There's no reason for Russia to pull tanks out of museums when they have fields full of these old tanks from the Soviet era. I think it would be more fair to call some of these tanks museum age rather than saying that they are from museums
The scrapyards are beginning to run out of armor. Not to mention thousands of tanks were scrapped at the end of the USSR lowering that number of tanks. You can subtract from that number even more with tanks that are beyond repair and those tanks that require long term repair then you see why they're just taking tanks out from museums and stuff like that. The tanks that are easily repairable have likely all been pulled from the yards
Covert Cabal has done a number of videos about Russian tank storage facilities using the most recent available satellite images. It's good stuff if you're interested in that sort of thing.
@@vic5015the fact it was the source of the story this video then pulled apart didn't need doing better. They ripped it apart very well and I good detail.
@@vic5015 What more did you want? The only thing missing was a Brain Blaze style tangent about what a POS the Daily Mail is and that wouldn't have been super appropriate in a serious video.
My cousin is a drone operator in Ukraine, he's destroyed or participated / had a drone present in the destruction of several dozen Russian tanks. Says he's never once seen a T-34 nor heard from other operators about a T-34 in Ukraine.
The T-34 is only usable in prades and for demonstration purposes. There are pictures of the SU-152, T-34 and SU-100 on training grounds. Those are dated and geo located. But they return to the base museum right after the demonstration.
Great video, love that you actually went so far as to phone into Russia and get a primary source. It's ludicrous TH-camrs do more fact checking than respected news agencies, the press should be ashamed. News agencies should face fines if caught spreading fake news/misleading stories for profit. 1st time commenting, thoroughly enjoy all Simon's channels and the content the brilliant writers produce.
@@scottmeredith3359they thanked the writers in their comment. I'm pretty sure most Simon fans don't think Simon is anything more than a manager and face, his writers are very good at their jobs though, and the fact that they keep coming back tells me that Simon pays them well.
@@scottmeredith3359But he got his channels to that point where he just reads texts 😅 that's culmination of years of effort, sweat and toils from his side
I've called Russian armour "museum pieces" before, I don't literally mean "tanks pulled from museums." They have massive storage feilds of tanks that the Russians consider serviceable and I would say belong in a museum.
I was extremely surprised that the person on the phone was so candid calling the war in Ukraine an invasion, instead of calling it "a special military operation"
Simon said that they translated it themselves so who knows what he said. Then again if he was convinced he was speaking with people from outside the country, he might have chosen not to use the official terminology.
The T-62 und T-64 are two completely different designs. While the 62 is simpler coming from the T54/55 line, the 64 was basically the first sovjet MBT with even better performance than the later T-72. Also there was some video evidence of a IS3 being reactivated - but not sure by which side.
The quoted storage numbers for T-55s and T-62s are very obsolete/inaccurate - people like Covert Cabal have repeatedly counted and IDed Russian tanks in storage and actual numbers are far lower.
Depends on what you call a museum tank. T-34, no. T-55 most certainly, yes, which is only a decade older than the T- 34. T-34s were seen on a training ground.
While true, the Soviets unlike the U.S. took very active measures to modernize their older vehicles. So a lot of t-55 are going to be better than western tanks from the same era
Not to mention that the vast majority of tank use in this war is for infantry support and not tank v tank combat, where the t-55 would preform just fine
The report on the Museum could also be a case of a "miss translation or miss labeling" as I know there at least was a Tank dump/mothball (where you store older tanks long term... something the Soviet/Russia loves to do) and them been labeled as outdoor museum (what museum would have 10000 identical copies of the same T-60 tank is another question). note some of those Tank stodge can be visited (limit on when and what part but you can visit them like a museum so I can see that slip past).
Considering the Daily Mail's track record for supporting autocrats and dictators, I'm surprised that the Daily Mail aren't being Putin's cheerleaders considering they supported Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts.
The reasons Russia now pulling old T-55 and T-62 out of storage is because of its simplicity to repair ), easier to train and operate by conscripts or new recruits. Russia also is getting low on 125mm ammo use by T-72/T-80s, while having bulk of old soviet 115mm ammo and massive supply from North Korea.
You’re overlooking the fact that the reason it’s easy to maintain and learn to use is that it’s obsolete. It doesn’t need high tech parts that ruSSia is struggling to procure.
I've looked into this as well and found one instance of Russia pulling an old tank from a museum, but not for the front lines. They pulled one as it was well maintained, the parts and instructions were well documented, and they also "borrowed" the mechanic who worked on it. Basically they wanted it as an example for them to update the fields of armor they already had, and returned the tank afterwards after some back and forth. There may have been others since they have factories here and there, and needing an example of what the thing should look like after you are done would be useful.
You know, I have a lot of respect for Museums and those that run them. If they're saying that their inventories are fine, then I believe them. I think they'd say if they didn't have the tanks too. The people there understand the importance of a proper accurate historical record, and they worked well with international museums before.
@@basixs88 chief i dunno, even with "western propaganda at play" introducing NK to your turf war ins't doing you any geopolitical credit score favors, also it's so funny that you people point and laugh at "western" propaganda but say nothing about all the kremlin outlets, hmm yeah, yall sure winning a lot of followers by being hypocrites.
12:20, just came back from cubinka. The first vehicle is a BMPT prototype, which wouldnt be of much use anyways, and the second is a t-80b. Can confirm both are still at their place.
10:08 - Would any Russian really use the world "invasion" when denying they're not using their stored vehicles in the invasion of Ukraine or did you paraphrais there a bit?
Nothing is old or obsolete if it can be used for a specific task. Those machines use 115mm ammo that is available in large numbers in stock and it is free. They are field guns for long range indirect fire on static positions. This is evident of the destructions back of the contact line 3-5km or more. When damaged or the gun is no longer serviceable, they are used to haul other machines to repair shops or rigged with explosives and sent to fortified positions like battering rams or to clear mines. There are many things one can do if something is basically free. Ukraine has been provided some engineering vehicles based on M60 (that is also very old tank) exactly to remove mines and haul other damaged machines.
@ that’s not true because it can still obsolete for the task it was created for. Which was being a battle tank not self propelled artillery or a tow truck… And my point was that it feels like semantics them making a video about tanks being pulled from museums when the tanks in question are old enough to be in museums… and are!
