Original subtitles

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.