Why is no one storing old tanks?

[@Binkov]

Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 Free Gifts with promo code "BINKOV20" at mnscpd.com/binkov

[@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235]

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

[@aethelwolfe3539]

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.

[@jaredyoung5353]

Thoughts On AI taking driving used/old tanks ?

[@stuffhappensdownsouth9899]

how does the recoiless rifle factor in ?

[@craftpaint1644]

You don't need my validation, but your Manscape commercial was well done Comrade👏👩‍💼🇺🇲🛠️🇷🇺

[@stanleyqc2244]

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 :)

[@wifi_soldier5076]

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.

[@Tounushi]

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.

[@JMiskovsky]

Well it turned out that this approach is useless, better to convert T-34, T-55 in APV/IFV.

[@din0kill]

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.

[@slappy8941]

Boarder ≠ border

[@osamify007]

Well explained

[@yugoslavia_operator128]

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.

[@yugoslavia_operator128]

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.

[@TheTAEclub]

@@yugoslavia_operator128 yeah buying Chinese drones

[@spencereagle1118]

Stored tanks might not be so useful in a 'big war' but they may be useful in a 'long war'.

[@daniel17319]

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.

[@i_smoke_ghosts]

1 'big long' and 1 coke please

[@josephahner3031]

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.

[@matthewtuckman4447]

@@daniel17319 more determining was that the Iraqis were poorly trained and commanded compared to Nato or Warsaw pact Militaries

[@matthewtuckman4447]

@@josephahner3031 war factories

[@rasmuswittsell10]

"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, ...

[@j.f.fisher5318]

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.

[@stcredzero]

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]

You remembered the perfect fact at the perfect time, well done

[@stcredzero]

@@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]

You seem like a smarty pants

[@stcredzero]

@@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.

[@Kolonol1]

@@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...

[@danielwarnes7231]

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.

[@gamerhistorian7843]

Antiques

[@smokeypuppy417]

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.

[@rickdiesel2k]

Congress just passed $725 Billion military budget. Hopefully it included some wrenches and spare parts.

[@noobifiedwastaken]

Man literally uploaded at 00.00 in my timezone, classic history channels stuff

[@marvinyean5]

You from singapore?

[@jacklim555]

Malaysian?

[@alfijibril611]

SEAns unite

[@alfijibril611]

East don't exist lol

[@majtom5421]

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.

[@leviathansnemesis3742]

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.

[@depth386]

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.

[@leviathansnemesis3742]

@@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.

[@depth386]

@@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

[@leviathansnemesis3742]

@@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.

[@gulliverdeboer5836]

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.

[@CariusIrion]

God bless that maintenance soldier scooting around on the cart at 7:17 - 7:20

[@LuisSieira]

This video aged as a good old wine

[@a5cent]

With Russia now shipping T62 tanks to the front, it seems at least Russia had all their old tanks in storage.

[@Praktical_]

@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.

[@ToBeIsWasWere]

t-55 now lmao

[@jamesdowell5268]

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.

[@somethinglikethat2176]

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.

[@Bustermachine]

@@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.

[@scottym.9077]

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.

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

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.

[@alexmaclean6132]

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

[@scottym.9077]

@@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.

[@scottym.9077]

@@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.

[@Razzy1312]

@@alexmaclean6132 Laser point defense on vehicles will be a thing very soon.

[@rogersmith7396]

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.

[@josephrogers8213]

Ashamed. You can't use them on looters and MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTERS

[@stcredzero]

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.

[@ilikecheese4518]

they should sell them to civilians honestly id love to buy a tank

[@manuelgarciabarbero1872]

yeah

[@OleDonKedic]

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.

[@HepCatJack]

You can purchase a septic tank with a construction permit...

[@aussiemilitant4486]

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.

[@jeffglenn7609]

When skies are clear? Asymmetric warfare's technology would make that implausible at best. Impossible otherwise.

[@aussiemilitant4486]

@@jeffglenn7609 Clearly not impossible.

[@FaustLimbusCompany]

Obsolete tanks are pretty useful against unprofessional insurgents.

[@jeffglenn7609]

@@aussiemilitant4486 only if its muslim against muslim countries...

[@aussiemilitant4486]

@@jeffglenn7609 pure ignorance.

