NATO’s war problem: weak armor

Asia Times ^ | 6 Jan 23 | Stephen Bryan

[delta7]

Obviously the reason our welfare M1 tanks have been in hiding since their in theater arrival back In September…..US M1 tanks sitting in Moscows war booty museum would remind the world of senile Joe’s Afghanistan debacle….no matter, senile Joe and war cheerleaders Ukie debacle will go down in history…..the turning point for America’s hedgemony…..still waiting for the West’s F-16 wonder weapon arrival ( destruction).

[Alter Kaker]

Put most simply, the armor vehicles NATO has won’t survive in a firefight with the Russians, notwithstanding the fact that Russian armor is far from the best.

Anti-armor weapons can knock out any tank on either side. Rather than investing in WWII-era technology, we should be investing in anti-drone technology and building swarms of our owns.

[BobL]

“NATO’s war problem: weak armor”

Take that, Putin!!!! We don’t need no decent armor for our tanks because Russian weapons don’t even work, and that’s because Ruzzians are sub-human!!!!

(even if they learn math without calculators and graduate twice as many engineers as the US)

So, take that, Putin!!!!

[Alter Kaker]

Obviously the reason our welfare M1 tanks have been in hiding since their in theater arrival back In September

Yeah M1s aren't great, but neither are any of the Russian tanks. The munch vaunted Russian "super-weapons," like the T-14 Armata, can barely make it to Ukraine and in fact the Russkies appear to have halted production. Oops.

[glorgau]

40 years go the saying was: What can be seen can be hit, what can be hit can be killed.

[rexthecat]

Rather than investing in WWII-era technology, we should be investing in anti-drone technology and building swarms of our owns.

You're absolutely correct. Tank warfare is obsolete. And aircraft carriers will soon be as well. Drones and hypersonic missiles are what you'll need to win tomorrow's wars.

[CatHerd]

Interesting discussion of this article here, especially the contributions of Freeper Spktyr.

[katana]

Russians have never lacked intelligence. You don’t get masses of chess masters and rocket scientists from a left hand of the intelligence bell curve population. They have always been underestimated at their opponents’ peril. Former Senators from Delaware, on the other hand ...

[Chad C. Mulligan]

It’s axiomatic that generals are always fighting the last war, and Red Army generals are fighting the one before that.

The West will innovate. Moscow not so much.

[Brian Griffin]

A warhead will hit and destroy what it hits.

Instead rely on dummies and duplication.

A new style tank might have 40 pods in a 5 by 8 array, two of which are well-armored and which each house a man. It might have 16 drive units, 8 on each side. That tank might have six ‘guns’, one of which is real.

[CatHerd]

Actually, the Russians have innovated. They started putting cages on their tanks early on. Some of the first ones were kinda funky looking, but hey, they more or less worked. Now they’ve got more sophisticated.

[Brian Griffin]

“anti-drone technology”

Shotguns

[Rlsau1]

Technology is always advancing, but the military resists the changes in doctrine necessary to address it. Insurgents are more adaptable since they are not restricted so much by bureaucratic intransigence. The bureaucracy’s primary concern is protecting itself, and it’s always the troops in harms way who pay the price for their fecklessness.

[Brian Griffin]

There’s also balloons.

Blast away - they cost maybe 10 cents each.

Javelins cost?

[Mariner]

“still waiting for the West’s F-16 wonder weapon arrival”

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Denmark says it’ll be an extra six months...at least...before the first 6 are delivered.

[Mariner]

The future is lightweight, hard rubber wheeled surface drones with big guns.

10s of thousands of them, supported by airborne drones on the battlefield....and air dominance with manned stealth aircraft controlling all of it.

[delta7]

You miss the point. Sending US taxpayers equipment to be knowingly destroyed is criminal. An honest admission of declining to send certain equipment to destruction and preserving our equipment is a responsible action- but unfortunately it doesn’t fit senile Joe’s Ukie war narrative.

In any case, matters little now that the tide has undeniably turned into Vlads favor, time for senile old Joe to admit the truth….first he said , “ Support Ukraine for as long as it takes”….last month it turned to “ Support Ukraine as long as we can”…..in a few weeks we shall hear “ who is Ukraine? “.

….senile corrupted Joe, one heck of a “ leader”….carry on war cheerleaders.

[delta7]

Denmark says it’ll be an extra six months...at least...before the first 6 are delivered.
————
How convenient. There will only be a rump state of Ukraine left by then.

[Reverend Wright]

Hey USA will increase shell prodution by the end of 2025, that’s only 23 months !

[Widget Jr]

Pro-Russian logic:

Russia losses are approaching fourteen thousand tanks and combat vehicles, largely to leftover US and NATO weapons, which are getting replaced as they are used, with no direct US or NATO military combat losses:

"Who cares."

Ukraine loses a handful of older Leopard tanks while Russia loses several times as many tanks and vehicles in the process

"NATO can't win against Russia."

When it is the Russian military getting depleted, when NATO militaries are getting replenished and increasing production, with no direct NATO involvement.

Pro-Russian logic is flawed.