The end of tanks as we know it?

[Aida1]

The fact that the US have several thousands of tanks ,but can not send even one of these to Ukraine ,and must ask General Dynamics to make new tanks,proves that tanks who have not been used ,are also no longer operational and thus out .

No, it just means that the current administration is politically limiting the flow of tanks to UKR. just like the limited deliveries of HIMARS we only sent 20, but have 500 or so in stock. We could send more, but are not due to political pressure.

What political pressure ? Who in the US opposes the transfer of tanks to Ukraine ?
It only means that the current US administration is only a bunch of lying cowards/coward liars .The same for those in Europe .
There are thousands of Abrams operational /in stock and the administration decides to send 31 of them and this will take a year at least .
A year to send 31 tanks !!
Why a year ?
The answer is very simple :if 31 operational Abrams are send , that will not benefit General Dynamics, thus the administration has asked GD to build 31 new Abrams ( cost price $310 million ) ,a big benefit for GD ,and in exchange GD will give the administration $ millions for the election campaign of next year .
[/quote]

Typical example of conspirationism. You give no proof for youir personal "opinion" .

[Tom Peters]

Relative qualities of different tanks have no importance ,as it is not their quality that counts ,but their quantity :

That would explain why tanks over the years keep getting relatively cheaper.

That was sarcasm.

Mad Dog

Tanks over the years are getting relatively more expensive .

I cant possibly be the only one to see the irony here. Please tell me other people see this.

Allow me to quote what I just said, with a section in bold, for your benefit.

---
That would explain why tanks over the years keep getting relatively cheaper.

That was sarcasm.
---

Thanks you for your reading comprehension.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

The fact that the US have several thousands of tanks ,but can not send even one of these to Ukraine ,and must ask General Dynamics to make new tanks,proves that tanks who have not been used ,are also no longer operational and thus out .

No, it just means that the current administration is politically limiting the flow of tanks to UKR. just like the limited deliveries of HIMARS we only sent 20, but have 500 or so in stock. We could send more, but are not due to political pressure.

What political pressure ? Who in the US opposes the transfer of tanks to Ukraine ?

Avoiding escalation. The Biden administration has been careful in this instance. Maybe too careful ?

Mad Dog

[Gooner1]

BMP-T Terminator terminated

[Cult Icon]

Training of tankers on T-80 BVM

https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_3432120

[Cult Icon]

North Korean 'next gen' tank

https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_3433240

[Cult Icon]

Training reservists on BMD-4 in the rear area of Ukraine

https://vk.com/bo_reserve?w=wall-124751034_6683

[Cult Icon]

"February 9, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev arrived in Omsk on a working visit. Accompanied by the Governor of the Omsk Region Alexander Burkov, he visited JSC "Omsk Transport Engineering Plant". At the plant, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation inspected the process of modernization of T-80BVM tanks."

https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_3433818



newsreel of factory floor

https://vk.com/milinfolive?w=wall-12353 ... 6997e5491e

[Gooner1]

Interesting



I wonder if the T-62 explosion risk is lesser partly because itcan be knocked out by a greater array of weapons

[Richard Anderson]

No autoloader.

[Gooner1]

No autoloader.

Yes, the most important reason, although its interesting that the T-64 explodes only about half as much as the T72 & T-80s. Possibly the T-64 crews, often from the DNR & LNR, were more experienced and didn't fill shells to capacity?

In six months or a year it might be possible to do a comparison with Western tanks .. though hopefully not.

[ljadw]

There is no need to compare with Western tanks as technology does not decide the outcome of a war .
Wars are not fought between military, but between nations .

[Aida1]

There is no need to compare with Western tanks as technology does not decide the outcome of a war .
Wars are not fought between military, but between nations .

Another one of your stupid unsupported personal opnions.

[Tom Peters]

There is no need to compare with Western tanks as technology does not decide the outcome of a war .
Wars are not fought between military, but between nations .

Thats odd, I thought the atomic bomb ended WW2.

Anyone remember differently ?

Mad Dog

[ljadw]

That does not disprove what I said : Japan was not defeated by the Atomic Bomb .The liberation of the Philippines happened without the Atomic Bomb .The war could would also have ended without the Atomic Bomb .
Sources :
1 Technology does not win wars (Sean McFate )
2 Technology does not win wars (Caglar Kurc )
3 Technology does not win wars .Why the US pretends it does (Big Think )
4 Winning wars Technological advantage or the will to fight (Chesterfield Strategy )