Exclusive! Grab the NordVPN deal ➼ nordvpn.com/covert and get 4 extra months. Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee! A big thanks to HighMarsed on Twitter for contributing to this video! / highmarsed
you know what's funny? I hadn't watched your blog for a few months. And I said to myself, I realy need to see an updated analysis on Russian losses, specifically on tanks and bmps. And there you go, a video precisely on this issue published 4 hours ago. Thank you for you quality work
So here's the thing. I used to be a US Army Bradley mechanic for 15 yrs. I did 3 tours over in Iraq and the first two were right at the beginning when the shit hit the fan. Something I am thinking about allot as this war goes on is logistics and parts cannibalization. Say a BMP goes down because its final drive blows up. Or its engine Blows a jug. That BMP is no longer front line viable. Mechanics on both Russia's and Ukraine's sides are scrounging for parts left and right. Cannibalizing vehicles for parts is something that is definitely going on in this war and I would bet its not a small % of vehicle losses. So Russia loses a bunch of BMP's to combat. But they are also losing BMP's to logistics and frontline pressures to keep vehicles moving and fighting. If a BMP goes down and there's no source of readily available parts to get it back up and running. Then it gets robbed of parts that will get 1 or 6 other vehicles up and running. That BMP is now missing an engine, 2 final drives, sprockets, turret parts, etc etc. And while Russia got lets say 5 vehicles up and running due to the parts taken from that BMP. That BMP is now in even worse condition and is now waiting on not just the original part it needed. But now all the parts the other BMP's needed. But now 2 more BMP's go down and one of them can be fixed with parts from the donor BMP. Again parts taken. The list of parts it needs grows. That BMP will most likely never get running again unless the logistics gods shit parts from heaven lol. So I have to wonder how many vehicles in this war have been rendered "INOP" with no shot at being fully repaired in this war so far? When we see casualty reports and vehicles destroyed. I think the numbers are actually higher than we might suspect. Especially on the Russians side as their logistics has been heavily targeted and strained from the start. And how many of those BMP's from those storage yards can be brought back into operational use due to decades of parts being sold. And possibly parts being removed to keep front line BMP's running as well.
Perun is a not very factually based just because he talks well doestn mean his videos are factual in fact many of the videos are not factual some quick digging on google can reveal the misinformation. There was a video he made early on and said people in crimea didnt want to be part of russia and showed some old polls. You can literally look at USAID polling data in Crimea that tells a different story. Its important to be factual and not selective presenting information.
THE JOB is not that good. Even the WSJ has recently reported that Russia has huge numbers of armoured vehicles in its military bases/training grounds. So this narrative of yours is about as accurate as the “Russia is running out of missiles” nonsense.
@@jukebox_heroperson3994 You would stand a way better chance of surviving in a Bradley than a BMP-1 or 2. The whole concept of NATO vehicules is build around crew survivability even at the expense of firepower because USA knows it can outproduce anyone.
@@jukebox_heroperson3994 No, you really cannot say that. The scenarios are not the same. Russian losses in one sector on eastern front (i.e. Avdiivka) in 10 days for losses of tanks, IFVs, and APCs are greater than all AFU losses on all sectors of frontage from Kupiansk to Kherson from June 2023 to the present. The Russian military is being massacred. Literally speaking, massacred. Just saying.
7:45 Two more points on the topic of "time until Russia runs out": 1. Wars never end with one side running out entirely. The truly relevant question is at what time their active inventory will begin to significantly shrink below its current size. 2. Even before they run out of repairable reserve BMPs, the repairs will become harder and harder as they have to resort to increasingly dillapidated storages. This will be partially offset by their attempts to improve their production/restoration capabilities, but will inevitably slow the rate at which they can restore vehicles.
Oh well, did Ukraine lost on 24 February? The "run out" argument never going to work Russia can drag the fight on as much as it wants, even if they lose 365,000 people in a year as long as administration wants the war will continue no matter if around Moscow or Kiev
Actually, that vehicles in storage don't get a lot of attention is, as I understand it, ESPECIALLY true of Russia. Their approach is to basically drive excess vehicles into an open vacant space and abandon them. If being stored for any length of time, expect said vehicles to be gradually stripped, on the sly, for absolutely anything valuable or useful. Western militaries, by and large, tend to take a much more systematic approach to such matters - removal of ammo and fuel, protection from corrosion, loose gear gathered and catalogued, and so on.
Also a point to note, US boneyards are generally located in dry (if hot) areas - Sierra Army Depot is on the border of California and Nevada, USAF boneyard, the 309 AMARG, is in Arizona, USN only keeps its ships in the water because it's impractical and hella costly to get them out and ship (heh) to the nearest desert. Storing equipment in the desert saves the US DOD an american customary shitload (somehow slightly different from both metric and imperial shitloads) of dollars in rust proofing alone.
I’m in Ukraine (check my channel for proof). We have captured so many of these BTR and BMP and I can say with confidence even the ones in use are very badly repaired whilst others have auto guns that are permanently disarmed so basically just there for show. At the beginning of the war every unit that was captured was in good working order but in recent times the one captured are in bad shape. You can also tell which ones have been in long term storage due to the interior condition due to the harsh winters, so many have been laid up for years then just thrown into use.
