[JoseQuinones]

No, governments will always need tanks to run over their own citizens when they get uppity with ideas like human rights and peaceful assemblies to demand a redress of grievances.

[Faust]

Too bad they are giving their tanks away. France could use a few tanks right now lol

[Faust]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

The latest update posted by Denys Davydov.

He also posted about new photos that Russia has been publishing today saying they've destroyed even more leopard equipment.

Turns out they have been debunked and are just photos of the same convoy that was stopped due to mines two days ago, just from different angles.

Your post didn’t age that well btw

[Marduk92EG]

Originally Posted by steelgrim ↗

Russia has lost thousands of tanks and hundreds of planes, helicopters. This is due to advances in missile technology like the javelin, stinger, patriot,R-360 Neptuneanti-ship missiles. Loses are so high that putin is afraid to deploy his fifth generation aircraft or tanks namely the su-57 and the t-14 armata. They are little more than show pieces for the Kremlins arms industry. Instead russian tank crews are ordered to throw together frankenstein tanks with parts cobbled together from various cold war era relics like the t-54, or support vehicles like mobile crematorium. In terms of ships the black fleet has contributed nothing because they are forced to stay out of range of ukrainian neptune missle launchers. Russia already lost its flagship moska and cannot afford to lose anymore. Russias only air craft carrier has helped with missile strikes , air sorties, but air craft carriers are more like mobile bases for support as they are not meant for breakthrough tactics. More shocking for the world is the apparent ineffectiveness of tanks in the ukraine russia conflict. Even Leopard tanks which are on par with the abram are being knocked out in Zaporizhzhia region. This marks are huge change simply because of how heavily tanks have been relied upon in ground warfare. Its true drones are replacing aircraft because they are cheap and more effective since they run silent and are harder to detect. but what will replace tanks? there are ideas for unmanned land vehicles like israels REX MKII but they are small and cannot hold any heavy armor or armaments needed for the role of blitzkrieg.

What makes you think the US did not suffer similar casualties during the Iraq-US war in 1991?
Hint: A whole generation of Tanks, APCs, ships, helicopters aswell as planes got retired directly after the Iraq-US confrontation in 1991...

Regardless what the gov says, we intended to overthrow the Iraqi regime in 1991 and the "original plan" was that Saddam would surrender on an American aircraft carrier in the Gulf (similar to the jap surrender in wwII)


But things went catastrophically wrong and the Iraqi artillery was not only longer-range than ours, they were better-trained and despite all the nonsense you hear about "depleted uranium shells" iraqi tanks fired tungsten sabots which not only penetrated better than depleted uranium shells, the Iraqi guns fired bigger and more powerful 125 mm calibers compared to the IPM1 Abrams 105mm (IPM1 had to be withdrawn mid-way through the "ground offensive" and was later on retired due to the enormous losses that the Iraqis inflicted upon us)

Very few are aware of why the war stopped the way it did, to keep things short, - the Iraqis managed to ambush our guys using two elite armored divisions from the Tikriti special republican guard and these two armored divisions encircled Schwarzkopf's troops at the Safwan airfield and we pretty much lost the war and agreed to withdraw from Iraq.

Iraq's airforce was devastated though and the coalition lost in total around 300 planes before we managed to neutralize most of the Iraqi air defenses.
This is why we still were at war with them from 1991 till the Baghdad Thunder runs in 2003 and the collapse of the regime in around 2007 (pulling down a Saddam statue in downtown Baghdad means jack shit when there's like 50 000 of them in Iraq)


Also don't believe our "official" casualty numbers, we lost a lot of guys in Desert Sabre but Bush banned reporting on casualties and the standard procedure was to cremate the fallen american heroes aswell as other coalition servicesmen in the hospital ships in order to hide the casualties.
This did not extend to the saudis and egyptians though since Muslims are forbidden to take part in the act of cremation

[Roosta]

To be a bit real & objective about it, with some clarity, is that Drone Warfare is certainly setting the bar level here, as this war is the most visually documented war in history, as just about every soldier has a phone camera & you can learn or teach tactics from that footage. Also, we are seeing unprecedented drone warfare on an industrial scale & that it's the preferred method of munition delivery as it's precise, cost effective, & able to be deployed in any environment, so I personally expect that there will be a shift in that area & a good way to monitor that is to watch the price of lithium as coutries will hoard it for the use of drones ect.