@@MrRatludthe m60 is closer to a t72 then a t55 What russia is currently doing would be = of the us useing m46 tanks Even the first m60 is much better then t55s (Ignoring that all were upgraded in all countrys soo long ago)
Literal museum pieces? No. Are they outdated as hell and deserve to BE in a museum? Oh hell yeah. There's not been any T-34s used in combat, but there have been T-55s, which is the next best, or I guess worse, thing. My God.
Simon, I have a confession to make. I said a few months ago that if Russia started to pull T-34s out of his mothballed inventory that they were now fubar. However, with the first minute of this video with the claim that Russia was now pulling T-34s out of museums / mothballs, my first thought was: "Simon, Are You $#@!ing Me?!?!?!?!?" No Vaseline / KY jelly needed.
Every time I saw this headline i assumed they simply meant that they are so old they belong in a museum. I assumed Russia had a hefty supply of old tanks in reserve just like we do. Difference is theres seem a lot older and in much poorer repair.
I'd be more worried about the lack of proper modern rifles. Don't get me wrong, the AKM and AKS series, specially the modernized ones are good, but in most videos they're not using the latest versions. If you can't provide your frontline troops the best available gear, how do you even expect they'll get modern tanks?
As you said Russia is fielding equipment thas been in storage for decades such as the T-54, T-62 and T-64, these tanks were never all that good in the first place. It is scarping the barrel, like the US deploying M-48 Pattons!
Yeah, even if they're not literally emptying museums, the point is that most of what they're using is so obsolete the only place it really should belong is a museum.
1:19 quality control wasn't important ever - in the 1930's the average life expectancy of a finished BT-7 tank was 150 HOURS of use until a major component had to be replaced - engine, gearbox etc
The T-64 is not even close to a T-62, autoloader, far superior cannon and composite armor before upgrades. The upgraded variants are far from the best tanks on the battlefield, but they are decent enough especially compared to truly obsolete vehicles like the T-55 and 62.
Imagine spending all this time trying to verify the Daily Fail. You should have known before you started that the mythical “report” simply doesn’t exist and the Fail is simply lying.
A report I saw once said that both sides were using old tanks - not to fight with but as decoys to draw fire from the enemy - with no one inside the tanks.
When the media says that russia is using museum pieces, I didn't, for an instant, think they were literally raiding museums, rather that it was a reference to the age of the equipment. I also assumed that that is how everyone else took it, guess I was wrong.
@rolandohiebert2144 they called the invasion, well, an invasion. Officially it's a "sPeCiAl MiLiTaRy OpErAtIoN" and didn't rule out entirely the possibility of Russia being so desperate as to pull obsolete reserves for active use. Tl;dr they're fucked for being honest
So what we are establishing is that the statement is hyperbolic. They aren't literally from museums, but some of the tanks being fielded are ones that belong in a museum over a battlefield.
T-62 and T-64 are in an absolutely different league. Only a dilettant put those in the same category. The T-62 is still an incremental upgrade of the T-44. Latter was first produced in WWII is low numbers. They decided not to disturb the T-34 lines with retooling. After the war they started improving the design what ended up in the T-54, then T-55, and in the end the T-62. The T-64 is a clean slate design. The first soviet serial producet MBT with an autoloader. Also all the newest gadgets were used on it. It was a state of the art tank, meanwhile the T-62 was obsolete even that time. The T-64 got all the upgrades since, even after the introduction of the T-80. The T-80 is practically a gutted T-64 with new systems and a gas turbine power plant. They decided to incorporate the newest systems as a real system, not just adding another thing to the T-64. The T-64 is still almost as capable as a T-80. The T-72 is a cheaped out T-64. The T-64 was expensive, so only the guard units were equipped with it (at least first). Their role was to break through enemy lines, the exploitation was the role of the cheap tanks used en masse. Never exported by the Soviet Union. The T-80 for the T-64 is what the T-62 for the T-55. Or even less, because the T-64 and T-80 uses the "same" gun.
Hey Simon, I just wanna let you know. I just saw an interesting piece of info on the web. And I think it would make for an interesting episode on one of your many channels. In 1942. A dutch mine sweeper Managed to avoid detection and capture by disguising itself as an island and made it all the way to australia
That was really sporting of the Russian tank museum to answer the question so completely and candidly, despite the increased tensions between East and West since 2022. 👍
The 2S7 Pion SPG is the only armored vehicle that I have heard of truly being pulled from museums and that was for Ukraine, not Russia. Probably the only artillery piece that's well suited for both the museum and the battlefield. Great to look at and great to have providing fire support.
I think this isn't so much media lying, more exaggerating for a quippy headline. The T-54/55 and T-62, even early T-72's are 'museum' tanks, ie there are plenty of museums that have those models on display, both static and active, but those numbers would be only a handful, and the dedicated storage facilities of T-55's and T-62's numbers in the thousands. The headline "Russia using tank models on frontline that are also found in museums" is a lot less snappy than "Russia using museum pieces on frontline". The T-64 in Ukrainian service is, for me, a different discussion, as it was Ukraine's mainstay MBT at the start of the war and Ukraine had kept upgrading them to a fairly modern standard, so is more analogous to the T-72B3 models that is Russia's mainstay. Yes, the base model is ancient but the version in use is a very different vehicle.
It's obviously bogus, museum pieces are deactivated and not mechanically functioning. They're also not maintained, and would require more work to get in operational condition than just building a new tank from scratch.
T-62 are upgraded for the modernisation.. They are not from the museums, they have enough in the depot and they are modernised for the that. Ucooled thermals, Composite addon composite armor, Relict ERA on the front, laser rangefinder and 3BM-21M APFDS... On the other side Ukrainan Army Using Leopard 1 and T-55 (from the Slovenia) as MBTs...
The last bit about the T-64s is a bit inaccurate. The T-64 was the better tank compared to the T-72 (and maybe T-80), but the Soviets chose the T-72 because it was cheaper to produce. Ukraine had a couple hundred modernized T-64s to at were more than a match for the Russian’s latest T-72 modernization upgrades.
I was glad to hear Simon mention how any force could use what appear to be "outdated" tanks in the rear and for indirect fire missions - although such indirect fire missions leave them vulnerable to counterfire due to their limited range of about ~3km at best. However, these tanks could be dug in and used for defensive fire, if you dig the ground out so only the turrent is visible, they are not only harder to identify, especially if camoflaged effectively, but they are far harder to counter than conventional artillary pieces where the crews are vulnerable to scrapnel from exploding ordnance. I would be surprised if the Russians are pulling tanks out of museums at this stage, in terms of armour they still hold the numerical superiority over Ukraine, but lets be clear here, if you are on the wrong end of a tank, you will not care if it rolled off the production line in 2024 or 1944 - you are pretty much screwed. The UK has around 250 Challenger 2 tanks, of which some 148 will be upgraded to C3 over the coming years, but we also hold hundreds, literally hundreds, of late model Chieftains in storage, Yes, these are not the most modern tanks, but for defence they are perfect, but also, they could be upgraded with modern electronics, they already have thermal sights and decent comms kit with gun stabilisation and NBC protection, thus, upgrading these systems is achievable, it is even possible to add additional protection (ERA) to them and as such, they would be a genuine threat to Russian tanks - they are the one it was designed and built to kill. Of course, against a modern CHallenger, Abrams or LeClerc, as well as the latest Leopards it might not fair so well, but as the Russians do not have any tanks in this class, they should not be written off - I am actually amazed that the UK has not looked to upgrading some of these systems and shipping them to Ukraine as they will only be facing off against equipment they were designed to fight on the battlefields of central Europe.
OMG it is so sad that a museum has only 3 or 4 examples of a T-34 or a T-62 or a T-55 and not 2000+ of them, for the plebs to gaze upon example after example after example. Such a shame.
On the same note, how are the German Leopard 1 performing in Ukraine? These are also from the 60ies. Would be cool to hear an update about them. Also I've seen an absolutely ridiculous picture that supposedly shows a German Panzer IV from WW2 that has been in service of Ukraine
Thirty T-34 tanks, produced in 1944, were brought back to Russia from Laos and passed to Russian ministry of defense. They are supposed to be used for parades, I don't see them being sent to Ukraine. Now it turns out that Ukraine did use a Panther tank at a road block. It was a film prop, based on a T55. No one would use a Panther, they are just too valuable.
The things about all the tanks that they have from the Soviets, is they have been sitting **outside**, in Siberia, for up to 60 or 70 years. Without any maintenance of any kind. Not sure if any of you are aware of this, but rust is a thing. Every one of those tanks requires extensive remediation to be put back into service. They have already removed everything that could be easily fixed. Especially for shit like T-72 and T-80 models. Both of which also require electronics the russians don't have, thanks to sanctions. The T-62 is still a museum piece, even when "modernized". The russians are using museum pieces though, trucks and artillery. I have seen video of russian M-30 howitzers in action in Ukraine. This gun was designed in 1938, and produced until 1955. It's back in front-line service because the russians have also lost over 20k pieces of artillery. As an anecdote, I was an infantryman back in the day. I was trained to hunt and kill Soviet tanks. Using M-72 LAW rockets. You go for the mobility-kill, because a tank crew doesn't want to be in a tank that cannot move. Especially crews that are poorly trained, motivated and led, like the Soviets were. There is a ton of video evidence of tank crews leaving tanks that are immobilized. Also, you learn to use a tank's blind-spot. If you hadn't noticed, tanks don't have windows, meaning they have blind-spots tens of metres wide. If they don't have supporting infantry, they are in trouble.
I think the point was missed here - while they are not being pulled out museums, they are being pulled to the frontline, from the very rear. They are tanks that should have been, either scrapped, or in a museum, not on a battlefield. The T-62 was specifically the evolution of the T-55 and a medium tank, while the T-64 was supposed to be this revolutionary new design that scared the west, when in reality, it had massive issues throughout its lifespan. The T-72 was developed to replace it, based on the T-62 in the 70's, as the T-64 still had issues. Some would call the T-64 a light tank, due mainly to the smaller turret and crew size and the fact that the USSR wanted to keep in under 40 tons, for bridge crossings. The USSR produced a heck of a lot more T-55s and T-62s. The real replacement, based on the T-64, however, was the T-80. As Russian tanks are destroyed, its really important to remember, that Russia spent its load on tanks and they have a lot - about 17,500, prior to them invading Ukraine. They have produced much less T80's and T-90's in that stack and their T-14 Armata which is still in development - producing approximately 50 of them, so far. They have leaned back into to producing T-90's. Outside of T-90 production, Russia is running out of modern battlefield tanks, but at the same time - we are getting close to the end of tank even being a thing, on the modern battlefield. In terms of defining what should be in a museum - anything that is over 20 years old in automobiles, is considered a classic, anything over 50 years old, with homes, is considered historic. LOL. T-72 and older are antiques, in 2024.
It is worth noting that some sources suggest that Russia scrapped most of its T-55s to be sold on the scrap steel market. Given what Russia's economy looked like in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I'm inclined to believe that's at least partly possible. After all, these are tanks designed *before the Korean War* (the -55 suffix is not a year indicator, though for some models the T- number will get you in the right ballpark), and probably fall under the "too old to be useful, full stop" category - much like those Laotian T-34s. Now it's possible they have a couple of thousand left after the scrapping, or perhaps the scrap came from something else, or perhaps those claims are just outright wrong....but yeah, our best indicator of what's being used in the war is actual photos taken of tanks being used in the war, and while that is a fair bit of old kit, there's very little stuff to indicate it's *quite* that old.
When you think about it. Modern battlefield is so much more different from WW2 in terms of AT availability. Which means that potentially every single infantry man might have an rpg on his back. Those RPGs are equally as effective against modern tanks as they are against older ones. But a tank is still a tank. Ehile its armor is obsolete - its cannon isnt. More canons mean more firepower. So, it aint all that bad as it is deemed to look like
No, Russia is not literally pulling tanks out of museums and sending them to Ukraine. But they ARE using tanks that are so old most countries WOULD have them in museums. Many of their tanks were built or designed in the 60s and 70s.
That's not as bad as it sounds. The Abrams is a 70s design. The F-15 is a late 60s design. The F-16 even is a late 70s design. We in the states do actually have those in museums right now. While also still using the rest in active service.
@sprolyborn2554 It’s really not the same thing; yes, the F-15 and F-16 are also Cold War-era jets, while the Abrams was designed in the same timeframe. The difference is that all of these vehicles have been upgraded continuously ever since their original combat debut. Most Abrams, F-15s and F-16s in service today rolled off the assembly line in the late 90s or the 2000s, and are outfitted with the latest electronics, countermeasures and weapons systems. Most of Russias Cold War era vehicles were built during the Cold War, left in storage for decades, and hastily reactivated after Russia's limited number of modern weapons were either rendered inoperable or canceled due to Western sanctions.
@@sprolyborn2554 lol not that bad for example the americans already scrapped all the M60's, its like america was useing the damn M-46 Patton in combat now a days ridiculous.
@@viceralman8450 I mean, the m46 would be like a half step above Russians actually using the t-34. The whole argument of the Abrams and t-72 is an apt comparison seeing as how they are the same era. So yeah, not that bad.
Their armor is useless though. Would be better if scrapped for metal. All modern anti armor is made of HEAT HESH or sabot, which does straight through solid steel.
The daily mail as a reference says everything I need to know about the claims. Always enjoy anything that shows that paper up as being the horrible waste of pulp that it is
Just imagine the cost of getting the tanks up to snuff. It'll be like pulling battleship New Jersey out of the museum and get her modernized to todays Technology and weapons. The cost would be enormous to do so and I've heard if they did such thing it would take up to 2 years or better to get her up to snuff for combat.
I think they may have pulled some of the more well preserved vehicles out of some meusems from Time to time as a stopgap, but probably not that many in the grand scheme. Most likely, its just going to keep dragging shit out of storage first
The only reason I could see for Russia to pull T-34s out of museums for battlefield use is if they had large stockpiles of 76.2mm shells and they wanted to use the T-34s as self-propelled artillery. And of course they'd only do that if they were running extremely low on larger caliber shells and/or barrels.
@@nikolaideianov5092 true, the T-55 is generally more useful than the T-34 though, if for no other reason than having a 100mm gun, and Russia having huge (and aging, and maybe not so huge at this stage of the war as they were before Russia started using T-55s as artillery) stockpiles of 100mm shells. I have no idea what sort of stockpiles they may or may not have for 76.2mm shells, though, so even using T-34s as self-propelled artillery may be unrealistic if they don't have enough shells, or if the shells they have are old enough that the failure rate will be stupidly high.
There's no reason for Russia to pull tanks out of museums when they have fields full of these old tanks from the Soviet era. I think it would be more fair to call some of these tanks museum age rather than saying that they are from museums
That's what I was thinking. The Soviets, and then Russians, never got rid of anything. There are 1,000s of tanks in some type of storage.
@@pkt1213well in the 2000s there were thousands scraped
The scrapyards are beginning to run out of armor. Not to mention thousands of tanks were scrapped at the end of the USSR lowering that number of tanks. You can subtract from that number even more with tanks that are beyond repair and those tanks that require long term repair then you see why they're just taking tanks out from museums and stuff like that. The tanks that are easily repairable have likely all been pulled from the yards
@@pkt1213 to be fair they did export a lot of gear when it became obsolete as hand me downs to much of the third world
Correct, and thank you.
"Shackled as we are by facts."
Thank goodness you are. The recent push for journalists wanting to "move beyond objectivity" is simply repugnant.
Journalist have always moved beyond Objectivity. They are simply returning to their roots.
Covert Cabal has done a number of videos about Russian tank storage facilities using the most recent available satellite images. It's good stuff if you're interested in that sort of thing.
yeah, he's good for that kind of stuff.
12:35 the second the Daily Mail is mentioned in the same sentence as “journalism”, you might as well forget any actual truth..
Seriously. The Daily Fail is your source? Do better, Fact Boy!
@@vic5015 It's not their source. But it's probably where the (mostly baseless) claim originated.
@@vic5015the fact it was the source of the story this video then pulled apart didn't need doing better. They ripped it apart very well and I good detail.
@@vic5015 What more did you want? The only thing missing was a Brain Blaze style tangent about what a POS the Daily Mail is and that wouldn't have been super appropriate in a serious video.
@@Narangarathyeah BB/DtU are where he openly dishes on the Daily Mail 😂
Indian Jones: "That tank belongs in a museum!"
Russia: "It will be fine!"
Angry business man: so do you!!
My cousin is a drone operator in Ukraine, he's destroyed or participated / had a drone present in the destruction of several dozen Russian tanks. Says he's never once seen a T-34 nor heard from other operators about a T-34 in Ukraine.
Because there's no point in pulling them out Russia dosent make the ammo for them
Lies
The T-34 is only usable in prades and for demonstration purposes. There are pictures of the SU-152, T-34 and SU-100 on training grounds. Those are dated and geo located. But they return to the base museum right after the demonstration.
Several dozens 😂
This Simon guy is full of shit. Russia is dominating Ukraine.
Great video, love that you actually went so far as to phone into Russia and get a primary source.
It's ludicrous TH-camrs do more fact checking than respected news agencies, the press should be ashamed.
News agencies should face fines if caught spreading fake news/misleading stories for profit.
1st time commenting, thoroughly enjoy all Simon's channels and the content the brilliant writers produce.
Simon didn’t do any of that, his help did. He just reads the scripts
@scottmeredith3359 you'll be shocked to learn the same is true of most newscasters
@@scottmeredith3359they thanked the writers in their comment.
I'm pretty sure most Simon fans don't think Simon is anything more than a manager and face, his writers are very good at their jobs though, and the fact that they keep coming back tells me that Simon pays them well.
@@scottmeredith3359But he got his channels to that point where he just reads texts 😅 that's culmination of years of effort, sweat and toils from his side
I've called Russian armour "museum pieces" before, I don't literally mean "tanks pulled from museums." They have massive storage feilds of tanks that the Russians consider serviceable and I would say belong in a museum.
Yeah I have never read anything from someone insisting they were from actual museums. They were using it as a phrase..
This video is weird hah.
Not so much now those tank storage parks are emptying fast.
I was extremely surprised that the person on the phone was so candid calling the war in Ukraine an invasion, instead of calling it "a special military operation"
As long the government doesn't hear it and you have the plausible deniability to refute it if they do. It should be okay
Simon said that they translated it themselves so who knows what he said. Then again if he was convinced he was speaking with people from outside the country, he might have chosen not to use the official terminology.
Could be that invasion was just their translation, but the actual word used was more in line with the official line.
The T-62 und T-64 are two completely different designs. While the 62 is simpler coming from the T54/55 line, the 64 was basically the first sovjet MBT with even better performance than the later T-72.
Also there was some video evidence of a IS3 being reactivated - but not sure by which side.
I believe it was reactivated from a Ukrainian memorial by the actual separatists in 2014 before the "separatists" arrived.
The quoted storage numbers for T-55s and T-62s are very obsolete/inaccurate - people like Covert Cabal have repeatedly counted and IDed Russian tanks in storage and actual numbers are far lower.
When I hear "using museum tanks" I just think of tanks that you might find in a museum not necessarily literally taking a tank from a museum display.
UK has a T72 tank (and a T80) in a museum. War trophies from Iraq. The museum (Bovington) is also used to train tank crew on tank design.
Depends on what you call a museum tank. T-34, no. T-55 most certainly, yes, which is only a decade older than the T- 34. T-34s were seen on a training ground.
T-55 is younger than the T-34, T-34 was 1940, T-55 was 1948.
Only a decade younger*
While true, the Soviets unlike the U.S. took very active measures to modernize their older vehicles. So a lot of t-55 are going to be better than western tanks from the same era
Not to mention that the vast majority of tank use in this war is for infantry support and not tank v tank combat, where the t-55 would preform just fine
@@therealgaben5527There is no scenario where western powers would send tanks from 1948 to the frontlines
A TH-cam channel putting accuracy over clickbait? Staggering.
He's good, many channels....many...enjoy
The report on the Museum could also be a case of a "miss translation or miss labeling" as I know there at least was a Tank dump/mothball (where you store older tanks long term... something the Soviet/Russia loves to do) and them been labeled as outdoor museum (what museum would have 10000 identical copies of the same T-60 tank is another question).
note some of those Tank stodge can be visited (limit on when and what part but you can visit them like a museum so I can see that slip past).
Simon can we kill the frantic background music - or use it more sparingly?
(Just my opinion - disregard if others don’t feel that way)
I feel like it was better in this one. There have been some I thought it was too loud but this one I diddnt notice it.
@@drewlovely2668yeah they’ve definitely controlling the Colin better recently so I don’t mind
T-55 has absolutely been used by Russia in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly it was destroyed quickly.
What!
The Daily Mail can't be trusted 😭
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
Well, not that shocked.
Considering the Daily Mail's track record for supporting autocrats and dictators, I'm surprised that the Daily Mail aren't being Putin's cheerleaders considering they supported Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts.
The reasons Russia now pulling old T-55 and T-62 out of storage is because of its simplicity to repair ), easier to train and operate by conscripts or new recruits. Russia also is getting low on 125mm ammo use by T-72/T-80s, while having bulk of old soviet 115mm ammo and massive supply from North Korea.
You’re overlooking the fact that the reason it’s easy to maintain and learn to use is that it’s obsolete. It doesn’t need high tech parts that ruSSia is struggling to procure.
They are easy to destroy and crew can't be cheaply manufactured in a factory.
@@viceralman8450that would requier russia to care
Theres a reason why all credible death numbers are much higher for russia then ukraine
@@morstyrannis1951why are you referring to Russia as Russian when Ukraine actively operates Nazi battalions like azov who use those symbols???
@@Grey_throat_arknights task force rusich doesn't exist in your brain? 🤡🤡🤡
I appreciate you and the team doing full research and doing so in a non biased manor, way to rare these days. Thanks for the hard work fellas!
I've looked into this as well and found one instance of Russia pulling an old tank from a museum, but not for the front lines. They pulled one as it was well maintained, the parts and instructions were well documented, and they also "borrowed" the mechanic who worked on it. Basically they wanted it as an example for them to update the fields of armor they already had, and returned the tank afterwards after some back and forth. There may have been others since they have factories here and there, and needing an example of what the thing should look like after you are done would be useful.
The T34s have only been on the training ground so far, but I give it a 50/50 chance we see one in Kursk before December.
Yeah
Same as the t55
First only for training
Then only for artillery
Then used for frontal assults
Jesus christ there, desprate
Braindead
I am glad that Simon remains shackled by facts
You know, I have a lot of respect for Museums and those that run them. If they're saying that their inventories are fine, then I believe them. I think they'd say if they didn't have the tanks too. The people there understand the importance of a proper accurate historical record, and they worked well with international museums before.
I agree with your vision.
You know things are dire when you're borrowing troops from your unfriendly neighbourhood dictator, and bring out the antiques.
There's a major difference between "it ain't broke so don't fix it' (B52) and 'were broke so lets fix it' (Russian Tanks).
You believe western propaganda way too much
@@basixs88 Famous western propagandist, Vladimir Putin.
You spelt “slaves” wrong
@@basixs88 chief i dunno, even with "western propaganda at play" introducing NK to your turf war ins't doing you any geopolitical credit score favors, also it's so funny that you people point and laugh at "western" propaganda but say nothing about all the kremlin outlets, hmm yeah, yall sure winning a lot of followers by being hypocrites.
13 T-55s on Oryx so far... they were horribly out of date in the 1st Gulf war 33 years ago
A friend of mine (ex-British army) said the Iraqi police had T-55s. I bet our police wish they had T55s.
12:20, just came back from cubinka. The first vehicle is a BMPT prototype, which wouldnt be of much use anyways, and the second is a t-80b. Can confirm both are still at their place.
0:45 - Chapter 1 - T34S
6:35 - Chapter 2 - T62S
14:15 - Chapter 3 - Losses & performance
10:08 - Would any Russian really use the world "invasion" when denying they're not using their stored vehicles in the invasion of Ukraine or did you paraphrais there a bit?
I’m confused as to why it matters that they are directly from Museums if they are soo old and obsolete that they should be in museums…
Nothing is old or obsolete if it can be used for a specific task. Those machines use 115mm ammo that is available in large numbers in stock and it is free. They are field guns for long range indirect fire on static positions. This is evident of the destructions back of the contact line 3-5km or more. When damaged or the gun is no longer serviceable, they are used to haul other machines to repair shops or rigged with explosives and sent to fortified positions like battering rams or to clear mines. There are many things one can do if something is basically free. Ukraine has been provided some engineering vehicles based on M60 (that is also very old tank) exactly to remove mines and haul other damaged machines.