[@oveidasinclair982]

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.

[@famousbowl9926]

Punk 18 year old kids were able to learn how.. i think i will manage

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

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.

[@rorybrown7632]

Interesting topic, I think this is the first video on KZbin that covers tank storage... Thanks Binkov!

[@Inkling777]

When I lived there, an Israeli told me his country had older generation still operational tanks stored in underground bunkers. In a last ditch stand, they'd be better than nothing. Used by someone who knows how to use terrain to advantage, they could hold their own.

[@jpheitman1]

Aged like fine wine.

[@MrSunshine1079]

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.

[@Tom_Cruise_Missile]

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.)

[@jimfrodsham7938]

When I joined up in '66 I was told there were Churchill Tanks in heavy pres in Donnington. I have no idea if that's true but it wouldn't surprise me.

[@xzqzq]

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.

[@scottwhitley3392]

I wish the U.K. kept the Challanger 1 in storage. It’s armour is still better than pretty much every modern tank.

[@xzqzq]

@@scottwhitley3392 Brits are weird about throwing away perfectly good weapons...

[@scottwhitley3392]

@@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.

[@xzqzq]

@@scottwhitley3392 Is it true that the Brits dumped most or all of their small arms in the ocean following WWI ?

[@arslanumer7688]

Bro the armour is not capable of withstanding new projectiles

[@Kurvan]

Not sure what you're talking about. Ukraine is currently building up a nice collection of Russian tanks gifted to them (fuel not included).

[@flagellumdei7515]

Funny.

[@hmmm3210]

About as real as the snake Island hoax and the "ghost of Kiev"

[@elipaynter]

@@hmmm3210 so how long can you blow Putin?

[@Ewig_Luftenglanz]

@@hmmm3210 the difference is there are more than 300 proven siezed vehicles with photographies

[@RonLWilson]

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.

[@РыгорБородулин-ц1е]

The real question is : why nobody's selling old tanks to the populace?

[@hannesranta-nilkku95]

because we dont want a madman driving over people, cars and property with a near unstopable tank

[@РыгорБородулин-ц1е]

@@hannesranta-nilkku95 would you argue the same about cars?

[@hannesranta-nilkku95]

@@РыгорБородулин-ц1е of course not they are complitely different things

[@РыгорБородулин-ц1е]

@@hannesranta-nilkku95 I see, you just want a madman driving over people and ramming into crowds full speed

[@hannesranta-nilkku95]

@@РыгорБородулин-ц1е stopping a car or making a blockades for cars in crowded areas is A LOT easier than doing the same for tanks

[@danielryan4220]

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.

[@rdg0983]

Interesting how Russia is now using T62 models from the early days of the cold war in Ukraine

[@prokremelskidezolati1426]

yep :)))

[@tetraxis3011]

T62 is not from early Cold War. And T62s in Ukraine are heavily modernized variants from the 80s

[@rdg0983]

@@tetraxis3011 well made in 1961 so kinda early-but the modernised versions from the 80s are still obsolete

[@AmanKumarPadhy]

Drinking game: take a shot every time he says "more fuel"

[@sixgunsymphony7408]

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

[@FrugalPCOG]

North Korea has been storing old tanks since day 1. Even it's "new" tanks are old designs, so...

[@galaxymaster]

It’s so strange to have a puppet tell me to shave my balls

[@funkervogt47]

I did a bunch of research on the prospects of upgrading the T-55 for continued combat use, and concluded that it was a bad idea considering the tank's inherent limitations (armor can't stop new antitank weapons, interior is too cramped and uncomfortable, unsafe ammo storage). For just a little more money, you could upgrade a T-72, and it would be a much more effective and survivable tank on the battlefield. In modern armies, T-55s could still have uses if converted into things other than MBTs, like recovery vehicles, bridgelayers, minesweepers, and maybe heavy APCs. The T-55 might still have combat potential in impoverished parts of the world where the enemy only has T-55s and RPG-7s, though for that, you'd only need to "upgrade" your T-55s to 1990s levels of technology.

