3 ms·

Author and publication bias aside… I don’t find the author persuasive at all. It’s saying misused equipment and poorly supported logistics result in subpar perf

Author and publication bias aside… I don’t find the author persuasive at all. It’s saying misused equipment and poorly supported logistics result in subpar performance. That’s like… any weapons systems. Look how the Russian tanks got decimated last year by missiles and drones. Was it because Russian tanks were bad? No - because they were sent without infantry support which is a flagrant doctrinal negligence.

jltsiren 2y ago
You can blame misuse and incompetence, or you can say that the weapons are too specialized and fragile to be practical in the conditions you may find in an actual war. US weapons have not been tested in a real war in many decades. When you try using unproven weapons in a war that isn't massively one-sided, it's expected that things don't work as expected. Russia faced the same situation, found that their doctrine (as implemented in the real world) was a massive failure, and eventually adapted. The West is trying to do the same, but because we are not participating in the war directly, it's impossible to say if we are actually adapting.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  >Russia...eventually adapted. Currently using motorbikes on the front lines.
- pknomad 2y ago
  > you can say that the weapons are too specialized I understand what you're trying to say... but there's too much extrapolation going on here. Are the weapons are too specialized for a country that is smaller than its adversary and has fraction of monetary and logistical support than the designer of its weapons? Or are the weapons too specialized for warfare in general? I would feel more compelled by your argument if the author had chosen good examples instead of cherry picking them. (Like really? M1A1 being knocked out? It's being used by crew who are new to the Abrams and the variant that's being sent is the non SEPv3.)
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    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.
    - pknomad 2y ago
      >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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q I hear what you're saying... but I don't find the examples persuasive for me.

jltsiren 2y ago

You can blame misuse and incompetence, or you can say that the weapons are too specialized and fragile to be practical in the conditions you may find in an actual war. US weapons have not been tested in a real war in many decades. When you try using unproven weapons in a war that isn't massively one-sided, it's expected that things don't work as expected. Russia faced the same situation, found that their doctrine (as implemented in the real world) was a massive failure, and eventually adapted. The West is trying to do the same, but because we are not participating in the war directly, it's impossible to say if we are actually adapting.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
>Russia...eventually adapted. Currently using motorbikes on the front lines.
pknomad 2y ago
> you can say that the weapons are too specialized I understand what you're trying to say... but there's too much extrapolation going on here. Are the weapons are too specialized for a country that is smaller than its adversary and has fraction of monetary and logistical support than the designer of its weapons? Or are the weapons too specialized for warfare in general? I would feel more compelled by your argument if the author had chosen good examples instead of cherry picking them. (Like really? M1A1 being knocked out? It's being used by crew who are new to the Abrams and the variant that's being sent is the non SEPv3.)
- jltsiren 2y ago
  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.
  - pknomad 2y ago
    >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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q I hear what you're saying... but I don't find the examples persuasive for me.