It’s impressive they were able to get them running at all. What do you guys do with most of the poor condition ones? Use them for spare parts or press them in the service?
To my knowledge only dozens of Russian IFVs have been captured across all of 2023, so the sample is likely skewed compared to the hundreds retrieved in 2022.
@@hummerskickass poor condition ones are stripped of anything useful or used as decoy unit to waste Russian ammo. They are easily towed and quickly resprayed. If the condition is poor but still running they may be used to train drivers and personnel so good condition units remain on active duty.
@@X1mtheDespot yes you are correct, the big problem is where the unit was abandoned and why. If it has struck a mine then the possibility of loosing a retrieval unit is too high a cost as lightning does struck in the same place twice. Also the Russians understand we will try and retrieve the unit so they may have the area zeroed with artillery once again the risk is too high. Lastly we don’t want the unit going back to the enemy so deploying drones to destroy the unit is the best option. If a vehicle is blocking a access road then it works in our benefit as enemy units have to deviate from safe zones to get around it.
@@thewhiteknight6736 21 western tanks and 55 bradleys over 5 months, meanwhile Russia has 100 AFV losses between october 10-20th (according to ISW) only in Avdiivka. On the 20th of october Grey Zone - a telegram affiliated with Wagner PMC, stated that Russia was losing 1 battalion per day, and that "Judging by the enemy's video recordings, we have ALREADY lost no less equipment than [Ukraine] did during the entire summer campaign near Rabotino"
That's probably why they're resorting to older and older hardware, less electronics that need replacing because some guy sold them off for booze money.
Few issues... 1. Not only are many of these vehicles not serviceable due to being left outside for decades, they may not be serviceable in any reasonable time period because there are limits on the rate at which you can service these due to the facilities, mechanics, personnel, etc. If you can only service 250 a month, having 8,000 in storage doesn't help you. 2. Resources trying to bring such vehicles to working condition would probably require facilities needed to product/maintain more modern vehicles. It still maybe better to build/repair a 100 new tanks than refurbish 2,000 of the these. 3. You need troops and training for these. Even if you had 4,000 of these ready, it doesn't mean you have 40,000 troops to operate/man these. 4. Supporting lots of older vehicles might not be as efficient as keeping a smaller number of more modern vehicles going. I.e. 2,000 older BMPs still use ten times more fuel than 200 modern AFVs -- meaning more fuel trucks, ammos, space, roads, storage locations, etc. Large numbers of vehicles might be a disadvantage. 5. Ultimately, it may be easier for Ukraine to destroy larger numbers of older vehicles than modern ones -- or different types. A few tank with thermals could probably destroy 100 older AFVs with no loses vs. a dozen modern vehicles at least having a hope of fighting these. 6. Types of vehicles need to operate together. There is little point in having 4,000 AFVs if you don't have thousands of tanks, artillery systems, aircraft, etc. to fight alongside them. 7. This war has already shown that it's relatively easy to destroy large numbers of vehicles on roads, staging areas, etc. and Ukraine has only gotten better at this. 8. You still have to convince troops to fight and die in these things. If Ukraine knocks out 75% of Russia's pre-war AFVs... well, someone has to convince a crew to rush forward into even more efficient systems at destroying them. 9. The US has massive numbers of its Bradley's and older vehicles in storage. In fact it has 3,700 M1 tanks in storage. Many of these it knows it will never us as it doesn't have the troops to handle them, it's already developed weapon systems more efficient, many are reaching their end-of-life, the US doesn't have an enemy which can't defeat with its current tanks, and... the only enemy it needs that kind of land force to use against is Russia. I.e. every vehicle it loses from storage, is pretty mean 3-4 Russian vehicles it wouldn't need to fight -- if it actually did. Any other nation on the planet it could defeat with its 2,500 in-service tanks. The only question is if it's worth refurbishing these for Ukraine vs. other systems. 10. It is highly likely that strategic and political issues will make these a moot issue by the time they come on line. If Russia spends the years needed to get these ready, would other systems already make it moot? Such as, no water in Crimea, the Kursk Bridge cut off, Ukraine advancing to cut Crimea off, etc. or the reverse... Ukraine running out of equipment or losing US support and Russia would win without them.
That would be the big number grouped together... Russians have now only 100/250 of each type except the t72 group that was massive but still hefty at 1150... that is good and repairables. I expect more will be recycled as they are hit. .. I assume the t90a variant are like you say in bad shape and I dont count them. If russia produces 1.5 tanks a day and losing 3 to 4, it wont be long until we see pretty much all t72s with a sprinkling of whayever.
