Russian expert defends tanks in drone era debate (defence-blog.com)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Murakhovsky described how tank employment in the Ukraine war has shifted toward survivability-focused tactics: “The tactics of combat vehicle crews within the framework of the special military operation have ceased to resemble previous ones. Commanders rely on the survivability of each individual piece of equipment. Shot – maneuver – withdrawal.”

I hate how journalists and writers are so willfully ignorant of war that we all continually gobble this stuff up uncritically.

This is NOT a new realization for every tank designer in the world except Russia. The basic way Abrams crews have been trained for decades debunks the idea these are novel realizations... the Abrams itself was specifically named after a general who emphasized combined arms as a primary virtue not limitless strength.

I could link an article but it is better to just watch how Abrams are trained to move and fight, they don't rely on their armor to protect them, Abrams crews have NEVER been trained to do that.

https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=nD171uIEiAQ

Russia is attrociously bad at making main battle tanks or indeed really understanding them in the first place as a tool. The rest of the world however is not.

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

Russia has always made tanks with 1 goal. Starting the drive westwards with 10.000 tanks and getting to the Atlantic coast with more than 0. Everything else was irrelevant.

And it turns out those are fucking terrible design goals.

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Russia's has always seen tanks use like what we saw attempted at the beginning of the war.

Start with an overwhelming artillery and air attack to decimated defensive positions. Then send long columns of armored vehicles pushing straight across the front line with the tanks in the lead to soak up fire and clear mines. Then the infantry hops out and mops up defenders. This is WW2 level strategy.

Tanks needed thick front armor, a fast fire rate for the cannon, a low profile to deflect incoming fire, and no need for a fast reverse.

What actually happened: the artillery was inaccurate and mostly ineffectual. The air couldn't get close to the line and lobbed inaccurate attacks. The tanks got wrecked quickly by the defenders (drones, javalin etc). This left the rest of the column to turn around or attempt to continue the attack under heavy defensive fire without support. It was decimated..

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Start with an overwhelming artillery and air attack to decimated defensive positions. Then send long columns of armored vehicles pushing straight across the front line with the tanks in the lead to soak up fire and clear mines. Then the infantry hops out and mops up defenders. This is WW2 level strategy.

The strategy still works, but it requires competency and evolution in tactics and systems which Russia has failed to do with respect to armored maneuver.

Also it requires tanks with a non-suicidally slow reverse speed.

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago

Weren't the Abrams designed with turrets that could fire accurately while on the move. Like a stable cam mount or a chicken head.

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 6 points 6 days ago

The basis of the design of the Abrams from the beginning all the way back in 1979 was to prioritize the ability to fire accurately while moving over rough terrain, and not just while moving forwards.

This shit isn't new, russia is just chock full of bullshitters and people who value the illusion of masculine strength above intellectual understanding.