpler coming from the T54/55 line, the 64 was basically the first sovjet MBT with even better performance than the later T-72. Also there was some video evidence of a IS3 being reactivated - but not sure by which side.
The T64s were Iraqs second tank to the T72 back in the 90s , they also had alot of T55s apparently. An I don't mean they just had them those were their main Armor. I was in the Army 96-98 an remember those 3 being the main ones we were trained to identify those an the BMPs. Not sure though as I never saw combat .
there is no reason at all to use tanks from the museums, this was just another bullshit by western trolls, russia has a shit ton of t-55/t-62/t-64 that they can use before even considering reviving some t-34 tanks
Great video, love that you actually went so far as to phone into Russia and get a primary source. It's ludicrous RUclipsrs do more fact checking than respected news agencies, the press should be ashamed. News agencies should face fines if caught spreading fake news/misleading stories for profit. 1st time commenting, thoroughly enjoy all Simon's channels and the content the brilliant writers produce.
@@scottmeredith3359they thanked the writers in their comment. I'm pretty sure most Simon fans don't think Simon is anything more than a manager and face, his writers are very good at their jobs though, and the fact that they keep coming back tells me that Simon pays them well.
@@scottmeredith3359But he got his channels to that point where he just reads texts 😅 that's culmination of years of effort, sweat and toils from his side
I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in anything Russia itself say's. Remember, they also claim to shoot down 99% of all the missiles and drones and when a factory/ammo dump/air base/oil refinery takes a hit it is always invariably claimed that it was debris that hit them and caused all the massive explosions, lol.
Depends on what you call a museum tank. T-34, no. T-55 most certainly, yes, which is only a decade older than the T- 34. T-34s were seen on a training ground.
While true, the Soviets unlike the U.S. took very active measures to modernize their older vehicles. So a lot of t-55 are going to be better than western tanks from the same era
Not to mention that the vast majority of tank use in this war is for infantry support and not tank v tank combat, where the t-55 would preform just fine
Thirty T-34 tanks, produced in 1944, were brought back to Russia from Laos and passed to Russian ministry of defense. They are supposed to be used for parades, I don't see them being sent to Ukraine. Now it turns out that Ukraine did use a Panther tank at a road block. It was a film prop, based on a T55. No one would use a Panther, they are just too valuable.
@@basixs88 chief i dunno, even with "western propaganda at play" introducing NK to your turf war ins't doing you any geopolitical credit score favors, also it's so funny that you people point and laugh at "western" propaganda but say nothing about all the kremlin outlets, hmm yeah, yall sure winning a lot of followers by being hypocrites.
I've looked into this as well and found one instance of Russia pulling an old tank from a museum, but not for the front lines. They pulled one as it was well maintained, the parts and instructions were well documented, and they also "borrowed" the mechanic who worked on it. Basically they wanted it as an example for them to update the fields of armor they already had, and returned the tank afterwards after some back and forth. There may have been others since they have factories here and there, and needing an example of what the thing should look like after you are done would be useful.
The report on the Museum could also be a case of a "miss translation or miss labeling" as I know there at least was a Tank dump/mothball (where you store older tanks long term... something the Soviet/Russia loves to do) and them been labeled as outdoor museum (what museum would have 10000 identical copies of the same T-60 tank is another question). note some of those Tank stodge can be visited (limit on when and what part but you can visit them like a museum so I can see that slip past).
they use them as artillery, every gun that shoots a big HE across the field is better then no gun and they used some t-54s as drones, they packed them full with explosives and let it drive into the ukranian trenches
The reasons Russia now pulling old T-55 and T-62 out of storage is because of its simplicity to repair ), easier to train and operate by conscripts or new recruits. Russia also is getting low on 125mm ammo use by T-72/T-80s, while having bulk of old soviet 115mm ammo and massive supply from North Korea.
You’re overlooking the fact that the reason it’s easy to maintain and learn to use is that it’s obsolete. It doesn’t need high tech parts that ruSSia is struggling to procure.
10:08 - Would any Russian really use the world "invasion" when denying they're not using their stored vehicles in the invasion of Ukraine or did you paraphrais there a bit?
12:20, just came back from cubinka. The first vehicle is a BMPT prototype, which wouldnt be of much use anyways, and the second is a t-80b. Can confirm both are still at their place.
My brother in law was in the Battle of Mogadishu ( Blackhawk Down ) he was a Navy Seabee who was fighting with the Marine Corps and he said that when they were just about to be overrun other NATO forces arrived and many countries were using tanks from WW2 , Korean War and Vietnam. He said they were never more happy to see outdated tanks coming to the rescue.
Kinda a different situation. The Somalians had mostly man portable weapons. Even 20-50 year old armor provided good protection in 1993. Today many man portable arms pose a much greater threat to old armor that doesn't have battlefield awareness and advanced defenses. Up armored HMMWVs were decent protection in Mogadishu. Blackhawk down emphasized the HMMWVs in the event were thin skin, not up armored. Remember the junior soldier that complained about the lack of up armored HMMWVs, the dramatic response, and subsequent development of MRAPs.
Nothing is old or obsolete if it can be used for a specific task. Those machines use 115mm ammo that is available in large numbers in stock and it is free. They are field guns for long range indirect fire on static positions. This is evident of the destructions back of the contact line 3-5km or more. When damaged or the gun is no longer serviceable, they are used to haul other machines to repair shops or rigged with explosives and sent to fortified positions like battering rams or to clear mines. There are many things one can do if something is basically free. Ukraine has been provided some engineering vehicles based on M60 (that is also very old tank) exactly to remove mines and haul other damaged machines.
@ that’s not true because it can still obsolete for the task it was created for. Which was being a battle tank not self propelled artillery or a tow truck… And my point was that it feels like semantics them making a video about tanks being pulled from museums when the tanks in question are old enough to be in museums… and are!
