6 ms·

It's also more cost-effective to roll troops in cheap tanks from the edge of your border than to engage costly fighters and bombers with anti aerial defenses. T

It's also more cost-effective to roll troops in cheap tanks from the edge of your border than to engage costly fighters and bombers with anti aerial defenses. They don't need to fly if their targets are adjacent, and Ukraine has not dared bomb Russian territory, so Russia can easily resupply its invasion for weeks if it wants.

thematrixturtle 5y ago
Tanks cost less than fighter jets, but you can hardly call the "cheap", they're typically the Army's most expensive piece of kit. The M1 Abrams costs around $10 million a pop.
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  The inefficiencies and price overruns in US procurement of military equipment are legendary. I guess we should look at the cost of the bom for a tank, not what government pays for it. Not that tanks are cheap but I think manifacturing cost is substantially lower than 10m.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    I'm not very informed on tanks, but IIRC the Armata series are their next-generation tanks, and they cost like 3-4 million each. Invading Ukraine would be the opportunity to throw old stockpile nevertheless, much like the bombing of Afghanistan helped replace old USA bomb stockpile.
    - astrange 5y ago
      The common opinion seems to be that the T-14 Armata is vaporware, and their newest tank is the T-90 which they are using - and having stolen by farmers.
      - KptMarchewa 5y ago
        T-72BM3
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Ourgon 5y ago
  > Tanks cost less than fighter jets The MiG 21 cost less to procure than a BMP-1 armoured personnel carrier if Wikipedia [1] is to be believed [2]. A BMP is not a tank and can be assumed to be less expensive than one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Cost [2] which is in this case probably is seeing as how this is not a politically sensitive subject
  - thematrixturtle 5y ago
    Uhh, that's because the MiG 21 dates from 1955.
    - Ourgon 5y ago
      And? The BMP-1 is from 1965. Given that the BFV (Bradley) is from 1981 and the F-15 Eagle from 1972 the latter should be cheaper than the former, yes?
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> Ukraine has not dared bomb Russian territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerovo_air_base_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerovo_air_base_attack
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I stand corrected, Ukraine has not dared bomb Russian territory too much :/
rkagerer 5y ago
What's the domestic replacability of the tanks like compared to high-end fighter jets?
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  FAR FAR FAR easier and cheaper to replace armored vehicles, especially for Russia in particular. The biggest problem will be the modern electronics and sensor systems. I think a lot of infrared sensor systems, ballistic computers, etc. are sold globally by Thales (France), Rafael, or Elbit (Israel). IF Russia imports those, and I think it has in the past, the global sanctions will disrupt those parts supplies, and they are pretty important to effective situational awareness and accuracy in a modern MBT. The rest of a tank is mostly steel and composites that can be churned out fairly quickly at Uralvagonzavod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralvagonzavod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralvagonzavod But if they can't import the latest and greatest parts to make T-90Ms or T-72B3Ms....they have such a huge stockpile of "good enough" older T-72s in storage, they can just use those with a minor refurbishment period. With what we've seen of their tactics and (lack of) skills, it won't seriously impact their battlefield results to field early 1980s-era tank technology.
  - etempleton 5y ago
    Good enough against whom? Russian tanks are getting absolutely shredded by antitank personnel if reports are true. Against M1 Abrams it isn’t even going to be a battle and they don’t have enough Armatas to make a difference. I question the use of tanks for anything beyond a support / artillery role at this point. All tanks seem highly vulnerable to both air and Javelin-like AT. I think there was a US report a few years back about how modern tanks are no longer really the centerpiece of the battlefield anymore. Similar to how the battleship was thought to be the centerpiece at the beginning of WW2 and then it quickly became apparent it was the aircraft carrier.
    - idontwantthis 5y ago
      Tanks have gone through evolutions of survivability before. Through 60s and 70s they basically gave up on surviving a hit and armor actually got thinner while speed and armament improved. Then composites, ceramics, and reactives made it possible to survive an enemy tank or rpg hit again. Now armor is less useful again , but active protection is on the rise.

thematrixturtle 5y ago

Tanks cost less than fighter jets, but you can hardly call the "cheap", they're typically the Army's most expensive piece of kit. The M1 Abrams costs around $10 million a pop.

ReptileMan 5y ago
The inefficiencies and price overruns in US procurement of military equipment are legendary. I guess we should look at the cost of the bom for a tank, not what government pays for it. Not that tanks are cheap but I think manifacturing cost is substantially lower than 10m.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I'm not very informed on tanks, but IIRC the Armata series are their next-generation tanks, and they cost like 3-4 million each. Invading Ukraine would be the opportunity to throw old stockpile nevertheless, much like the bombing of Afghanistan helped replace old USA bomb stockpile.
  - astrange 5y ago
    The common opinion seems to be that the T-14 Armata is vaporware, and their newest tank is the T-90 which they are using - and having stolen by farmers.
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      T-72BM3
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Ourgon 5y ago
> Tanks cost less than fighter jets The MiG 21 cost less to procure than a BMP-1 armoured personnel carrier if Wikipedia [1] is to be believed [2]. A BMP is not a tank and can be assumed to be less expensive than one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Cost [2] which is in this case probably is seeing as how this is not a politically sensitive subject
- thematrixturtle 5y ago
  Uhh, that's because the MiG 21 dates from 1955.
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    And? The BMP-1 is from 1965. Given that the BFV (Bradley) is from 1981 and the F-15 Eagle from 1972 the latter should be cheaper than the former, yes?

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> Ukraine has not dared bomb Russian territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerovo_air_base_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerovo_air_base_attack

ASalazarMX 5y ago
I stand corrected, Ukraine has not dared bomb Russian territory too much :/

rkagerer 5y ago

What's the domestic replacability of the tanks like compared to high-end fighter jets?

CapricornNoble 5y ago
FAR FAR FAR easier and cheaper to replace armored vehicles, especially for Russia in particular. The biggest problem will be the modern electronics and sensor systems. I think a lot of infrared sensor systems, ballistic computers, etc. are sold globally by Thales (France), Rafael, or Elbit (Israel). IF Russia imports those, and I think it has in the past, the global sanctions will disrupt those parts supplies, and they are pretty important to effective situational awareness and accuracy in a modern MBT. The rest of a tank is mostly steel and composites that can be churned out fairly quickly at Uralvagonzavod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralvagonzavod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralvagonzavod But if they can't import the latest and greatest parts to make T-90Ms or T-72B3Ms....they have such a huge stockpile of "good enough" older T-72s in storage, they can just use those with a minor refurbishment period. With what we've seen of their tactics and (lack of) skills, it won't seriously impact their battlefield results to field early 1980s-era tank technology.
- etempleton 5y ago
  Good enough against whom? Russian tanks are getting absolutely shredded by antitank personnel if reports are true. Against M1 Abrams it isn’t even going to be a battle and they don’t have enough Armatas to make a difference. I question the use of tanks for anything beyond a support / artillery role at this point. All tanks seem highly vulnerable to both air and Javelin-like AT. I think there was a US report a few years back about how modern tanks are no longer really the centerpiece of the battlefield anymore. Similar to how the battleship was thought to be the centerpiece at the beginning of WW2 and then it quickly became apparent it was the aircraft carrier.
  - idontwantthis 5y ago
    Tanks have gone through evolutions of survivability before. Through 60s and 70s they basically gave up on surviving a hit and armor actually got thinner while speed and armament improved. Then composites, ceramics, and reactives made it possible to survive an enemy tank or rpg hit again. Now armor is less useful again , but active protection is on the rise.