The end of tanks as we know it?

[Aida1]

Would teach you what happened when iraqi infantry tried to take on Abrams tanks. They were obliterated.

As a caution, I would suggest it is dangerous to draw general conclusions from such specific examples. I remember reading a piece by an expert adviser on Soviet tactics of the US military. His point was that Soviet tanks and other weapons' systems were designed to work with Soviet tactical doctrine and it is not particularly helpful to judge their efficacy on their performance when used otherwise. He specifically quoted the Iraqis as an example of an army that did precisely that with predictable results.

Uder ljadw would have taken on Abrams tanks like the Iraqis in 2003 based on his ludicrous statements so this is why the reference was made.

[Gooner1]

The Russian T-62 finally gets a worthy opponent

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenp ... e-103.html

[Cult Icon]

Would teach you what happened when iraqi infantry tried to take on Abrams tanks. They were obliterated.

As a caution, I would suggest it is dangerous to draw general conclusions from such specific examples. I remember reading a piece by an expert adviser on Soviet tactics of the US military. His point was that Soviet tanks and other weapons' systems were designed to work with Soviet tactical doctrine and it is not particularly helpful to judge their efficacy on their performance when used otherwise. He specifically quoted the Iraqis as an example of an army that did precisely that with predictable results.

The T-series' conception is of a cold war version of the T-34 (low cost/low profile tank, huge numbers, simple to maintain/produce, offensive orientation). The Western tanks look more like the Germanic mindset TBH of high cost tank with the best possible features. However some of the best Western materials and tech will not be given to the Ukraine as the Russians will end up capturing it and reverse-engineering them for their own purposes.

In modern warfare in the Ukraine it is evident that 'bunching up' and 'massing' has proven to be highly dangerous to missile, air, and artillery strikes. In the Russian operational slowdown, it is noticeable that they are no longer using battalions but actually company tactical groups or smaller. Wagner is at the squad and platoon level. This is despite the doubling of Russian ground forces in Oct-Nov.

Right now it's positional warfare with glacially slow advances by Russia. Ukrainians get interdicted by Russian artillery superiority, missiles, and airstrikes when they attempt to assemble in masses and take losses. Russian forces had the same problem a couple of times in the war when their assemblies got hit by Ukrainian artillery strikes.

The situation in the Ukraine is similar to World War 1. Maneuver/mobile warfare has proven to be tactically problematic and tanks are easy to knock out with modern weapons. It would require innovative solutions with tactics and training to regain maneuver, such as in the ISR space. It's not a matter of this tank better than the other tank but rather how combat units are used.

So if eventually one side in this war develop 'storm troop tactics' with armor and successfully implement them then it could work.

Overall, the blitzkrieg practiced by the US in Iraq combined with the low standard of Ukrainian training and lack of time has about zero chance of happening outside the imagination of dreamers.

[ljadw]

Foreign Policy March 2 2018 :Made in America, but lost in Iraq ( by David Axe )
Iraq received 140 Abrams from US and used them against ISIL, who had no tanks.
A contractor of General Dynamics said that his team had rebuilt most of Iraq's M1s '' three times over '' and that half of these tanks awaited at that moment repairs .
This means that most of these 140 ''best tanks of the world '' had to be repaired several times in a war against an enemy who had no tanks 'thus that tanks are not needed to eliminate Abrams,and that other ATW also are not needed,as these tanks, all tanks need fuel supplies, ammunition supplies and spare parts ,and that if ONE of these is lacking, the Abram tank is no longer operational .

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 .
An other explanation is that the US refuse to send tanks to Ukraine ,although they have thousands of them and lie that these thousands of tanks are not operational and that thus the best solution is to make new ones .
Whatever : the conclusion is that something that costs a few bucks is sufficient to eliminate a tank of $ 10 million.

[dgfred]

Which contractor said this almost 5 years ago and when were the tanks delivered?

[ljadw]

David Axe kept his name hidden,as the man would have big problems if DC knew his name .
The last tanks were delivered in August 2011.

[Aida1]

Foreign Policy March 2 2018 :Made in America, but lost in Iraq ( by David Axe )
Iraq received 140 Abrams from US and used them against ISIL, who had no tanks.
A contractor of General Dynamics said that his team had rebuilt most of Iraq's M1s '' three times over '' and that half of these tanks awaited at that moment repairs .
This means that most of these 140 ''best tanks of the world '' had to be repaired several times in a war against an enemy who had no tanks 'thus that tanks are not needed to eliminate Abrams,and that other ATW also are not needed,as these tanks, all tanks need fuel supplies, ammunition supplies and spare parts ,and that if ONE of these is lacking, the Abram tank is no longer operational .

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 .
An other explanation is that the US refuse to send tanks to Ukraine ,although they have thousands of them and lie that these thousands of tanks are not operational and that thus the best solution is to make new ones .
Whatever : the conclusion is that something that costs a few bucks is sufficient to eliminate a tank of $ 10 million.

Dishonest as always as you will obviously not go into the very successful use of the Abrams by the US Army. You would be hard put to destroy an Abrams with something that costs a few dollars.
Your whole argument is completely ludicrous. Very dumb and only exhibiting your complete lack of any knowledge.

[Aida1]

Would teach you what happened when iraqi infantry tried to take on Abrams tanks. They were obliterated.

As a caution, I would suggest it is dangerous to draw general conclusions from such specific examples. I remember reading a piece by an expert adviser on Soviet tactics of the US military. His point was that Soviet tanks and other weapons' systems were designed to work with Soviet tactical doctrine and it is not particularly helpful to judge their efficacy on their performance when used otherwise. He specifically quoted the Iraqis as an example of an army that did precisely that with predictable results.

Overall, the blitzkrieg practiced by the US in Iraq combined with the low standard of Ukrainian training and lack of time has about zero chance of happening outside the imagination of dreamers.

You are afraid of that possibility. We certainly should give the ability to the Ukranians to practice deep offensive operations against your russian friends.

[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. Quantity over quality, eh ?

That was sarcasm.

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.

[/quote]

[Aida1]

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. Quantity over quality, eh ?

That was sarcasm.

Mad Dog

Ljadw cannot understand the meaning of sarcasm.

[Gooner1]

Russian tankers making a balls of it near Vuhledar



Slightly longer clip with a running man on fire here

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/sta ... 7723985920

Column of destroyed armour

[ljadw]

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 .
The wrongly claimed superior quality of the KV, Tiger and Abram does not make them immune for mines, for snipers, for roadside bombs, ...

[ljadw]

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.

[/quote]
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 .

[Aida1]

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 .
The wrongly claimed superior quality of the KV, Tiger and Abram does not make them immune for mines, for snipers, for roadside bombs, ...

There are engineers to deal with mines. Snipers are no threat at all to tanks. Generally alll threats to tanks can be dealt with.