3 ms·

> 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

> 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

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.