3 ms·

You don't use something like T-55 to fight modern tanks. T-55, while is near worthless in tank-on-tank warfare, is still a 100mm self-propelled gun, and armor t

You don't use something like T-55 to fight modern tanks. T-55, while is near worthless in tank-on-tank warfare, is still a 100mm self-propelled gun, and armor that will withstand anything, but dedicated anti-tank weaponry. Even from my dated high school military lessons from around 2004-2006, I know the official doctrine of Russian tank forces is to avoid tank on tank combat with equal, or superior tanks. Anything more substantial than 3rd generation tanks will not be engaged with guns, but with few heavy ATGMs per target from 5+ kms away. All T-72 in Russian service can fire 120mm ATGMs, even T-55s are supposed to have some 100mm ATGMs for them. A wide front-offensive will certainly decrease the efficiency of anti-tank weapons on the defending side, and let the majority of attacking force to pass. Biggest anti-tank unit today is an attack helicopter, hence Russian zeal to develop things like Panzir SPAG.

nabla9 6y ago
Old Soviet tanks are useless against against modern army as you can see in Syria, Irak and elsewhere. They have limited used only in defensive warfare if they don't have to move. If they move, they are quickly destroyed. Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover. Unless they can build a staging ground at a leisure pace in an ally country. Not to say that it was building up its already significant military logistics. Now, why do you think such a such a force needs even bigger logistics buildup, far exceeding defensive use scenario? All past of your comments on military strategy give off so much of youthful maximalism. In conflict, always expect the worst past holistic comparison. All things that "could never happen" according to military analysts do eventually happen. A saying is you never expect the enemy to attack where you expect him the most.

nabla9 6y ago

Old Soviet tanks are useless against against modern army as you can see in Syria, Irak and elsewhere. They have limited used only in defensive warfare if they don't have to move. If they move, they are quickly destroyed. Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover.

baybal2 6y ago
> Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover. Unless they can build a staging ground at a leisure pace in an ally country. Not to say that it was building up its already significant military logistics. Now, why do you think such a such a force needs even bigger logistics buildup, far exceeding defensive use scenario? All past of your comments on military strategy give off so much of youthful maximalism. In conflict, always expect the worst past holistic comparison. All things that "could never happen" according to military analysts do eventually happen. A saying is you never expect the enemy to attack where you expect him the most.