

@Khepesh quote...
It's not about whether a tank is Russian or not, it is about lying and stating something [that it is "Russian"] without any evidence, and he lied by claiming T-72BA is a B3, and persists in this lie and now wriggles when he sees he is proved wrong.
@AurimasLT quote...
Ok, I must admit that one tank has IR lamp near barrel that is typical for T72BA. In second photo of destroyed tank I do not see such lamp (or it's blown off).
TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.
The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.
The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.
Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.
ALso:
http://lostarmour.info/
LostArmor >>>>> You.
higurashihougi wrote:@TR1: a question. If the West wants to make a Ukrainain T-72xx looks like Russian T-72B3, can they do it ? Are they able to fake the apperance of Ukie T-72 to make it look like a Russian T-72 ? Or there is no way it can happen ?![]()
![]()
![]()
What I bolded. As one of my posts from mp.net has been quoted then I presume you mean me in your post? If, so, then I in fact kept my mouth shut about B3 and only posted to show that what was claimed as B3 was not, and made numerous posts about UA having hundreds of T-72, including about two dozen 1989 models. yurasumy posted yesterday about what tanks UA had, what they sold, who to and when, and what they have now and the rate of repair. It is not broken down into model types tho, simply a 64 or 72 with a few exceptions. http://naspravdi.info/analitic/384TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.
The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.
The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.
Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.
ALso:
http://lostarmour.info/
LostArmor >>>>> You.
There are picture and videos of T-72B3s destroyed, abandoned, in Ukraine hands, and later in separatist hands.Vann7 wrote:
picture show ,the were in the hands of Ukrainians.. not the Rebels.. with the double white lines..
The bullshit story that you claimed that the Rebels lost the tank..because of heavy fire.. and captured by Ukies..
And? Dozens and dozens of vehicles have been captured with no damage on them, or light damage.
but again have to abandon it for being hit ,and lost it again and the rebels show the tank in near perfect conditions and Rebels claim is capture from the ukies..
You were the first idiot.. that were claiming Ukraine do not have t-72.. and proved you wrong.
Wrong again. Go ahead and prove anything I posted was photoshop. OTvaga2004 is an excellent Russian forum full of insiders from the Russian tank industry and ex-tankers.
And this is not mentioning the photoshops that you have posted before of T-72 b3 from your bullshit "Expert" forums.
didn't took me a minute to realize the faked composed image.
but with white letters in Russian ,as real evidence of Russian Invasion..![]()
Khepesh wrote:What I bolded. As one of my posts from mp.net has been quoted then I presume you mean me in your post? If, so, then I in fact kept my mouth shut about B3 and only posted to show that what was claimed as B3 was not, and made numerous posts about UA having hundreds of T-72, including about two dozen 1989 models. yurasumy posted yesterday about what tanks UA had, what they sold, who to and when, and what they have now and the rate of repair. It is not broken down into model types tho, simply a 64 or 72 with a few exceptions. http://naspravdi.info/analitic/384TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.
The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.
The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.
Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.
ALso:
http://lostarmour.info/
LostArmor >>>>> You.
But was Gurkhan, an expert and a poster at Otvaga, wrong on his own blog about the T-72 at Ilovaisk? and to remind http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2014/08/72_29.htmlTR1 wrote:Khepesh wrote:What I bolded. As one of my posts from mp.net has been quoted then I presume you mean me in your post? If, so, then I in fact kept my mouth shut about B3 and only posted to show that what was claimed as B3 was not, and made numerous posts about UA having hundreds of T-72, including about two dozen 1989 models. yurasumy posted yesterday about what tanks UA had, what they sold, who to and when, and what they have now and the rate of repair. It is not broken down into model types tho, simply a 64 or 72 with a few exceptions. http://naspravdi.info/analitic/384TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.
The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.
The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.
Out of respect to Vladimir I won't make a harsher reply, but good lord......how can one be wrong on essentially EVERY point they make. Quite an achievement there Vann.
ALso:
http://lostarmour.info/
LostArmor >>>>> You.
