Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

and the tank is somewhat disposable I guess to the Russians the crew who have to man that tank is disposable as well? I'd hate to be the ones who have to drive that tank anywhere near the frontlines.
1
Well too bad most of Ukraine will likely never become apart of Russia again. Maybe they lose the Donbas and Crimea permanently and maybe more, but the rest of the Ukraine will still be its own nation and the Russians can do very little about it unless they throw much more of their forces into this war.
1
Artillery is so last millennium, because almost every modern weapon technology today are guided weapons and no longer shoot balistic projectiles (if any at all grounds on such konventional weapons and not on other mechanism of action Artillery is very old technology, but it will still be used on modern battlefields because its relatively cheap to operate and its still extremely effective. Just look at how much damage Ukraine has been doing to Russian forces with their artillery that is assisted by drones doing the spotting. Guided missiles are great, but they're expensive and it makes no sense in using them on every single target when you can use artillery to do the same job at much cheaper cost.
1
Does it make sense to give Ukraine NATO tanks if you're not giving them many and are able to keep them in service? Seems better to see if you can't find more Russian tanks and send them to Ukraine since they already have experience and the ability to service and supply those tanks more easily. NATO artillery missile systems on the otherhand we should definitely send them more of those.
1
@capmidnite That's why the Germans could've built their own version of the T34-85, but with better gun, optics, radios etc. with a large enough turret for 3 crew. Germans needed better tanks, but they needed more tanks as well, preferably ones that were more easy to repair and maintain.
1
Any tank is better than no tank unless you're apart of the crew that has to ride in an out of date tank which can so easily be your coffin.
1
@viarnay And yet without tanks and other armored vehicles you'd literally be forcing your troops to be fighting like they did in WWI again. No matter how many threats there are to tanks, IFVs and such, they still provide a degree of protection against ATGMs, mines and other threats and of course they're still bulletproof. Without armored vehicles you will never advance far and you will take heavy troop casualties for probably very little territory gained much like what happened in WWI.
1
@viarnay The problem is the Bradley as with most every other IFV is relatively lightly armored and isn't a breakthrough vehicle. It can help you take troops to attack the enemy and give supporting fire, but if you thought tanks were vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, IFVs are obviously even more so. Tanks have more firepower and are still more tougher than any IFV or other armored vehicle. That's why you try and have both IFVs with troops and tanks work together as much as you can.
1
The thing is we need to send Ukraine the RIGHT equipment to fight with. Weapons that they're already using and NATO weapons that can be easily maintained and resupplied.
1