T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
A change in technology doesn't equate to a revolution in tactics.
Soviet-made tanks headed to Ukraine, courtesy of U.S. and allies
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
A change in technology doesn't equate to a revolution in tactics.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Yes, it does. The Russians don't have to put a tank in front of a building to knock it down, they can launch a missile from their territory. Things have changed since 1943.
1) My links were chosen based on my level of respect for you on this subject.
And what do you give me?
A link to a chat forum on a blog about WW2?
An article about WW2 tactics.
And an article I cannot even read.
Whatever!!!
2) You answered NONE of my questions - what a shock - except one.
And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that an HE round that lands 5 feet from the tracks of a T-80 tank will more times than not - dislodge/destroy the tracks?
3) show me a link to unbiased, factual evidence that a standard 100mm HESH round can penetrate a modern, T-80 tank equipped with the latest reactive armor?
4) How the fuck is the T-55 supposed to fight the modern, Russian tank in the dark without decent thermal sights?
Well?
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
1) My links were chosen based on my level of respect for you on this subject.
And what do you give me?
A link to a chat forum on a blog?
An article about WW2 tactics.
And an article I cannot even read.
Whatever!!!
2) You answered NONE of my questions - what a shock - except one.
And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that an HE round that lands 5 feet from the tracks of a T-80 tank will more times than not - dislodge/destroy the tracks?
3) show me a link to unbiased, factual evidence that a standard 100mm HESH round can penetrate a modern, T-80 tank equipped with the latest reactive armor?
4) How the fuck is the T-55 supposed to fight the Russian tank in the dark without decent thermal sights? Luck?
You are now making a sorites paradox in the form of trivial objections. That is, rather than accept the generalized case I presented, now you want me to find cases of specific cause and effect. In effect, what you are trying to do is reduce the argument to the absurd and then claim victory because in some specific, narrowly defined, one-off, case things didn't work the way they did in the generalized case.
Large HE rounds can be effective at damaging and immobilizing tanks. A 100mm HE round is a large HE round. It's that simple.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Your generalized case was total shit...so there's that.
One - Guille is right. You do not use tanks to blow up buildings in the 21'st century. Modern MBT's only carry about 40-50 shells. They are not going to waste them on blowing up useless buildings.
Two - the Russians are staying away from blowing up buildings to try and avoid civilian casualties. But the Ukrainians are hiding in the cities because they know the Russians will not blow them up.
Three - the Russians are not even going into most cities. They have only had serious fighting in one, major city - Mariupol. Because that is an important port in the Donbas.
But because Russian troops have (apparently) been restricted to keep civilian casualties down...they have to be very careful as they advance. This is slowing them down greatly.
Four - you cannot tell squat from the videos. They are jumbled messes and are ALL being filmed by biased Ukrainians.
Five - you have NO IDEA what the Russian aim is.
Is it to take all of Ukraine (I doubt it)?
Or is it just to secure the Donbas and attack other, Ukrainian cities as a diversion to draw off Ukrainian forces from the Donbas?
If it's the former - they are having lots of troubles.
If it is the latter - they are doing fine.
Until you know what the Russian objectives are.
You cannot know what they should or should not be doing different.
Last edited:
You are saying that a T-55 with a skilled crew could easily destroy a T-80.
And I am giving you specific reasons as to why your original statement was erroneous...unless the former caught the latter by surprise at close range.
Now please stop stalling and either answer my questions (with factual evidence) or admit you cannot.
Fine...then show us all a link that proves that...but only with it's shrapnel (which was my point). NOT with a direct hit.
You are the one who originally claimed it could be done.
It is up to you to prove your original point.
Last edited:
Althea
Althea told me...
LMAO. Sure they will
Most of that equipment was not left by the US military.
It was abandoned by the Afghan National Army. An Army Trump was responsible for training and giving oversight to.
Trump's training must have been world class shitty, because the ANA walked away from their equipment without even trying to fight.
Agreed. It wasn't American equipment; the Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and other Trumpian cocksuckers like to push that lie to distort the truth.
Americans take all of their equipment or destroy it in place. It's against US policy to let US equipment fall into enemy hands.
Great until you run out of them. Expense is a major reason to use artillery, or armor fire, over guided missiles.
One problem for the Russians is that a lot of their more expensive stuff has a high failure rate, up to 60%. IMO, this is probably more due to improper storage and maintenance coupled with operator error. An ill-trained, ill-equipped and ill-maintained military force is getting its ass kicked for invading a country.