[@TheSigmaGrindSet]

I guess the Romanians didn’t get the memo… with their major upgrade of the T-55 platform to the TR-85M1 (a literal “cut & shut job” where they lengthened the hill to add an extra road wheel to carry the weight of a new gun and extra armour….) Unlike the Hungarian’s who removed the turret, strapped two Mig-21 engines in place & pumped water into outflow to put out oil fires, and named it “Big Wind 2”. They used a version on a T-34 chassis “Big Wind 1” to put out the oil fires the Iraqis started in Kuwait as Desert Storm kicked off… You can find footage of it in YT in action

[@samadams2203]

Probably important to consider the costs of the basic training for all the soldiers who would be crewing those older vehicles on top of the advanced training required to utilize them. Soldiers themselves can be very costly.

[@MrYaxalot]

....you only get 2000 miles out of a set of tracks...that is insane

[@Postoronniy]

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).

[@Tscharlieh]

Well, we now see the use of old tanks in a real war…scrap metal

[@jeffho1727]

My war story. Lol. Canadian mechanized infantry battalion gets a new CO. Now, of the three battalions in our infantry regiments, one is a light battalion, a leg battalion. This CO had come from a light infantry background and it showed with very little regard for the vehicles and a focus on personal fitness. Great until the Brigade Commander wants his mechanized infantry battalion and is told his VOR (vehicles on repair) rate is close to 60%. Every unit has a focus and mission necessary to success, to ignore that is problemic.

[@evulclown]

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.

[@doomguy9049]

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.

[@evulclown]

@@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.

[@Bob10009]

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 ?” 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@prashanthb6521]

You most probably didnt watch the vid or didnt understand it.

[@Bob10009]

@@prashanthb6521 yes I did to both. My comment stands 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@johnfaris5376]

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

[@Bob10009]

@@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.

[@johnfaris5376]

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

[@sergiuszregua9592]

Poland is storing some 800 of old T-72s. They tried to get some operational to form a new tank brigade. After 4 years of failed attempts decided that it would be faster and more cost effective to buy M1 Abrams and throw the surplus out the window.

[@no-nonseplayer6612]

well that old polish T-72 Tanks were sold to different countries and some were made into SPGs

[@sergiuszregua9592]

@@no-nonseplayer6612 there were plans to make them into SPGs but again... It didn't work. Polish SPGs are based on Korean K2 tank.

[@sergiuszregua9592]

I am aware of 2 prototype SPGs based on T72s. On one of them expirienced a hull brake during trials, this was a final nail to the coffin of that project.

[@no-nonseplayer6612]

@@sergiuszregua9592 dont forget that finnish AMOS mortar system used as a T-72 as test bed

[@sergiuszregua9592]

@@no-nonseplayer6612 that's interesting I didn't know that. I'll have to do my homework on that but from what I've gathered rn AMOS is using 120mm mortars which is really short to medium range altilery (15km). Poles tried to put a turret with the 155mm howitzer with a range of 40km on T-72 and the hull just wasn't up to the task. Also from what I know there are a lot of trubles with the T-72s in Polish storage. The engines are worn out and Poles are no longer manufacturing new since early 2000s. If you take the engine and the turret away the only thing that you are left with is the hull. The hull that is not the best in the first place. Not only it is old it was also inferior to T-72s manufactured for the Soviet Army. Soviets sold and licensed only skinned down variants of T-72 to sattelite countries like Poland or Czechoslovakia. In a nutshell yeah, shure, you can modernise and repurose them but it's really like servicing a car and replacing everything but the bodywork. Isn't cheap and ultimately not financialy viable.

[@ryawncawdor6381]

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.

[@Sugarsail1]

and tanks are easily destroyed from the air or many infantry anti-tank munitions. Tanks are little more than sitting ducks now days.

[@MikhaelAhava]

@Jack der Hauptsturmführer lol.

[@theplum2706]

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

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Thanks for sharing your insight.

[@giovannibez9509]

Thanks for sharing

[@springkiller1475]

Yet, here in paraguay we still have M3 stuarts and shermans in active service

[@abdulabdanahib9617]

Lol

[@rkadi6540]

Paraguay not alone, chill. Consider the stuarts is an IFV

[@springkiller1475]

@@rkadi6540 not really, its thin armour makes it barely better than a truck with a machinegun

[@annguyenlehoang7779]

@@springkiller1475 having something to cover infantry is better than nothing tho

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

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.