@ that’s not true because it can still obsolete for the task it was created for. Which was being a battle tank not self propelled artillery or a tow truck… And my point was that it feels like semantics them making a video about tanks being pulled from museums when the tanks in question are old enough to be in museums… and are!
@@MrRatludthe m60 is closer to a t72 then a t55
What russia is currently doing would be = of the us useing m46 tanks
Even the first m60 is much better then t55s
(Ignoring that all were upgraded in all countrys soo long ago)
Could you guys do an episode breaking down the exact tank losses on both sides? Would be much appreciated.
Just watch a Perun vid, my lad, the guy has all the data!
Do you not watch Perun?
Literal museum pieces? No. Are they outdated as hell and deserve to BE in a museum? Oh hell yeah. There's not been any T-34s used in combat, but there have been T-55s, which is the next best, or I guess worse, thing. My God.
Simon, I have a confession to make. I said a few months ago that if Russia started to pull T-34s out of his mothballed inventory that they were now fubar. However, with the first minute of this video with the claim that Russia was now pulling T-34s out of museums / mothballs, my first thought was:
"Simon, Are You $#@!ing Me?!?!?!?!?" No Vaseline / KY jelly needed.
I really got to applaud the amount of research you and the team did. Stupendous job
Technically as long as it has a gun it's never obsolete as a weapon. Bayonet training is still in practice.
10:10 I highly doubt that the staff-member used the word "invasion" here.
Thanks Simon. From the Bronx
Every time I saw this headline i assumed they simply meant that they are so old they belong in a museum. I assumed Russia had a hefty supply of old tanks in reserve just like we do. Difference is theres seem a lot older and in much poorer repair.
I'd be more worried about the lack of proper modern rifles. Don't get me wrong, the AKM and AKS series, specially the modernized ones are good, but in most videos they're not using the latest versions. If you can't provide your frontline troops the best available gear, how do you even expect they'll get modern tanks?
An interesting man once said. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"
As you said Russia is fielding equipment thas been in storage for decades such as the T-54, T-62 and T-64, these tanks were never all that good in the first place. It is scarping the barrel, like the US deploying M-48 Pattons!
Some people, eh? A T34 would take longer to refit and reactivate than it would last on the battlefield 🙄
You can say that about a lot of the T-62s as well
Oryx has visually confirmed lists.
Trick question, a lot of their hardware is so obnoxiously dated that it should be in museums by now anyways.
Yeah, even if they're not literally emptying museums, the point is that most of what they're using is so obsolete the only place it really should belong is a museum.
@@Flight_of_Icarusyeah
What russia is pulling out is basicly the same as the us pulling out m46 tanks (maybe even m26) would be
That T-34 monument in Lysychansk looked surprisingly bad ass.
I love the research, getting rid of fake news. I just hope you keep up on the actual warfronts part of it
He just pulled tanks from a film studio
1:19 quality control wasn't important ever - in the 1930's the average life expectancy of a finished BT-7 tank was 150 HOURS of use until a major component had to be replaced - engine, gearbox etc
The T-64 is not even close to a T-62, autoloader, far superior cannon and composite armor before upgrades.
The upgraded variants are far from the best tanks on the battlefield, but they are decent enough especially compared to truly obsolete vehicles like the T-55 and 62.
not if they stood out rotting for decades
If I recall, there are precious few T-64s vs T-62s, no? It was given to more elite units and wasnt widespread, again, iirc.
considering that most agressive armor of ukrainian army is international maxxpro t-55 does not looks that obsolete
@@JohnDoe-fo7yi Yes, but they made in Kharkiv and was the primary MBT for post war ukraine along with the T-80UD.
@@dianapuskina3448lol
At least try to make the propaganda make sense
This statment is so clearly not true
Canada still has a majority of ww2 M101 105mm howitzers. Nations don't seem to want to make bulk war equipment anymore.
No tanks left, they use mighty shovels spiced with chilly peppers.
Javelin protection? Good luck with that!
People actually believe The Daily Mail?
Imagine spending all this time trying to verify the Daily Fail.
You should have known before you started that the mythical “report” simply doesn’t exist and the Fail is simply lying.
A report I saw once said that both sides were using old tanks - not to fight with
but as decoys to draw fire from the enemy -
with no one inside the tanks.
When the media says that russia is using museum pieces, I didn't, for an instant, think they were literally raiding museums, rather that it was a reference to the age of the equipment.
I also assumed that that is how everyone else took it, guess I was wrong.
I didn't even know this was a headline.
Really surprised you didn't cite Covert Cabal's research. Very detailex.
That Kubinka staffer is cooked.
Why?
@rolandohiebert2144 they called the invasion, well, an invasion. Officially it's a "sPeCiAl MiLiTaRy OpErAtIoN" and didn't rule out entirely the possibility of Russia being so desperate as to pull obsolete reserves for active use.
Tl;dr they're fucked for being honest
This video delved so deep that it made me feel like it devolved into a troll video for media even deciding to run with this narrative lmao😂
So what we are establishing is that the statement is hyperbolic.
They aren't literally from museums, but some of the tanks being fielded are ones that belong in a museum over a battlefield.
Screw being more clickable..this channel is a gold mine
T-62 and T-64 are in an absolutely different league. Only a dilettant put those in the same category.
The T-62 is still an incremental upgrade of the T-44. Latter was first produced in WWII is low numbers. They decided not to disturb the T-34 lines with retooling. After the war they started improving the design what ended up in the T-54, then T-55, and in the end the T-62.
The T-64 is a clean slate design. The first soviet serial producet MBT with an autoloader. Also all the newest gadgets were used on it. It was a state of the art tank, meanwhile the T-62 was obsolete even that time. The T-64 got all the upgrades since, even after the introduction of the T-80. The T-80 is practically a gutted T-64 with new systems and a gas turbine power plant. They decided to incorporate the newest systems as a real system, not just adding another thing to the T-64. The T-64 is still almost as capable as a T-80.
The T-72 is a cheaped out T-64. The T-64 was expensive, so only the guard units were equipped with it (at least first). Their role was to break through enemy lines, the exploitation was the role of the cheap tanks used en masse. Never exported by the Soviet Union.
The T-80 for the T-64 is what the T-62 for the T-55. Or even less, because the T-64 and T-80 uses the "same" gun.
