Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Why Is Russia's T-90M Performing So Bad?" video.

  1. Pretty much my thinking. In many respects, tanks are now obsolete. I think the tank losses have a lot to do with the stand-off weapons like StormShadow. But I think that such munitions are in relatively short supply, which calls for a different approach from the Russian side. The meat-grinder strategy doesn't work when the Ukrainians can reach out and touch armor formations from long range, with precision-guided artillery. These tit-for-tat, low-level skirmishes are too close to even. Trade a couple-few tanks destroyed every day, and the losses slowly mount. The WORST tank in WW 2 was the Sherman, but it could be mass-produced with ease, and the farmers who manned them could fix a lot of what went wrong in the field. Their standard cannon was very weak, but if they could attack from the sides or rear, they could take out a Panzer IV or even a Tiger, and the Germans couldn't afford the losses. If Russia gears up and go all-out blitzkrieg with everything they've got, I don't think Ukrainian forces have enough ammo to take them all out. They may suffer serious losses, but between their air superiority and overwhelming armor and artillery advantage, they could swamp the trickle of advanced weapons NATO is able to provide. I think the dysfunction of Russian MoD is greatly exaggerated, but we are at a tipping point, where doctrine must change, because at the skirmish level, Ukraine's giving almost as good as it's taking. I think there is probably a big strategy debate taking place, with the advent of StormShadow and possibly ATACMs in the near future. The USA meanwhile, has a new-gen weapon beyond the ATACM. One of the dangers of introducing StormShadow and ATACM is it opens the door to the Russians and reverse-engineering Iranians to get their hands on these new systems. The Pentagon claims to not even know where a lot of the military aid is going. The Israelis refused Ukraine any Iron Dome air defense systems out of precisely that fear. There's also a fear that the Chinese will get their mitts on these systems. Who knows how much of that military aid is going elsewhere to line the pockets of Ukrainian oligarchs? Who can guarantee that none of these systems will be captured by the Russians? Anyway, good points made. I wonder if there will be a shift away from tanks and toward lighter, faster vehicles with lethal weapons systems on-board. Maybe the Bradley attack vehicles, themselves are too big and slow.
    12
  2.  @Erusean_pilot  They have a role and mission in combined arms, but that mission has definitely crept far from where it should be, imo. Tanks are great for picking on weak nations in combined armor, air and infantry assaults, but if you can't run ground support operations from the skies, modern munitions make them big, fat, expensive targets that a hill tribesman can defeat with very portable weapons. The Sherman's biggest advantage was it was more maneuverable and small enough to use narrower bridges and roads. It was also mass-produced in great numbers. Also, American farmers knew how to repair and maintain the big diesel engines and do other repairs. Great as the Panthers and Tigers were, they were still vulnerable to the side and rear, and with massive numbers and superior mobility, the Shermans could be positioned for kill shots. And field repairs on Nazi tanks were much more difficult, which was made worse by terrible supply chain. I just feel like if you're spending enormous sums to win tank-on-tank battles, you're probably doing it wrong. Everybody has satellites and drones, these days. You can't hide mass formations from the enemy, and those concentrations of forces make a nice big target for inexpensive and deadly countermeasures from long range.
    1