No problems. Condition (rusty/mangled/missing parts), lack of movement through the years, absence of muzzle covers, 80th being further West and closer to Uraltransmash (think consolidation after repairs) and the reduction in SPGs at the base earlier on (likely having already taken out what can be).
80th 50cm of 15 Feb 2026. With the exception of the 2s9 SPMs, which have grown considerably, I see no change since July of 2025 in either SPGs or towed artillery.
Apart from 7049th, it would appear 80th is the only base storing some viable SPGs. I have long suggested that 94th is a junker.
Wherever and whoever you are, please stay vigilant to possible terrorist attacks by Iran’s sleeper cells in light of the current events 🙏
UVZ 50cm of 28 Feb 2026. I've counted ~417 tanks vs 482 as of 4 Nov 2025 per Covert, a drop of 65 in four months.
Too early to draw any definitive conclusions, but I will mention that one tank withdrawn from storage doesn't necessarily equal one refurbed working tank.
12 Aug 2025 for reference.
7049th 50cm of 25 Feb 2026. Basically, no significant change since 24 July 2025. Some 2S19s and - I think - 2S3s. The rest appears to be transport and engineering.
*specks
Rubtsovskiy BTRZ 10m of 11 Jan and 31 Jan 2026 vs GE of 23 May 2025.
No discernible change between the Januaries, but a significant thinning out vs GE.
In fact, I would even suggest that the specs we are seeing are possibly leftover scrap.
904th 1.5m of 4 Feb 2026. I've counted 37 tanks inside the red section, assuming that they are indeed tanks, as they have been in the past, and that they aren't keeping more elsewhere at this base.
As far as tanks, the base is certainly not growing vs previous imagery.
Yeah, no, the Russians are definitely producing new steel hull AFVs and have totally not run out of the Soviet stocks they could afford to lose.
Because of course utility trucks have superior snow grip to tracked vehicles 🤦♂️
Not really following the Iranian situation, but will just say that what America is engaging in is classic gunboat diplomacy.
And in that case, I'm sure we will be seeing evidence of full production at UVZ very soon! :)
Big doesn't mean capable.
Producing rail cars is one thing, tanks is another.
They post footage of working on already-welded hulls, NOT actually 'building new T-90's'. I trust you understand the difference.
Have you checked out the links I've posted? Have a read/watch of them.
And on that note, how do you think the USSR industrialised under Soviets in the early 20th century? By selling raw materials in exchange for importing production equipment and designs from the West. A partial result of that was the resultant famine, but that's another topic.
Factories aren't easily revivable just because of higher demand - at least, not unless the level of economic development is sufficient. The US and USSR could do it, but both are/were industrialised. Highly. Russia isn't.
I don't think you quite understand what 'production capacity' means exactly, or how it operates in real life. I've added in the links to a two-part piece I did a while ago that covers all that, to your other comment.
Yes, interestingly, it is the fact that the T-90 loss rates have been so fantastically low that started me in my research into Russian tanks (and just tanks more generally), and led me to the conclusion I've now formed.
Indeed, had the numbers been up there, I'd not have demanded footage as proof.
Examples of definitive proof of tank hull production:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Ud...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vass...
And some more reading for you - on tanks:
thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72...
imrmedia.in/combat-vehic...
P.S. Indian T-72s and T-90s are built in India under licence. They were never supplied by Russia en-masse.
The Russians had some left-over capacity (production equipment and spare parts) after the Soviet deindustrialisation that lasted them some amount of time. But that capacity has been exhausted.
x.com/A36848080/st...
x.com/A36848080/st...
The fact of the existence of 'brand new' T-90s isn't proof of new production. Besides, how do you figure they are 'brand new'?
The Armata is a hand-made mock-up, it was never real.
I'll say it again, footage, or it isn't real.
Not to belabour the point, but any sound assessment and research has to rely on something. That something has to be solid evidence.
Effectively, Jompy is saying 'We are seeing a lot of tanks in footage, so OBVIOUSLY they MUST be producing them!'. You see the flaw in that conclusion...
One has to bear in mind that however credible a source may be (or how well-meaning they may be), they have to adduce proper evidence, and not just conjecture.
In any event, Tatariagami is a notorious doom-and-gloomer who's made repeatedly wrong assessments and predictions. So has Jompy. So have I.
Yes, thank you, BMP-3s utilise all-aluminium hulls, so those and BMDs Russia can produce, and we've seen footage of it 👍
3/3 My challenge is this: footage or it isn’t real. Documents, tweets, claims by Ukraine/Russia, research by think tanks and other peripheral information isn’t proof.
2/3 My assertion is this: the Russians are unable to produce much of anything outside of perhaps trucks, ammo and rockets using Chinese/Iranian/North Korean/smuggled everything. If they are offering ample footage of just about everything EXCEPT full production, why not offer that if they have it?
1/3 Just to be clear, I dissent from Jompy’s confident assertion (actually, conjecture) that the Russians are producing tanks from scratch. Yes, we have shared satellite imagery with each other, but disagree vehemently on the subject of full tank production (and other AFVs, for that matter).
Roger. The truth is likely much closer to OSINT than Ukrainian claims.
Well, Ukraine's claims of daily Russian losses are very exaggerated across the board, not just in relation to cars. But I don't imagine cars are hard for OSINTers to ID and catalogue.
Don't know since when exactly, but in any event, I don't think their counts should be relied on at all at this stage.