Hey Simon, I just wanna let you know. I just saw an interesting piece of info on the web. And I think it would make for an interesting episode on one of your many channels. In 1942.
A dutch mine sweeper Managed to avoid detection and capture by disguising itself as an island and made it all the way to australia
That was really sporting of the Russian tank museum to answer the question so completely and candidly, despite the increased tensions between East and West since 2022. 👍
Oh man, I was kinda hoping for a video on landfills or hurricanes.
The 2S7 Pion SPG is the only armored vehicle that I have heard of truly being pulled from museums and that was for Ukraine, not Russia. Probably the only artillery piece that's well suited for both the museum and the battlefield. Great to look at and great to have providing fire support.
I think this isn't so much media lying, more exaggerating for a quippy headline. The T-54/55 and T-62, even early T-72's are 'museum' tanks, ie there are plenty of museums that have those models on display, both static and active, but those numbers would be only a handful, and the dedicated storage facilities of T-55's and T-62's numbers in the thousands.
The headline "Russia using tank models on frontline that are also found in museums" is a lot less snappy than "Russia using museum pieces on frontline".
The T-64 in Ukrainian service is, for me, a different discussion, as it was Ukraine's mainstay MBT at the start of the war and Ukraine had kept upgrading them to a fairly modern standard, so is more analogous to the T-72B3 models that is Russia's mainstay. Yes, the base model is ancient but the version in use is a very different vehicle.
Only Harrison Ford could truly state with certainly whether something belongs in a museum.
It's obviously bogus, museum pieces are deactivated and not mechanically functioning. They're also not maintained, and would require more work to get in operational condition than just building a new tank from scratch.
Good video thank you
T-62 are upgraded for the modernisation.. They are not from the museums, they have enough in the depot and they are modernised for the that. Ucooled thermals, Composite addon composite armor, Relict ERA on the front, laser rangefinder and 3BM-21M APFDS... On the other side Ukrainan Army Using Leopard 1 and T-55 (from the Slovenia) as MBTs...
The last bit about the T-64s is a bit inaccurate. The T-64 was the better tank compared to the T-72 (and maybe T-80), but the Soviets chose the T-72 because it was cheaper to produce. Ukraine had a couple hundred modernized T-64s to at were more than a match for the Russian’s latest T-72 modernization upgrades.
I was glad to hear Simon mention how any force could use what appear to be "outdated" tanks in the rear and for indirect fire missions - although such indirect fire missions leave them vulnerable to counterfire due to their limited range of about ~3km at best. However, these tanks could be dug in and used for defensive fire, if you dig the ground out so only the turrent is visible, they are not only harder to identify, especially if camoflaged effectively, but they are far harder to counter than conventional artillary pieces where the crews are vulnerable to scrapnel from exploding ordnance.
I would be surprised if the Russians are pulling tanks out of museums at this stage, in terms of armour they still hold the numerical superiority over Ukraine, but lets be clear here, if you are on the wrong end of a tank, you will not care if it rolled off the production line in 2024 or 1944 - you are pretty much screwed.
The UK has around 250 Challenger 2 tanks, of which some 148 will be upgraded to C3 over the coming years, but we also hold hundreds, literally hundreds, of late model Chieftains in storage, Yes, these are not the most modern tanks, but for defence they are perfect, but also, they could be upgraded with modern electronics, they already have thermal sights and decent comms kit with gun stabilisation and NBC protection, thus, upgrading these systems is achievable, it is even possible to add additional protection (ERA) to them and as such, they would be a genuine threat to Russian tanks - they are the one it was designed and built to kill. Of course, against a modern CHallenger, Abrams or LeClerc, as well as the latest Leopards it might not fair so well, but as the Russians do not have any tanks in this class, they should not be written off - I am actually amazed that the UK has not looked to upgrading some of these systems and shipping them to Ukraine as they will only be facing off against equipment they were designed to fight on the battlefields of central Europe.
OMG it is so sad that a museum has only 3 or 4 examples of a T-34 or a T-62 or a T-55 and not 2000+ of them, for the plebs to gaze upon example after example after example. Such a shame.
Mark Felton made a video saying NK has around 200 of T-34 in active service
On the same note, how are the German Leopard 1 performing in Ukraine? These are also from the 60ies. Would be cool to hear an update about them.
Also I've seen an absolutely ridiculous picture that supposedly shows a German Panzer IV from WW2 that has been in service of Ukraine
Thirty T-34 tanks, produced in 1944, were brought back to Russia from Laos and passed to Russian ministry of defense. They are supposed to be used for parades, I don't see them being sent to Ukraine.
Now it turns out that Ukraine did use a Panther tank at a road block. It was a film prop, based on a T55. No one would use a Panther, they are just too valuable.
The things about all the tanks that they have from the Soviets, is they have been sitting **outside**, in Siberia, for up to 60 or 70 years. Without any maintenance of any kind. Not sure if any of you are aware of this, but rust is a thing. Every one of those tanks requires extensive remediation to be put back into service. They have already removed everything that could be easily fixed. Especially for shit like T-72 and T-80 models. Both of which also require electronics the russians don't have, thanks to sanctions. The T-62 is still a museum piece, even when "modernized".
The russians are using museum pieces though, trucks and artillery. I have seen video of russian M-30 howitzers in action in Ukraine. This gun was designed in 1938, and produced until 1955. It's back in front-line service because the russians have also lost over 20k pieces of artillery.
As an anecdote, I was an infantryman back in the day. I was trained to hunt and kill Soviet tanks. Using M-72 LAW rockets. You go for the mobility-kill, because a tank crew doesn't want to be in a tank that cannot move. Especially crews that are poorly trained, motivated and led, like the Soviets were. There is a ton of video evidence of tank crews leaving tanks that are immobilized.
Also, you learn to use a tank's blind-spot. If you hadn't noticed, tanks don't have windows, meaning they have blind-spots tens of metres wide. If they don't have supporting infantry, they are in trouble.
I love spreading misinformation on the internet almost as much as i enjoy driving my pre-owned T-34 Soviet tank to Mcdonalds
They put a quad .50 cal on a tank frame. Open iron sight's. Yea! Useless against everything. No auto aiming. No radar.
