Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Ukraine Changes the Face of War Forever" video.

200k takes out a 2-4 million dollar tank, plus trained crew. The issue is that they seem to be firing them left and right and running out of them.
5
@davidmiletic6647 and doing that would negate the entire reason to invade. They need a buffer state to ensure the geological chokepoint and to retain access to the Black Sea. Obliterating Ukraine would remove that convinient buffer state.
4
@wolfpack4128 Do you want to use a panzerfaust, or something with a 2km range and is fire and forget? Choose wisely.
3
@marcgrundfest1495 The doctrine of total war is constrained by the real world.
3
The Panzerfaust is suicidal to use compared to a Javelin. I agree with what you're saying, but the Javelin is a massive step up over the Dragon missile the US used before as the missile is fire and forget, and can be fired from over a mile away, so the infantry has a much tougher job clearing the AT teams. The big deal is that now tanks need to be crammed full of soft kill and hard kill protection systems, making them more expensive to manufacture and require a much longer supply chain.
3
@krumba100 If the tanks weren't designed so horribly the lives inside would be spared. They take a hit and the ammunition goes off. Due to how the autoloader works they cook really easy, while on many Western tanks even if you hit the ammo blowoff pannels help divert the pressure outside.
3
@J Anda A greatly damaged state that wouldn't be able to survive due to brain drain (more than 3 million refugees) and damaged infrastructure. Russia can't afford to rebuild Ukraine. There's a difference between "weak", as in it's not able to defend itself, and "weak" in the sense that it's an anchor chained to your ankle. A few million starving to death, and nothing to show for it except crippling your own military and getting the West to "cancel" you on the economic plane. Great move. I'm sure there will be a history lesson to learn from this in the future.
2
@Squad23jta Of course the OP is correct. My point is that infantry screening isn't as helpful as it was in WW2, because a guy with a Javelin can still acquire and shoot beyond the reach of a rifleman. Hell, Javelins have been used on people during the GWOT simply because it was able to reach farther than bullets.
1
@Squad23jta "What matters is that the flanking screens are far out enough that they can engage and hunt down anybody that shoots. Also that the screen pushes the enemy out of engagement range by simple closing down any potential ambush sites." - But that just gives the defender the alternative which is now ambush the infantry looking for ambushes, as they're far away enough that armor can't protect them. There's no good solution here, the infantry screen needs to be used in tandem with expensive active defense systems that can mitigate the long range top attack missiles like the Javelin, and infantry screens for ambushes with shorter range weapons. "Also sticking to the road like glue kills the tanks ability to maneuver and use terrain and buildings as cover" - Because of the muddy season. If they didn't stick to roads, they'd all get bogged down.
1
@Jaster832 But the tank is a balanced compromise in mobility and firepower. Static tanks can be used in a pinch, especially if the hull is concealed, but used in this manner they'd be vulnerable to top-attack missiles and drones. The tank is valuable in breaking through defenses and being mobile fire support, if you just park them outside cities that's asking for spicy presents to get dropped on them. There's a reason Russia is using artillery/rockets from a distance to attack the cities.
1