@@MrRatludthe m60 is closer to a t72 then a t55 What russia is currently doing would be = of the us useing m46 tanks Even the first m60 is much better then t55s (Ignoring that all were upgraded in all countrys soo long ago)
Because it paints a clear picture of how desperate Russia is that they can’t rely their assembly lines to produce new tanks, or can’t simply pull existing tanks from storage facilities where they’ve been maintained and kept in a functional state. Having to pull literal museum pieces out or museums for the war would show just how desperate they are to get any kind of armored vehicle to the frontlines.
Yeah, even if they're not literally emptying museums, the point is that most of what they're using is so obsolete the only place it really should belong is a museum.
The Abrams is a tank from the 1980's and the Leopard 1 is from the mid 1960's. Both of which are technically speaking, outdated platforms yet are being used by Ukraine. But nobody talks about that It seems like using tanks from the 60-80s is a common thing even in NATO countries. Probably because it's easier and cheaper to upgrade old tanks rather than design and build new ones...
@nikolaideianov5092 I doubt those T-54/55's are all unmodified. One video featuring one unmodified tank doesn't cut it. Also Russia has upgraded, modernized T-72s, T-80s and T-90s, it's not like their hardware is "obnoxiously outdated" as OP implies
T-62 are upgraded for the modernisation.. They are not from the museums, they have enough in the depot and they are modernised for the that. Ucooled thermals, Composite addon composite armor, Relict ERA on the front, laser rangefinder and 3BM-21M APFDS... On the other side Ukrainan Army Using Leopard 1 and T-55 (from the Slovenia) as MBTs...
@Giganibba511 wtf is "SKM" Russia "makes" 120-90 tanks a month Russia doesnt make nearly as many new hulls Visualy confirmed russian tank looses (meaning the lowest possible number of looses) is over 3k
You know, I have a lot of respect for Museums and those that run them. If they're saying that their inventories are fine, then I believe them. I think they'd say if they didn't have the tanks too. The people there understand the importance of a proper accurate historical record, and they worked well with international museums before.
I think many people misunderstand how deadly even a WW2-era tank is, a t-34 against light infantry with only small arms is still getting pinned. Most groups may only have 1 or only a few AT guys if something happens to them it's still an unfair advantage. Luckily now we have drones and intelligence to counter dated threats but still, wouldn't want to be in a small urban environment trying to take one out myself. You can make the argument every weapon man has invented is good at taking life, but cavalry on horses is probably less scary than a tank capable of making semi-accurate fire upwards to 1-3 kilometers. Your little standard issue M4-Ak74-KM series is maybe good for semi-accurate fire upwards of 3-600 meters depending on the day and person.
Kind of like armored medieval knights, not so great against gunpowder, but still pretty formidable against swords and pikes. The 'sticky bomb' scene in Saving Private Ryan emphasizes the disparity of small arms against armor; all they could hope for was disabling the tracks.
I'd be more worried about the lack of proper modern rifles. Don't get me wrong, the AKM and AKS series, specially the modernized ones are good, but in most videos they're not using the latest versions. If you can't provide your frontline troops the best available gear, how do you even expect they'll get modern tanks?
This is the journalistic integrity I like to see. I've seen too many "news" reports on here that seems a bit off, because they tend to repeat reports they gave a day prior
When the media says that russia is using museum pieces, I didn't, for an instant, think they were literally raiding museums, rather that it was a reference to the age of the equipment. I also assumed that that is how everyone else took it, guess I was wrong.
No, Russia is not literally pulling tanks out of museums and sending them to Ukraine. But they ARE using tanks that are so old most countries WOULD have them in museums. Many of their tanks were built or designed in the 60s and 70s.
That's not as bad as it sounds. The Abrams is a 70s design. The F-15 is a late 60s design. The F-16 even is a late 70s design. We in the states do actually have those in museums right now. While also still using the rest in active service.
@sprolyborn2554 It’s really not the same thing; yes, the F-15 and F-16 are also Cold War-era jets, while the Abrams was designed in the same timeframe. The difference is that all of these vehicles have been upgraded continuously ever since their original combat debut. Most Abrams, F-15s and F-16s in service today rolled off the assembly line in the late 90s or the 2000s, and are outfitted with the latest electronics, countermeasures and weapons systems. Most of Russias Cold War era vehicles were built during the Cold War, left in storage for decades, and hastily reactivated after Russia's limited number of modern weapons were either rendered inoperable or canceled due to Western sanctions.
@@sprolyborn2554 lol not that bad for example the americans already scrapped all the M60's, its like america was useing the damn M-46 Patton in combat now a days ridiculous.
@@viceralman8450 I mean, the m46 would be like a half step above Russians actually using the t-34. The whole argument of the Abrams and t-72 is an apt comparison seeing as how they are the same era. So yeah, not that bad.
The T-64 is not even close to a T-62, autoloader, far superior cannon and composite armor before upgrades. The upgraded variants are far from the best tanks on the battlefield, but they are decent enough especially compared to truly obsolete vehicles like the T-55 and 62.
Every time I saw this headline i assumed they simply meant that they are so old they belong in a museum. I assumed Russia had a hefty supply of old tanks in reserve just like we do. Difference is theres seem a lot older and in much poorer repair.
The only one I could see them digging out of a museum would be the ISU-152, they made over 4000 of them up until 1959 and a 152mm anti concrete shell would be useful as short-range artillery and bunker busting. Also, the fact they don't have a turret and have a flat top would make it easier to make an anti-drone shed on them without inhibiting the gun.
