re: Are we learning tanks are essentially obsolete

Russian tanks are obsolete. They were designed to be small and fast and evasive in contrast to American behemoth tanks. They have key vulnerabilities like an exposed shell carousel at the base of the turret. The idea was their speed and small size made up for it. But with guided weapons technology now this advantage is 100% moot. Being fast and small doesn't mean anything anymore and the structural weaknesses are glaring.

quote:

---

We’re learning that sending a column of armor single-file down a road you do not control is a bad idea

---

Of course, we knew that...

quote:

---

The lack of lower level leadership skills and initiative of the Red Army was shown all the way back in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Tactically, they were not very sound.

They still aren't.

---

Anyone trying to study modern conflict based on Russia is wasting their time. These idiots are garbage all the way around. Tech, manufacturing, training, budget, ability, etc. Absolute garbage. The only country maybe worse is Germany. Someone would roll their unprepared arse in a day.

quote:

---

However, a very large portion of the issue can be attributed to the fact that Russian (Soviet-designed) tanks are nowhere near as formidable as US Abrams model tanks. The armor is thinner and made of steel alloy as opposed to titanium armor on US tanks.

---

There is no Titanium in any version of the Abrams' armor. The Abrams is constructed of steel with sandwiched pieces of non-explosive reactive armor inside, with either composite armor or plates of depleted Uranium in key areas on the outside. There are some explosive reactive armor on later versions along the top of the treadline.

quote:

---

You'll rarely (if ever) see an authentic Russian design on any of their ordnance and equipment. Most of it is stolen or reverse engineered from US/NATO equipment

---

Yeah, but... no.

There's very little equipment that the Russians have that is "copied" from any NATO weapon, especially their tanks. All Soviet designed, and then Russian-improved models in their inventory are evolutionary outgrowths from one of two WWII model Soviet tanks: the T-34, and the IS-10. And both of those tanks were as different from the Sherman as they could be.

The T-54/55, T-62, and T-72... which most of their follow-up tanks are based on... are design outgrowths of the T-34. They're all basically T-34's that got progressively bigger, with thicker armor and more powerful engines, and bigger guns.

The T-80... evolved from the T-64, which was a design outgrowth of the IS-8/T-10.

Everything the Russians do in regards to their armor design and doctrine is influenced by their experiences in WWII. From production, to operation, to field maintenance, the Russians ask themselves, for good or ill, "What would we have done at Stalingrad?".

And the Ukrainians are using the same armor. The only "Ukrainian made" tank, the T-84, is a T-80 with some upgrades, made at the same ex-Soviet factory that the T-80 was produced in.

The difference maker is the Javelin. Without it, the Russians would be occupying Kiev right now.

You are correct. No titanium. It is depleted uranium in certain parts of the armor--the "ballistic armor".

I will say this...if you everdamage one of the skirts that are ballistic (you'll know because teu are heavy as frick), or the turret, you will get a visit by Feds in suits that will read you your rights.

All those years of Xbox & PS games finally paying off.

No, we’re not learning it; we already knew it.

ETA: But the Russians might be learning it.