Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

@shannonkohl68 Shipping a whole vehicle is far less labor intensive than cannibalization in place then packing and shipping multiple parts which also requires much more and more detailed communication and logistics management then bringing everything worth using of a type to a central location.. Tanks are simple (in many cases simpler than modern automobiles!) but heavy and best moved by rail which is highly efficient.
16
@Jason-fm4my Yes, tanks can easily be stored outdoors a they are designed for that but WORKING on them outdoors is slow, awkward and in Russia, cold and wet. Any covered shelter can be used to keep weather off opened engine bays, hatches etc while giving a team of mechanics a comfortable place to wrench/
10
@shawnr771 European prepositioned stocks existed since the end of WWII, and the later stocks in the Persian Gulf were used in Desert Storm. Everything the US fights with must cross an ocean so the logistics got sorted long ago. Troops can be airlifted but no nation has the airlift capacity to quickly move an entire armored division. RO-RO ships are slow and vulnerable to attack.
3
@tsugumorihoney2288 That presumes either turret or internals remain available.
3
@jdogdarkness Congress mandated it to ensure the industrial base would exist, not to "enrich defense contractor". Why do people who don't understand manufacturing express opinions on the subject? Low rate production is the only way to preserved the specialized workforce required to expand production. One does not simply take unskilled employees and throw them into producing vehicles which are as complex as many aircraft and use many of the same production and manufacturing methods.
2
Tank refurb gobbles consumables like oil, hydraulic fluid, solvents and specialty lubes so losing a refinery or two could slow it down even more. Batteries will be another bottleneck because those are perishable and easy to sell like truck tires. None of those tanks are going far without (many) fuel trucks. Barely trained crews will be wiser to abandon their vehicles than brew up.
2
@Bob-t8l DoD have vastly better satellites.
2
Unless someone has access to the old mission capable stats (which were likely fudged to protect careers) that would be extremely difficult to guesstimate. If an old Soviet aircraft maintainer high enough to know and low enough to see personally (retired maintainers or ops officers) that would be who I'd want to hear from as a former USAF fighter fixer.
1
Media infotainers are of average low intelligence and not subject matter experts for the most part. They entertain m0r0ns who don't take interest enough to watch serious content.
1
@ctdesing You obviously never worked on military equipment or major civilian fleet maintenance so why do you permit yourself an opinion? Cannibalization has always been key to buffering supply issues. That's why tank recovery is critical to sustaining combat forces. Unless a vehicle or system is k-killed it's either repairable or an organ donor. The idea that all new parts for everything would remain in production after decades of Russian economic neglect, oligarch looting etc and selling off equipment is absurd. Ukraine was the heart of USSR manufacturing. There is no more USSR, no more Warsaw Pact, and Putinist Russia has a lower GDP than California.
1
@skitidet4302 Got a credible source for that besides Putinophilia?
1
If you insert key details like that number you got wrong but others stole without attribution you can have even more fun.
1
That requires manufacturing the conversion parts and custom parts are labor-intensive requiring skilled welders, machinists, factory space, equipment, consumables, logistics to support all that etc.
1
That was as funny as Russian government is honest.
1
N00bs AssUme "running out" means having none rather than working down to the "least restorable" which is no the same thing. Remember consumable and wear parts are not always what the US military (I fixed fighters not AFVs so feel free to correct to terrestrial terminology) calls "feasible canns". It doesn't take much to deadline any vehicle if a particular component is not available, for example due to being removed in bulk in the past to turn in as cores for refurb, upgrade and of course for overseas parts sales to support thousands of vehicles sold and donated. Old vehicles malfunction more often UNLESS overhauled to "zero time" which when properly done remanufactures a vehicle or component to new condition. That's FAR too expensive for tanks expected to last perhaps weeks in combat (quite like WWII). Of course any "garage" is suitable for some degree of inspection and maintenance so consolidating the fleet at that base makes perfect sense.
1
"Beyond repair" unless it's a hull loss really means "beyond economic repair" so yard sitters can indicate Russian refurb capabilities.
