Crikey!

Losses:12863

destroyed: 8911
captured: 2900
damaged: 554
abandoned: 498

--
Spike

On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>
> Crikey!
>
> Losses:12863
>
> destroyed: 8911
> captured: 2900
> damaged: 554
> abandoned: 498

Those are numbers published by Ukraine. The tank losses in May this
years featured in a few articles and numbered 2,000 or so.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/06/01/russia-lost-tanks-ukraine/
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/world-largest-tank-factory-overdrive-russian-losses-ukraine-2550750

Can I suggest you cite the source of these numbers? 9,000 is more than
Russia ever had. And even Russia claims they can only make 1,500 per year.

On 10/30/2023 10:44 AM, Fredxx wrote:
> On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Crikey!
>>
>> Losses:12863
>>
>> destroyed: 8911
>> captured: 2900
>> damaged: 554
>> abandoned: 498
>
> Those are numbers published by Ukraine. The tank losses in May this years featured in a few articles and numbered 2,000 or so.
>   https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/06/01/russia-lost-tanks-ukraine/
>
> https://inews.co.uk/news/world/world-largest-tank-factory-overdrive-russian-losses-ukraine-2550750
>
> Can I suggest you cite the source of these numbers? 9,000 is more than Russia ever had. And even Russia claims they can only make 1,500 per year.
>

I thought they got a bunch out of storage.
Older models. The ones "where the tops come off".

The numbers sound a little high.

The "destroyed" number could be tanks and APVs.

Paul

On 30/10/2023 14:44, Fredxx wrote:
> On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Crikey!
>>
>> Losses:12863
>>
>> destroyed: 8911
>> captured: 2900
>> damaged: 554
>> abandoned: 498
>
> Those are numbers published by Ukraine. The tank losses in May this
> years featured in a few articles and numbered 2,000 or so.
>   https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/06/01/russia-lost-tanks-ukraine/
>
> https://inews.co.uk/news/world/world-largest-tank-factory-overdrive-russian-losses-ukraine-2550750
>
> Can I suggest you cite the source of these numbers? 9,000 is more than
> Russia ever had. And even Russia claims they can only make 1,500 per year.

The Soviet Union rarely scrapped working tanks and they built around
100,000 of the T-55 model alone. Nobody knows how many they of those and
other older models Russia has in stock. They may not fare well in
conflict with a modern MBT, but they are reported as being used in
Ukraine for infantry support and in bombardment roles. News media often
wrongly identify infantry combat vehicles as tanks, so that is another
possible source of inaccuracy.

--
Colin Bignell

On 30/10/2023 15:00, Paul wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 10:44 AM, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Crikey!
>>>
>>> Losses:12863
>>>
>>> destroyed: 8911
>>> captured: 2900
>>> damaged: 554
>>> abandoned: 498
>>
>> Those are numbers published by Ukraine. The tank losses in May this years featured in a few articles and numbered 2,000 or so.
>>   https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/06/01/russia-lost-tanks-ukraine/
>>
>> https://inews.co.uk/news/world/world-largest-tank-factory-overdrive-russian-losses-ukraine-2550750
>>
>> Can I suggest you cite the source of these numbers? 9,000 is more than Russia ever had. And even Russia claims they can only make 1,500 per year.
>>
>
> I thought they got a bunch out of storage.
> Older models. The ones "where the tops come off".
>
> The numbers sound a little high.
>
> The "destroyed" number could be tanks and APVs.

5000 tanks and 9000 APVs is the figure I have seem

>
> Paul
>
>

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>
> Crikey!
>
> Losses:12863
>
> destroyed: 8911
> captured: 2900
> damaged: 554
> abandoned: 498

Those appear to the the Oryxs *visually confirmed* losses starting from
24th Feb 2022. So they are are actually *lower* than the real losses,
since they will only count things where there is photographic or video
proof of the loss. Real losses will be quite a bit higher.

However your title is deceptive since the figures you are quoting are
for all vehicles and equipment, not just tanks.

Here is the source:

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

So for Tanks specifically:

2437, of which destroyed: 1591, damaged: 139, abandoned: 157, captured: 550

The Ukraine militaries approx assessment of losses have losses of Tanks
alone at 5190, armoured vehicles 9775, artillery 7202...

https://www.minusrus.com/en
https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid0ZtvoaGFLvXmerGarcHDsbTMhRf2bv6KyJDw3f9WaJJx9BpFJV12s9VNfgX7KWEGhl

So if you take those figures as the lower and upper assessment, then the
real number is likely somewhere between the two.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

It seems to be the Labour party and their middle eastern chums. And
their descendants over here.