[@privateaccount1091]

fun facts: T-62-M, T-55-AM, T-10M, SU-122-54, IS-2M tanks, remained in service until the 1990s

[@bigjohn697791]

I know the British Army had 408 Challenger 2's delivered (227 in service as of 2016, 59 used for training and remainder held in storage) and 137 will be upgraded to Challenger 3 The rest will go into storage.

[@joblo341]

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.

[@s99614]

I imagine that with a plow attached, these old tanks would be great to clear snow from the road's.

[@akselhanssen9301]

Jeremy Clarkson, is that you ?

[@millerrepin4452]

and damage the roads in the process, roads don't handle tanks driving on them very well.

[@pepebeezon772]

@@millerrepin4452 and costs several times more in fuel

[@Waltham1892]

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.

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

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.

[@Waltham1892]

@@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]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJDEdYCne9eIjJo&ab_channel=VasiliyPanasenko russian tanks dont need maintenance

[@Waltham1892]

@@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...

[@shadowscout9872]

The US just recently decided to "store" a bunch of tanks and other military vehicles in Afghanistan!

[@headcrabn5347]

Except not really because they scuttled most of them

[@bugstomper4670]

Good thing that they were the import version with the steel armour only.

[@max420thc]

The Taliban has them now ,

[@12jazion]

Since old tanks cost too much to store and maintain they should give them to me, I will take good care of them and a tank would look mighty fine sitting in my driveway.

[@vividshock]

Building a house around it would be cool. Can function as a makeshift bunker. Or a kids playground.

[@matthewjohns201]

I like Binkov's take on things most of the time. But this one is a bit off on his understanding of the US army. I am an old cold war guy who was stationed in Germany in the 80s. The only US light infantry in Europe was the airborne brigade in Italy. A cold war mechanized infantry division was not much different than an armored division. The armored divisions had 5 armored battalions and 4 mechanized infantry. A Mechanized infantry division had 5 infantry and 4 armored. Both types of divisions also had armored cav squadrons. Post cold war there has been a lot of changes but the mech infantry still use Bradly IFVs. Stryker equipped brigades are not considered mechanized infantry. They are considered a sort of middle weight infantry between mech and light.

[@Zeunknown1234]

India still has T-54/55 (modernized ones) and Vijayanta (Vickers MBT with modifications) in reserves.

[@MrEddieLomax]

Damn, the assertion that we won't see large scale armoured formations in Europe at 14 mins aged badly!

[@user936]

But the example at 11:52 of how well a T-72 fairs against a modern ATGM team is bang on the money!

[@kyleknox4129]

We saw them..... aaaand they gone

[@charlesc.9012]

On the flipside, even 50-year-old cold war tanks could still eek out meagre gains against the best of early 21st century tech, so maybe they are less useless when richer foes are willing to throw ludicrous amounts of flesh and resources behind these columns. I am taking about a specific hoodlum nation with a large population and an inability to devise a new doctrine, yet has wads of cash to rub about

[@user936]

@@charlesc.9012 a few T-72's in the right place are going to make a mess against a column of BTR's given the opportunity. They just have avoid tank-on-tank and leave that to the AT squads. Annoying but workable.

[@charlesc.9012]

@@user936 Yeah, but the whole attraction of a tank is as a powerful support weapon and part of a spearhead. For the resources it guzzles in fuel and workshop capacity, you cannot get the expected value for a massive investment that strains logistics to breaking point. They should really be dumping the old products to Pakistan, India, Iraq, Syria and Iran while accepting more money to upgrade them. Personally, I think your plan is still a compromise to the product of hubris. They used seriously obsolete equipment en masse, without the logistics to sustain them. This is the modern version of the tide of t-34s that were mangled by panzerfausts. It "worked" in WW2 with massive losses because lend-lease gave them the means to sustain it, but not today. The fact is that they are hopelessly stuck with useless gas-guzzling equipment, and nothing can fix such a huge mistake borne by retardation and hubris

[@hunormagyar1843]

5:17 - I see the connection now! Ryanair was (definitely) created by former D-Day survivor Pvt. Ryan, and he is a pilot trainer for the Air Force and his own company. Him being an infantryman probably explains why these pilots never heard of flaring. Seriously though, some former mechanic for some branch of the US Military said, "combat vehicles are abused to all hell, even jets". He was not kidding, at the same time the structural strength of these heavy cargos is amazing. Though to be fair, I'm pretty sure the real reason the pilot didn't flare too much was because he wanted to stop as quickly as possible on that probably short dirt runway.

[@BluMacaw]

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]

Yes! Someone with a fkn brain Like... even a ww1 Renault tank is a trouble if that surprises ya

[@missfire9480]

@@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.

[@kersacoft]

Werid how I already sort of learned that leson. In Vicky II, mobilized conscripts are always basic infantry, a good trick is to keep standing half-armies of support units ready for them, but how many of those can you afford waiting years for a big war? The answer is never enough, not to mention you also have a professional army to take care of.

[@mweskamppp]

When i was conscript in the german army in the 80s our heavy infantry company had M48 and 120mm mortars... In a storage area there was another whole batallion including many M48 preserved in foil. One of the tanks broke and we got one from that storage. It broke on the few kilometers to our place and was salvaged to repair the one that broke first. Tank batallions in the same barracks had Leopards.

[@tyler_3542]

7:17 Me in the parking lot after shopping:

[@JoeMama-li6sd]

We don’t store old tanks in the US anymore because in San Diego an addict ruined it for everyone when he stole one and mobbed around like it was a monster truck

[@wildfire3986]

This why you put your tanks in the hands of professionals

[@Riceball01]

I could be mistaken, but I don't think that it was an old tank, but an active tank. Remember, back then, the Marines still used M60s, we didn;'t get any M1s until Desert Storm. The other thing is, if it was a mothballed tanked, chances that it would be in running condition. I know that with planes, wehn they're put in the boneyards, they're drained of all fluess, and sealed up tight to prevent anything from getting inside and possibly damagin the interiors. So I'd iamgeine that they do the same with a tank, drailn it of gas, oild, and other liqueds and seal the hatches, and any other opening. So if it was mothballed tank, I don't think that anyone could steal one take it for a joyride without first doing a lot to get it back ito running condidtion. At the very least they'd have to gas it up since gas, even diesel, doesn't keep for very long.

[@aussiemilitant4486]

your wrong Joe, both the Sierra Army Depot and Anniston Army Depot are massive military equipment storage facilities.

[@matthewtuckman4447]

@@wildfire3986 what about conscripts

[@wildfire3986]

@@matthewtuckman4447 should be handled by military professionals with training new recruits

[@du5707]

In this era of drones, Old tanks could be used be used as bait to draw fire away from the real tanks and to set up ambush.

[@zmeu_md3831]

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

[@ChrisRedfield--]

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.

[@looinrims]

@@ChrisRedfield-- Russians are using T-62s, not just PR forces

[@tetraxis3011]

@@looinrimsRussia only uses T62M2. A HEAVILY modernized variant.

[@TringmotionCoUk]

I see that Pakistan has bought Serbian updated T55s, which makes complete sense. Superior optics and new armour on a light (relative) tank makes it more useful as a counter insurgency tool. Right tool for the right job.

[@ECharlie-kq1ib]

Outstanding understanding of military doctrine. But, love your final message about unity even more! GREAT job, Binkov!

[@ErnestJay88]

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

[@kulot-ki1tu]

even so a tank is still a tank and is still a useful asset against an infantry group with no competent anti tank weapons

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

Outside a few parade and display units most of the non-upgraded Tanks from that period are long gone.

[@chrisloucks3958]

Yeah I'd rather have a beater tank than no tank

[@secretsquirrel726]

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.

[@ClayinSWVA]

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.

[@salsheikh4508]

Binkov - Best Manscaped Ads ever,,,

[@adbell3364]

8:31 - Artillery unit blows away own commander. "Great Success!" LOL!

[@CheapCheerful]

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.

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

I was tanker , most expensive and most capable vehicle I've ever been on Keep your knives sharp kids ! Great Job Binko !

[@johnplaid648]

He who controls the skies controls the war. We have an old M60 where I live. It just sits there by the firehouse rusting away. The Warthog strafes with 30mm.

[@somethingirreversib]

Romania and Ukraine does store T-55 era tech. Looks good on global fire power...

[@keithnoneya]

I agree with you, one thing most people don't realize it's not just the tank but the support equipment that repairs the tanks that also have to be maintained and there has to be people who are proficient in repairing the tanks, test sets and related systems. Then there's the parts issue, of sensitive electronics that are most likely not produced anymore, you have to store those in a warehouse that also has to be maintained and manned, meaning someone has to be there to know where the parts are, maintain the building and you have to pay that person to do it. So lets say a stored tank is brought out of storage to be used. You have to repair it and before you can do that you have to train someone to do those repairs and you have to bring all the old test sets out of storage and fix those test sets, then someone has to know how to use them as well. If you think tanks, armored personnel carriers and trucks are bad, wait until you get to those old planes jet engines and avionics. Where are you going to get the people with experience to not only fly those planes but repair them when they break down. And where are you going to store and set up the equipment on the ships or shore station avionics repair shops when they're already full of equipment to maintain the current equipment? This is why the military wants to retire older equipment so that they don't have to spend double the money on old and new equipment at the same time when they can just spend it on acquiring more new equipment. However their does need to be a balance and an overlap of old and new equipment storage, repair and parts capabilities. So storing old equipment isn't as easy as some folks think, it cost money and when you pull it out you have to have the experienced personnel capable of using and repairing the equipment as well as the needed support equipment. Thanks for sharing Binkov. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya AT1 USN/USNR-TAR Retired

[@easyjdier]

I was Army ordinance, Keith. So I can say- You know of what you speak. All those huge hidden cost and shortages are killers on high tech weapons systems as they age. Availability of both parts, testers/other equipment, and personnel who can use them and know the systems, all decrease dramatically as time goes on. Then compare those cost to the huge relative in-expense of training and fielding an infantry squad with a few Javelins, which can easily stand up to and knock out the high-priced tank. Tanks have a use on the battlefield still, firepower and shock value, but the expense of upkeep and operation plus the availability of heavy firepower from other sources along with a tank's increased vulnerability to infantry anti-tank weapons, not to mention their guzzling fuel like a drunkard on St Paddy's Day, have simply made the tank economically obsolete.

[@keithnoneya]

@@easyjdier Icy for sure, and yep thanks for your service. I did my 20 and got out, then worked another 22.5 years at a Depot Repair Center repairing old Aircraft Test Sets and reverse engineering items no longer supported by the original manufacture, those costs add up FAST! I even had to design test sets from scratch to support the repair of obsolete test sets, then make drawings to have parts built that the drawings have long since disappeared or know one remembered where they were stored. I retired from that last year, a long with a lot of other older guys. That talent pool is shrinking fast, and the military no longer trains folks to repair down to the component level, they just change boards instead of components now. It'll be a sad day if they ever run out of boards, no one will know how to fix them in the field and the equipment will go down. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya

[@easyjdier]

@@keithnoneya Well sir, let me say, Thank YOU for your service! Ill just say it again, you know your stuff. I was a 45M, ordinance man with Cobra AH1G weapons systems specialty at the end of Viet Nam, which I had orders for, that I was happy they changed to Korea. That was a blast in '73-'74! I was lucky enough one fine June day in the summer of '73 while still in training, to be picked out of class at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to go behind the "Authorized Personnel Only" gate where I was dropped off at a huge Quonset hut structure to assist an old ( probably about 38, which I thought was old!) Master Sgt, a 45Z, working on putting a captured Russian 21mm anti-aircraft gun ( multi-barreled) back together. Thirty feet away, in a big door way in the side of the hanger-like hut, a 155MM Howitzer crew were splitting my eardrums by firing solid test shot rounds every couple of minutes out into the Chesapeake Bay for some reason. That was one of the coolest days I had in the Army. You sound like that guy, Navy.

[@Melbo380]

I like the idea the Germans had in WW2. Melt down the chassis and keep the turret and place it as a static defense in the ground. I’m speaking from complete ignorance but I think it would be pretty nice for infantry units in static defensive positions to have MORE firepower that has a lot more protection than just a bunker. You’d save money on the upkeep, keep the gun, improve your defenses even just a little bit, and create more materials for other projects.

[@porckchopz5680]

That is true in respects, however the countries that have hundreds-thousands of surplus tanks don't really need a static defensive line. Plus static defenses are essentially obsolete in the modern age for up-to-date countries, however it'd work in countries who aren't as militarily developed.

