A Russian tank used in the assault on Ukraine has mysteriously appeared at a truck stop in the US.
The T-90 tank is thought to have been captured last September by Ukraine’s 92nd Separate Mechanised Brigade, after being used in fighting in the Kharkiv region of north west Ukraine.
The combat vehicle was left on a low loader in the parking lot of a restaurant in the state of Louisiana.
I have asked, no, it’s not my mate. You know, my mate the arms dealer, who buys Russian kit for the US Army….
“Thought to have been”..
Or, alternatively, it’s a write-off from India or Algeria, who also happen to use the things…
Hard to say without any of the usual markings, warnings, and doodads that are typical for military equipment visible. At all..
So Ukraine has given the US more tanks than the US has given Ukraine.
Anything is possible in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government is still buying cheap Russian diesel with the money we send them. Apparently, their “genociders” are also offering fabulous discounts, possibly a rewards card.
This makes no sense to Westerners, but in shithole potatoverse countries it’s basically illegal not to pocket money, and the war is the biggest money laundering bonanza Kiyiv will ever see. Slavs may hate each other, but never more than they love cash.
According to Sy Hersh, the situation is worse than Afghanistan, where the Pentagon at least had nominal visibility of where its money was being spent. Ukraine is more of a black hole that mysteriously consumes Western armaments and wealth, and nothing can escape its crushing maw except demands for more money and weapons.
Did we ever solve how that WW2 bomber got on the moon in 1988?
Did it have a big “Z” on it ?
Given the vast number of tanks which Russia has donated to Ukraine by way of offering them up for decommissioning, it’s hardly surprising that some of the less recyclable parts are finding their way into hands of collectors, is it.
According to Sy Hersh . . .
Ah, your mate Sy again. Entirely reliable then.
” . . . one knowledgeable American intelligence official told me . . .”
” . . . I was told . . .”
” . . . an American expert on international trade told me . . .”
” . . . I was told by an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the meeting . . .”
” . . . the intelligence official told me . . .”
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/trading-with-the-enemy
Meticulously and exquisitely sourced, as usual. Good enough for some, tho . . .
Did it have a big “Z” on it ?
It’s in Ukrainian markings – white crosses on the front and sides and yellow cross(es?) on the top.
Could not the official reason be right? That the captured tank was sent to the USA to be examined to determine how best to attack them. Seems reasonable to me…
@ Nautical Nick
It’s a T90A, which has been around for decades and will be pretty well known. The UKies also captured a couple of newer T90Ms, and they’ll have definitely been whisked away for examination.
Some more info here
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/destination-of-russian-t-90-tank-left-at-truck-stop-comes-into-focus
The “ultimate consignee” on the label is Building 358, 6850 Lanyard Rd., Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Ah. Thanks PJF.
Out of curiosity and because some on here might know. How would WWII vintage guns fair against modern tanks? I’m talking about the very best of course. Taking the British 17 pounder firing APDS as an example. That was capable of penetrating around 9 inches of armour at 1,000m.
Could that damage a modern tank? At, say, ambush distance? 200m?
Obviously a moot point as there are far more effective Infantry weapons which can be carried in a suitcase by a single soldier but still curious.
“Could that damage a modern tank? At, say, ambush distance? 200m?”
Frontal armor? Not a chance. But you are asking about ambush, so you really don’t want to be attacking the front.
Are modern tanks completely invulnerable? No. So there’s a chance. I still wouldn’t want to be in the old one though.
Alyo PJF,
мое судно на воздушной подушке полно угрей!
Ah, your mate Sy again. Entirely reliable then.
Um, yes? Unless you can think of occasions in which he has lied to us before?
” . . . one knowledgeable American intelligence official told me . . .”
” . . . I was told . . .”
” . . . an American expert on international trade told me . . .”
” . . . I was told by an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the meeting . . .”
” . . . the intelligence official told me . . .”
Yarp, his story is based on good old fashioned “sources” (like about 99.99% of what you read in the mainstream media). I believe him, you are free to believe Bellingcat or the BBC or Boris Johnson instead.
The UKies also captured a couple of newer T90Ms, and they’ll have definitely been whisked away for examination.
I wonder what secrets it contains. “It’s cheap and basic, but it works”? The OG Cold War was much cooler when we wildly overestimated Russian technical capabilities and had Clint Eastwood steal a mind-controlled Mig.
Andrew C – How would WWII vintage guns fair against modern tanks? I’m talking about the very best of course. Taking the British 17 pounder firing APDS as an example. That was capable of penetrating around 9 inches of armour at 1,000m.
Could that damage a modern tank? At, say, ambush distance? 200m?
It might knock off some ceramic armour plating.
Sorry to learn of your problems with the hovercraft, Steve.
Unless you can think of occasions in which he has lied to us before?
It’s not necessarily about him deliberately lying (although I suspect his ego makes him well capable of that); his anonymous source methodology opens him up to being duped – and he is clearly gullible as fuck:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_document_hoax
Hersh was saved from disgrace and probable prosecution by journos actually checking the material he had vouched for.
Likewise he could have easily disproven the claims made by the single anonymous “source” for his Nordstream bollocks by the simple process of checking open sources – i.e. looking at the internet. The Stoltenberg thing was hilarious. I did like the way he dismissed a newer conspiracy theory as an implausible distraction from his implausible conspiracy theory.
I believe him . . .
You are a mug.
. . . you are free to believe Bellingcat or the BBC or Boris Johnson instead.
Nice try, but there are other options.
I wonder what secrets it contains. “It’s cheap and basic, but it works”?
It’ll be less cheap and less basic than previous models, and now we’ll have found out how well it works.
PJF – there can’t be many investigate journalists with Sy Hersh’s 50 year track record of breaking scoops from the heart of the American military-intelligence community. Very bullish of you to declare him wrong.
now we’ll have found out how well it works.
Sure, it probably just doesn’t matter very much.
The Russian way of war, especially in the Ukraine, is like Aldis. Ya feel me?
The adversary’s only cool toys are hypersonics, the rest is all budget brand stuff and iterations on the same designs they’ve been using since the Soviet era. They’re our technological inferiors, but we already knew that.
We have a Waitrose military.
Thank you Chris.
I found the experience shocking.
I tried, Tim, I tried!