Just an opinion mind, but it's certainly a new age that we are entering as we are learning to kill each other more effectively than ever, that's for sure.

I'm no tree hugger but a bit of piece would be nice !

[Faust]

Originally Posted by Marduk92EG ↗

What makes you think the US did not suffer similar casualties during the Iraq-US war in 1991?
Hint: A whole generation of Tanks, APCs, ships, helicopters aswell as planes got retired directly after the Iraq-US confrontation in 1991...

Regardless what the gov says, we intended to overthrow the Iraqi regime in 1991 and the "original plan" was that Saddam would surrender on an American aircraft carrier in the Gulf (similar to the jap surrender in wwII)


But things went catastrophically wrong and the Iraqi artillery was not only longer-range than ours, they were better-trained and despite all the nonsense you hear about "depleted uranium shells" iraqi tanks fired tungsten sabots which not only penetrated better than depleted uranium shells, the Iraqi guns fired bigger and more powerful 125 mm calibers compared to the IPM1 Abrams 105mm (IPM1 had to be withdrawn mid-way through the "ground offensive" and was later on retired due to the enormous losses that the Iraqis inflicted upon us)

Very few are aware of why the war stopped the way it did, to keep things short, - the Iraqis managed to ambush our guys using two elite armored divisions from the Tikriti special republican guard and these two armored divisions encircled Schwarzkopf's troops at the Safwan airfield and we pretty much lost the war and agreed to withdraw from Iraq.

Iraq's airforce was devastated though and the coalition lost in total around 300 planes before we managed to neutralize most of the Iraqi air defenses.
This is why we still were at war with them from 1991 till the Baghdad Thunder runs in 2003 and the collapse of the regime in around 2007 (pulling down a Saddam statue in downtown Baghdad means jack shit when there's like 50 000 of them in Iraq)


Also don't believe our "official" casualty numbers, we lost a lot of guys in Desert Sabre but Bush banned reporting on casualties and the standard procedure was to cremate the fallen american heroes aswell as other coalition servicesmen in the hospital ships in order to hide the casualties.
This did not extend to the saudis and egyptians though since Muslims are forbidden to take part in the act of cremation

Thanks for the insight!
This is probably also why we won’t not see the British or American tanks sent to the front, they have not filmed being destroyed in 4K and it would really question the narrative of our superior technology when it is basically all the same. We have been told the Russian army has been losing since day 1 with massive casualties and Ukraine has been winning with little casualties. Surely if we were to sent the best tank in the world; leopard 2 to face the incompetent, losing, underpowered and barely equipped Russian forces, the leopard 2 would wipe the floor with them? Looked like a very easy win and also sell for the tank.

However, after what happened to the leopard2, why would any country purchase it afterwards if even the worst army in the world can easily destroy them by the dozens?

From that perspective maybe the US and British wanted a competing tank on the frontlines to booster their own sales? That theory would be correct if we never see any US or British tanks in action

[iARTEMx]

Drones are the future. That's all.

[yourmomsburgerplace]

Originally Posted by iARTEMx ↗

Drones are the future. That's all.

I agree, and probably their counter, many laser weapons employed by all countries in the future. I wonder how expensive laser vehicles are to produce.

[iARTEMx]

Originally Posted by yourmomsburgerplace ↗

I agree, and probably their counter, many laser weapons employed by all countries in the future. I wonder how expensive laser vehicles are to produce.

I think laser is still fantascientific by now.
But in near future it can be.
I would definitely bet on unmanned vehicles. Like robots and any kind of drones.

[iARTEMx]

Originally Posted by yourmomsburgerplace ↗

I agree, and probably their counter, many laser weapons employed by all countries in the future. I wonder how expensive laser vehicles are to produce.

P.S.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimates that each Patriot battery costs about $1.1 billion: $400 million for the system, $690 million for the missiles – the cost of a single missile is estimated at $4.1 million (€3.8 million).

Imagine laser