Also looks like whatever sort of land they’re physically parked on is extremely wet (muskeg, probably). Basically a slow oxidizing death for all metal.
The base itself is a repair and storage facility.
But yes, you could refer to these specifically as a graveyard.
The reason i uploaded it was more of a throwback to those sad tank pictures.
(You know the Shermans rusting away in the sand dunes, and so on).
Pretty sure the UK doesn’t keep its “spare” tanks in an open field rusting and in a pretty messy state. I’m happy to be corrected, but I doubt “every country” does this
>Pretty sure the UK doesn’t keep its “spare” tanks in an open field rusting and in a pretty messy state.
TBF, it is a lot easier to keep 200-300 Challengers in a decent place than 10-30 thousand T-55/64/72/80s. >!/s!<
Jokes aside... why the Russians thought it is even a remotely good idea to keep around stuff as old as unmodernized T-55s and 64s is beyond me. Not storing old crap like that might have enabled better preservation for the newer tanks that could be modernized to an acceptable standard.
The US parks spare armored vehicles at Sierra Army Depot. In addition to 7 million square feet of covered warehouse space, SIAD also has ideal weather for outdoor storage. Low humidity and low precipitation in the high desert allow for vehicles to be parked outside in optimal conditions for storage. This isn't a case of everybody else doing the same thing as Russia, this is a case of Russia failing to invest in military capabilities, or having those investments pilfered away due to corruption.
Ah yes lets conveniently ignore the fact that Romania(a US puppet) stationed Aegis ashore with Mark 41 VLS capable of easily being modified to launch nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles, which violated the INF treaty at the time. And by the way Putin merely reminded the Romanian’s that they’re making themselves a target for US interests.
The Aegis Ashore site in Romania didn't become operational until 2016. All nuclear armed Tomahawk missiles had been decommissioned by, at the latest, 2013. So not only did Romania never host any Tomahawk missiles at the Aegis Ashore site (only SM-3), the timelines of Aegis Ashore in Romania and operations of nuclear armed Tomahawk missiles had zero overlap.
Also the BGM-109G ground launched version of the nuclear Tomahawk missile was decommissioned in 1991 in order to comply with the INF. The possible violation of the treaty that you mention exists in nothing but the hypothetical.
Although calling Romania a US puppet really tells me everything I need to know.
Hey clown it was announced all the way back in 2010 that Romania would participate in the program. Heck the discussions on this topic go even further back to 2008-09. Even though construction on the Deveselu military base began in 2013, it was established initially in 2012. The Russians aren’t stupid. By this point the US had already withdrawn(2002) from the ABM treaty with no justification or reason, and they were playing hard ball with fine tuning the New START treaty. Off course the Russians were suspicious because AEGIS ashore can very easily be modified to launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles in relatively quick time. Heck the war in Ukraine has exposed this fact in how easy it has been for the US to modify Soviet era Mig-29’s, Su-27’s and Su-24’s to launch Storm Shadow/Scalp EG cruise missiles, so lets not play stupid pretend as if the US government isn’t capable of lying. Also the Mark 41 VLS is what violates the INF treaty because it is capable of employing Tomahawk cruise missiles and it doesn’t just need to specifically fire the ground based BGM-109G(which didn’t even require the Mark 41 VLS to launch) but standard TLAM Tomahawk cruise missiles. Some BGM-109 variants have an effective range of over 2,500 km clearly violating the 500-5,500km ban of the INF treaty. Yeah sure the nuclear tipped Tomahawk(BGM-109A) cruise missiles had been decommissioned by 2013, but then what happened in 2018 when Trump withdrew the US from the INF treaty, and mere months later proposed development on the SLCM-N(Nuclear Armed Sea Launch Missile) as well as the new ground launched cruise missile and tactical missile systems. All of Russia’s fears were confirmed and justified.
>Yeah sure the nuclear tipped Tomahawk(BGM-109A) cruise missiles had been decommissioned by 2013
#
>Even though construction on the Deveselu military base began in 2013
That's a lot of words just to agree that Aegis Ashore did not overlap with any nuclear Tomahawk cruise missile deployments. Also it is clear that you don't understand what the INF treaty actually did. Hint: air and sea launched missiles were not banned.
Also the amount of salt in your comment over the speed of western development projects is delicious. Yes, we are capable of quickly developing capabilities to launch weapons from weird or new platforms. Russia can't keep up with that, sucks for them.
Show me a single example of a sea launched Tomahawk being deployed on Aegis Ashore prior to the withdrawal from the INF treaty.
Your whole argument boils down to "the US is so good at rapid development that they violate treaties not through their actual deployed capabilities, but through the capabilities that they can develop very quickly." That's a cope that I haven't seen before, but it's hilarious.
Absolutely.
The people doing the final report probably have no idea about the state of tanks in the depos, and how many of them have been cannibalized or outright sold off.
Yep you can check them here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/152vx9z/m1\_abrams\_in\_us\_storage/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/152vx9z/m1_abrams_in_us_storage/)
Looks like they've been parted out
Well there’s not much t80bv left so not really a big loss
As long as the hull is fairly intact, it can be brought back. Though it's unlikely to happen, because there's T-80's in better condition, out there.
Nice try, thats a tank graveyard
Yes, you could call these two specifically a "graveyard". But the complex itself is a storage and repair base in Yekaterinburg, if i recall correctly.
and for deconstruction of tanks too
That's not storage, that's a tank graveyard, these are also missing their engines so they are most likely just keeping them for spare parts.
Engine may be stored separately, tho
They are. Far too fragile for any sort of putdoor storage.
Also looks like whatever sort of land they’re physically parked on is extremely wet (muskeg, probably). Basically a slow oxidizing death for all metal.
Yep. https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/13x5eqd/t80u\_turbine\_engine/
The base itself is a repair and storage facility. But yes, you could refer to these specifically as a graveyard. The reason i uploaded it was more of a throwback to those sad tank pictures. (You know the Shermans rusting away in the sand dunes, and so on).
Every country does this but they’re just trying to belittle Russia in any way. Just ignore them dude.
Pretty sure the UK doesn’t keep its “spare” tanks in an open field rusting and in a pretty messy state. I’m happy to be corrected, but I doubt “every country” does this
They are usually sold or donated to middle eastern countries. The Challenger 1s were given to Jordan in the late 1990s for instance.
Yeah that’s true, and the spare parts are kept in organised and clean warehouses rather than field clearings in the wilderness exposed to the elements
>Pretty sure the UK doesn’t keep its “spare” tanks in an open field rusting and in a pretty messy state. TBF, it is a lot easier to keep 200-300 Challengers in a decent place than 10-30 thousand T-55/64/72/80s. >!/s!< Jokes aside... why the Russians thought it is even a remotely good idea to keep around stuff as old as unmodernized T-55s and 64s is beyond me. Not storing old crap like that might have enabled better preservation for the newer tanks that could be modernized to an acceptable standard.
The US parks spare armored vehicles at Sierra Army Depot. In addition to 7 million square feet of covered warehouse space, SIAD also has ideal weather for outdoor storage. Low humidity and low precipitation in the high desert allow for vehicles to be parked outside in optimal conditions for storage. This isn't a case of everybody else doing the same thing as Russia, this is a case of Russia failing to invest in military capabilities, or having those investments pilfered away due to corruption.
"g-guys leave the third world shithole along russia strong"
I wonder why? Definitely not justified
[удалено]
Ah yes lets conveniently ignore the fact that Romania(a US puppet) stationed Aegis ashore with Mark 41 VLS capable of easily being modified to launch nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles, which violated the INF treaty at the time. And by the way Putin merely reminded the Romanian’s that they’re making themselves a target for US interests.
The Aegis Ashore site in Romania didn't become operational until 2016. All nuclear armed Tomahawk missiles had been decommissioned by, at the latest, 2013. So not only did Romania never host any Tomahawk missiles at the Aegis Ashore site (only SM-3), the timelines of Aegis Ashore in Romania and operations of nuclear armed Tomahawk missiles had zero overlap. Also the BGM-109G ground launched version of the nuclear Tomahawk missile was decommissioned in 1991 in order to comply with the INF. The possible violation of the treaty that you mention exists in nothing but the hypothetical. Although calling Romania a US puppet really tells me everything I need to know.
