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.
“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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
There’s also balloons.
Blast away - they cost maybe 10 cents each.
Javelins cost?
“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.
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.
This war is a strategic meatgrinder for both sides.
Russia doesn’t want to conquer Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn’t want to conquer Russia.
Tanks in a meatgrinder just get ground up.
Tanks are meant to punch a hole and get into the enemy’s rear and start shooting up kitchens and supply dumps.
When this happens, the enemy goes to crap.
As long as humans live on ground, someone is going to have to fight on the ground.
You can have people wearing fabric against weapons or people in steel against weapons.
It’s a choice.
It’s the same with our failed carrier gunboat diplomacy. With drone and missile swarms two of our most cherished weapon systems, the tank and aircraft carrier, are in the process of being rendered obsolete.
You just described practically any weapon system.
You must be thrilled anticipating your beloved Russia destroying the weapons of the West you so despise. Your gleeful anticipation of such a thing fairly leaps off your post.
Your animosity towards the West in general and the US in particular is well known here on FR, Ivan.
Is the armor weaker than it was two days ago, when this story was first posted here?
NATO’s war problem: weak armor
01/04/2024 7:23:22 PM PST · by FarCenter · 64 replies
Asia Times ^
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4207847/posts
Another words, they are pretty, but cannot fight? As an old, very old Infantryman, I cannot remember one firefight that wasn't a hostile environment. What exactly are they expecting? Daisies tossed at them? What is it with the 'modern' Infantry? They are totally weighed down with layer after layer of equipment and body armor and their maneuvering capability is severely impacted. Have watched video of them waddling around trying to get into positions that they then have to try to get back up from. Maybe if they turn them all into olympic level bodybuilders it can make sense, but wow I feel for those guys, us old fellas complained about hauling 50 pounds around.
How effective can ERA be in an active and ongoing battle? The first missile hit may be defeated by the ERA, but the second should strike a killing blow.
You need to read Col. Doug MacGregor’s critiques of our front line tanks. He says the biggest problem is that we are using jet turbine engines whose heat signature is easily identifiable from space sattellites and they can be knocked out by Russian anti-tank missiles. Not to mention they have to be run continuously to keep them operable.
I remember going to the F-16 General Dynamics Plant in DFW back in the late 80s to work on some RCS measurement equipment that supported it.
Pretty old airframe and the really only valuable part of that system, IMO, are the electronics and weapons suites upgrades. D-Links, higher block level A/A and A/G missiles, etc. I seriously doubt the F-16s being sent to UKR include all the latest bells and whistles.