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 30/10/2023 14:44, Fredxx wrote:
> On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Crikey!
>>
>> Losses:12863
>>
>> destroyed: 8911
>> captured: 2900
>> damaged: 554
>> abandoned: 498
>
> Those are numbers published by Ukraine.

No those are visually confirmed losses in the Oryx open source database.
Ukraine's numbers are higher.

Note that they are for all equipment types, not just tanks.

> Can I suggest you cite the source of these numbers? 9,000 is more than
> Russia ever had. And even Russia claims they can only make 1,500 per year.

Remember that Russia has *deep* stockpiles of old soviet era equipment
that they can in theory call on. Much of it has been left outside to
rust without any maintenance for decades - but some of it can be
refurbished to work. That is why they are now fielding T55s - originally
entering service in 1947.

Having said that, the way they use their equipment and human resources
is shall we say "wasteful"? They were trying to assault Avdiivka the
other day using some flat bed trucks that were built in the 1930s!
Unarmoured soft skin vehicles stuffed with infantry, across open fields
(mined) in broad daylight, under close surveillance by drones in an area
where well defined kill boxes already lined up by artillery. The results
were very predictable.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
> On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Crikey!
>>
>> Losses:12863
>>
>> destroyed: 8911
>> captured: 2900
>> damaged: 554
>> abandoned: 498
>
> Those appear to the the Oryxs *visually confirmed* losses starting from
> 24th Feb 2022. So they are are actually *lower* than the real losses,
> since they will only count things where there is photographic or video
> proof of the loss. Real losses will be quite a bit higher.
>
> However your title is deceptive since the figures you are quoting are
> for all vehicles and equipment, not just tanks.
>
> Here is the source:
>
> https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Thanks for the correction and the link. That’s one long list of destroyed
vehicles.

--
Spike

On 30/10/2023 15:00, Paul wrote:
> On 10/30/2023 10:44 AM, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 30/10/2023 13:55, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Crikey!
>>>
>>> Losses:12863
>>>
>>> destroyed: 8911
>>> captured: 2900
>>> damaged: 554
>>> abandoned: 498
>>
>> Those are numbers published by Ukraine. The tank losses in May this years featured in a few articles and numbered 2,000 or so.
>>   https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/06/01/russia-lost-tanks-ukraine/
>>
>> https://inews.co.uk/news/world/world-largest-tank-factory-overdrive-russian-losses-ukraine-2550750
>>
>> Can I suggest you cite the source of these numbers? 9,000 is more than Russia ever had. And even Russia claims they can only make 1,500 per year.
>>
>
> I thought they got a bunch out of storage.
> Older models. The ones "where the tops come off".

That seems to all the T series tanks, including the T90M!

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 30/10/2023 15:58, John Rumm wrote:
0 >> Older models. The ones "where the tops come off".
>
> That seems to all the T series tanks, including the T90M!

The Abrams and Leopard tanks carry the ammunition in a separate
compartment from the crew. The T series don't. Umm, neither does the
Challenger 2. :(

>
>
>

On 30/10/2023 16:27, GB wrote:
> On 30/10/2023 15:58, John Rumm wrote:
> 0
>>> Older models. The ones "where the tops come off".
>>
>> That seems to all the T series tanks, including the T90M!
>
> The Abrams and Leopard tanks carry the ammunition in a separate
> compartment from the crew. The T series don't. Umm, neither does the
> Challenger 2. :(

Turret tossing does not seem to be its thing... although so few have
ever been destroyed in battle I guess it is hard to know for sure...

ISTR The propellant and the round are loaded separately, which makes
unwanted detonation of the ammo far less likely. Also it does not use
hydraulic systems for things like turret rotation or gun elevation - so
no flammable hydraulic oil being pumped round the crew.

(there was one killed by friendly in Iraq - but that had its hatch open
when it was hit)

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Ere Guv, want buy a second hand tank, just one careful user. Arfur Daley.

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote in message
news:kq9qtsFnph2U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Crikey!
>
> Losses:12863
>
> destroyed: 8911
> captured: 2900
> damaged: 554
> abandoned: 498
>
> --
> Spike

On 30/10/2023 15:37, John Rumm wrote:
They were trying to assault Avdiivka the
> other day using some flat bed trucks that were built in the 1930s!
> Unarmoured soft skin vehicles stuffed with infantry,

When I was in the army our unit[1] was described as 'light armoured' the
standing joke was that the four tonners had thick canvas on them as that
was the closest we came to being armoured.

[1] 104 field squadron
71 Engineer regiment
Royal Engineers.

We were part of ARRC Ace Rapid Reaction Corps. Another 'joke' was

that the Ace meant we were really good at it, it actually stood for
Allied Command Europe.