Simon, I have a confession to make. I said a few months ago that if Russia started to pull T-34s out of his mothballed inventory that they were now fubar. However, with the first minute of this video with the claim that Russia was now pulling T-34s out of museums / mothballs, my first thought was: "Simon, Are You $#@!ing Me?!?!?!?!?" No Vaseline / KY jelly needed.
A report I saw once said that both sides were using old tanks - not to fight with but as decoys to draw fire from the enemy - with no one inside the tanks.
While there was significant tank development between those wars it was only 20-25 years so the ammunition difference was most likely smaller then with old Cold War tanks
Literal museum pieces? No. Are they outdated as hell and deserve to BE in a museum? Oh hell yeah. There's not been any T-34s used in combat, but there have been T-55s, which is the next best, or I guess worse, thing. My God.
Those storage areas for old armored vehicles have already lost most of their previous inventories. The remainder is of increasingly dubious serviceability status.
I'd think they'd be too unreliable after all that time. Not only that, they probably have something from the 1970s and 80s that would be more likely to be fielded.
Why pull them from museums when there's plenty of them in boneyards? Even when a war machine is retired, they are not immediately scrapped and instead are conserved in boneyards. Not that conservation is very good, Russia is after all a wet place with rough weather but they can be restored to somewhat functional condition with enough effort. USA similarly has boneyards with ancient war machines but USA has the luxury of dry deserts. There are Vietnam era airplanes in desert boneyards that can be quickly restored to working condition. You know, just in case. Though the boneyards are actively working through scrapping worst ones for spares for those that can be restored and they are not meant to be kept around forever. And spares for those that are still in active use. Retired F-15s and 18s and such.
Don’t think anyone will read this but. Or if this has been said already. Like in most wars if you take tanks off an area that you are attacking. The pressure of tanks stop and gives the other enemy a chance to push forward knowing they don’t face tanks. The older tanks are just there to keep the pressure on as the newer tanks get repaired and reloaded.
During the Falklands War, the British Army took an automatic weapon out of the Small Arms School Museum at Warminster for field us. My father was working there at the time.
So what we are establishing is that the statement is hyperbolic. They aren't literally from museums, but some of the tanks being fielded are ones that belong in a museum over a battlefield.
1:19 quality control wasn't important ever - in the 1930's the average life expectancy of a finished BT-7 tank was 150 HOURS of use until a major component had to be replaced - engine, gearbox etc
It's obviously bogus, museum pieces are deactivated and not mechanically functioning. They're also not maintained, and would require more work to get in operational condition than just building a new tank from scratch.
have you seen the obj279 running, maybe not but there is vidéo proof of it running and that's a prototype from the 60s with a pretty unique engine and transmission, a lot of the tanks in the kubinka museum are working (maybe exept for the gun) if they are soviet tanks, obviously the maus can't run (with the plans for a majority of the parts having beiing destroyed) like many non soviet tanks
OMG it is so sad that a museum has only 3 or 4 examples of a T-34 or a T-62 or a T-55 and not 2000+ of them, for the plebs to gaze upon example after example after example. Such a shame.
I doubt that there is any ammo suitable for the T34s 76 or 85mm guns. No tanks have used these since the 40s, Laos may have a minimal amount. Common sense would have concluded this.
@rolandohiebert2144 they called the invasion, well, an invasion. Officially it's a "sPeCiAl MiLiTaRy OpErAtIoN" and didn't rule out entirely the possibility of Russia being so desperate as to pull obsolete reserves for active use. Tl;dr they're fucked for being honest
The 2S7 Pion SPG is the only armored vehicle that I have heard of truly being pulled from museums and that was for Ukraine, not Russia. Probably the only artillery piece that's well suited for both the museum and the battlefield. Great to look at and great to have providing fire support.
As you said Russia is fielding equipment thas been in storage for decades such as the T-54, T-62 and T-64, these tanks were never all that good in the first place. It is scarping the barrel, like the US deploying M-48 Pattons!
That was really sporting of the Russian tank museum to answer the question so completely and candidly, despite the increased tensions between East and West since 2022. 👍
It is a matter of record that Russia has taken tanks from companies that have kept them to rent out for use in films. These were commandeered. That story appeared in Russian and Ukrainian media several months ago. I don't know about museums though. It is also true that satellite inspection has revealed a serious draw down of tanks that were in Soviet era storage yards before the war. Many of these storage bases are empty of serviceable tanks. T55 and even earlier tanks have also appeared on the battlefield.
There's no reason for Russia to pull tanks out of museums when they have fields full of these old tanks from the Soviet era. I think it would be more fair to call some of these tanks museum age rather than saying that they are from museums
That's what I was thinking. The Soviets, and then Russians, never got rid of anything. There are 1,000s of tanks in some type of storage.
@@pkt1213well in the 2000s there were thousands scraped
The scrapyards are beginning to run out of armor. Not to mention thousands of tanks were scrapped at the end of the USSR lowering that number of tanks. You can subtract from that number even more with tanks that are beyond repair and those tanks that require long term repair then you see why they're just taking tanks out from museums and stuff like that. The tanks that are easily repairable have likely all been pulled from the yards
@@pkt1213 to be fair they did export a lot of gear when it became obsolete as hand me downs to much of the third world
Correct, and thank you.
Indian Jones: "That tank belongs in a museum!"
Russia: "It will be fine!"
Angry business man: so do you!!
theyre goin for godmodes irl
Ah yes, my favorite action movie "Indian jones"
@@sumdumguy6449+30,000 SL🦁
*Indiana Jones
My cousin is a drone operator in Ukraine, he's destroyed or participated / had a drone present in the destruction of several dozen Russian tanks. Says he's never once seen a T-34 nor heard from other operators about a T-34 in Ukraine.
