British Engineers Examined Normandy Panthers — Then Realized Germany's Armor Was Already Killing - YouTube

The Real Story: German Panther Tank Armor Quality Collapse in World War II

The Hidden Metallurgical Crisis That Weakened Germany's Finest Tank

In the summer of 1944, American and British engineers examining captured German Panther tanks made a startling discovery. The fearsome tanks, designed to dominate the battlefield with their sloped armor and powerful 75mm gun, were suffering from a catastrophic flaw that had nothing to do with combat damage. The armor itself was disintegrating.

The Documented Reality

In August 1944, U.S. Army officers testing Panthers at Isigny, France documented catastrophic cracking of armor plate on two out of three Panthers they examined. This wasn't isolated. Soviet testing of captured Panthers revealed that front plates of the hull and turret were "low quality" – when struck but not penetrated, the armor formed large cracks and large fragments broke off the rear side.

The problem was metallurgical, not tactical. Germany's Panther tank, which entered service in 1943 as a response to the Soviet T-34, had been designed with sophisticated chrome-molybdenum armor steel. But by 1944, the tanks rolling off assembly lines bore little resemblance to the specifications that made early Panthers so formidable.

The Molybdenum Crisis

The root cause was molybdenum shortage. In 1943, Allied bombers struck and severely damaged the Knaben mine in Norway, eliminating a key source of molybdenum. Supplies from Finland and Japan were also cut off.

The Knaben molybdenum mines in southern Norway were among the few molybdenum sources in Europe still operating when Germany invaded in 1940. The occupying German forces stationed about 1,000 men in the area and established anti-aircraft gun sites. Allied forces attacked the mine twice in 1943 – first on March 3 with British Mosquito fighters, and again on November 16 when 130 American B-17 bombers struck the facility.

Molybdenum is a strong carbide former that increases hardenability and elevated temperature strength while reducing pitting and corrosion. Germans began to run short of this material in early 1941, and by 1944 it was rare to find it in their tank armor.

The Engineering Compromise

By mid-1944, molybdenum was removed from all armor thickness categories. German metallurgists attempted to compensate by adjusting other alloying elements, but chrome-molybdenum steel showed increased brittleness when fired upon, as established by Soviet NII-48 trials.

By the beginning of 1944, molybdenum was dropped from German armor plate compositions. The Germans moved to a substitute formula with approximately 0.5% carbon, 2% chromium, and 0.14% vanadium. This high carbon content was counter-indicated for obtaining good welds and shock/shatter performance.

The deterioration was systematic and documented. American metallurgical studies noted that most German armor relied on chromium and molybdenum alloying agents, with chromium running as high as 2.5% and molybdenum from 0.5% to 0.75%. The most common figures for tank armor were 1.5% chromium and 0.5% molybdenum.

Later analysis of Panzer IV armor from 1944 showed molybdenum content had been dramatically reduced to just 0.17%, down from the specified levels in earlier production.

The Battlefield Consequences

The material substitutions had devastating effects. The loss of molybdenum and its replacement with other substitutes to maintain hardness, combined with general loss of quality control, resulted in increased brittleness in German armor plate, which developed a tendency to fracture when struck with a shell.

German armor used surface-hardening techniques through flame-hardening with oxy-acetylene torches, creating a hard outer shell with a more ductile rear. This process was time-consuming and used large amounts of gas. To achieve this effect, the steel required higher than normal carbon content, but when combined with material shortages, this made the armor prone to catastrophic failure.

The deterioration of weld performance was witnessed in combat by both German tank crews and the Allies, becoming a consistent feature in German armor samples from 1944 onward. In some Panther chassis, 75mm Sherman high-explosive shells not only cracked the armor but literally blew sections of armor plate off the tank.

Production Pressures

Allied bombing compounded the problems. The Maybach engine plant, a bottleneck for both Panther and Tiger production, was bombed on April 27-28, 1944, and production halted for five months. Bombing of Panther factories forced a steep drop in spare parts production, falling from 25-30% of tank production in 1943 to just 8% in late 1944.

Because of incessant Allied bombing, precious alloys became hard to acquire. The production of composite armor was problematic, and the lack of molybdenum in particular caused late armor plates to crack easily when hit.

The Germans knew about the problem. The decrease of chrome and molybdenum with the addition of nickel was perhaps not just a sign of economy of alloying elements, but an attempt to increase ductility, as chrome-molybdenum steel had increased brittleness.

Allied Intelligence and Testing

Both American and British forces conducted systematic metallurgical testing of captured German armor throughout the war. U.S. facilities like Watertown Arsenal regularly tested German armor coupons. Documents such as WAL 710/542 on Tiger tank armor and welding, and WAL 710/608 on Panzer IV armor documented the progressive deterioration.

American metallurgists didn't fully understand the metallurgical characteristics required for optimum ballistic performance from armor plate until the end of 1943. It took until the early 1950s to fully integrate German armor-piercing experiences into U.S. testing protocols.

The British also conducted extensive testing. A 1944 British Fighting Vehicles Proving Establishment report tested a captured Panther provided by the Soviet Union. The tests ended prematurely when the Panther caught fire, but documented numerous mechanical and reliability issues.

The Strategic Impact

The Panther proved effective in open country and long-range engagements, with excellent firepower, protection, and mobility in early variants. However, increasing shortages of high-quality alloys for critical components, shortage of fuel and training space, and declining quality of crews all impacted the tank's effectiveness.

Shortages of strategic minerals such as tungsten and molybdenum led to brittle armor and gears in transmissions. Combined with shortages of petrol for training, this led to poorly trained drivers who stripped gears, necessitating abandonment and destruction of otherwise undamaged tanks.

The decline in armor quality represented a fundamental shift in the Panther's battlefield effectiveness. Early production Panthers from 1943 had armor that met or exceeded specifications. By mid-1944, the same tank design was being produced with armor that could shatter from impacts that should have been survivable.

Modern Implications

The Panther's armor crisis offers enduring lessons for modern armor design and military production:

Quality Control Systems

Post-war analysis revealed that Allied forces, particularly the Americans, also struggled with armor quality control. As late as February 1945, Watertown Arsenal found significant variances in hardness levels and decreased ballistic resistance in welds from different foundries. A June 1945 analysis found numerous defects in test plates, with extensive back spalling and poor steel soundness.

These wartime struggles led to the development of comprehensive metallurgical testing regimes. Modern armor production incorporates:

Continuous quality monitoring at multiple production stages
Non-destructive testing including radiographic examination, ultrasonic testing, and magnetic particle inspection
Statistical process control to identify trends before they become critical failures
Ballistic testing protocols that include both penetration resistance and behind-armor effects

Material Science Advances

The wartime experience demonstrated that armor performance depends on the complete metallurgical package – not just thickness or hardness, but the proper balance of:

Alloying elements for hardenability and toughness
Heat treatment protocols for optimal microstructure
Manufacturing processes that maintain material properties
Welding techniques that don't create weak points

Modern armor steels like RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armor) incorporate these lessons with carefully controlled compositions and processing. Advanced armors like Chobham composite armor represent entirely different approaches, but still rely on rigorous quality control systems developed from WWII experiences.

Supply Chain Resilience

Germany was forced to reduce or eliminate critical alloy materials including nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, and manganese as the war progressed. Manganese from Ukrainian mines became unavailable when Germany lost control of that territory in February 1944.

Modern defense industries maintain:

Diverse sourcing of critical materials to avoid single-point failures
Strategic reserves of essential alloying elements
Substitute material research before shortages become critical
Recycling programs for critical materials from obsolete equipment

The Danger of Production Pressure

The Panther case demonstrates what happens when production numbers take precedence over quality. German factories continued manufacturing Panthers with substandard materials rather than reducing output, ultimately producing tanks that endangered their own crews.

As one analysis noted, when asked why German tanks weren't littering battlefields despite severe armor defects, the answer lies in the complexity of the problem. Different factories had different quality control standards, explaining why some Panthers had shatter issues while others performed adequately.

Modern procurement emphasizes:

Performance specifications over mere production numbers
Acceptance testing that vehicles must pass before deployment
Feedback loops from field operations to manufacturers
Competition requirements that maintain pressure for quality

Echo from Ukraine: A Modern Parallel

Eight decades after the Panther's metallurgical crisis, another army finds itself struggling with armor quality and quantity issues in a grinding war of attrition. While the specifics differ dramatically, Russia's tank crisis in Ukraine offers instructive parallels to Germany's WWII experience.

