All language subtitles for 24-03-23drrwe

Are only old men going into battle?

While Britain is about to give Ukraine
shells with depleted uranium cores,

Russia has begun pulling
T-55 tanks out of mothballs.

Photos and then a video of a train carrying
Russian military equipment from the Russian

Far East appeared online. It was identified
as Soviet T-54 and T-55 medium tanks.

This train recently departed from the 1295th
Central Tank Reserve and Storage Base.

Facts of the dispatch and use of T-62 tanks by the
Russian Armed Forces in the current invasion have

been recorded since the summer, but the removal of
T-54s from storage is recorded for the first time.

For such purposes the shells from the
British partners are too excessive.

From a reasonable distance, the uranium core
will pierce two such through and through.

A bit of history - the first
modifications of these tanks

were adopted in the second half of
the 1940s, and the T-55 - in 1958.

The key disadvantages of these models were the
lack of rangefinders and ballistic calculators,

the primitive sights, and the T-54
also had incomplete gun stabilization.

Along with decommissioning the BTR-50
and installing ship-based anti-aircraft

guns on the MT-LB amphibious vehicle,
this clearly demonstrates the severe

problems in supplying the Russian
armed forces with armored vehicles.

A 12-pound cannon from the time of
Napoleon's Great Army is a dangerous weapon.

If the core of such a cannon hits the building
where you are, you will be in trouble.

You will be hit by shrapnel and crumbs,
and if a dozen of these cannons open fire,

then you will be covered with debris. In the open
field it is not a holiday for the enemy either.

And also at that time there were mines and
bombs. One of them would come from a cannon or

howitzer and send the enemy to the afterlife.
This is not a tiny grenade from a drone.

In general, a 12-pound cannon is a
formidable weapon that is 250 years old,

and it's funny to make fun of
it. It shoots and destroys,

what more do you need? That's it, any cannon is
better than no cannon at all. Isn't that right?

No, it's not, and that's why no one
is going to use 12-pounders today.

Even if no other guns are available. When we're
talking about the removal from storage by the

Russians of the T-54 or other prehistoric soviet
scrap metal, it's not a question of whether it

shoots or not, whether it's dangerous or not.
Roman catapults also shoot and are also dangerous

if they come at you, but it's about trends. Are we
talking about positive progression or degradation?

What is the overall level of organization of their
armed forces and their military capabilities.

And what we're seeing so far is a
striving degradation of the enemy,

a degradation that's gaining
more and more momentum.

Of course we should not laugh at this, but we
also should not react to pro-Russian publications

that "it shoots like the Soviet soldiers
shot at Hitler's army during World War 2.

Always when you see such phenomena, look
not specifically at the type of weaponry,

but at the general trend - whether their

army is strengthening or vice
versa. That's what's important.

And meanwhile the enemy does not get tired of
amazement, at such a rate they will soon put the

cavalry in the army, and propaganda channels will
assure that the cavalry is unjustly forgotten.

That it famously defeated the
enemy in the 17th century,

that the traditions of the Russian army are
directly connected with horses, and so on.

Realistically, one should
expect cavalry. Wheelbarrows,

Maxim machine guns have already been seen at
the front, by the way. I suppose generations

of enemy weapons should already be measured
like centuries B.C. - in reverse order.

These are the ones in the picture
- minus the third generation.