Because there's no point in pulling them out Russia dosent make the ammo for them
Lies
The T-34 is only usable in prades and for demonstration purposes. There are pictures of the SU-152, T-34 and SU-100 on training grounds. Those are dated and geo located. But they return to the base museum right after the demonstration.
Several dozens 😂
@@BIGHEADjr51 Thorazine comes in vanilla nowadays according to my wife the nurse. Neither side is dominating. The Ukrainian armed forces had reduced the Ru occupation from 27% to 18%. Russia is now slowly enlarging it back to 19% but losing everything in the process.
They lost the initial number of troops used to invade and everything modern in the Ru army. The only thing preventing a complete collapse of the Russian armed forces are the private military companies, prisoners and they now are getting weapons and soldiers from North Korea. Russia went from being a well armed trained force to untrained beggars in two years time. They only have local number superiority but that is nearly gone with the loss of 1500 men each day (MIA, WIA, KIA and POWs) for a few meters of gains.
The Leopard A1 is also pretty close to museum ready. In fact a few years ago the Canadian army sold all theirs- one ended up in the possession of a farmer near Edmonton, who was using it as a very heavily armed and armoured device to pull things around his farm. Then Afghanistan happened and after a bit of battlefield experience, the army called up and asked if they might possibly have the thing back.
Strangely appropriate, considering that tanks originated from tractor-type equipment, and were "hidden" early on by the Nazis as "tractors". (Side note: if you want to clear stone or pull stumps, you probably couldn't do much better than a tank! 😄)
@@cpfs936 a lot of ww2 tanks ended up as farming tractors post war
@@cpfs936 so did the British, why they're called "tanks" of course...
@@gedq Tank was just a code name given by the British to the first tanks because the project was top secret. It had nothing to do with their intended purpose or because they looked like some sort of tank, they simply referred to them as water tanks, or just tanks for short, so that nobody would have any clue about what they were really working on.
"Shackled as we are by facts."
Thank goodness you are. The recent push for journalists wanting to "move beyond objectivity" is simply repugnant.
Journalist have always moved beyond Objectivity. They are simply returning to their roots.
Yeah agree thanks for this
@@silverhawkscape2677Human behavior, seems to me. Some journalists are better at objectivity than others.
Shackled by a false narrative. 😅
Covert Cabal has done a number of videos about Russian tank storage facilities using the most recent available satellite images. It's good stuff if you're interested in that sort of thing.
yeah, he's good for that kind of stuff.
12:35 the second the Daily Mail is mentioned in the same sentence as “journalism”, you might as well forget any actual truth..
Seriously. The Daily Fail is your source? Do better, Fact Boy!
@@vic5015 It's not their source. But it's probably where the (mostly baseless) claim originated.
@@vic5015the fact it was the source of the story this video then pulled apart didn't need doing better. They ripped it apart very well and I good detail.
@@vic5015 What more did you want? The only thing missing was a Brain Blaze style tangent about what a POS the Daily Mail is and that wouldn't have been super appropriate in a serious video.
@@Narangarathyeah BB/DtU are where he openly dishes on the Daily Mail 😂
When I hear "using museum tanks" I just think of tanks that you might find in a museum not necessarily literally taking a tank from a museum display.
UK has a T72 tank (and a T80) in a museum. War trophies from Iraq. The museum (Bovington) is also used to train tank crew on tank design.
@@zedeyejoe and the main Swedish tank museum contains a Strv122B and Strf 9040C, the latest version of both vehicles that's currently in service both in Sweden and donated to Ukraine.
@@SonsOfLorgarUkraine doesn’t call themselves a world super power…😂 Ukraine is using any weapon they can find. Russia is supposed to be an elite military force according to itself
@@zacharyberry5019 I wonder how Ukraine would respond to the USA offering M60 tanks..."Nice offer, but our junkyards are full enough" :)
@@just4funallday508 Yea little benefit to such things. Maybe in an exchange with third countries to send more ex-soviet tanks to Ukraine.
I've called Russian armour "museum pieces" before, I don't literally mean "tanks pulled from museums." They have massive storage feilds of tanks that the Russians consider serviceable and I would say belong in a museum.
Yeah I have never read anything from someone insisting they were from actual museums. They were using it as a phrase..
This video is weird hah.
Not so much now those tank storage parks are emptying fast.
Many belong into scrapyards😂
They don’t anymore, those fields are empty
@@FelipeScheuermann1982 well no most are fine and just need the engine fixed up
I was extremely surprised that the person on the phone was so candid calling the war in Ukraine an invasion, instead of calling it "a special military operation"
As long the government doesn't hear it and you have the plausible deniability to refute it if they do. It should be okay
Simon said that they translated it themselves so who knows what he said. Then again if he was convinced he was speaking with people from outside the country, he might have chosen not to use the official terminology.
Could be that invasion was just their translation, but the actual word used was more in line with the official line.
They might not care as much if it's said to foreigners. Like how Chinese officials can refer to Taiwan as Taiwan if they're talking to western journalists when that's a big NO-NO at home.
That museum curator is dead probably
The quoted storage numbers for T-55s and T-62s are very obsolete/inaccurate - people like Covert Cabal have repeatedly counted and IDed Russian tanks in storage and actual numbers are far lower.
A RUclips channel putting accuracy over clickbait? Staggering.
He's good, many channels....many...enjoy
The T-62 und T-64 are two completely different designs. While the 62 is simpler coming from the T54/55 line, the 64 was basically the first sovjet MBT with even better performance than the later T-72.
Also there was some video evidence of a IS3 being reactivated - but not sure by which side.
I believe it was reactivated from a Ukrainian memorial by the actual separatists in 2014 before the "separatists" arrived.
The T64s were Iraqs second tank to the T72 back in the 90s , they also had alot of T55s apparently. An I don't mean they just had them those were their main Armor. I was in the Army 96-98 an remember those 3 being the main ones we were trained to identify those an the BMPs. Not sure though as I never saw combat .
