>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

>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.