They're also sealed, stripped and filled with foam to prevent people from using them, if that is what I think it is.
Abandoned hundred Russian Army tanks found near Ural
- Thread starter GreyViper
- Start date
Ratty said:
So... hum.. American military equipments are entreposed somewhere in an american military base... ? Big news !!
I think what made the initial story special is that they are just abandonned in the middle of nowhere and anyone can enter the tanks, steal parts/munitions... I don't think this sort of thing would/could happen in america.
Arr0nax said:
Don't be a fucking idiot.
It's called a Boneyard, and that particular one is pretty famous. Many of those planes aren't scrap metal, they're actually put in reserve in case they need to be recomissioned. Note how properly those grey cargo planes (C-130s) are disassembled. Of course they have to go through rigorous standards and checklists before they can be reinstated.
No wonder they're well-guarded, huh?
No. I'd wager it's pretty well guarded, and it's just journalistic hype. Besides, if you had actually read any of the posts in this thread, you would know the likelihood of finding munitions (WHY?) or functioning parts is extremely low. Maybe you can cut them up for steel but that's pretty useless, considering how rusted they probably are. I doubt any of them are actually driveable.
It doesn't matter if they're new, no one would leave them in that climate for three months and then expect them to run well.
That's exactly what I said (should I add "Idiot" to level to your arguing methods ?). This is a military base, and as such, what is kept inside is pretty assured to be well guarded.victor said:
If you can't understand the difference between military equipment inside a military base and military equipment abandonned in the middle of a village, I'm afraid I can't help you.
If you'd watched the original video, you'd have seen random people entering the tanks and messing with munitions...
So, if you really think it's just "journalistic hype", and because you seem so smart... Are you implying that the footage is fake ? Are you offreing proofs that the tanks are actually well guarded ? Do you have anything other than rant and insults to demonstrate your point ?
If the tanks had any value, they would be well-guarded. They don't have any, and are guarded accordingly.
I was just answering to your original post where you made an inane reply to Ratty's link.
I was just answering to your original post where you made an inane reply to Ratty's link.
Yeah, sure. But journalists seem to tell the contrary :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APRh_uZVAQ8
Here you see a russian military official saying the tanks are in good technical condition, were being transported by rail to a base, and that they were dispersed in the woods while waiting their turn.
So, no, they aren't of no value, and, no, they aren't that well guarded for what they are = functionning tanks.
They also state the reason russians aren't sending the tanks faster to the base is that said base is already full of useless tanks. Useless because they already have too much, not useless because not functionning...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APRh_uZVAQ8
Here you see a russian military official saying the tanks are in good technical condition, were being transported by rail to a base, and that they were dispersed in the woods while waiting their turn.
So, no, they aren't of no value, and, no, they aren't that well guarded for what they are = functionning tanks.
They also state the reason russians aren't sending the tanks faster to the base is that said base is already full of useless tanks. Useless because they already have too much, not useless because not functionning...
I doubt the Germans would have managed to survive under the same conditions and preasure for so long like the Russians did starting from 1941. Just compare the conditions of Russian workers with Germany which used for many task a lot of slave labors.victor said:
In a similar situation Germany would have collapsed much earlier then the Sovietunion. The Soviets for example did not hesitate to sacrifice all of their cities and locations with the Stalin order Scorched earth which many Germans refused to do in 1945 (see Nero decree) and ignored the order.
Blakut said:
Probably not for three months.
They're airplanes, not icebreakers. Even Russia has to obey the laws of nature.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
victor said:
actually, in Soviet Russia, the laws of nature obey you.
Anyway, the point is that if you leave a car outside for like one year, it will still work. Even if you let it stay outside for three it might still work, if it has a battery. I've seen cars like this start.
So, why wouldn't a tank, which is much more resilient than a car!
So, why wouldn't a tank, which is much more resilient than a car!
It's not really a matter of it starting or not (it would probably start), it's a lot of other things. For instance the insurance that it won't break down in the middle of a battle.