The IS-3 was started up by some Pro-Russian Ukrainians in the Donbas region in 2014
@@TaitLawrence-xl2xb"Pro-Russian Ukrainians" = Russians
Russia funded terrorist group which has promised 12 foot wife and mansion if they betray own country 👺@@TaitLawrence-xl2xb
I was in kubinka museum this summer, all the tanks are still there. all. Even the most modern looking ones the t-72 B too
there is no reason at all to use tanks from the museums, this was just another bullshit by western trolls, russia has a shit ton of t-55/t-62/t-64 that they can use before even considering reviving some t-34 tanks
Great video, love that you actually went so far as to phone into Russia and get a primary source.
It's ludicrous RUclipsrs do more fact checking than respected news agencies, the press should be ashamed.
News agencies should face fines if caught spreading fake news/misleading stories for profit.
1st time commenting, thoroughly enjoy all Simon's channels and the content the brilliant writers produce.
Simon didn’t do any of that, his help did. He just reads the scripts
@scottmeredith3359 you'll be shocked to learn the same is true of most newscasters
@@scottmeredith3359they thanked the writers in their comment.
I'm pretty sure most Simon fans don't think Simon is anything more than a manager and face, his writers are very good at their jobs though, and the fact that they keep coming back tells me that Simon pays them well.
@@scottmeredith3359But he got his channels to that point where he just reads texts 😅 that's culmination of years of effort, sweat and toils from his side
I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in anything Russia itself say's. Remember, they also claim to shoot down 99% of all the missiles and drones and when a factory/ammo dump/air base/oil refinery takes a hit it is always invariably claimed that it was debris that hit them and caused all the massive explosions, lol.
Depends on what you call a museum tank. T-34, no. T-55 most certainly, yes, which is only a decade older than the T- 34. T-34s were seen on a training ground.
T-55 is younger than the T-34, T-34 was 1940, T-55 was 1948.
Only a decade younger*
While true, the Soviets unlike the U.S. took very active measures to modernize their older vehicles. So a lot of t-55 are going to be better than western tanks from the same era
Not to mention that the vast majority of tank use in this war is for infantry support and not tank v tank combat, where the t-55 would preform just fine
@@therealgaben5527There is no scenario where western powers would send tanks from 1948 to the frontlines
Thirty T-34 tanks, produced in 1944, were brought back to Russia from Laos and passed to Russian ministry of defense. They are supposed to be used for parades, I don't see them being sent to Ukraine.
Now it turns out that Ukraine did use a Panther tank at a road block. It was a film prop, based on a T55. No one would use a Panther, they are just too valuable.
You know things are dire when you're borrowing troops from your unfriendly neighbourhood dictator, and bring out the antiques.
There's a major difference between "it ain't broke so don't fix it' (B52) and 'were broke so lets fix it' (Russian Tanks).
You believe western propaganda way too much
@@basixs88 Famous western propagandist, Vladimir Putin.
You spelt “slaves” wrong
@@basixs88 chief i dunno, even with "western propaganda at play" introducing NK to your turf war ins't doing you any geopolitical credit score favors, also it's so funny that you people point and laugh at "western" propaganda but say nothing about all the kremlin outlets, hmm yeah, yall sure winning a lot of followers by being hypocrites.
I've looked into this as well and found one instance of Russia pulling an old tank from a museum, but not for the front lines. They pulled one as it was well maintained, the parts and instructions were well documented, and they also "borrowed" the mechanic who worked on it. Basically they wanted it as an example for them to update the fields of armor they already had, and returned the tank afterwards after some back and forth. There may have been others since they have factories here and there, and needing an example of what the thing should look like after you are done would be useful.
The report on the Museum could also be a case of a "miss translation or miss labeling" as I know there at least was a Tank dump/mothball (where you store older tanks long term... something the Soviet/Russia loves to do) and them been labeled as outdoor museum (what museum would have 10000 identical copies of the same T-60 tank is another question).
note some of those Tank stodge can be visited (limit on when and what part but you can visit them like a museum so I can see that slip past).
T-55 has absolutely been used by Russia in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly it was destroyed quickly.
T- 54 Also by both side.
they use them as artillery, every gun that shoots a big HE across the field is better then no gun and they used some t-54s as drones, they packed them full with explosives and let it drive into the ukranian trenches
The reasons Russia now pulling old T-55 and T-62 out of storage is because of its simplicity to repair ), easier to train and operate by conscripts or new recruits. Russia also is getting low on 125mm ammo use by T-72/T-80s, while having bulk of old soviet 115mm ammo and massive supply from North Korea.
You’re overlooking the fact that the reason it’s easy to maintain and learn to use is that it’s obsolete. It doesn’t need high tech parts that ruSSia is struggling to procure.
They are easy to destroy and crew can't be cheaply manufactured in a factory.
@@viceralman8450that would requier russia to care
Theres a reason why all credible death numbers are much higher for russia then ukraine
@@morstyrannis1951why are you referring to Russia as Russian when Ukraine actively operates Nazi battalions like azov who use those symbols???
@@ARKSH_22 task force rusich doesn't exist in your brain? 🤡🤡🤡
10:08 - Would any Russian really use the world "invasion" when denying they're not using their stored vehicles in the invasion of Ukraine or did you paraphrais there a bit?
Simon can we kill the frantic background music - or use it more sparingly?
(Just my opinion - disregard if others don’t feel that way)
I feel like it was better in this one. There have been some I thought it was too loud but this one I diddnt notice it.
@@drewlovely2668yeah they’ve definitely controlling the Colin better recently so I don’t mind
12:20, just came back from cubinka. The first vehicle is a BMPT prototype, which wouldnt be of much use anyways, and the second is a t-80b. Can confirm both are still at their place.