No, I meant mp.net in general. You were quite right about that specific tank not being a T-72B3.
It is just funny to see Vann try to argue by using....mp.net which he constantly bashes, while Otvaga is wrong.
Also, that T-72B photo is irrelevant to the whole T_72B3 discussion.
I could care less that some Latvian misidentified a tank on mp.net....but you can see how sad Vann's argument is.
I am well aware of Ukraine's stock of T-72s. After all, it was their number 1 export item, not the Bulat or Oplot or whatever else they cooked up.
Also they refubrished a number of them by Winter 2014, there are photos of a whole line being intended for ATO use.
But in terms of the fighting up till Summer 2014, there is zero combat footage, or post combat footage, with any Ukranian T-72s.
And suddenly the rebs have a whole bunch of them. Hmmmmmmmm.
Plus, we have photos that identify T-64s in Russia, then appearing a few days later in Ukraine....
The whole thing is obvious at this point.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
TR1 wrote:The fact that you still don't know the difference between what a T-72B3 and a T-72BA is, is just downright embarrassing.
The premier Russian forum, Otvaga, with the best Russian armor insiders on the web, has long contented itself with the fact that the T-72B3 has been seen in Ukraine.
I'd love to know who these "experts" are that have proved otherwise.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
There have been T-72Bs, T-72BMs (to use an informal designation) and T-72B3s destroyed. There are photos of all, too. Plenty of them.
The very fact that you think some mp.net discussion is more telling that Otvaga posters calling a T-72B3 a T-72B3 is hilarious in itself.
Werewolf wrote:There have been T-72Bs, T-72B3s, T-72As, and T-64s seen in Ukraine that obviously all came from Russia.
What a nonsense even for your trolling.
Majority of armor came from Ukraine, they seized several military bases with T-64, T-72A and later T-72B. They got from one military base more than 400 vehicle of which over 200-300 were AFV/IFV's.
Vann7 wrote:Buahahaha.. I can't stop laughing ..omg.. poor TR1...![]()
I was google search about sosna-u that supposedly will be used in the new armata tanks..
then suddenly notice a thread in the NATO buthurth forums... about the so called "T-72b3" tanks
as the ultimate proof of Russian invasion.. then guess what.. the people claiming it was a B3 were owned big time.. by more educated people about differences between Russian and Ukrainian tanks..![]()
Long story short.. the so called B3 that most people were claiming was Russian tank..ended
being a T-72BA![]()
What is funny as hell.. is that.. TR1 was claiming..
1)Ukraine do not have T-72 tanks.. oh noo Russian invasion.![]()
2)but then later when proved wrong ,he focus in the B3.. and shows a picture
of what appears to be one.. but with double white lines.. (a classical mark of tanks that belongs to Ukraine army.. )![]()
-but then later he invent a story ,that the tank originally was in control of the rebels given
by Russia.. but in an ambush somehow they lost the tank.. and rebels get it.. then quickly after
they get the tank.. they paint double lines in the tank.. but guess what? the Ukie army lose the tank again..And the tank is in near perfect conditions.. it seems that the rebels and the ukies loved so much the tank. ...that both prefered to abandon the tank than to see it destroyed..
@Khepesh quote...
It's not about whether a tank is Russian or not, it is about lying and stating something [that it is "Russian"] without any evidence, and he lied by claiming T-72BA is a B3, and persists in this lie and now wriggles when he sees he is proved wrong.
@AurimasLT quote...
Ok, I must admit that one tank has IR lamp near barrel that is typical for T72BA. In second photo of destroyed tank I do not see such lamp (or it's blown off).