The quad 50s were good
For ww2
I think the point was missed here - while they are not being pulled out museums, they are being pulled to the frontline, from the very rear. They are tanks that should have been, either scrapped, or in a museum, not on a battlefield. The T-62 was specifically the evolution of the T-55 and a medium tank, while the T-64 was supposed to be this revolutionary new design that scared the west, when in reality, it had massive issues throughout its lifespan. The T-72 was developed to replace it, based on the T-62 in the 70's, as the T-64 still had issues. Some would call the T-64 a light tank, due mainly to the smaller turret and crew size and the fact that the USSR wanted to keep in under 40 tons, for bridge crossings. The USSR produced a heck of a lot more T-55s and T-62s. The real replacement, based on the T-64, however, was the T-80. As Russian tanks are destroyed, its really important to remember, that Russia spent its load on tanks and they have a lot - about 17,500, prior to them invading Ukraine. They have produced much less T80's and T-90's in that stack and their T-14 Armata which is still in development - producing approximately 50 of them, so far. They have leaned back into to producing T-90's. Outside of T-90 production, Russia is running out of modern battlefield tanks, but at the same time - we are getting close to the end of tank even being a thing, on the modern battlefield. In terms of defining what should be in a museum - anything that is over 20 years old in automobiles, is considered a classic, anything over 50 years old, with homes, is considered historic. LOL. T-72 and older are antiques, in 2024.
5:49 why are you showing footage of M1Abrams tanks when talking about what russia has in storage?
It is worth noting that some sources suggest that Russia scrapped most of its T-55s to be sold on the scrap steel market. Given what Russia's economy looked like in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I'm inclined to believe that's at least partly possible. After all, these are tanks designed *before the Korean War* (the -55 suffix is not a year indicator, though for some models the T- number will get you in the right ballpark), and probably fall under the "too old to be useful, full stop" category - much like those Laotian T-34s.
Now it's possible they have a couple of thousand left after the scrapping, or perhaps the scrap came from something else, or perhaps those claims are just outright wrong....but yeah, our best indicator of what's being used in the war is actual photos taken of tanks being used in the war, and while that is a fair bit of old kit, there's very little stuff to indicate it's *quite* that old.
I doubt Russia is pulling a tanks from Musuems. The tanks they are using belong in musuems but are just being pulled from military warehouses
When you think about it. Modern battlefield is so much more different from WW2 in terms of AT availability. Which means that potentially every single infantry man might have an rpg on his back.
Those RPGs are equally as effective against modern tanks as they are against older ones. But a tank is still a tank. Ehile its armor is obsolete - its cannon isnt. More canons mean more firepower. So, it aint all that bad as it is deemed to look like
SMH, Putin just can't admit defeat 😂
They do use older tanks but either as distractions or to fight against infantry instead of other tanks
Hey Simon! You should look at the new hydrogen tank that South Korea recently made
".... we've been investigating ourselves...."
On the ground.
Blimey
No, Russia is not literally pulling tanks out of museums and sending them to Ukraine. But they ARE using tanks that are so old most countries WOULD have them in museums. Many of their tanks were built or designed in the 60s and 70s.
That's not as bad as it sounds. The Abrams is a 70s design. The F-15 is a late 60s design. The F-16 even is a late 70s design. We in the states do actually have those in museums right now. While also still using the rest in active service.
@sprolyborn2554 It’s really not the same thing; yes, the F-15 and F-16 are also Cold War-era jets, while the Abrams was designed in the same timeframe. The difference is that all of these vehicles have been upgraded continuously ever since their original combat debut. Most Abrams, F-15s and F-16s in service today rolled off the assembly line in the late 90s or the 2000s, and are outfitted with the latest electronics, countermeasures and weapons systems. Most of Russias Cold War era vehicles were built during the Cold War, left in storage for decades, and hastily reactivated after Russia's limited number of modern weapons were either rendered inoperable or canceled due to Western sanctions.
@ManiaMac1613 right but you did say "designed in the 60s and 70s". All I was pointing out is that that alone is not really a point against them.
@@sprolyborn2554 lol not that bad for example the americans already scrapped all the M60's, its like america was useing the damn M-46 Patton in combat now a days ridiculous.
@@viceralman8450 I mean, the m46 would be like a half step above Russians actually using the t-34. The whole argument of the Abrams and t-72 is an apt comparison seeing as how they are the same era. So yeah, not that bad.
Well, when you churn out millions of the things
Their armor is useless though. Would be better if scrapped for metal. All modern anti armor is made of HEAT HESH or sabot, which does straight through solid steel.
@@mike4402My thoughts exactly. The only thing the T-34 can really offer is giving the M72 LAW platform it's first tank kill in decades.
The daily mail as a reference says everything I need to know about the claims. Always enjoy anything that shows that paper up as being the horrible waste of pulp that it is
boring, but i loved the journalism! made it great, cheers!
I mean the Mk.V did make a surprise cameo in ww2... so maybe we could see it come back from the depths of WW1.
I mean, there are 4 of them in Luhansk. Never say never.
I keep thinking of Indiana Jones saying, "It belongs in a museum!"
Just imagine the cost of getting the tanks up to snuff. It'll be like pulling battleship New Jersey out of the museum and get her modernized to todays Technology and weapons. The cost would be enormous to do so and I've heard if they did such thing it would take up to 2 years or better to get her up to snuff for combat.
I think they may have pulled some of the more well preserved vehicles out of some meusems from Time to time as a stopgap, but probably not that many in the grand scheme. Most likely, its just going to keep dragging shit out of storage first
The only reason I could see for Russia to pull T-34s out of museums for battlefield use is if they had large stockpiles of 76.2mm shells and they wanted to use the T-34s as self-propelled artillery. And of course they'd only do that if they were running extremely low on larger caliber shells and/or barrels.
They said the same with t55s....
@@nikolaideianov5092 true, the T-55 is generally more useful than the T-34 though, if for no other reason than having a 100mm gun, and Russia having huge (and aging, and maybe not so huge at this stage of the war as they were before Russia started using T-55s as artillery) stockpiles of 100mm shells. I have no idea what sort of stockpiles they may or may not have for 76.2mm shells, though, so even using T-34s as self-propelled artillery may be unrealistic if they don't have enough shells, or if the shells they have are old enough that the failure rate will be stupidly high.
@@randalthor741 as for the failer rate
Russia doesnt care
They use nk shells....
I'm quite liking the new Soldier Simon channel. All war and sh*t.