1) Possible mobilization of the civilian industry allows to ramp up both the repair and, to a lesser extent, production of AFVs. Wheeled BTRs', BRDMs' and MT-LBs' engines and transmissions are derived from those of civilian vehicles and thus are easily repairable in simple truck workshops (only the political will is required). All other components like suspension, electric systems and sights on all Soviet armored combat vehicles (in the CFE sense, not tanks and not SP arty) are rugged and simple, essentially designed to be easily repairable. 2) I covered the facilities above, and 100 new tanks can't be in 2000 different places while 2000 old tanks can. In a high-intensity attrition war, 2000 T-55s are absolutely better than 100 Leopard 2A7s (an old saying goes that providence is on the side of larger battalions). 3) Only political will stops Putin from gradually mobilizing many tens (possibly even hundreds) of thousands of men. 4) There's never such a difference in fuel consumption between different AFVs of the same class, and numbers rule (see 2). 5) Not really what we are seeing in this war, tanks are not at all fighting with tanks. Instead, tanks are actually killed by drones, ATGMs, land mines and artillery. 6) Cabal has covered that earlier, Russia has lots of old rusty tanks to repair. And that's before buying something from massive North Korean arsenals. 7) Goes both ways: Russia also demonstrated that when Ukraine tries to advance, heavy losses can be inflicted. Hence the strategic stalemate we are observing. 8) It doesn't work like that in a police state like Russia. If you refuse to mobilize, you are persecuted with all the force of the repressive apparatus, and most men prefer frontline to the jail (can't say at all I agree with them, but that's their choice to make). 9) A recent DODIG report identified that only 8% of spare parts for US vehicles are stored properly, and 67% have "critical COSIS deficiencies" actually meaning they are not really stored at all, just dumped somewhere on the lawn (a real example from the report, it described 80 gas turbines for Abrams tanks, each costing as a used T-72). Imagine the money and time US will have to spend repairing all the "massive numbers of its Bradleys" which have been rusting outdoors for decades just like the Russian BMPs Cabal studied. And unlike a BTR-70, you can't repair a Bradley in a civilian truck workshop (may be possible for an M113, but I'm not sure). 10) Crimea lived without water in 2015-2022 IIRC, Putin views as not a potential agricultural or tourist hub but as an unsinkable aircraft carrier and a political symbol so it doesn't really matter how much Crimeans suffer. What is the Kursk Bridge? Advancing to cut off Crimea is not realistic mid-term, see p. 7.
@@ain92ruits hard to say, but what I seen quite a lot of both tanks and ifv have been burnt out by drones and in that cases the crew typicallt survive. My guess is that they kosing tanks and ifv to a very fast rate to a degree they simply can't replace then due to mobility hit followed by burning them out Russia probobly have to refurbish pretty much every ifv and tank they us now forward. Effectivly limiting there capacity by refuebish ment speed and not by personell.... of cause, this is mot yet true for aircrafts, neither fixed wing or helicopters. My guess is that at least for helicopters are pretty close. That will be a problem, when russia might not even have the equipment to refurbish them any more.
At the moment, the Russian economy is a peacetime economy. If it becomes clear to the political leadership that it will not be possible to solve the outcome of the war through politics, for example, by waiting for the West to stop actively supporting Ukraine, and further prolongation of the conflict will shift the balance in favor of Ukraine, then the political costs of total mobilization of the economy and population will be less than losing the war. Then, with total mobilization, it will be possible to multiply both the production of new military equipment and the re-conservation and remotorization of old equipment. Old military vehicles are certainly worse than modern ones, but better than nothing. A well-trained and prepared crew will be able to level out the shortcomings of the equipment. Also I think you are missing the fact that a modern tank/apc/afv/etc has advantages only under a well trained crew, given the specifics of the war in Ukraine, experienced crews tend to run out quickly. Then there will be no significant superiority from a single modern tank. Also 10 relatively older bmp/tanks can be sent to 10 directions, and one modern tank/bmp only to one.
Not just losing AFV's, but they are losing competent and trained crews, which means the performance of AFV are declining as well, leading to greater casualties of infantry as well as more AFV's included.
not to sound like someone who just rips on russia for no reason by they don't really train their crews to the point of competency. more or less its a crash course before sending them up with the equipment you are most comfortable losing. they drive tanks like how Swift drivers control semi trucks
@@dominuslogik484 they may have had trained and experienced crews at the beginning of the war, despite their deficiencies. The fact that they suffered such heavy casualties means they don't the don't have such crews around anymore, which makes things worse for them, which helps the Ukrainian.
Thanks for this. Perfect timing. I was about to go looking for someone, anyone, who had this information, then up you popped in my YT suggested videos. Excellent
One other thing to consider, Russia still wants to at least try to have military stationed on the 14 borders it has with other countries…so yes, they could go down to ‘zero’ in three years, but by then the would have no equipment to face China, NATO, etc.
Do you think the American public will be funding Ukraine for next 3 years? Will there even be significant amounts of trained Ukrainian soldiers in 3 years?
The state of technology in warehouses can be surprisingly good. in the Czech Republic we had similar technology stored. 15 years BMP and tanks freely parked, after 15 years the batteries were filled with diesel and oil and everything started and drove. Corrosion was not a problem either, with some vehicles we had to replace the rubber hoses. these machines were then renovated and sold abroad. The renovation was quick, one BMP took about a month. The cars were washed, the main groups were disassembled and all the hoses were replaced. some electronic blocks like radios were changing. some turret control engines were changed. Overall, the condition of the vehicles was very good even after long years in the rain and cold. the rubber parts were the most damaged. The mechanical parts were in very good condition.
Weather in Czechia isn't as bad as in Russia too... And probably one thing is to restore a BMP for sale with leisure of time and equipment, another would be to send it to the frontline in a rush and under sanctions.
