Russian tanks how many?

Status
Not open for further replies.
timmymagic said:
Everyone agrees that the aviation figures are likely not accurate. Missile shootdowns probably isn't massively out (it might also include crashes), helicopters is at least double the real total (although Oryx's list is good it doesn't include Russian losses around Kherson Airport that are known to have been heavy, we'll have to wait until the UAF retake that area to be sure, they're 10km from it now). Fixed wing though is clearly a long way from accurate.
Click to expand...
Yes, a lot of aircraft were destroyed on the ground and some just crashed, or were damaged (mission kill probably).

Currently.

1656011533768.png
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t see how those numbers could be correct with Russia still fighting. 1700 hundred MBTs would be half the active prewar inventory.
Click to expand...
51% to be exact, but they have dragged a lot of defunct T-62s out of from storage. At least 3 train loads to be precise.

It's like the quantity of tanks originally intended for 'operation', 100% of that was reached some time ago. I think they are running out but don't want to use a lot of their best tanks so T-62s are being resurrected.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
I don’t see how those numbers could be correct with Russia still fighting. 1700 hundred MBTs would be half the active prewar inventory.
Click to expand...
51% to be exact, but they have dragged a lot of defunct T-62s out of from storage. At least 3 train loads to be precise.

It's like the quantity of tanks originally intended for 'operation', 100% of that was reached some time ago. I think they are running out but don't want to use a lot of their best tanks so T-62s are being resurrected.
Click to expand...
If the UK MoD numbers were remotely accurate, the Russians will struggle to maintain continued operations past this year and be rebuilding their army for the rest of the decade. I suppose its not impossible given the length and intensity of conflict and the likely losses also inflicted on Ukraine, but that would be a massive blow to Russia's defensive posture, particularly in the context of a permanently hostile neighboring country being armed by its opponents.
 
paralay said:
On the previous page it says who and why is fighting on the T-62, stop talking nonsense
Click to expand...
They're still Russian tanks regardless of what name you give to the people using them. I might suggest not using a title with "People's" in it in future though, they don't tend to have a great track record.

Josh_TN said:
If the UK MoD numbers were remotely accurate, the Russians will struggle to maintain continued operations past this year and be rebuilding their army for the rest of the decade. I suppose its not impossible given the length and intensity of conflict and the likely losses also inflicted on Ukraine, but that would be a massive blow to Russia's defensive posture, particularly in the context of a permanently hostile neighboring country being armed by its opponents.
Click to expand...
Depends on their production capacity, last I heard all wartime production efforts were being directed to T-90Ms. War is never great for defensive posture, it's a terrible way to weaken your armed forces, as the last 20 years have demonstrated. You end up spending money on the war rather than defence.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I don’t see how those numbers could be correct with Russia still fighting. 1700 hundred MBTs would be half the active prewar inventory.
Click to expand...
We've seen a hell of a lot of T-72 and T80 pulled from storage so far, in addition to the far smaller numbers of T-62.

I can't imagine the UK CDS putting it out if he didn't have faith in it. But as Oryx' online database has 865 documented losses on it then I can't see why double that number isn't credible. The losses that have not been photographed/filmed, or have occurred in areas yet to be retaken by Ukraine/removed from the battlefield could very easily double that publically seen. The vast majority of losses are from artillery and we've got loads of it being slung around in the Donbas and South, not all of it is corrected by drone and filmed.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
We've seen a hell of a lot of T-72 and T80 pulled from storage so far, in addition to the far smaller numbers of T-62.

I can't imagine the UK CDS putting it out if he didn't have faith in it. But as Oryx' online database has 865 documented losses on it then I can't see why double that number isn't credible. The losses that have not been photographed/filmed, or have occurred in areas yet to be retaken by Ukraine/removed from the battlefield could very easily be double that publically seen. The vast majority of losses are from artillery and we've got loads of it being slung around in the Donbas and South, not all of it is corrected by drone and filmed.
Click to expand...
Oryx have a huge backlog that hasn't been catalogued yet. They have confirmed this and I regularly see them add losses that weren't claimed by Ukraine in the last 24 hours.

