3 ms·

Indochina didn't need many kalashnikovs to remove the French, just the support of a powerful ally that the French didn't dare directly attack, just like Afghani

Indochina didn't need many kalashnikovs to remove the French, just the support of a powerful ally that the French didn't dare directly attack, just like Afghanistan was helped by the US. On the other hand kalashnikovs didn't really help the Chechen during the second Chechen war. > drones have made tanks obsolete Considering how the Ukrainians are still asking for tanks and other armored vehicles, I'm not sure it's the case already, at least in that current conflict.

kragen 2y ago
these are fair points. kalashnikovs didn't help the cambodians much either, as i said keep in mind, though, that when afghanistan routed the usa at the end of their long occupation, they didn't have the support of a powerful ally (unless you count al qaeda, or certain factions within pakistani intelligence agencies) it's true that tanks aren't completely obsolete—and probably won't be. (a tank can still grind an unarmed protester into red goo under its tracks, after all.) they've only been made obsolete in the same way that the maxim gun made spears obsolete; every infantryman still carries a bayonet into battle. he just mounts that spear point on the end of his fully automatic rifle¹ keeping that in mind, compare the relative prominence of armored vehicles vs. drones/missiles/carbombs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(1_April_2024_%E2%80%93_present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasi... ______ ¹ miniaturized by kalashnikov to the point where it is the soldier's instrument rather than the other way around