@@tanketkal3 согласен, был там месяц назад
Thanks!
This video is complete bs good job bro
@b.i.s9915 lol ok
My brother in law was in the Battle of Mogadishu ( Blackhawk Down ) he was a Navy Seabee who was fighting with the Marine Corps and he said that when they were just about to be overrun other NATO forces arrived and many countries were using tanks from WW2 , Korean War and Vietnam. He said they were never more happy to see outdated tanks coming to the rescue.
Kinda a different situation. The Somalians had mostly man portable weapons. Even 20-50 year old armor provided good protection in 1993. Today many man portable arms pose a much greater threat to old armor that doesn't have battlefield awareness and advanced defenses. Up armored HMMWVs were decent protection in Mogadishu. Blackhawk down emphasized the HMMWVs in the event were thin skin, not up armored. Remember the junior soldier that complained about the lack of up armored HMMWVs, the dramatic response, and subsequent development of MRAPs.
I’m confused as to why it matters that they are directly from Museums if they are soo old and obsolete that they should be in museums…
Nothing is old or obsolete if it can be used for a specific task. Those machines use 115mm ammo that is available in large numbers in stock and it is free. They are field guns for long range indirect fire on static positions. This is evident of the destructions back of the contact line 3-5km or more. When damaged or the gun is no longer serviceable, they are used to haul other machines to repair shops or rigged with explosives and sent to fortified positions like battering rams or to clear mines. There are many things one can do if something is basically free. Ukraine has been provided some engineering vehicles based on M60 (that is also very old tank) exactly to remove mines and haul other damaged machines.
@ that’s not true because it can still obsolete for the task it was created for. Which was being a battle tank not self propelled artillery or a tow truck… And my point was that it feels like semantics them making a video about tanks being pulled from museums when the tanks in question are old enough to be in museums… and are!
@@MrRatludthe m60 is closer to a t72 then a t55
What russia is currently doing would be = of the us useing m46 tanks
Even the first m60 is much better then t55s
(Ignoring that all were upgraded in all countrys soo long ago)
Because it paints a clear picture of how desperate Russia is that they can’t rely their assembly lines to produce new tanks, or can’t simply pull existing tanks from storage facilities where they’ve been maintained and kept in a functional state.
Having to pull literal museum pieces out or museums for the war would show just how desperate they are to get any kind of armored vehicle to the frontlines.
propaganda, its just to underline the western narrative that russia is losing, they are losing so badly that they have more land then last year
0:45 - Chapter 1 - T34S
6:35 - Chapter 2 - T62S
14:15 - Chapter 3 - Losses & performance
Trick question, a lot of their hardware is so obnoxiously dated that it should be in museums by now anyways.
Yeah, even if they're not literally emptying museums, the point is that most of what they're using is so obsolete the only place it really should belong is a museum.
@@Flight_of_Icarusyeah
What russia is pulling out is basicly the same as the us pulling out m46 tanks (maybe even m26) would be
The Abrams is a tank from the 1980's and the Leopard 1 is from the mid 1960's. Both of which are technically speaking, outdated platforms yet are being used by Ukraine. But nobody talks about that
It seems like using tanks from the 60-80s is a common thing even in NATO countries. Probably because it's easier and cheaper to upgrade old tanks rather than design and build new ones...
@FrostbiteDigital the diffrence is that they are upgraded
Russia is pulling out unmodifed t55s
A late 40s design
@nikolaideianov5092 I doubt those T-54/55's are all unmodified. One video featuring one unmodified tank doesn't cut it. Also Russia has upgraded, modernized T-72s, T-80s and T-90s, it's not like their hardware is "obnoxiously outdated" as OP implies
T-62 are upgraded for the modernisation.. They are not from the museums, they have enough in the depot and they are modernised for the that. Ucooled thermals, Composite addon composite armor, Relict ERA on the front, laser rangefinder and 3BM-21M APFDS... On the other side Ukrainan Army Using Leopard 1 and T-55 (from the Slovenia) as MBTs...
I am glad that Simon remains shackled by facts
The T34s have only been on the training ground so far, but I give it a 50/50 chance we see one in Kursk before December.
Yeah
Same as the t55
First only for training
Then only for artillery
Then used for frontal assults
Jesus christ there, desprate
Braindead
Yeah so desperate and Ukrainians control went from 1287Skm to 489SKM wich failed measurably.
Russia make 90-120 tanks per month , 900-1200 per year
@Giganibba511 wtf is "SKM"
Russia "makes" 120-90 tanks a month
Russia doesnt make nearly as many new hulls
Visualy confirmed russian tank looses (meaning the lowest possible number of looses) is over 3k
I know a neat trick. If you destroy a tank, photograph it from 5 different angles then say "Look at these 5 tanks we destroyed."
You need to be carful with the background to not give it away though
Mark Felton made a video saying NK has around 200 of T-34 in active service
I appreciate you and the team doing full research and doing so in a non biased manor, way to rare these days. Thanks for the hard work fellas!
Bro, Simon, this is the best looking video I've seen you put out. Can you use these settings on the rest of your empire?
You know, I have a lot of respect for Museums and those that run them. If they're saying that their inventories are fine, then I believe them. I think they'd say if they didn't have the tanks too. The people there understand the importance of a proper accurate historical record, and they worked well with international museums before.
I agree with your vision.
10:10 I highly doubt that the staff-member used the word "invasion" here.
He said they were surprised to hear them refering to it as an invasion as well.
An interesting man once said. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"
Could you guys do an episode breaking down the exact tank losses on both sides? Would be much appreciated.
Just watch a Perun vid, my lad, the guy has all the data!
Do you not watch Perun?
