> Three key issues explain Russia’s tank losses: lack of warning and preparation, poor strategy that exacerbated logistics issues, and insufficient infantry to protect them.
Ok sure. Yes. This was quite obviously an incredibly poor use of tanks, done incredibly wrong. I still think the thesis here, that this was just bad use & tanks are still viable, is ultra-questionable. The survivability versus much cheaper weapon systems is not proven, not there. This article talks about the Javelin, but that's still a quarter of a million dollar missile with limited supply; asymmetric warfare has gotten more grotesque, more uneven, more unreasonable. New classes of weapons like Switchblades are more cost effective micro-missile like offerings, not dealt with by classic air-defense/superiority, and with increasing likelihood seem capable of swarm operations for when closer-range air defense starts to emerge. Larger enduring combat drones can be cost effective options too, albeit counter-able by better air-control/superiority. In general: there is no feasible defense strategy at the moment. Novel defense systems are needed to protect against modern small very cost-effective counter-armor swarms of drone-missiles.
> Tanks are among the most logistics-intensive pieces of equipment. They require routine maintenance, spare parts, and substantial fuel to keep them operational.
I hard a hard time imagining a jet or a frigate as less logistics intensive. I guess what's somewhat notable about a tank versus a ship is that a ship often has more supplies & reserves onboard. But a frigate will still require a far greater auxiliary fleet footprint in anything beyond a brief engagement.
Yes: a lot of Russian tanks were just abandoned, not defeated necessarily in combat. Still, in general, I see bad support & logistics as less relevant to what we're seeing. We just haven't seen effective use of tanks. They're still horrifying, terrifying monstrosities, strong visible icons of war. But it's very unclear, very uncertain that they have much role given how vicious & fantastical much smaller weapons systems have grown.
Edit: lol, there's more downvotes for this statement than there are upvotes for the submission. Don't hide, come out & say whatever is it is you find so objectionable!
Ok sure. Yes. This was quite obviously an incredibly poor use of tanks, done incredibly wrong. I still think the thesis here, that this was just bad use & tanks are still viable, is ultra-questionable. The survivability versus much cheaper weapon systems is not proven, not there. This article talks about the Javelin, but that's still a quarter of a million dollar missile with limited supply; asymmetric warfare has gotten more grotesque, more uneven, more unreasonable. New classes of weapons like Switchblades are more cost effective micro-missile like offerings, not dealt with by classic air-defense/superiority, and with increasing likelihood seem capable of swarm operations for when closer-range air defense starts to emerge. Larger enduring combat drones can be cost effective options too, albeit counter-able by better air-control/superiority. In general: there is no feasible defense strategy at the moment. Novel defense systems are needed to protect against modern small very cost-effective counter-armor swarms of drone-missiles.
> Tanks are among the most logistics-intensive pieces of equipment. They require routine maintenance, spare parts, and substantial fuel to keep them operational.
I hard a hard time imagining a jet or a frigate as less logistics intensive. I guess what's somewhat notable about a tank versus a ship is that a ship often has more supplies & reserves onboard. But a frigate will still require a far greater auxiliary fleet footprint in anything beyond a brief engagement.
Yes: a lot of Russian tanks were just abandoned, not defeated necessarily in combat. Still, in general, I see bad support & logistics as less relevant to what we're seeing. We just haven't seen effective use of tanks. They're still horrifying, terrifying monstrosities, strong visible icons of war. But it's very unclear, very uncertain that they have much role given how vicious & fantastical much smaller weapons systems have grown.
Edit: lol, there's more downvotes for this statement than there are upvotes for the submission. Don't hide, come out & say whatever is it is you find so objectionable!