A Different Problem, Similar Desperation

The situation with Russian armor in Ukraine is fundamentally different from the German Panther metallurgical crisis. There's no evidence of widespread metallurgical quality degradation in Russian tank armor comparable to what Germany experienced with molybdenum shortages. Instead, Russia faces three interconnected crises: design vulnerabilities, catastrophic quantity depletion, and storage deterioration.

Design Flaws, Not Material Failure

Most of Russia's tanks are well protected to the front, with glacis armor combining high hardness steels with composites. However, catastrophic losses result from the tank's ammunition location, which makes it hard to protect from the sides, its lack of separation from the crew, and the ease with which most tanks can be penetrated from the side.

Russian tanks suffer from the "Jack-in-the-box" design flaw. Shells are placed in a ring within the turret, with more ammunition stored underneath the tank operators. When an enemy shot hits a vulnerable spot, the ring of ammunition can explode in a chain reaction that vaporizes the crew and blasts the turret off the tank's hull.

This isn't new – Russian tank operators experienced these issues in Chechnya and Georgia, but all these issues were previously known. The difference is the scale and intensity of the Ukrainian conflict, which has exposed these design flaws with unprecedented severity.

The Quantity Crisis: Burning Through Reserves

Ukraine reported destroying or damaging 3,689 tanks in 2024 alone. Russia lost around 1,400 main battle tanks in 2024, along with 8,956 infantry fighting vehicles, compared to 3,000 losses in 2023.

The losses are staggering and unsustainable. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Director-General stated that Russia will not have sufficient main battle tanks to conduct effective offensive operations beyond early 2026 if it maintains the same operational tempo and suffers the same losses as in 2024.

This represents a loss rate nearly unprecedented in modern warfare. To put it in perspective, Russia has lost more tanks since February 2022 than many major militaries possess in their entire active inventory.

Storage Deterioration: The Real Quality Problem

Here's where Russia's crisis shows interesting parallels to WWII Germany – though the mechanism is completely different:

Russia has been able to reconstitute losses by relying on stored Soviet legacy equipment. However, equipment remaining in storage is highly likely to be in a deteriorated condition. The quality and combat effectiveness of older vehicles stored under suboptimal conditions for decades is questionable, potentially compromising their reliability on the battlefield.

Satellite image analysis indicates that the quality of remaining old tanks has deteriorated significantly, leading to longer repair times. Newer and better-conditioned tanks were selected in the early stages of the war. As a result, the rate at which tanks were taken from storage bases halved by 2024.

The numbers tell the story of progressive depletion: Between 2022 and 2025, over 4,000 tanks in the best condition were decommissioned from storage. However, from February 2024 to February 2025, only 342 tanks were decommissioned, showing a sharp slowdown. As of early 2025, 3,463 tanks remain in storage, signaling a depletion of easily restorable vehicles.

This is weathering and decay, not metallurgical failure during production. But the effect is similar: crews operating equipment that cannot provide the protection it was designed to deliver.

Production Cannot Keep Pace

Much of the proclaimed output consists of refurbished, previously mothballed T-72s from depleting storage depots, rather than entirely new vehicles. The actual capability to repair Russian tanks is 3-5 times less than what is claimed in official manuals.

Russia's capabilities to produce modern tanks are extremely limited, with 100-200 tanks per year. The bulk of tanks supplied to the front are restored machines from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

The reliance on refurbishment rather than new production mirrors Germany's desperation in 1944-45. Approximately 85% of the tanks and armored vehicles deployed to the front are not newly manufactured but repurposed from long-term storage. Satellite imagery shows these reserves are running dry.

The Strategic Parallel: Quantity Over Quality

While the cause differs dramatically, the effect shows troubling similarities to Germany's Panther crisis:

1944 Germany: Continued producing Panthers with defective molybdenum-depleted armor rather than reduce numbers, creating tanks whose armor killed their own crews through catastrophic fracturing.

2024 Russia: Russian soldiers are increasingly sent into battle with outdated and poorly maintained equipment, exacerbating already high casualty rates. Reports from the front suggest crews struggle with mismatched or incomplete systems, such as tanks lacking proper targeting sensors or communications gear.

Both represent production desperation where maintaining numbers takes priority over ensuring crew survivability. Both result in soldiers climbing into vehicles that look formidable but carry hidden, potentially fatal flaws.

The human cost extends beyond the battlefield. These shortfalls not only reduce combat effectiveness but also erode morale, with anecdotal evidence pointing to growing dissatisfaction among troops and their commanders.

The Modern Battlefield: Different Rules

The Ukraine conflict demonstrates how fundamentally warfare has evolved since 1944. Western-supplied Ukrainian equipment shows that modern survivability no longer comes from armor thickness alone. As one retired Ukrainian Colonel explains, "A $500 FPV drone can destroy a $5 million tank if it's not supported by infantry, electronic warfare coverage, and layered defense".

This validates the post-WWII lessons: armor alone isn't sufficient. Modern tank warfare requires:

Combined arms integration – tanks without infantry support are vulnerable
Active protection systems – detecting and defeating threats before they impact
Electronic warfare capabilities – countering drones and guided weapons
Situational awareness – modern sensors and communications
Tactical adaptation – responding to new threats in real-time

The Russian experience demonstrates what happens when these elements are absent or inadequate, regardless of armor quality.

Tactical Adaptation Under Pressure

The depletion of Russia's armored reserves has forced significant tactical changes. The IISS reported that Russia has adjusted its tactics to counter equipment shortages, increasingly relying on infantry-led assaults to push forward along the frontline.

This shift reflects a harsh reality: According to AGS official monthly claimed kill figures, Ukrainian troops in March 2025 destroyed about half the number of Russian tanks they did in March 2024 – not because Ukrainian capabilities decreased, but because Russia is fielding fewer tanks.

Khortytsia Group spokesperson Major Viktor Trehubov stated that Ukrainian drone swarms, particularly FPV drones, had forced the Russian military to reduce the amount of armored vehicles it was fielding, and that kill rates are falling because fewer and fewer Russian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles seem willing to drive out into the open.

The Timeline to Crisis

The projected timeline for Russia's tank shortage bears consideration. Ukraine's intelligence chief projects Russia's military breaking point by 2026, citing tank shortages, stalled production, and economic strain.

This assessment is based on multiple converging factors:

Current loss rates far exceed production capacity
Easily refurbishable stored vehicles are nearly depleted
What remains in storage requires extensive work to make combat-ready
Production facilities lack the capacity to expand output quickly
International sanctions restrict access to critical components

The parallel to Germany's situation by late 1944 is striking. Both faced the mathematics of attrition: losses exceeding replacement capacity, with quality declining as desperation increased.

Lessons Unlearned?

The Russian experience raises troubling questions about institutional memory and strategic planning. The USSR itself studied German armor failures extensively after WWII. Soviet metallurgists obtained copies of Allied reports on German tank metallurgy through intelligence channels and modified their own T-34 and JS tank production protocols based on those findings.

Yet Russia now finds itself in a position with uncomfortable parallels:

Prioritizing quantity over quality – fielding equipment that endangered crews
Depleting irreplaceable reserves – burning through Soviet-era stockpiles
Production capacity insufficient – unable to replace losses at combat rates
Known vulnerabilities unaddressed – design flaws identified decades ago

The key difference is that Russia's problems stem from different causes: design choices, storage deterioration, and tactical misuse rather than metallurgical failure. But the strategic effect – an army unable to adequately equip its forces with reliable armor – remains disturbingly similar.

Conclusion: The Enduring Lessons of Armor Failure

The degradation of Panther tank armor quality from 1943 to 1945 represents one of World War II's most significant but underappreciated technical failures. What began as one of the war's most sophisticated tank designs ended as a vehicle whose armor could betray its crew at the moment of greatest need.

The Panther was intended to counter the Soviet T-34 and replace the Panzer III and Panzer IV. While having essentially the same engine as the Tiger I, the Panther had better gun penetration, was lighter and faster, and could traverse rough terrain better. Yet by 1944, material shortages had undermined these advantages.

The lesson transcends tank design or any single conflict. It's a case study in how industrial systems fail under pressure, how engineering compromises accumulate into catastrophic problems, and how the difference between specifications and reality can mean the difference between protection and destruction.

Russia's current struggles with tank availability in Ukraine, while arising from completely different causes – design vulnerabilities, storage decay, and overwhelming attrition rather than production metallurgical failure – demonstrate that the fundamental tension between quantity and quality remains relevant. Both Germany in 1944 and Russia in 2024 faced the same strategic dilemma: acknowledge capability limitations and adjust accordingly, or maintain the appearance of strength while fielding inadequate equipment.

Germany chose to continue Panther production despite knowing the armor was defective. Russia continues to field tanks despite knowing their design makes them vulnerable. In both cases, the cost is measured in the lives of tank crews who trusted their equipment to protect them.

These parallel crises, separated by eight decades, remind us that:

Quality cannot be indefinitely sacrificed for quantity without eventual catastrophic consequences
Industrial capacity under stress reveals underlying weaknesses in systems and supply chains
Institutional knowledge must be maintained and applied – lessons painfully learned can be tragically forgotten
Crew survivability must be the paramount consideration in armor design and deployment

Modern armor designers, procurement officials, and military planners continue to study both the Panther's metallurgical collapse and contemporary armor failures. The lessons inform everything from material science research to quality control protocols to strategic reserve management.

The story of the Panther's failing armor – and the echo we see in Ukraine's battlefields today – serves as a sobering reminder: no amount of impressive statistics, production numbers, or design sophistication matters if the fundamental purpose fails. When armor shatters instead of protects, when vehicles become death traps instead of protective shells, the human cost of industrial failure becomes unbearably clear.

The Germans built thousands of Panthers in 1944. Each represented enormous industrial effort, scarce resources, and strategic priority. Each also represented a failure to build what their crews needed to survive. Eight decades later, Russian crews face their own version of this betrayal – different in mechanism but similar in effect. The soldiers who died when their Panther armor shattered, and those who die today when their tanks explode from design flaws or equipment failure, all deserved better than to be killed by their own equipment.

This is the enduring lesson: in the calculus of war, protecting those who fight matters more than the numbers on a production chart.

FACT-CHECK: This Video Appears to Be FICTIONAL based on Fact

After extensive searching, I cannot find any historical evidence for the central narrative and characters in this document:

What I Could NOT Verify:

Dr. James Crawford - No British metallurgist by this name associated with Panther tank analysis
Dr. Robert Mills - No record of this person
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Harrington - No record
Panther serial number 212847 captured June 23, 1944 - No documentation
"Special Report 17: Progressive Degradation of German Panther Tank Armor Quality" - Does not exist in declassified archives
November 1943 Norwegian resistance attack on molybdenum processing at "Canaban" - No such location or attack

What IS Historically Accurate:

The document contains several true elements woven into the fictional narrative:

Molybdenum shortages were real - Allied bombing did strike the Knaben mine in Norway (March and November 1943), which was a German source of molybdenum
German armor quality did decline - By 1944, German tank armor suffered from material shortages, particularly molybdenum, leading to increased brittleness and cracking
U.S. Army testing in August 1944 at Isigny, France did show catastrophic cracking in two out of three Panthers examined
Production issues - Allied bombing did disrupt German tank production, and quality control declined throughout 1944
Knaben mine attacks - The mine was attacked twice in 1943: March 3 by British Mosquitos and November 16 by American B-17 bombers

However, the document conflates the Knaben molybdenum mine with the Vemork heavy water plant (which was sabotaged in February 1943 by Norwegian commandos). These were completely different facilities with different purposes.

The Problem:

This appears to be a well-researched historical fiction piece that:

Uses real historical context (molybdenum shortages, armor quality issues)
Invents specific characters, dates, and detailed technical reports
Creates a compelling but fabricated narrative

The level of technical detail and the documentary style make it appear authentic, but the core story and characters cannot be verified through historical records, declassified intelligence documents, or archives.

