The enemy always gets a say
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
paulobrito
Well-known member
Yep, war is a true democracy after all.
That at least we can agree on.
Would not be so sure of that. The logistical footprint of even an old tank like this is still significant, yet the effectiveness in artillery role is considerably lower than even that of a crappy old dedicated SPG, probably worse than a WW2 105mm SPG even.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
The fact they are having to use Cold War relics is deeply embarrassing for Russia. Modern anti-tank weapons will make mincemeat of T-55s.
paulobrito
Well-known member
Modern anti-tank weapons have killed Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, T-90, etc. T-55 are in good company.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Abrams just got pulled from the battlefield due to drone threat
prove it
yes, those weapons systems were designed to defeat them. However, a Bradley with HEAP will destroy a T55, not just wreck it's 'eyes'.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
There are many countries up to and including the USA that are using Cold War relics. The issue is that Russia is reliant on early Cold War relics. There are few cases of anyone else doing this, and those exceptions generally speak for themselves (B-52).
The difference, of course, is doing it because you have a million obsolete pieces of equipment at your disposal versus doing it because the equipment is still that good (M2, arguably M1911).
Last edited:
I mean, they were using them ineffevtively.
Ukraine pulls US-provided Abrams tanks from the front lines over Russian drone threats
Two U.S. officials say Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia.apnews.com
Compare how they used the leopard to the Abrams and it shows.
That's the distinction: A lot of US hardware is still Cold War era, but they've been maintained, upgraded, and solidly built upon.
I mean, the Abrams entered service in 1980, and that's not counting the decade plus development time, but it has been constantly improved upon, and the next proposed refit package ("Abrams X") basically turns it into a modern tank.
Russia, conversely, suffered greatly when the Soviet Union collapsed, effectively halting all their already semi-obsolete designs until very recently, and their "new stuff" is still sub par.
They're running out of all this materiel already, so they're going back to early Cold War era equipment.
I mean, the Abrams entered service in 1980, and that's not counting the decade plus development time, but it has been constantly improved upon, and the next proposed refit package ("Abrams X") basically turns it into a modern tank.
Russia, conversely, suffered greatly when the Soviet Union collapsed, effectively halting all their already semi-obsolete designs until very recently, and their "new stuff" is still sub par.
They're running out of all this materiel already, so they're going back to early Cold War era equipment.
This is what people don't get, is the Abram's was designed to be used as part of a combined arms force, not the way the old Soviet school of thought treated armored warfare, and unfortunately a lot of Ukraine's older officer corp are still soviet stock.
Ukraine's 2023 counteroffensive was a costly lesson on why you don't use equipment meant for combined arms warfare in a manner fitting of a soviet playbook.
However, until SHORAD catches up with the new drone threat environment, armor is not as useful as it once was in this fight.
Seeing Yak-52 with gunners in the back taking down drones is like the old bi-plane rear-seaters taking down blimps in WW1.
I think that maybe it's time to consider a high-low approach to Ukraine and warfare in the future. Prop-planes with turreted guns can do a lot of things it would be far more expensive to do for air defense, especially against near-ground drones, than with jet fighters.
Wonder what it would take to spin up a reproduction P-61 assembly line, or give Ukraine a bunch of air-to-air modified Super-Tacano's or AC-130's (FC-130?)?
paulobrito
Well-known member
AC-130 is too big, and is going to be killed in seconds.
Near the frontline obviously it wouldn't work, but over the cities and industrial areas in the rear subject to Shahed's and such, it could be very useful.
paulobrito
Well-known member
Maybe, if is equipped with sensors capable of tracking said drones in time.
You could plug a fair number of CWIS/Avenger style systems into the sides of a C130.
Armor will always be useful even in a drone environment
You just need EW and SHORAD.
And SHORAD for drones is fairly easy. Just large scale is what is needed
Nit really useful for drones. Shaheed can be dealt with by MANPADS. Even non radar guided AA.
A C130 would need improved sensors, and the aspect if shooting downwards at non targets is a no no.
Better to mount on ground equipment.
Red Effect actually had a video discussing the use of the Abrams by the Ukrainians. And keeping in mind, the Ukrainians only received 31 Abrams Tanks almost a year and a half ago and they weren't actually put into action until last February. They weren't deployed as part of the massive combined arms units that America envisioned, but in small units or singly to support the defenses after Avdiivka fell to hold back the Russian advances in far less fortified areas.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Thats the proper way to employ them in the ukrainian context. The idea you are going to use these mass combined arms formations w/o air superiority against an enemy that is superior in firepower is crazy.