Hey clown it was announced all the way back in 2010 that Romania would participate in the program. Heck the discussions on this topic go even further back to 2008-09. Even though construction on the Deveselu military base began in 2013, it was established initially in 2012. The Russians aren’t stupid. By this point the US had already withdrawn(2002) from the ABM treaty with no justification or reason, and they were playing hard ball with fine tuning the New START treaty. Off course the Russians were suspicious because AEGIS ashore can very easily be modified to launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles in relatively quick time. Heck the war in Ukraine has exposed this fact in how easy it has been for the US to modify Soviet era Mig-29’s, Su-27’s and Su-24’s to launch Storm Shadow/Scalp EG cruise missiles, so lets not play stupid pretend as if the US government isn’t capable of lying. Also the Mark 41 VLS is what violates the INF treaty because it is capable of employing Tomahawk cruise missiles and it doesn’t just need to specifically fire the ground based BGM-109G(which didn’t even require the Mark 41 VLS to launch) but standard TLAM Tomahawk cruise missiles. Some BGM-109 variants have an effective range of over 2,500 km clearly violating the 500-5,500km ban of the INF treaty. Yeah sure the nuclear tipped Tomahawk(BGM-109A) cruise missiles had been decommissioned by 2013, but then what happened in 2018 when Trump withdrew the US from the INF treaty, and mere months later proposed development on the SLCM-N(Nuclear Armed Sea Launch Missile) as well as the new ground launched cruise missile and tactical missile systems. All of Russia’s fears were confirmed and justified.
>Yeah sure the nuclear tipped Tomahawk(BGM-109A) cruise missiles had been decommissioned by 2013 # >Even though construction on the Deveselu military base began in 2013 That's a lot of words just to agree that Aegis Ashore did not overlap with any nuclear Tomahawk cruise missile deployments. Also it is clear that you don't understand what the INF treaty actually did. Hint: air and sea launched missiles were not banned. Also the amount of salt in your comment over the speed of western development projects is delicious. Yes, we are capable of quickly developing capabilities to launch weapons from weird or new platforms. Russia can't keep up with that, sucks for them.
Hey numb nuts what is a sea launched Tomahawk cruise missile deployed on Mark 41 VLS canisters on land?
Show me a single example of a sea launched Tomahawk being deployed on Aegis Ashore prior to the withdrawal from the INF treaty. Your whole argument boils down to "the US is so good at rapid development that they violate treaties not through their actual deployed capabilities, but through the capabilities that they can develop very quickly." That's a cope that I haven't seen before, but it's hilarious.
Just because the US hasn’t deployed it yet, it doesn’t mean that in times of war they can’t clown. The capability still exists no matter what you say.
Are you going to argue that Russia was in full compliance with ABM and INF?
Good, goood.
No engine, were they scavenged for spares or sold off long before by an corrupt manager, I wonder.
What do you mean withering can’t you see those are pristine straight out of the factory tanks
Funny guy, but it was more a callback to those sad tank pictures. https://www.reddit.com/r/TiredTanks/comments/b0w739/sad\_tank/
You just know Russia counts tanks like these as part of their numbers.
The white markings indicate otherwise.
The white markings look to be similar to a lot number, most likely used for easier finding of said tanks and parts
What do they say?
Absolutely. The people doing the final report probably have no idea about the state of tanks in the depos, and how many of them have been cannibalized or outright sold off.
bruh "storage"
Goodie
The US has many many mothballed tanks but they are in much better condition than this
Yep you can check them here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/152vx9z/m1\_abrams\_in\_us\_storage/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/152vx9z/m1_abrams_in_us_storage/)
Nice. They have the old M1 style drive sprocket so I’m guessing they are either old M1 105mm or maybe Marine Corp M1A1?
The former, it's a very old picture.
What di you mean withering away this is new Russian wonder weapon.
Do they left ERA on these "stored" tanks too?
The explosives have probably been taken out
Correct, not even the Russians are crazy enough to let live explosives be in their tanks, while in storage.
That will buff out!
Says one to the other: better rotting here than joining that turret-toss olympics, da? :D
Storage? Looks more Like a garbage dump for everything they couldnt take User of