Sources

Wikipedia contributors. "Panther tank." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
"Debunking Myths: The Panther's Underwhelming Armor." Tank Historia. September 1, 2023. https://tankhistoria.com/wwii/panther-armor-quality/
"Thick Skin of German Beasts." Tank Archives. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.tankarchives.com/2020/02/thick-skin-of-german-beasts.html
"Faults in Panther Armor Quality." Axis History Forum. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=118212
Wikipedia contributors. "Knaben." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. December 13, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knaben
"From the Vault: British Report on Captured Panther Tank." Tank and AFV News. October 2, 2015. https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/10/02/from-the-vault-british-report-on-captured-panther-tank/
"The Panther: A British View." PanzerPlace. September 5, 2025. https://panzerplace.eu/the-panther-a-british-view/
"Metallurgical Study Of Enemy Ordnance." Naval History Forums. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80
"Allied tank armor, quality control." Axis History Forum. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=239393
"On German Armour." For the Record. February 6, 2014. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/
"Panzer V Panther Ausf.D, A, and G." Tank Encyclopedia. April 26, 2025. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-v_panther.php
"Panzerkampfwagen V Panther." Tank-AFV. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://tank-afv.com/ww2/germany/Panzer-V-panther.php
"Technical Reflections on Russia's Armoured Fighting Vehicles." Royal United Services Institute. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/technical-reflections-russias-armoured-fighting-vehicles
"ISW: Russia uses less armor on frontlines as Ukraine reports destruction of some 13,000 armored units over year." Euromaidan Press. January 5, 2025. https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/01/05/isw-russia-uses-less-armor-on-frontlines-as-ukraine-reports-destruction-of-some-13000-armored-units-over-year/
"Exclusive Analysis: How Western and Russian Combat Equipment Are Performing in Ukraine's 2024 Counteroffensives." Army Recognition. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/russia-ukraine-war-2022/exclusive-analysis-how-western-and-russian-combat-equipment-are-performing-in-ukraines-2024-counteroffensives
"Why Is Russia Losing So Much Military Equipment In Ukraine?" Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. May 13, 2022. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-war-military-equipment-losses/31847839.html
"Russia lost over 5,000 tanks and other armor in 2024, UK think tank says." Euromaidan Press. February 14, 2025. https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/02/14/russia-lost-over-5000-tanks-and-other-armor-in-2024-uk-think-tank-says/
"As Russian tank losses in Ukraine pass 9,000, here's what you need to know." Kyiv Independent. October 23, 2024. https://kyivindependent.com/as-russian-tank-losses-in-ukraine-continue-to-mount-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
"Russia Could Run Out of Tanks by 2026: Report." Newsweek. February 13, 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tanks-war-ukraine-iiss-2030397
"Russia's tank losses skyrocket: over 3600 tanks down in 2024." Bulgarian Military. January 5, 2025. https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/01/05/russias-tank-losses-skyrocket-over-3600-tanks-down-in-2024/
"Russia Has Lost over 3,000 Tanks in Ukraine War and Can't Replace Them." National Security Journal. May 31, 2025. https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/russia-has-lost-over-3000-tanks-in-ukraine-war-and-cant-replace-them/
"Russia Struggles to Replace 4,000 Lost Tanks as Tank Revival Slows by 4-Fold." UNITED24 Media. March 31, 2025. https://united24media.com/latest-news/russia-struggles-to-replace-4000-lost-tanks-as-tank-revival-slows-by-4-fold-7183
"Armada Sunset: Soviet and Russian tanks suitable for restoration and repair will run out in 2025." Re:Russia. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://re-russia.net/en/analytics/0234/
"Does Russia face military collapse by 2026? Inside Ukraine's strategic assessment." Euromaidan Press. October 22, 2024. https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/22/does-russia-face-military-collapse-by-2026-inside-ukraines-strategic-assessment/
"War tanks running out? Russia faces alarming shortage by 2025." Bulgarian Military. December 10, 2024. https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/12/10/war-tanks-running-out-russia-faces-alarming-shortage-by-2025/
"Analysis: 10,000 Destroyed Since They Invaded: Is Russia Running Out of Tanks?" Kyiv Post. March 26, 2025. https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/49582

Search This Blog

Science, Time, and Spirit

German Tanks in WW2 suffered from Quality Collapse - We see echos in Russian Armor in the Ukraine