The number sounds like a lot at first but when you consider that it's a very high intensity war that's lasted 145 days, with fighting and artillery barrages 24/7, it works out to less than 12 tanks per day, which is very plausible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
I suspect that number is at least inside the correct order of magnitude. It is just shocking number considering the starting forces in theater, which was I think estimated at ~2000. Clearly more active and reserve vehicles have been brought in since, but that 1700 number would mean the great majority of the original force must casualties given just normal maintenance concerns of tracked vehicles on top of operational losses. It makes me wonder if current advances are largely handled by infantry with little (by Russian/Soviet standards) tank support.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect that number is at least inside the correct order of magnitude. It is just shocking number considering the starting forces in theater, which was I think estimated at ~2000. Clearly more active and reserve vehicles have been brought in since, but that 1700 number would mean the great majority of the original force must casualties given just normal maintenance concerns of tracked vehicles on top of operational losses. It makes me wonder if current advances are largely handled by infantry with little (by Russian/Soviet standards) tank support.
Click to expand...
The starting number was only estimated at 1200. Seems to indicate that somebody may have underestimated the task at hand.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1548611166053736452
View: https://twitter.com/proudukraine/status/1548611166053736452
 
Forest Green said:
The starting number was only estimated at 1200. Seems to indicate that somebody may have underestimated the task at hand.
Click to expand...
The original US intelligence estimate was 1,900 from a total Russian frontline tank fleet of c2,900.
 
I would be careful with all of these numbers; they were rough estimates both in terms of initial number of MBTs in theater and operational loses. That said, I think it is very safe to say that over a thousand tanks have been destroyed, which is a rather huge number no matter what you are comparing it to. I wish we had any kind of rough estimate for how many reserve tanks have been placed into service since, though I'm not sure how even official western intelligence sources would managed that (let alone OSINT).
 
Josh_TN said:
I would be careful with all of these numbers; they were rough estimates both in terms of initial number of MBTs in theater and operational loses. That said, I think it is very safe to say that over a thousand tanks have been destroyed, which is a rather huge number no matter what you are comparing it to. I wish we had any kind of rough estimate for how many reserve tanks have been placed into service since, though I'm not sure how even official western intelligence sources would managed that (let alone OSINT).
Click to expand...
The storage locations are all known, most of the storage is open air. They'd just need to count them out...
 
Josh_TN said:
I would be careful with all of these numbers; they were rough estimates both in terms of initial number of MBTs in theater and operational loses. That said, I think it is very safe to say that over a thousand tanks have been destroyed, which is a rather huge number no matter what you are comparing it to. I wish we had any kind of rough estimate for how many reserve tanks have been placed into service since, though I'm not sure how even official western intelligence sources would managed that (let alone OSINT).
Click to expand...
There's been 3 trains of T-62s, so that's ~150 T-62s alone.
 
I assume Russia is retaining its Cat 1 armour for use against any NATO contingency.
Do we know what these units are? and what they consist of?
 
uk 75 said:
I assume Russia is retaining its Cat 1 armour for use against any NATO contingency.
Do we know what these units are? and what they consist of?
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like that is the case. Their best armour is T-90M, T-90A and T-72 B3 Obr 2016. T-90M exist in very small numbers and have only been seen a couple of times in Ukraine, even then they managed to lose 2. T-90 has been heavily committed with at least 20 lost. Well over 100 T72 B3 Obr 2016 have been lost. These are all verified by imagery, but are just the lowest baseline for any losses

Their best armoured unit was supposed to be 1 Guard Tanks Army who mainly used T-80 variants. They were deployed to Ukraine and got absolutely rinsed at Chernihiv and Kharkiv...huge losses of T-80 tanks to the Ukrainian's.

I suspect the Russian's really did believe the 3 days to victory plan and thought they could 'shock and awe' their way to victory and therefore deployed most of their best units...all this achieved is eviscerating their 'best' units
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
I assume Russia is retaining its Cat 1 armour for use against any NATO contingency.
Do we know what these units are? and what they consist of?
Click to expand...
The initial invasion was a who's who of tank armies; it doesn't seem like a lot of front line equipment was held back. There were elements of 1st Tank Guards there so it is safe to assume some of the best formations and equipment are/were in play. Additionally there seemed to be no shortage of VDV units in the first phase of the war.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for coming back so quickly.
Really does looks as if NATO should ask to join Ukraine as a member. Though our weapons have helped, credit must go to the Ukrainians.
 
uk 75 said:
Thank you for coming back so quickly.
Really does looks as if NATO should ask to join Ukraine as a member. Though our weapons have helped, credit must go to the Ukrainians.
Click to expand...
Politics aside, it does seem like the Russian Army will have to spend a lot of time rebuilding when the conflict is over (and obviously Ukraine as well).
 
