Reply to Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
[url]https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2[/url]

So what was Western made armor made for? [/quote]
It was made for Cold War era Fulda Gap.  The M1 and M2/3 families are approaching half a century of service.  The same holds true for the British Challenger and German Leopard.  The West lost two decades of armor development during GWOT, when the assumption was we’d be fighting low intensity conflicts for a hundred years (and armor isn’t particular useful “hearts and minds” CT/CI operations).  However, AT systems used by adversaries did progress to the point that M1s in Iraq were being taken out by insurgents emplying newer model RPG type systems.  
Western armor also tends towards the reliance on a very robust logistics trail.  
The Polish just selected the ROK Army’s K2 as its next gen main battle tank.  That should tell you something.
The Marines have ditched the M1 all together (with no replacement).[/quote]

Whoever posted this needs to be corrected on two points.
- For a while the Marines toyed with the idea of doing more inland missions (ex. Bosnia).  That didn't last long.  M1's and ocean / beach don't mix.  After that, the Marines needed a replacement that could go amphibious.  
- Only seven M1's have ever been destroyed in combat in Iraq; none by enemy fire - all by friendly fire.  14 were damaged by enemy fire (ex. "mobility kill"), but not destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2023%20M1A1s,lost%20to%20enemy%20tank%20fire.

The proper use for the M1's would be for the Ukrainians to disperse them in groups of 3 or 4 to their Mechanized Infantry Brigades as "overwatch" with support from air-defense, thermal-imaging drones, and artillery units.  The mech would 'move to contact' then the M1's would target the emplacements or armor from long-range.  That ensures that as much as the Russians might try, the M1's would just pick them off before they could even get within range; so it's a good fit for the fields they're trying to recapture now.  At night, M1's could 'sniper' the enemy at long-range.  True, the M1's can shoot-n-scoot, but that strategy is for "breakthrough" missions without heavy mines.

What the Russian's should be concerned about is that fall / early winter is coming up.  Their front-line positions as well as mines will stand out more than usual (mines will show up as either 'hot' or 'cold' spots) making the Russian defenses slightly easier to navigate.[/quote]

No that is not how you use armor. You use the M1 speed, armor and fire power to punch through their lines by destroying Russian armor as in 73 Easting. Once the break through is made you pour in your Soviet made crap and let them seek out the squishy support units. [/quote]

Trained on the Fulda Gap scenario?  Times have changed.  Look at the front-lines and defenses map again.  Russia has set up so many defensive lines, the M1's couldn't run that far before bumping into one.

Those are (dated) American tactics when you have an overwhelming firepower advantage in a combined arms force with air superiority; none of which Ukraine currently has.  Those tactics won't work (and haven't been working) in Ukraine.  They would have to capture a major highway or similar.  Plus a grouping of M1's would be far too attractive a target (both militarily and propaganda-wise).[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics