Ukraine War Rips Veil Off of US Weapons Superiority

Re:Ukraine War Rips Veil Off of US Weapons Superiority by jltsiren on Sunday June 02, 2024 @08:35PM (#40558282)

The criticism I hear specifically about the Abrams is that it's designed for a role that doesn't really exist on the battlefield. It's a tank designed to fight tanks, which isn't very common in Ukraine. What tanks actually end up doing is engaging fixed positions and soft targets, while needing defenses from drones and top-attack missiles. The Abrams does not perform well in that role.

Maybe newer versions of the Abrams would have performed better in this particular role, but that's only a part of the problem. Weapons that only work well in the intended scenarios are not very good weapons, because wars rarely turn out as planned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ukraine War Rips Veil Off of US Weapons Superiority by pknomad on Wednesday June 05, 2024 @09:42PM (#40592564)

>The criticism I hear specifically about the Abrams is that it's designed for a role that doesn't really exist on the battlefield. It's a tank designed to fight tanks, which isn't very common in Ukraine.

That's a surprising statement given that we saw tank to tank battle last time US fought a "peer" adversary back in desert storm where US Abrams took on Iraqi T72's. Smarter and more informed people have gone on record (Perun and The Chieftain) to say tanks are part of both defense and offense (you can't push the front lines with just infantry).

In fact - Perun's video mentions a good example - how come we're only saying this for tanks when there are MANPADS and AA for Helis and Jets/Bombers, respectively?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q

I hear what you're saying... but I don't find the examples persuasive for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]