Josh_TN said:
The initial invasion was a who's who of tank armies; it doesn't seem like a lot of front line equipment was held back. There were elements of 1st Tank Guards there so it is safe seems safe to assume some of the best formations and equipment are/were in play. Additionally there seemed to be no shortage of VDV units in the first phase of the war.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. T-90s are scarce among the losses and scarce by presence in Ukraine. T-14s haven't appeared anywhere, although it's difficult to say whether they're actually in service at this time.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
The initial invasion was a who's who of tank armies; it doesn't seem like a lot of front line equipment was held back. There were elements of 1st Tank Guards there so it is safe seems safe to assume some of the best formations and equipment are/were in play. Additionally there seemed to be no shortage of VDV units in the first phase of the war.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. T-90s are scarce among the losses and scarce by presence in Ukraine. T-14s haven't appeared anywhere, although it's difficult to say whether they're actually in service at this time.
Click to expand...
T-90 losses are thin on the ground - not sure what formations they are assigned to. There's no shortage of T-72B3s though. T-14 I wouldn't consider an operational type. There definitely were elements from some of the best Russian army formations committed - 1st Guards Tank and 2nd Guards Combined Arms armies for instance were definitely on the roster. But likely some of their strength was left behind, if only because BTGs are from what I understand constituted from a single brigade, with each brigade supplying ~2 BTG combined arms formations. So some of the equipment not contributed to the fielded BTGs would be left in garrison if nothing else, and likely some of it was and is consciously left as a strategic reserve.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
The initial invasion was a who's who of tank armies; it doesn't seem like a lot of front line equipment was held back. There were elements of 1st Tank Guards there so it is safe seems safe to assume some of the best formations and equipment are/were in play. Additionally there seemed to be no shortage of VDV units in the first phase of the war.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. T-90s are scarce among the losses and scarce by presence in Ukraine. T-14s haven't appeared anywhere, although it's difficult to say whether they're actually in service at this time.
Click to expand...

T-14 is not in service at all.
T-90 is just a buffed T-72. T-72B3 Obr 2016 is objectively more advanced than a lot of the T-90 fleet.
 
I think it wouldn't be unfair to call T-90 a "T-72B4" and I think that some of the T-72B3s (B3M version?) did have a superior thermal site to the original T-90s (but not the T-90M). I have issues keeping up with all the various T- subtypes.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it wouldn't be unfair to call T-90 a "T-72B4" and I think that some of the T-72B3s (B3M version?) did have a superior thermal site to the original T-90s (but not the T-90M). I have issues keeping up with all the various T- subtypes.
Click to expand...
Absolutely its a warmed over T-72 with a new name for the export market.

T-72 BA, B3, B3M and B3 Obr 2016 all have better optics and sights than T-90 and T-90A.

It's worth remembering that T-90 actually entered service 30 years ago....

T-90M is undoubtedly better than anything else they've got, but apparently there are less than 80 in total.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
muttly said:
How many tanks does Russia have not counting T-72 or older?
Click to expand...
Until February 24, 2022, the Russian army had about 3,500 tanks, of which about 400 tanks were in training units.
altyn73.livejournal.com

Обзор состояния танковых войск Вооруженных сил России.

По случаю праздника , накатал небольшой обзорчик на тему - танковые войска Российской армии за последнее десятилетие. ВНИМАНИЕ !!!! ВСЯ ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ВЗЯТА ИЗ ОТКРЫТЫХ ИСТОЧНИКОВ!!!! В качестве предисловия. Основной структурной единицей танковых войск является танковый батальон. Батальон состоит из…
altyn73.livejournal.com altyn73.livejournal.com
altyn73.livejournal.com

Обзор состояния танковых войск Вооруженных сил России. 2021 г.

Танкоремонтники 1295-й Центральной базы хранения бронетанковой техники в г.Арсеньев (Приморский край) отмечают День танкиста . 11.09.2021 источник С Днём танкиста!!!! По случаю праздника , накатал очередной небольшой обзорчик на тему - танковые войска Российской армии . Прошлогодний обзор ТУТ…
altyn73.livejournal.com altyn73.livejournal.com
altyn73.livejournal.com

altyn73

altyn73 - the new blog in LiveJournal. There should be new interesting records soon.
altyn73.livejournal.com altyn73.livejournal.com
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Josh_TN said:
I think it wouldn't be unfair to call T-90 a "T-72B4" and I think that some of the T-72B3s (B3M version?) did have a superior thermal site to the original T-90s (but not the T-90M). I have issues keeping up with all the various T- subtypes.
Click to expand...
Absolutely its a warmed over T-72 with a new name for the export market.