@@KorbenDalasCZ of course they did, they had thousands parked so they could choose among the best preserved and they managed to scrap together some hundreds in a somewhat functional state. Even so they barely replaced the losses. As they'll go on original conditions of stored BMP will be worse, it will get longer and longer to roll them out and those will be less capable too. Doesn't look like there will be any more trained mechanics available either....
Stored outside in 40 below winters for 40 years - If 10% were able to be returned to combat it would be a good number. Get real - and most of these vechiles have been striped. All are from the soviet union days 40+ year old and stored outside. In contrast, the USA has 48,000 IFV's and Tanks in active service. The Russian can only lose at this point. They are being slaughtered in mass due to incompetent command. Their army is 40 years obsolete in every regard.
@@PeterMuskrat6968yeah while the US has a massive stockpile in much better condition than its Russian counterpart. 48k is not a real statistic. What is interesting is that the US could send several hundred Abrams and Bradleys and still have enough in storage to completely replace the entire active force without a single new build. 31 is a joke it should be 301 Abrams and Bradleys
@@Shoelessjoe78 in chess , wise players doesn't plays all good shots in few consecutive moves ;) This week atacms destroyed more than dozen ka-52's which is main weapon of russia to stop armed offensives of Ukraine and due to sanctions and their incredible costs they are almost impossible to replace in anytime soon. Meanwhile Ukraine is breaching to surovikin lines day by day and russia is running out of economical reserves for hold few more rounds of mobilization.
Also, interesting fact, everything what they have in storage we can delete by 4 because in order to repair one vehicle you need 4 for others for spare parts.
Alot of those unit looked like brand new and upgraded armored units, from t 90MS to BMP3m so their literally straight from the factory from their appearance
You are DAM🗿DAM or what!!! It is diped in an anti-rast liquid, put a new tire, engine, modern equipment and weaponry!!! In the end you get literally a new combat vehicle!!! BTR-60 you can make it a modern combat vehicle with a powerful fire system, with double layers of armor to protect from 12.7mm cal. and with anti-missile cage to protect from RPG and ATGM!!! It is some minimum protection that can do something!!! That same can be done with others armored shells!!! Those steel shells are healthy and whole, trust me!!!
I'd guess that the worst state is that the thing is just a shell that has tons of rust in it. All the wiring and tech has either been taken out or broken down and even the seats and cushions have rotted out. So basically you have the chassis but need all the parts to make it work. Unless one uses the chassis as a decoy.
The worst examples of BMPs in Russian storage yards are so rusted you can see through the armor or so I've heard. I can't confirm this though i have seen photos that look as though you could put a boot through the hull side of some BMPs so at worst the rumors are only slightly exaggerated.
@@danicao.6778 guess you never actually worked in the freezing cold in a salvage yard before. Believe me anything left outdoors longer than a year starts decaying rapidly. It almost logarithmic that the damage done far exceeds the chance for a meaningful repair....
Russia has lost several thousand vehicles since those images were taken. Also Oryx only counts those that are positively and uniquely identified, meaning lots of losses aren't counted. I would say the margin of error of the numbers presented in the video is at least 50%.
You know i think that its more likely around 75% with all the modern drones. Also remember that its the same for ukraine, from the thousends of vehicles they have lost also only around 75% have been acountent for
Yes, losses are significantly higher than is forecast here. If a decent number of "modern" armored vehicles was available they wouldn't be reaching back for T-64 and the early BTR variants, even to present to the Dnipr Republic forces, nor asking the DPRK for help.
@@roberthaworth8991 thats not how this really works pal. In a war you are trowing just evrything at your enemy en you figth with what you have. If there are holes in the line that need to be filled you're not gonna wait for the next batches of modern tank, you put a tank there that may just be older but still very deadly. Grabbing older tanks to figth ist really a sign of weakness, its a sign that ur upscalling your actions
@@kuunoooo7293 get real, that is the most pathetic cope I've seen in the past 2 days. If you truly believe the BS that you you just typed with this post, then you are delusional and beyond help. If you are a professional propagandist, then I applaud your efforts at doing good spin.
The Mil-Bal and Oryx division of APC and IFV is done based on armament - so the BTR-60/70/80 get classed as APC because of the KPV 14.5mm main gun, while the BTR-80A and 82A have a 2A42/72 type 30mm gun, similar to that of the BMD-4 and BMP-2
My guess is that Russia, regarding its equipment, has a massive undermaintenance and deferred maintenance logistical issue that is approaching disaster. The war was not supposed to last this long or be this hard and the maintenance program never was adequate anyway. This issue affects all Russian machines: tanks, BMP, aircraft, artillery (the barrels wear).
One of the key issues this war has highlighted is Russia's horrible logistics. Wars are won by logistics, not the number of tanks or the flashy new superweapons that Hitler loved so much. Yeah those are nice, but logistics is where it's at. Getting troops in the right place on time, getting supplies out properly, managing assets, etc. Napoleon said, An army travels on its stomach. He was talking about logistics - Mainly food back then. Without the food, the army stops moving.
Here's my question -- did you prepare this video and look at the numbers before or after the Russian attacks on Avdiivka in 10/23? Russia lost over a hundred AFVs just in the past few days. I cannot even keep track of the numbers because the losses are so high. I think it's probably hard for Oryx to get an accurate count because so many vehicles that look similar were destroyed right next to each other in such a short period of time that it's difficult to distinguish new losses from losses that occurred a day earlier.
