Synopsis: Australia says it has delivered the final tranche of 49 retired M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine as part of a broader $1.5 billion support package. -The tanks arrive with spares and support gear and are described as modified for Ukrainian requirements, including diesel fuel compatibility and upgraded thermal sights and electronics. -On the battlefield, […]
For the one thousandth time,Main Battle Tanks are as far from obsolete as you possibly can get.
Based on how the Kremlin’s tanks fared – and how the Western-made MBTs like the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 failed to be the miracle weapons Kyiv hoped for – it would seem that the Marine Corps made the right move. In a future war, they’ll be able to say they lost no tanks, simply because they had none to lose!
The Marine Corp is optimized for storming beaches and opening theaters for heavy firepower, Main Battle Tanks come way after that especially in the Pacific theater. By the time main battle tanks come into the picture the function of the Marines will be needed elsewhere.
It isn’t anti-tank-rifles, land-mines, bazookas, or RPG’s that render tanks obsolete: it is Saint Javelin that does.
When a troop-portable missile can take out a tank costing 100x as much, then by deploying tanks you are GIVING the enemy a way to bankrupt you.
A tank and an antitank missile are different tools with different jobs, an effective antitank missile changes how tanks are used, it has nothing to do with replacing them.
Armor is for moving troops around while protected, drones/guided missiles make that function MORE valuable to a military not less.
The cost analysis of AT weapons vs tanks completely misses the point of tanks, it is like hyperfocusing on a drill bit on a mining rig and being like “look how obsolete drill bits are they ALWAYS break and they are so expensive compared to the rest of the drill rig”.
Main battle tanks are the spear point of armored maneuever, they come into play at the most intense concentrations of force, just seeing them through the lens of cost misses almost the entire essential dynamic going on here.
When you kick a door down you aren’t generally concerned with the wasting calories, your goal is to decisively smash a breach open through defenses so the next step in a plan can happen AS FAST as possible.
The Marine Corp is optimized for storming beaches and opening theaters for heavy firepower, Main Battle Tanks come way after that especially in the Pacific theater. By the time main battle tanks come into the picture the function of the Marines will be needed elsewhere.
A tank and an antitank missile are different tools with different jobs, an effective antitank missile changes how tanks are used, it has nothing to do with replacing them.
Armor is for moving troops around while protected, drones/guided missiles make that function MORE valuable to a military not less.
The cost analysis of AT weapons vs tanks completely misses the point of tanks, it is like hyperfocusing on a drill bit on a mining rig and being like “look how obsolete drill bits are they ALWAYS break and they are so expensive compared to the rest of the drill rig”.
Main battle tanks are the spear point of armored maneuever, they come into play at the most intense concentrations of force, just seeing them through the lens of cost misses almost the entire essential dynamic going on here.
When you kick a door down you aren’t generally concerned with the wasting calories, your goal is to decisively smash a breach open through defenses so the next step in a plan can happen AS FAST as possible.