1
@Akompliss vatnik detected.
1
It could but there are so many better targets it would be silly to waste drones which could more productively take out "force loss multiplier" targets and troops. Hit oil storage and all the vehicles depending on it are affected. Hit some tank sitting in a boneyard and that may never have a meaningful effect on the war. Drones are not like conventional aerial bombing raids. Drone payloads are so small they best suit high value more flammable targets. Stored tanks have no ammo to ignite and their fuel was likely drained before storage (or to sell on the black market or just use in other vehicles). While tanks are exciting to spectators taking out POL immobilizes or severely restricts all vehicles which use it. It's better to destroy fuel trucks than tanks for example because one truck fuels multiple tanks and to get fuel trucks to and from the front requires multiple fuel trucks. POL storage, running locomotives (moving trains do much more damage if hit and derailed), ammo dumps etc are always better targets than trying to set off what's basically a salvage yard. Tanks that don't burn out or explode would remain easy to patch and even easier when they're sitting right next to spare parts donors. Alternately if one is damaged it can be stripped for usable parts (which teardown is necessary for full refurb in the first place) then set aside. Cutting and welding steel on small weldments like tanks (a bridge or a ship is a large weldment, tanks are baby weldments!) is easy enough to do in the field with basic equipment. Large portable engine driven welders are simple, mobile and inexpensive by industrial or military standards. Cutting torches are cheap and oxy-actylene equipment has changed little as it was perfected in the 1930s/40s (I overhaul and collect classic OA gear large and small to use which is useful fun). BTW tank "workshops" (large steel and concrete structures require heavier payloads unless they've flammable or explosive contents) aren't great targets either because Russian tank repair and refurb is not exotic work. Vehicle repair units can set up shop most anywhere including simple bare warehouse space. Commercial equipment can R&I turrets or other heavy loads. Key parts/ordnance manufacturing bottlenecks like munitions factories and specific electronics makers would be much more lucrative and softer targets.
1
@jgw9990 Oh no it shouldn't and those who clicked "like" don't know anything about ship hulls either! Hulls are wear, corrosion and fatigue items spending their lives in the most corrosive environment on earth. "Brittle fracture" is no joke. Ships are not like houses and being giant weldments have thousands of points of deterioration.
1
@jgw9990 Ship hulls are not what you think they are and lose considerable metal to corrosion. Ships APPEAR strong and impressive but they really do wear out and as systems also become obsolete it makes no sense to save most of them. Hull cost is not (on a modern warship) where the money is.
1
@victorzvyagintsev1325 What is your personal tank manufacturing experience at Lima?
1
@colincampbell767 It came from non-technicians who should not have opinions on systems they do not understand but instead seek to learn with an open mind. Consider the F-16 which is also not difficult to work on (which I did for two decades as an engine troop later merged with crew chief which merger was easy because most flightline engine troops were already qualified and signed off). We were qualified and signed off because it's easy to learn how to fix Vipers! F-16 design reflected lessons learned from the far more maintenance-intensive Phantom and century series fighters.
1
@Ocastia I strongly agree based on decades of wrenching. (US) military vehicles are typically MUCH easier to work on than modern automotive abominations which are designed with utter indifference to ease of repair and maintenance. I've wrenched cars, trucks and motorbikes since the 1970s and combat aircraft 1981-2007. I wish troubleshooting cars was as easy as troubleshooting aircraft!
1
@stburr91 "Sure" based on what personal relevant technical expertise? Learning a different military or civilian vehicle well enough to get good takes several months to get started AFTER tech school. I've trained many a tech both military and civilian. If you yourself are not a mechanic or engineer your opinion is worthless.
1
@neurofiedyamato8763 Saudi nepotism, incompetence and cultural obstacles like hoarding information are infamous among US and other trainers.
1
@bms-xs5zp Much further than the tanks it kills when used properly in combined arms warfare. You Kremlin shills are so obvious.
1
Neither have the right systems in quantity for power projection.
1