@@ArchivatorRUS Any evidence of that? Can you provide examples of this? It’s been stated by at least one Russian officer in a Telegram post that the Russians use the same Ukrainian vehicle in multiple videos, using different angles and firing different weapons at it, to inflate Ukrainian losses. Some Lancet videos also cut off before impact, indicating they’re misses.
This is also assuming they have the personal needed to crew them. Soviet and Russian vehicles are not like their western counterparts. They are not nearly as survivable, and the crews suffer much higher attrition rates. It’s going to get to the point where they no longer have enough meat for the grinder.
What is interesting to me is what vehicles they are currently losing. The Russians seem to be losing more BMP-1s compared to BMP-2s and -3s right now. That tells me they have burned through a large percentage of the newer models and are relying on more antiquated vehicles to make up the difference. I am keeping an eye on the loss rate of the various BTR models. The Russians have lost a lot of their BTR-82a varient as well as numbers of BTR-80s. They haven't lost that many BTR-70s and -60s...yet. When they start losing more of them, it should signal that Russis really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Of note, the first recorded loss of a BTR-50 recently occurred. One has to wonder if they have any BTR-40s or BTR-152s stored somewhere. I am also curious if they are modifying MT-LBs right out of storage with various surplus weapons such as naval turrets, aircraft rocket pods, etc. These "Mad Max" vehicles are starting to show up on the butcher's bill on Oryx. This should be cause for concern for the Russians, since many of these vehicles are not exactly start of the art, but more of an act of desperation. Another vehicle to keep an eye on is the BMD and its lose rate. These are, of course, used by airborne troops. When their lose rate increases, it means airborne troops are heavily engaged. There are still thousands of old Soviet era and Russian military vehicles scattered across the globe as well as a lesser number of old western vehicles. I sure at least a few of these will end up in the war at some point as each side scrounges for weapons. If this war drags on for a few more years, do not be surprised to see some real relics appear, such as an errant heavy tank, some PT-76s, and even a random T-34. Don't laugh. T-34s have a funny way of showing up on battlefields the Russians/Soviets are/were involved in some way.
BTR-50 is a good indicator IMO. It shows that they are really struggling with tracked armored troop carriers in particular, probably because MTLBs were produced in Kharkiv, so RF doesn't have the technical documentation and expertise to make them.
@@rodiculous9464, the US is turning over old surplus equipment. Where do you get your info? The Hindustan Times? Again, look at Oryx, a site that visually identifies what has been lost. The Ukranians lost something like 1 Challenger. Sure, they lost some M113 and humvees, but nothing compared to what the Russians have lost in the form of BMPs, BTRs, and MT-LBs. The Russians have lost over 1000 BMP-2s. They have lost so many BMP-2s that they are replacing them with woefully obsolete BPM-1s, to which they have lost over 500. And that is just been visually documented. The Russian equipment is completely inferior to just about everything.
It seems like they are spending an incredible amount of resources refurbishing old vehicles. The longer it goes the more time that will have to be spent fixing exceedingly degraded models. We may be at a point soon where they can only bring a few to the battlefield.
@@danielkrcmar5395You live in a complete other dimension my guy. With these 'under the rock' uninformed sentences you say i think you shouldn't partake in these comment section with topic of Ukraine logistics/supplies/ spare vehicles.
That's great work, but I feel like looking at when they will be out of BMPs is the wrong question to ask. They can't afford to leave their military with no vehicles.
Depth charges are kinda ideal for trench fighting, though. It's a weapon that isn't being used by the navy, has a large explosive charge, can easily be transported, and is an indirect fire weapon. It would be weird if they didn't use it for what they are.
@@CharChar2121 Except they are large, clumsy, not exactly accurate and shorter ranged compared to even a heavy mortar. Let alone a proper howitzer. A 90R depth charge rocket goes only 4 kilometers. By comparison most grad rockets go over 15. A soviet 120 mortar from 1943 could fire as far as 5 kilometers. This isnt "innovation" or "using right tools". This is running out of shit to throw into battle.
@@Alvi410 still is a relatively valid use of the weapon system, the MTLB is largely just meant to tow artillery and the anti submarine rockets are unlikely to ever be fired into water so if you can get a few hundred kilos of TNT tossed at an enemy position its more valuable than sitting in a storehouse waiting to get blown up by a GMLRS.
APC - will transport infantry squad to the lines, and remain in background (or return to base) - mostly wheeled (mechanized elements) IFV - is part of the squad itself, participates in fight and remains in close proximity whenever possible - mostly tracked (armored-mechanized elements) If you take a look at US/NATO doctrine and organization of mechanized and armored-mechanized units, it's pretty much as above.
Other sites use you because you have the proof, the awesome videos...I will check these new numbers out.. The tanks especially was hugely helpful.. The T80 should be near extinct... with 200 plus to repair...t90a numbers bogus... wiki 2 months old.. Keep up the great work mate.
Wanted to thank you for the time consuming work, you provide valuable information. If Ukrainian command isn't doing the same work, they're paying attention to yours.
Russia has to rely on these reserve vehicles. Russia can't mass produce anything right now. Even the AK-12, which was adopted to replace the AKM in 2014, is still not fully adopted by the Russian MoD in 2023. It's only seen limited action in Ukraine. The Armata T-14, the SU-57, the VPK-7829 Bumerang IFV still hasn't entered full-scale production. The list of brand new weapons and vehicles Russia has come out with is endless, but the amount that have begun mass production are miniscule.
You should take a look at SPGs and artillery again. From what I’ve seen Russia is running out of 152mm pieces. Im talking nearly 50% pulled out of storage
@@dasbubba841 it’s exactly what it is. A large percentage of 152 SPGs that are left have barrels removed. It’s important to remember when Russia did a competition for replacement barrels all of the companies ended up having defects in the receiver end. I think it’s only one company that is supposed to be making russias next generation of 152mm spg that can make new barrels.
@@BodilyFunction He did a video on artillery pieces already. Trying to gauge the supposed shortage of barrels sounds like an impossible task, using his methods.
@@fdr3898 that video was months ago. Since then Ukraine he significantly ramped up their artillery targeting campaign. Also the main way they tell what kind of spg it is is by using barrel length and starting point on the vehicle. Highmarsed has already counted a few systems so I’d hardly say it’s impossible.
Maybe Putin was waiting to buy them wholesale from China. China did supply the Chechens with non-gunned armored vehicles which were paraded at last victory day parade.
MRAP aren't very well protected against infantry weapons only mines, fragments and blasts. They also are usually wheeled which perform the worst in mud.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Nope MaxxPro can take nearby hit of 155 and crew will survie. Same cannot be said for BMP1/2 or even platform like AMX10. Modern wester MRAPs are generally more protected than BMP.
One of the points Perun made with loss data is that BMP-1 and BMP-3 are making up more and more of the losses for Russia, whereas earlier on it was overwhelmingly BMP-2. That suggests a couple of things, first, BMP-2 stocks are being run through, and Russia is digging into less desirable but more available BMP-1 stock piles, and that production of BMP-3 is being stepped up, but not keeping pace with losses of BMPs generally because losses of BMPs are very high (from memory I believe they account for more AFV losses than any other vehicle type, which makes sense given their role and relatively light armour).
The wear and tear on vehicles in a war zone is heavy and every BMP on active service will need an overhaul at least once if not twice before three years go by. Judging by the major components taken off the battle damaged BMDs being shipped to the rear I saw recently, there is a heavy parts shortage already.
Ukraine is putting an end to the nearly century-old phenomenon of massive, world record-breaking stockpiles of armor in Russia. These stockpiles are being cleaned out, and when the war is over, Russia will be faced with the daunting task of rebuilding its armored forces with new vehicles, but within a limited budget. Thus, Ukraine is rendering a service to the West and the world at large.
?? U mean when russia lost like 50 vehicles in 2 days ? Idk why that would be a real reason for such a video. I mean ukraine had lost one time around 100 vehicles in a day, that would've been a better reason i think
@@kuunoooo7293 Oh, Russia lost a lot more than that in the bizarre clown show that is the battle of Andiivka and with absolutely nothing to show for it! and FYI: imaginary Ukrainian loss numbers won't help you guys win the war either.
@@tellyboy17 3 things, One, russia did capture a lot of defensive networks around that ukrainain town im not gonna try writting 2, its not like hating on this russian offensive is gonna bring back all the hundreds and thousends of lost ukrainian vehicles from their failled offensive back 3, im not pro russian, im anti bot, so i hate on bots like you
Russia still has a lot of old equipment that it can renovate and send to the front. It also still has large human resources to send to the front. Russia's biggest problem lies elsewhere - who will keep it all running? Russia already has several million missing workers, after the events in Moscow it expelled workers from Central Asian countries. To fight, an army needs a functioning economy.
The question still stands. How many of those are actually able to be brought into service after setting around for 10 years outside. And how many are already looted for parts.
I think the most important questions are the next ones: a) As you also stated, how many vehicles are actually salvageable? The one million dollar question perhaps, I'd love to see someone being able a fairly reliable estimate in this. But also, b) How many vehicles can Russia actually dedicate to Ukraine? Because we can estimate when their stocks run dry, but people tend to forget that Russia cannot use everything on Ukraine: it needs stock for their units abroad (such as in Syria) and to protect their borders: they can't empty their bases of all T-tanks and BMP's along the borders of for example Finland and China (this would be the most difficult question), and of course; c) How many vehicles is Russia currently producing and will be able to produce? While some (such as Perun) have already pointed out that Russia's been able to produce vehicles such as the T-90 and BMP3, it's nowhere near to replacing the numbers they're losing on the battlefield. Get a proper estimate on these questions and you'll be able to calculate roughly for how much longer Russia's able to use vehicles such as the BMP (any type) until it finally doesn't have enough left to dedicate to Ukraine (for example, considering the massive losses they've had I wonder how many more Ka-52's Russia's able to dedicate to the fight. That bottom is definitely in sight). Because while their stocks are massive, they are emptying very fast. And as long as they keep this war going eventually that bottom will come in sight.
Have they experienced repair mechanics, electricians, even tool shops? A lot of fires still in Russia, not just uniform factories. Spare parts have been smoked too.😊
Incredible work! Your investigations on military assets provide a valuable perspective for understanding the scale that warfare is costing the Russians. I should point out that they can’t possibly comment all of these resources to Ukraine. They have a lot of other fronts to defend as well.