3)SO now we have more and more evidence that Ukraine indeed not only can make T-72s
but that also can do T-72ba and have them in reserves.. which the rebels have been
capturing and destroying..![]()
So now we see one by one all the lies falling , i always knew Putin was not an idiot ,and will
be sending tanks that only they make ,so that later kiev can use it.. as proof of Russian invasion and get more sanctions.. this is more logical ..because really the different between an ugly T-72
vs a more modern one.. as long both have K5 era.. will be next to zero.. protection will be the same.. so no reason to supply T-72b3 to rebels when any other model could do as good.![]()
Is not surprising Kiev Yak and/or poroshnko have been claiming there have been 12,000 russian army in Ukraine killed.. and that Russia used tactical nukes to take the Lugansk Airport..![]()
But the best one.. they claiming Russian was supplying armata tanks to the Rebels.. that was reports months ago..Is like they have a contest of which one who can make the biggest
idiotic statement.![]()
If you want to have fun about the T-72b3.. not being B3.. at all.. just start reading in the
following link and the next 2 pages..
Everything began with that photo of a "B3" burned in Ukraine.. the problem was that who
neither was a B3 in the end after careful investigation.. and that it was not a rebel position ,
but an Ukraine position bombed by artillery.. If the uploader claims are correct.. that will be
the ultimate proof that Ukraine do have tanks that looks like B3.![]()
Honestly ..because US and Kiev wants to demonize Russia.. to justify more sanctions.
i will not be surprised that tanks that looks like Armata "show up" in Ukraine..destroyed..
and kiev claiming proof of Russian invasion and also how obsolete are their tanks. Discrediting
Russia technology and showing "proof" of Russian army invasion .
Flagship Victory wrote:1 Ukrainian serviceman KIA and 4 others WIA reported over the past 24 hours.
KoTeMoRe wrote:
We don't know that. We know that a lot of AFV's were indeed UA, but key coomponents of the NAF were RU sourced. This is what NAF themselves have said. This is all I need to know. Russia takes care of Bizniz.
KoTeMoRe wrote:
The basic C²/C³ equipment was RU.
CC or C2 = Command & ControlWerewolf wrote:What?
whir wrote:CC or C2 = Command & ControlWerewolf wrote:What?
CCC or C3 = Command, Control & Communication
Werewolf wrote:KoTeMoRe wrote:
We don't know that. We know that a lot of AFV's were indeed UA, but key coomponents of the NAF were RU sourced. This is what NAF themselves have said. This is all I need to know. Russia takes care of Bizniz.
We know RF supplied arms and some minor numbers of tanks, but to say russia "obviously supplied ALL T-64,T-72A/B and B3 is retarded, not to mention that TR1 posts everything as some holygrail evidence and jerks off to it, while his first post of a B3 was a T-72BA, recently he posted this garbage of Kronet spotted in Ukraine, which was again a bullshit from ukrops with a Fagot engine portrayed as a Kornet remaining parts while a Kornet warhead was undamaged and undetonated, simply just used to smear shit against RF, while ukrops are openly recieving weapons from Nazi Masterlord US.KoTeMoRe wrote:
The basic C²/C³ equipment was RU.
What?
KoTeMoRe wrote:Werewolf wrote:KoTeMoRe wrote:
We don't know that. We know that a lot of AFV's were indeed UA, but key coomponents of the NAF were RU sourced. This is what NAF themselves have said. This is all I need to know. Russia takes care of Bizniz.
We know RF supplied arms and some minor numbers of tanks, but to say russia "obviously supplied ALL T-64,T-72A/B and B3 is retarded, not to mention that TR1 posts everything as some holygrail evidence and jerks off to it, while his first post of a B3 was a T-72BA, recently he posted this garbage of Kronet spotted in Ukraine, which was again a bullshit from ukrops with a Fagot engine portrayed as a Kornet remaining parts while a Kornet warhead was undamaged and undetonated, simply just used to smear shit against RF, while ukrops are openly recieving weapons from Nazi Masterlord US.KoTeMoRe wrote:
The basic C²/C³ equipment was RU.
What?
Command and Control/ Command, Control and Commo. If we add EW and various specialties(like the Panstir) total battlefield dominance wasn't far. What would have helped would be Air support. But you can't always get what you want.
Off course all the vehicle pool wasn't Russian. It was Soviet. But yeah saying Russia equipped 10 to 20K people when Ukraine has been doeing that year in year out in 3rd world hells. A bit of a stretch.
|
|