T-72 BA, B3, B3M and B3 Obr 2016 all have better optics and sights than T-90 and T-90A.

It's worth remembering that T-90 actually entered service 30 years ago....

T-90M is undoubtedly better than anything else they've got, but apparently there are less than 80 in total.
Click to expand...
The T-72BA has the same sight as the T-72B.
Only 105 serial T-90 tanks (with a cast turret) were produced. All of them are in storage, about 30 of them were sent to Syria.
The rest are used for conversion into the T-90M, in fact only the hull is used from them. For example, at the Army-2021 exhibition, out of four T-90Ms, three are former T-90s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
Of those it was estimated ~2000 were committed to the Ukraine theater at the beginning of the conflict. Exactly how many more were moved in, lost, reactivated, etc is probably anyone's guess by now, but it seems more than likely that the current status is a lower number than 2000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
You guys put a lot of trust in a group that is headed by turkish citizens with clear anti Russian bias. I wish we had someone more unbiased who would sift thru all this "osint" stuff to verify figures. This war has been an abomination to reality itself. Never seen such fog of war and propaganda on all sides thickening it.
 
I think the Oryx numbers are probably not absolutely accurate but do give a sense of scale. It does seem very clear we are talking about vehicles losses in the thousands, not hundreds.
 
Yah, serving US officer went through Oryx's first 3 or 4 months of claims and dismissed nearly half of them. Take them with a very large pinch of salt.

Bigger question might be how many Ukraine have left. They apparently lost a large number of their (Polish?) loaners in one of the failed Kherson counter-offensives.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Cjc
jeffb said:
Yah, serving US officer went through Oryx's first 3 or 4 months of claims and dismissed nearly half of them. Take them with a very large pinch of salt.

Bigger question might be how many Ukraine have left. They apparently lost a large number of their (Polish?) loaners in one of the failed Kherson counter-offensives.
Click to expand...

The Russians don't seem to document Ukrainian losses nearly as well as the Ukrainians document Russian losses. This probably partially due to a lot of the images coming from civilians and the policy Russian media had of largely ignoring the special operation during the first month of the war. I've no doubt they have taken a lot of casualties as well, though the combination of donations and documented captures I believe exceeds their original active MBT fleet. Additionally Russia has clearly mobilized additional tanks from their reserves, from T-62s to T-90s, so it similarly is impossible to know the numbers of current active Russian force.
 
TMA1 said:
You guys put a lot of trust in a group that is headed by turkish citizens with clear anti Russian bias. I wish we had someone more unbiased who would sift thru all this "osint" stuff to verify figures. This war has been an abomination to reality itself. Never seen such fog of war and propaganda on all sides thickening it.
Click to expand...
Who would be a neutral source though?

jeffb said:
Bigger question might be how many Ukraine have left. They apparently lost a large number of their (Polish?) loaners in one of the failed Kherson counter-offensives.
Click to expand...
They seem to have plenty left since all movements of the frontline have been in the Ukrainian favour since the start of September. Hugely so.
 
Josh_TN said:
jeffb said:
Yah, serving US officer went through Oryx's first 3 or 4 months of claims and dismissed nearly half of them. Take them with a very large pinch of salt.

Bigger question might be how many Ukraine have left. They apparently lost a large number of their (Polish?) loaners in one of the failed Kherson counter-offensives.
Click to expand...

The Russians don't seem to document Ukrainian losses nearly as well as the Ukrainians document Russian losses. This probably partially due to a lot of the images coming from civilians and the policy Russian media had of largely ignoring the special operation during the first month of the war. I've no doubt they have taken a lot of casualties as well, though the combination of donations and documented captures I believe exceeds their original active MBT fleet. Additionally Russia has clearly mobilized additional tanks from their reserves, from T-62s to T-90s, so it similarly is impossible to know the numbers of current active Russian force.
Click to expand...

Probably. My only point was that professionals have looked at Oryx's claims (largely based on Ukrainian claims) of vehicle losses and captures and found more than a few that are likely wrongly attributed. I don't think the pro's rely on his numbers much.

Most are correctly attributed though, just don't accept his totals at face value is all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom