Thanks, but no Tanks - Russian style

[gunnergoz]

Well, it's better than giving them to the North Koreans, I suppose...

http://englishrussia.com/?p=3050#more-3050

I'm seldom surprised by anything the Russians do, since their logic is their own, but even I was perplexed by this comment about "expiration dates." I'm not sure if the Russian blogger got it wrong or if his source was misinformed...but tanks with expiration dates? I could see things like consumables (filters, gaskets, hoses) wearing out, but the armor and electronics? So what is behind this massive scrap campaign? Anybody?

[Other Means]

Monetising an asset they can find no further use for?

BTW I think it's expired as in "shuffled off this mortal coil".

[Stalins Organ]

Can't see it as it's blocked by filtering s/ware for "adult themes" - I guess they're scrapping some tanks??

[Affentitten]

SO they are probably worth more in scrap value than they are on the battlefield. IT's also an indication of just how much stuff they had. I saw fields like this in Ethiopia. Mainly T-55s and BRDMs by the hundreds just abandoned.

[Merkin Muffley]

Perhaps he's confusing a "use by date" and "sell by date" or "best before date".

At the back of each tank there should be a small tamper-proof sticker with the price and "use by" date. Or I might have it confused with something else.

[Bigduke6]

I think the idea is that these are vehicles that were part of a reserve park, their job was either to be married up to reserve units forming up in case of a huge war, or regular units filling out for a medium-sized war, or ed into the line if it were a smaller war, but any case with continuing tank casualties. That in case of a war where you need alot of tanks fast, the tanks are there.

But of course even in a climate-controlled environment tanks sitting still and not maintained are not going to last forever. The standard approach was once the vehicle got produced it got stuck in a marginally-heated garage with a unit and received periodic maintenance, then it would get transferred to a cold garage and get even less maintenance, and several more years it would get parked in a field. The tanks don't have a kilometer on the clock, but by the time they got to the state we see in the picture they've probably have been sitting around for 20 or 30 years.

Sure that was kind of wasteful from a Western POV, but then tanks in the Russian/Soviet mind are expendable items anyway, more like ammunition or, er, people; than something really critical to winning a war like a tank factory or a troop school and its training staff or an oil refinery complex.

The Russians/Soviet HATE to throw stuff out, sooo after about 40 years of Cold War the net result is fields and fields parked with tanks that were built to fight in World War Three. They probably haven't been maintained in a decade or more, and have just been sitting in the elements waiting for the authorities to find a scrap metal buyer.

So when you look at it from their point of view it makes sense, as very often wierd Russian behavior does. You have soldiers and you don't have the resources to train them properly, and you have all these tank hulks that need to have all the non-metal bits ripped out, before they're useful as scrap. Obviously, the solution is turn the troops loose on the tanks, as young men they'll have fun smashing things but since they're underfed and Russian give them just a little time and they'll unscrew and unfasten everything with a possible civilian use, sell it on the black market, meaning there is no real need to pay them to strip the hulks.

And of course - and here's the beauty part - Russian tank troops that have taken tanks apart, are tank troops that know tank mechanics really, really well. Troops like those, you can just hand them a spare part and tell them "put it in", and you don't have to worry about unit level maintenance or supply channels or training mechanics, or even tools. Which fits right into the Soviet operational theory on tanks which says that the way to use them is to turn a whole bunch of them loose in a direction, and they operate on their own without support, and stop when they run out of fuel.

[gunnergoz]

Can't see it as it's blocked by filtering s/ware for "adult themes" - I guess they're scrapping some tanks??

Shouldn't you get back to work?

[gunnergoz]

Bigduke6-

Hi buddy, good to hear from you. And yes, they are doubtless from the vast war reserve stock (at one time, what - 50,000 plus?) of tanks from the FSU. And you are correct about even tanks rusting away...people think tanks last forever, but they don't. They corrode and everything not made of stainless steel will eventually degrade and decompose. I found that out when I went to Aberdeen Proving Ground years ago and walked around the scrap pile of tanks that they left out in the open...Tigers, Panthers, you name it - all out there and rusting away. So in the Russians' case, they are doubtless going to capitalize on this stuff now that they need hard currency and sell off the scrap value. Using draftees who they don't pay anything to speak of anyway. Makes sense, Russian style. Well said.

[Stalins Organ]

One thing about parks of old weapons is that the old soldiers know how to use them - no need to train older reservists on new technology when you can put them into the vehicles they used while they weer serving!

[JonS]

... tanks in the Russian/Soviet mind are expendable items anyway, more like ammunition or, er, people; than something really critical to winning a war like a tank factory ...

I wonder how much the fields of 'useless' tanks are a product of beaureaucratic inertia, or left-hand/right-hand lack of communication.

Step 1: We need tanks!

Step 2: Build a tank factory!

Step 3: We have a tank factory!

Step 4: Build tanks!

Step 5: We have enough tanks!

Step 6: We still have a tank factory!

Step 7: Build tanks!

Step 8: ...

The same could be said, though grantede to a lesser extent, of the US system. How many tanks does the US Army/Reserve/Marine Corps have? How many does it need to fully equip all it's units and maintain a 50-100% reserve?

(Although, granted that the draw down in units from 1990-early 2000s would have left a lot of hulls formerly needed under the larger establishment now surplus.)

And then there's Davis Monthan. One day all those F-105s and F4s are really gonna come in useful ...

(Again, granted the same caveat about post-CW drawdown. Although, that applies to the fUSSR too, of course.)

[stoat]

I wonder how much the fields of 'useless' tanks are a product of beaureaucratic inertia, or left-hand/right-hand lack of communication.

Step 1: We need tanks!

Step 2: Build a tank factory!

Step 3: We have a tank factory!

Step 4: Build tanks!

Step 5: We have enough tanks!

Step 6: We still have a tank factory!

Step 7: Build tanks!

Step 8: ...

The same could be said, though grantede to a lesser extent, of the US system.

In the US you'd have the Air Force or the Navy saying they don't want more cargo planes or destroyers, but some senator or representative on an appropriation council will have a Boeing assembly line or a shipyard in their district with no work to do without government contracts. That's how we end up with more C-17s than the Air Force brass wants, and DD-1000s that the Navy brass says are ineffective.

And someone mentions in the comments below the post that these are T-64s. I'm in no position to confirm that, but I would not be surprised in the least if these were merely Cold War era tanks that had been kept in storage for a long time, and that have been rendered obsolete by advances in weapons and armor technology. The tanks likely sat there until someone realized that their continued maintenance was a drain on their operational budget. But I guess this is good news for the VFW halls across Russia that have yet to acquire an old tank or artillery piece for display.

[Stalins Organ]

There's also the consideration that you want the capability to be kept in existance so that you don't have to rebuild it from scratch.

Think it's expensive making 50 C-17's too many, or 1000 M1A2's? Try building them from an aircraft/tank industry that no longer exists.....

[Michael Emrys]

And then there's Davis Monthan. One day all those F-105s and F4s are really gonna come in useful ...

Damn right! In a few more years they can start selling them to collectors for ten times what they paid for them. Of course, given the rate of inflation, the money will only be worth one-tenth what it was back then anyway. Still, it looks good on paper.

Michael

[ironbar]

Oddly, I don't think there are any F-105's at DM; was out there earlier this year, the Thuds were noticable in their absence, carted off to the target ranges and being used as combat repair trainers, I guess. I checked a couple of the inventory websights and sure enough the old Thud is reduced to being shot up on the ranges and for training.

More F-4's than you could shake a stick at, and plenty of T-33's -just in case we have to face some Mig 15's I guess.

[gunnergoz]

F-4's and T-33's are, AFAIK, still being converted for use as target drones, so keeping them around kind of makes sense in that they represent a sort of mix of hi-lo performance airframes.

[Bigduke6]

Those are indeed T-64. As I understand it (Wiki) Russia has something like 4,000 of them still on the books, so the pics Gunner showed us are just the tip of the iceberg. Take that lot and multiply it by about 90 to 100; that's how many tanks we're talking about. And that's just in Russia, about 2,500 supposedly are rusting away in Ukraine.

Interestingly, and apropos of keeping production technology going, when the Ukrainians decided to make a modern MBT they based it on the T-64, not the T-72 - and this after having produced upgraded T-72es (called T-80DU) for Pakistan. The Ukrainians were making noise recently that they had kitted out their first battalion with this modernised T-64, it's called a "Bulat". They say it's wonderful but they want to sell it. Anyway, the tank's production means that the Kharkov Plant Named For Morozov - you know, the people that thought up the T-34 - is still producing tanks. So kinda cool even if the Bulat sucks.

As I understand it the feeling in Ukraine is that the T-64 is still a very viable frame with fine gun, and to modernize it what you need is updated electronics and applique armor, and to a lesser extent ergonomics and more powerful engine.

Here's a linkie from the factory, in case any one is tank shopping.

http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/bulat.php

[Affentitten]

F-4's and T-33's are, AFAIK, still being converted for use as target drones, so keeping them around kind of makes sense in that they represent a sort of mix of hi-lo performance airframes.

Yeah I recall covering that for Beyond 2000 years ago. The Phantoms made ideal target R/C target drones because they could actually simulate what a pilot would be shooting at much better than a Firebee or something. And with so many F-4s sitting around, they were pretty much free.

[gunnergoz]

Yeah I recall covering that for Beyond 2000 years ago. The Phantoms made ideal target R/C target drones because they could actually simulate what a pilot would be shooting at much better than a Firebee or something. And with so many F-4s sitting around, they were pretty much free.

You were involved in that production? I loved that show!

[Wicky]

Where Have All the Phantoms Gone?

How a fighter-bomber-recon-attack superstar ended up as fodder for target practice.

and in a similar vein Russian 'shot down its own planes'

[gunnergoz]

BTW, here's some solid info on the great tank purge - er, I mean scrapping:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20090712.aspx

July 12, 2009: Russia is cutting its tank force again, from 22,000 to about 6,000. Sixty percent of these 6,000 will be in storage. The remaining 16,000 tanks will be scrapped. Twenty years ago, the situation was quite different. At the end of the Cold War in 1991, Russia had about 53,000 tanks in service (about 40 percent of them relics from the 1950s, or earlier). Over the last two decades, some 30,000 tanks were scrapped. Back in 1991, about half of the tanks were of questionable serviceability and usefulness, but that still left the Russians with 25,000 modern tanks, ready to roll west. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, 80 percent of the five million troops were sent home, and, in the next decade, only a few hundred new tanks were purchased.

The current tank fleet has about 260 T-90s and 1,200 T-80s (a third in storage). These are roughly equal to early model U.S. M-1s. Most of the current Russian tanks are late model T-72s, some of them upgraded with excellent electronics (fire controls systems and thermal sights).

For the last decade, no matter how many tanks the Russians say they had, only a few thousand are ready to roll, and go into combat. In effect, Russia has lost the use of some 90 percent of its tanks since 1991. Back then, nearly all those 53,000 were assigned to a combat division. OK, most of those were reserve divisions, but if most of the reservists showed up in wartime, they would know how to get most of their tanks operational. That reserve system collapsed along with the Soviet Union, so now, the Russians have faced the fact that they can only get about 5,000 tanks operational on short notice. That's a big drop from the 1980s.

The Russian tank fleet is outnumbered by what NATO has available, and is only slightly larger than China's. As much as Russian commanders dislike this, they have finally faced the facts, and decided to retain only as many tanks as they can actually maintain and operate.