I would count some BTRs as IFVs, though not all. In general, I would call a BTR variant that has been upgraded with a 30mm autocannon, like the BTR-82A, an IFV, while those that still just have their original 14.5mm machineguns are APCs.
Would be very interesting how many of them are beyond repair. Given their miserable equipment, they send to the front lines and the shit job they do at maintaining stuff, I am inclined to believe, they already used up most of the stuff. At least that´s what I hope. Ivans definitely should be asking questions once they hear stuff like: "Sorry Ivan but you will have to walk those 500 km´s to Kyiv, since we have lost all our vehicles. But we sure gonna win!".
Honestly more important are the figures for ground based air defence systems as well as artillery pieces. These two are whats keeping Russia in the fight. The tanks and ifvs are important but without them Russia would still be in the fight but without ground based air defense hardware and artillery pieces they're finished. So a video on their ground based air defence systems would be really appreciated
assuming the same rate of losses/ equipment being pulled from storage, they'll be out of replacement arty in 2 years, tanks also in 2 years and IFVs and APCs in 5 years. All in all, Russia can keep it up for 2-3 more years, after which we'll see their fighting capability quickly diminish
@@aidjunkie5335 They aren't producing nearly enough to match usage. Depending on estimates they produce 100-200 tanks yearly, that's 7.5-15 times not enough. Same with arty rounds - in summer their ammunition usage fell to Ukrainian levels due to shortages - and it only improved because Russia is hastely buying ammo from North Korean and Iranian stores.
Also the reason why cruise missle attacks this winter are milder than 1 year ago - they are now using up their current production (around 75 - 100 cruise missles made monthly)
In visually confirmed definite losses, Rus is losing on average 107 tanks and 210 other armoured vehicles per month. Ukr is losing on average 41 tanks and 89 other AVs per month.
Russia has already depleted its reserves of armoured vehicles and is now fixing its scraped tanks and vehicles that were decommissioned over 50 years ago. Ukraine has more tanks and armoured personnel carriers than it had at the start of the war and its military personnel have been receiving training with special forces units from the USA, Great Britain, Canada and Germany. While Russia is using untrained conscripts and prisoners, Ukraine has trained troops and trained volunteers from multiple different countries. Russia is continuing to use mass attacks without proper support or coordination and without the troops on the ground having any idea about the forces or terrain that they are attacking. Ukraine's extensive use of drones has given their troops a massive advantage over Russian troops. Ukrainian troops have a far better knowledge of the Russian troop concentration and know exactly when and where Russia will/is attacking. Basically, Russia does not have a legitimate military force and has almost no command and control structure, while Ukraine knows where almost every Russian troop, commander, supply depo and vehicle is located. Other countries must take a serious look at how Ukraine is conducting itself because it has shown the world how to fight a modern war. Yes, drones are more important and devastating than anyone previously thought and small drones have proven themselves to be far superior to the larger drones that are used by the USA. A single drone that costs less than $1000 is more effective than multiple tanks, costing hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
You kidding me? Ukraines counter offensive failed and proven Russia superior at everything you cite as an Ukrainian advantage. I dont know whats up with you NAFO shill types projecting all your own operational and organisational failures on the opposition as if that erases all your inadequacies.
What's the point if both of them achieve the same effect in battle, which is to get anhilated by the entrenched side without any meaningful gains, as proven in Robotyne and now Avdiivka.
The appearance T64s is very common and now even the first BTR50 being destroyed says enough, the modern stuff is wearing thin. When China rolls in the Ruskis will only have old Kalashnikovs to try and stop them.
You are the reason why the most simple things about warfare that everybody understands are always repeated 😂 i mean its people like you who wich keep forgetting everything. Next time be a bit less prone to propaganda pls, its pretty embarresing for u lol
Source: trust me bro People are still on the "China turning against Russia" Wet dream despite how much they are working with each other economically and diplomatically.
@@captaindak5119 They don't "turn against Russia". They were never on their side. Supporting separatism in Ukraine means that China would be condoning Xinjiang separatism by Uyghurs or even conceding that Taiwan has the right to self-determination. China has actually paid lip service to territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Obviously, Ruzzia is already having major problems fielding "combat ready" vehicles from their vast stockpiles. More importantly though, is that we need to take into account the utterly vast dimensions of Russia itself. Their Northern border is fairly safe due to geography, and the central Southern border isn't much trouble but still has to be patrolled. Ruzzia still has to patrol/reinforce it's entire Western land borders OUTSIDE of Ukraine, repel harassing incursions South of Moscow, and retain enough troops 9 time zones to the east to prevent China from casually reclaiming Manchuria. All this said, it means that they will hit the critical inventory level far before they ever "run out" ov vehicles.
The thing I'm curious about is not so much 'when will Russia run out', but more 'when will Russia get to the point that their fighting capabilities suffer because of a lack of vehicles?' This is a much more nebulous and difficult to quantify question. Hypothetical scenario: a unit makes a push, loses two BMP 2's and request replacements from storage. Command can't do that, because there's a dozen other units also requesting replacement BMP's, so the first unit only gets one BMP 1. They can still fight, but obviously nowhere near as effectively as they could previously. That's not to knock the quality of your video, it's excellent, just wanted to voice this thought.