I think many people misunderstand how deadly even a WW2-era tank is, a t-34 against light infantry with only small arms is still getting pinned. Most groups may only have 1 or only a few AT guys if something happens to them it's still an unfair advantage. Luckily now we have drones and intelligence to counter dated threats but still, wouldn't want to be in a small urban environment trying to take one out myself. You can make the argument every weapon man has invented is good at taking life, but cavalry on horses is probably less scary than a tank capable of making semi-accurate fire upwards to 1-3 kilometers. Your little standard issue M4-Ak74-KM series is maybe good for semi-accurate fire upwards of 3-600 meters depending on the day and person.
Kind of like armored medieval knights, not so great against gunpowder, but still pretty formidable against swords and pikes. The 'sticky bomb' scene in Saving Private Ryan emphasizes the disparity of small arms against armor; all they could hope for was disabling the tracks.
13 T-55s on Oryx so far... they were horribly out of date in the 1st Gulf war 33 years ago
A friend of mine (ex-British army) said the Iraqi police had T-55s. I bet our police wish they had T55s.
Oryxx LMAAAO , False counting , Counting Blur vids , Counting from different angles , Fake counting. Even Ukrainians don't use that as main source lol
Only Harrison Ford could truly state with certainly whether something belongs in a museum.
I'd be more worried about the lack of proper modern rifles. Don't get me wrong, the AKM and AKS series, specially the modernized ones are good, but in most videos they're not using the latest versions. If you can't provide your frontline troops the best available gear, how do you even expect they'll get modern tanks?
Technically as long as it has a gun it's never obsolete as a weapon. Bayonet training is still in practice.
Not obsolete doesn’t however mean effective
They may look old but I still wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of one at all
From the sounds of it I wouldn’t want to be in one either
No tanks left, they use mighty shovels spiced with chilly peppers.
This is the journalistic integrity I like to see. I've seen too many "news" reports on here that seems a bit off, because they tend to repeat reports they gave a day prior
Simon... how many channels do you own?
I really got to applaud the amount of research you and the team did. Stupendous job
When the media says that russia is using museum pieces, I didn't, for an instant, think they were literally raiding museums, rather that it was a reference to the age of the equipment.
I also assumed that that is how everyone else took it, guess I was wrong.
Thanks Simon. From the Bronx
Jesus how many channels does this dude have LOL I thought I was clicking on someone new and Simon pops up
I love the research, getting rid of fake news. I just hope you keep up on the actual warfronts part of it
No, Russia is not literally pulling tanks out of museums and sending them to Ukraine. But they ARE using tanks that are so old most countries WOULD have them in museums. Many of their tanks were built or designed in the 60s and 70s.
That's not as bad as it sounds. The Abrams is a 70s design. The F-15 is a late 60s design. The F-16 even is a late 70s design. We in the states do actually have those in museums right now. While also still using the rest in active service.
@sprolyborn2554 It’s really not the same thing; yes, the F-15 and F-16 are also Cold War-era jets, while the Abrams was designed in the same timeframe. The difference is that all of these vehicles have been upgraded continuously ever since their original combat debut. Most Abrams, F-15s and F-16s in service today rolled off the assembly line in the late 90s or the 2000s, and are outfitted with the latest electronics, countermeasures and weapons systems. Most of Russias Cold War era vehicles were built during the Cold War, left in storage for decades, and hastily reactivated after Russia's limited number of modern weapons were either rendered inoperable or canceled due to Western sanctions.
@ManiaMac1613 right but you did say "designed in the 60s and 70s". All I was pointing out is that that alone is not really a point against them.
@@sprolyborn2554 lol not that bad for example the americans already scrapped all the M60's, its like america was useing the damn M-46 Patton in combat now a days ridiculous.
@@viceralman8450 I mean, the m46 would be like a half step above Russians actually using the t-34. The whole argument of the Abrams and t-72 is an apt comparison seeing as how they are the same era. So yeah, not that bad.
The T-64 is not even close to a T-62, autoloader, far superior cannon and composite armor before upgrades.
The upgraded variants are far from the best tanks on the battlefield, but they are decent enough especially compared to truly obsolete vehicles like the T-55 and 62.
not if they stood out rotting for decades
If I recall, there are precious few T-64s vs T-62s, no? It was given to more elite units and wasnt widespread, again, iirc.
considering that most agressive armor of ukrainian army is international maxxpro t-55 does not looks that obsolete
@@JohnDoe-fo7yi Yes, but they made in Kharkiv and was the primary MBT for post war ukraine along with the T-80UD.
@@dianapuskina3448lol
At least try to make the propaganda make sense
This statment is so clearly not true
Every time I saw this headline i assumed they simply meant that they are so old they belong in a museum. I assumed Russia had a hefty supply of old tanks in reserve just like we do. Difference is theres seem a lot older and in much poorer repair.
The only one I could see them digging out of a museum would be the ISU-152, they made over 4000 of them up until 1959 and a 152mm anti concrete shell would be useful as short-range artillery and bunker busting. Also, the fact they don't have a turret and have a flat top would make it easier to make an anti-drone shed on them without inhibiting the gun.
Some people, eh? A T34 would take longer to refit and reactivate than it would last on the battlefield 🙄
You can say that about a lot of the T-62s as well
Simon, I have a confession to make. I said a few months ago that if Russia started to pull T-34s out of his mothballed inventory that they were now fubar. However, with the first minute of this video with the claim that Russia was now pulling T-34s out of museums / mothballs, my first thought was:
"Simon, Are You $#@!ing Me?!?!?!?!?" No Vaseline / KY jelly needed.
A report I saw once said that both sides were using old tanks - not to fight with
but as decoys to draw fire from the enemy -
with no one inside the tanks.