Functioning is not the same as functioning well.
Functioning is not the same as functioning well.
Weapons are very resilient. What could brake? The engine is inside, it is protected from the outside. Dust won't go in cause it's not functioning. Sure, minor defects can appear, but the tank can withstand explosions and still work. A small house can collapse on a tank and it has no problems leaving the area.
Why would rain or snow destroy them?
Out in snow --> components degrade --> degraded components do not meet engineering standards --> tanks do not meet army standards --> broken apart for spare parts or scrap metal.
Pretty exaggerated, but do you get the principle? Or do I need to make a flowchart?
At least this is how it is for airplanes, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for tanks, albeit with lower standards.
Pretty exaggerated, but do you get the principle? Or do I need to make a flowchart?
At least this is how it is for airplanes, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for tanks, albeit with lower standards.
i left one of my former bikes outside for a long time, in the snow.
ice was caked solid. at -13°c i started it from the first try and went for a ride. hooray for the Honda CB500.
but seriously victor. tanks are MADE TO BE OUTSIDE IN ADVERSE CONDITIONS.
yes, it's not a good idea to jump in and go for a ride, but with proper winter prep before leaving it outside and with warm up procedures before putting it back into service, it'll be fine... a few months is nothing. hell, just freezing isn't even bad for winterized equipment. it's freezing, thawing, freezing, thawing, freezing, thawing that will really fuck your shit up.
comparing a fighter jet with a fragile engine, flaps, rudders, and so on with a bloody simplistic but rugged tank is fairly retarded btw. that said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mig 21 story was true, although it would need a FUCKTON of pre-flight preparations (de-icing flaps, rudders, instruments) and gradual warmup of the engine. would probably take a few hours at the very least, but then again, so would de-icing the runway.
tried to keep myself from replying in this thread, but this is just too much...
ice was caked solid. at -13°c i started it from the first try and went for a ride. hooray for the Honda CB500.
but seriously victor. tanks are MADE TO BE OUTSIDE IN ADVERSE CONDITIONS.
yes, it's not a good idea to jump in and go for a ride, but with proper winter prep before leaving it outside and with warm up procedures before putting it back into service, it'll be fine... a few months is nothing. hell, just freezing isn't even bad for winterized equipment. it's freezing, thawing, freezing, thawing, freezing, thawing that will really fuck your shit up.
comparing a fighter jet with a fragile engine, flaps, rudders, and so on with a bloody simplistic but rugged tank is fairly retarded btw. that said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mig 21 story was true, although it would need a FUCKTON of pre-flight preparations (de-icing flaps, rudders, instruments) and gradual warmup of the engine. would probably take a few hours at the very least, but then again, so would de-icing the runway.
tried to keep myself from replying in this thread, but this is just too much...
See, this is the step that takes a lot of time to happen. Do you think the army plans to keep all thousands of tanks in thousands of garages during a war that lasts a few years? A few winters won't make a tank unusable....
but what do i know? Let's ask someone who's in the army... well...
who's in the army?
depends about what conditions we are talking about maybe. It happend that tanks would not drive or brake without preparation in the extremly harsh conditions of the Russian winter. The Germans had some experience with it. But so did the Russians.
it was for example not allowed to let tanks just standing around without cover or stop the engine in the winter for very long if youre outside. To start them again could take hours which isnt that good in the case of a surprise attack.
But we are talking about conditions of - 40° here and I guess most tanks today are somewhat inherently better then what they had in the 40s.
it was for example not allowed to let tanks just standing around without cover or stop the engine in the winter for very long if youre outside. To start them again could take hours which isnt that good in the case of a surprise attack.
But we are talking about conditions of - 40° here and I guess most tanks today are somewhat inherently better then what they had in the 40s.
Oh, most of them are going to start and work, I have no doubt about that. But it's not optimum storage conditions, and it significantly lowers certain components' lifetimes. Which led me to believe it was a scrap yard; pretty much my original argument. Also, if they're surplus tanks built simply because of political factors, it wouldn't surprise me.