[@looinrims]

And then an artillery observer uses some Binos, and turns that into target practice

[@rolandxd7514]

Austria did this in the cold war against the warsaw pact along the borders

[@edward091111]

swiss armed force have a armor brigade with only conscripted troup in it... (21 week of training in total)

[@מ.מ-ה9ד]

*What the heck have you done to Binkov?! He is now in 3D!*

[@benjaminv6039]

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.

[@Welterino]

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.

[@herauthon]

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.

[@lukas081559]

@@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

[@andrefcnc]

​@@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.

[@BosonCollider]

@@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.

[@chuckgraham1695]

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?

[@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025]

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.

[@legatvsdecimvs3406]

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).

[@theobserver3753]

They could sell those tanks at a bargain price to not so rich allied countries.

[@johnfaris5376]

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.

[@TY-pf6vb]

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.

[@jonny-b4954]

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.

[@johnfaris5376]

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

[@johnfaris5376]

Jonny- B very simple. Don’t fix, maintain, train at all, just store and deliver, let the Ukrainians , Taiwanese figure it out.

[@hunterbidensaidslesion1356]

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.

[@haraffael7821]

Vietnam still stores T34-85 and such older equipment, just in case.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

Even keeping an army, is expensive.

[@dashtesla]

Because it's too low BR and they know better..

[@MarkJacksonGaming]

-- Well you have to have the air, before the tank. Hand launched systems make that even more difficult. But if you need to move fast on the ground with a lot of firepower, I think the tank is going to be around for awhile. Really no black and white answer here, as it should be.

[@JosephStalin-io5fp]

The indians still use heavily upgraded version of the T72. And the old t55 is used for mine plugging work

[@unknowncaller3473]

@@MrMingyong24 who said he died?

[@Snp2024]

@@MrMingyong24 it's his clone

[@sgt_loeram1933]

Ffs I had to have a Russian muppet explain to me how my Armored Combat Brigade worked

[@juniorcrusher2245]

Old tanks also need experienced crews. They be better off sold to poorer countries or taken apart for scrap and use of precious metals they hold

[@TikiShootah]

Guess we found who was storing all the old tanks.

[@slaine0537]

In the end the problem is money maintenance and modernization is such a pain in many countries military

[@theashpilez]

Soooooo It APPEARS the hardware is not even brought home anymore. Just leave the keys and 55 billion in gadgets for anyone to use. Must save lots of cash not having to salvage them.

[@wilfdarr]

.... too soon....

[@karmapolice247]

7:16 He's talking about fuel efficiency of transport vehicles, when the answer was staring at us all along.

[@Canthus13]

I'd take one. An old M60 would be fun.

[@theamazingempiricist]

Would be fun to pick up groceries in

[@rajeevarts398]

@@theamazingempiricist yah, you don't even have to pay 😅

[@spidervito997]

I think the Ukraine-Russia war is a perfect example of surplus equipment being used in a modern setting.

[@randenrichards5461]

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]

@@randenrichards5461 especially since Russian tanks haven’t evolved past the 80s or auto-loaders they’re not top tier anymore.

[@ВладимирВ-э3п]

@@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?

[@spidervito997]

@@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

[@spidervito997]

@@ВладимирВ-э3п Putin said they’d capture the capital in 72 hours, it’s been a month. How effective are they again?

[@patrickpaganini]

Excellent video - thanks a lot. Really interesting. It's always interesting seeing how tactics change when technology changes.

[@DrMeisterBabylon]

And we're now gearing up for a massive rolling tank fest on open plains.

[@TandNFox]

Total. Rubbish , you may be a well educated person but your knowledge of the land may be missing ? Heavy tanks on soft ground is not a good combination , because they sink . The farmers use lighter tractors , which do not crash into water ditches or drive through woodland ..

[@zainophrenicgaming2727]

Binkov: Why No one Storing Old Tank Meanwhile, Somewhere in Middle East War: "WW1 & WW2 TANK GO BRRR..."

[@anuragpoddar8631]

Ww1 tanks haven't been used in any recent middle eastern war, almost the same goes for ww2 tanks

[@galadato7425]

Who use ww2 tank?

[@comentedonakeyboard]

It should be rememberd, that since the end of the cold war, the main threat was the budget cut.