This video delved so deep that it made me feel like it devolved into a troll video for media even deciding to run with this narrative lmao😂
Germany sort of did their at that by the end with the Battle of Berlin. They pulled out preserved WWI tanks as last stand against USSR
While there was significant tank development between those wars it was only 20-25 years so the ammunition difference was most likely smaller then with old Cold War tanks
Screw being more clickable..this channel is a gold mine
People actually believe The Daily Mail?
Literal museum pieces? No. Are they outdated as hell and deserve to BE in a museum? Oh hell yeah. There's not been any T-34s used in combat, but there have been T-55s, which is the next best, or I guess worse, thing. My God.
I remember hearing some of them didnt even have chairs. So im just imagining Dimitri here slav squatting in the drivers place lol.
Javelin protection? Good luck with that!
Canada still has a majority of ww2 M101 105mm howitzers. Nations don't seem to want to make bulk war equipment anymore.
Those storage areas for old armored vehicles have already lost most of their previous inventories. The remainder is of increasingly dubious serviceability status.
I'd think they'd be too unreliable after all that time. Not only that, they probably have something from the 1970s and 80s that would be more likely to be fielded.
that comment is awesome. thanks for taking the time to find something verifiable.
Why pull them from museums when there's plenty of them in boneyards? Even when a war machine is retired, they are not immediately scrapped and instead are conserved in boneyards. Not that conservation is very good, Russia is after all a wet place with rough weather but they can be restored to somewhat functional condition with enough effort.
USA similarly has boneyards with ancient war machines but USA has the luxury of dry deserts. There are Vietnam era airplanes in desert boneyards that can be quickly restored to working condition. You know, just in case. Though the boneyards are actively working through scrapping worst ones for spares for those that can be restored and they are not meant to be kept around forever. And spares for those that are still in active use. Retired F-15s and 18s and such.
Don’t think anyone will read this but.
Or if this has been said already.
Like in most wars if you take tanks off an area that you are attacking. The pressure of tanks stop and gives the other enemy a chance to push forward knowing they don’t face tanks. The older tanks are just there to keep the pressure on as the newer tanks get repaired and reloaded.
During the Falklands War, the British Army took an automatic weapon out of the Small Arms School Museum at Warminster for field us. My father was working there at the time.
You just condemned the Kubinka Tank Museum staff. Putin's call: "Invasion?!? You mean Special Military Operation... Now, to the Gulag!"
So what we are establishing is that the statement is hyperbolic.
They aren't literally from museums, but some of the tanks being fielded are ones that belong in a museum over a battlefield.
1:19 quality control wasn't important ever - in the 1930's the average life expectancy of a finished BT-7 tank was 150 HOURS of use until a major component had to be replaced - engine, gearbox etc
No. Next question, please
It's never a good sign when you have to fight cutting edge drones and weapons with tanks that are so old their armour is greying.
Thats just bio-urban camo
It's obviously bogus, museum pieces are deactivated and not mechanically functioning. They're also not maintained, and would require more work to get in operational condition than just building a new tank from scratch.
have you seen the obj279 running, maybe not but there is vidéo proof of it running and that's a prototype from the 60s with a pretty unique engine and transmission, a lot of the tanks in the kubinka museum are working (maybe exept for the gun) if they are soviet tanks, obviously the maus can't run (with the plans for a majority of the parts having beiing destroyed) like many non soviet tanks
Dammit, as an early Barbarossa Tabletop gamer, I am hoping to see the glorious BT series back in action!
Really surprised you didn't cite Covert Cabal's research. Very detailex.
OMG it is so sad that a museum has only 3 or 4 examples of a T-34 or a T-62 or a T-55 and not 2000+ of them, for the plebs to gaze upon example after example after example. Such a shame.
I doubt that there is any ammo suitable for the T34s 76 or 85mm guns. No tanks have used these since
the 40s, Laos may have a minimal amount. Common sense would have concluded this.
I didn't even know this was a headline.
They aren't exactly pulling them from museums,but they are 100% using tanks that should be in museums.
That Kubinka staffer is cooked.
Why?
@rolandohiebert2144 they called the invasion, well, an invasion. Officially it's a "sPeCiAl MiLiTaRy OpErAtIoN" and didn't rule out entirely the possibility of Russia being so desperate as to pull obsolete reserves for active use.
Tl;dr they're fucked for being honest
Is there still ammo for the T34 avaliable in a descent amount?
Not sure where they got their numbers but oryx has listed 227 T-62 losses with 146 being destroyed
The 2S7 Pion SPG is the only armored vehicle that I have heard of truly being pulled from museums and that was for Ukraine, not Russia. Probably the only artillery piece that's well suited for both the museum and the battlefield. Great to look at and great to have providing fire support.
Fun fact russia has 2times more tanks on frontlines than 2022
As you said Russia is fielding equipment thas been in storage for decades such as the T-54, T-62 and T-64, these tanks were never all that good in the first place. It is scarping the barrel, like the US deploying M-48 Pattons!
They have been pulling T-55s out of storage, which is better than a T-34 by miles, but hopelessly outdated even by Leopard 1 standards
Not saying tanks from a museum it's that they belong in a museum.
I would imagine a lot of T62s are taken out of storage rather than museums.
Oh man, I was kinda hoping for a video on landfills or hurricanes.
That was really sporting of the Russian tank museum to answer the question so completely and candidly, despite the increased tensions between East and West since 2022. 👍
It is a matter of record that Russia has taken tanks from companies that have kept them to rent out for use in films. These were commandeered. That story appeared in Russian and Ukrainian media several months ago. I don't know about museums though. It is also true that satellite inspection has revealed a serious draw down of tanks that were in Soviet era storage yards before the war. Many of these storage bases are empty of serviceable tanks. T55 and even earlier tanks have also appeared on the battlefield.