Russia will also want to keep inventory for self defense against China or to indulge their traditional paranoia about NATO. I bet their getting close to that level now
I dont want sound like an asshole but that it what is generally meant by running out. No army in history (usually) ever ran out. If the Nazis could scrape toghter a force to fight in berlin you can be sure the russians can keep an army in Ukraine. The issue generally will be: When the balance will go in the negative? That means you ran out, you cant replace 1:1 your equipment. Be it tanks, planes or bullets. In fact: even soldiers. Point of example: Missiles. Idiots keep making fun of: The west said russia would run out of missiles yet we fire them. Yes. But in what quantity? Can you expend them as will and as many as you need? No. You have ran out in the wide sense. Supply no longer meets demand and you are now fighting without an arm. That is running out. Your assets become a premium instead of the norm. The way you employ them becomes surgical and the approval to use them must come from higher and higher in the command chain.
Many of these vehicles have been sitting in the open for over 60 years with little or no maintenance add in corruption resulting in the illegal stripping of engine and electronic parts it’s no wonder so few of them showed up in the Ukraine.
some of them are antic. In france we have so much remains of WW2, exposed to the weather, it'as absolutely FUBAR by corrosion. many mechanical parts are like melted together by rust, absolutely nothing can move or slide, exposed outside for more than 30 years without any corrosion treatment. Here we are talking about 40, 50 years. In the video we can see shielded vehicles in a relatively good (even perfect) shape, i think they come from the warehouses. in each storage field, we can see huge warehouses : here are the real usable stock. those exposed outside are probably used and moved, but as spare parts reservoirs.
People should note that there is a lot of difference between a BMP and a BTR. BMPs are assault vehicles capable of advancing with tanks. They have to be hit hard. BTRs are what the west calls light armored vehicles. They have little armor, not much firepower and can be disabled with cluster munitions. They are not meant for front line assaults. The disastrous Russian attacks near Avdiivka, where the Russians have sustained heavy losses, are featuring a lot of BTRs being used as shock attack vehicles with predictable results.
Only 31 bases, our last count was 200 active bases and 41 reserve bases with tanks holding BMPs, BTRs, BMOs, and BMDs. That's not including their covered depots in Siberia and the coast at the Sea of Okhotsk. Since Obama, Russia have been activating their tanks.
@@elektrotehnik94 Janes, Military Resource Intel Summary, Russian Federation Forces Compilation and Composition Summary 2022, NATO Intel Summary Report 2022 (Unclass), and more, as long as it's unclass.
The number of armored fighting vehicles isn't very relevant when they're guided by a highly corrupt , incompetent command and control structure, then operated by poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly motivated personnel. They're just becoming easier targets for a Ukrainian Army that becomes more skilled every day day.
I just came here to say, I haven't seen your videos in like months, and idk wtf happened, but RU-vid seemingly hid you away (or at least the algo did.) Time to catch up on some videos, but its annoying that the algo did that, and I didn't catch for so long. Love the videos, look forward to seeing more.
First russia was running out of soldiers Then russia was running out of ammunition Now russia is running out of bmps tanks etc But the crazy thig is that russia is running out of soldiers for past one year and is still running out of soldiers but havent run out of soldiers till now and have more soldiers than ukrain (Wooo too many running out but never ran out )😂😂😂😂😂
They did run out of soildiers, thst is why they did 3 mobilisations and used prison inmates for aussults. They do run low on tanks, that is why they now use t55s. They are on the defence, the only reason for them holding ground are the millions of mines they layed.
@@sH-ed5yf lol here I am again correcting you. Those t55 tanks went to 2 artillery units, one being a dpr unit, the other a regular reservist unit. For the exact purpose of being an artillery piece along the Surovikin line. There's an interview of the guys who received them. Moreover, mobilisations don't signify losses. What it does signify is force build up. Russia is looking to recruit an active force of 1.5 million troops, they have created an entirely new field army to protect the border with Norway and Finnland. Russia has suffered 150k casualties including injured. This offensive action has been costly and will increase that number. What you don't see is the heavy and sustained bombing onto Avdeevka. Why? Opsec. The Russians don't telegraph offensive action, the AFU does. Remember the sssshhhh advert campaign? For a chuffin offensive!? 😂
@@Kroq_Gar lets start with losses, cause there is a lot nonsense in this. You claim 150k losses including injired. On average KIA and IIA are on a rate 1 to 2. That would mean 50k russians died in action. That is already wrong cause even russian state controlled puppet Olga Skabeyeva, admited in one of her shows that the russian military of defence secretly had to pay 220.000 families for compensation for dead relatives. A stunned silence followed. Keep in mind that doesnt count wagner forces which accourding to prigoshin surpassed 30.000 and the seperatists forces. So you are already wrong on that. What else could you be wrong about.
@@Kroq_Gar 150k casulties HAHAHAHAHAHA that dont even cover the losses DPR/LPR ADMITTS to DPR has admitted to 15k dead and 80k injured, Wagner admitted to 20k dead and 40k injured, thats 160000 casulites thats 10000 more than your number
It would be interesting to do an analysis about Oryx losses. Some people were trying to count vehicles that have been attributed to one camp or another, but shouldn't because there was not identification possible, os it could be losses from both camp.
