LOL
Yeah, a lot of officers I worked with had a tendency to overblow enemy capabilities. Usually it was the guys that were trying to appear smart when they were average or guys that had toxic egos.
1 Like
If that intended purpose is launching turrets into space while incinerating their crew. Then yes. IF their purpose is to dominate the battlefield, then, uh, no.
3 Likes
Your implication that war goals cannot be obtained whilst significant losses are sustained seems rather short-sighted and fragile as a premise to me.
2 Likes
The US Army and the US Marine Corps are not the same thing,I know that from experience .The attitude between the two is a world apart.During Granby the British Army worked closely with the Marines and due to being similar in size the Marines were attentive to everything the British stated where as the US Army was so vast and pig headed it didn’t want to know.
Simply not true and not working out that way.Yours and my experience of tanks is not worth much over there from what I am hearing that was my point.
Afghanistan? How long ago? 10,20 30 years ago and with total Air superiority and against a bunch of farmers in Toyota’s? This is not Ukraine or Russia.
The UK ran no tanks in the Falkland Islands ,It was a foot sloggers war.
Maybe the Yanks would have moved into the Falklands, block paved it and built a McDonalds before moving in but not every country is the same is it?
Obtaining goals with UNNECESSARY losses is indicative of incompetence and poor equipment.
1 Like
There is an old saying. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. The logistic situation in Ukraine is VASTLY simpler than in Afghanistan. Furthermore, tactically you are dealing with an enemy who is fighting conventional warfare vs. an enemy that was an insurgency embedded in the population. I’ll will take dealing with mud over dealing with those other issues every time.
Based on the level of incompetence I am seeing from the Russians, the situation is MUCH simpler in Ukraine. Let’s be real. If the Ukraine forces were a similar number of Marines, similarly equipped, we would be in Moscow sipping vodka and holding tribunals by now. This is not to knock the Ukrainians. They have done EXTREMELY well with how far behind they started this war. But a competent professional military force requires a lot of time and resources coupled with experience. Ukraine had weapons but that was about it. They didn’t have the resources to effectively train, a standing force with time to train, or any experience. I am impressed and as an American proud to support Ukraine and feel our support is used as well as possible given the limitations. As long as America continues to provide weapons to Ukraine they will win.
3 Likes
Never heard that one as the study of tactics is vital. How can it not be?
Nobody was sure how we would fare against the T72 in Kuwait or Iraq to start with so it was unknown territory. We had lived in our tanks prior to going as you may well have done so we were as confident as we could be.
Logistics was what won us Granby. That and total air superiority. The ability to be able to get a new engine deep inside enemy territory is something we had that they wont most likely have in Ukraine on one side and the ability to fit it and no be harassed from the air is another thing that both sides face.Yes we are talking drones ,either being spotted or directly attacked.
Tanks that weight 20 tons more than those they face ARE having issues over there.Fact.This is not something I considered before I heard about it.It is not something I made up for whatever reason.
Russian incompetence cannot be ignored you are right but both side are similar.
Nobody seems to be running the numbers over there.We are not seeing the kind of engagement we expected in a NATO/Wasaw Pact confrontation.
None of us have encountered the artillery they have in the current war and the ability to target it with such accuracy and with so much oncoming data from Satellites and drones.
I only know your back ground from what you have said and in some case on this forum that experience is second to none such as living in an M1 ,In my case Chally One but for the Ukraine it’s irrelevant.Those currently serving on both sides there are on a sad voyage of discovery out there,us old boys can only look on.
A a Brit I have no default anti Red sentiment.I take no sides ,I am not Ukrainian nor Russian.I have an impartial view point and comment on what is not what should be.
As for winning all I see is the US making billions and the Ukraine owing it to them,The body bags are not full of Americans and the US arms industry still makes a packet.That is the only win to be had here. Suprised you ca’t see that.
All the US is doing is try and agitate the enemy into declaring war on them like they did with Japan and Germany.All I see happening is Russian getting bored and dropping a small nuke on a small town in Ukraine and forcing the Ukrainians to flee back home before Kiev gets the big one.Game over ,Putin sets up the border where he wants and Ukraine can never join NATO.America gets the shivers and decides its population too comfortable for a nuclear exchange.Russia wins.
All I can say as far as this game is concerned is that is a game and if it is to work the tanks have to be equal in some way.Like reality its about who fires first.
I think you’re thinking of this too literally. It’s a well taught lesson in the USMC as I learned it in the infantry as well.
It’s an old saying but was popularized by a Marine Corps Commandant.
The ultimate lesson in the saying is not delegitimizing tactics and strategy, but showing the importance of logistics. Many leaders especially young officers and NCO’s do not weigh logistics heavily in mission planning. Instead focusing on execution of the battle plan. Yet this mistake is constantly repeated throughout the history of warfare, with it most recently being shown in Russia’s initial push into Ukraine. The advance was heavily crippled in many areas due to a lack of resupply.
2 Likes
I thank you for the explanation and I understand that the USMC is smaller and self reliant compared to the US Army as a result they are well respected by allied forces who worked with them. I’m not missing the point as I stressed how important logistics was in Iraq and how lucky we were to have the support we did.My whole point is that it is even difficult to sleep out in the open in Ukraine without a passing drone costing a few dollars dropping a grenade on your head.How about trying to do major mechanical work under those conditions? That is not something we had to worry about 30 years ago.Being bogged down out there for a short time is a death sentence .If heavy NATO tanks are getting stuck when lighter Russian equivalents are not then that is a big issue.
I think the biggest issue is though ,that despite what the public may think ,the top level US and UK commanders looked out for their troops at every conceivable level where as Russia does not appear do that.
Bringing the discussion back tot he game much of the footage I have seen is reminiscent of the game,single tanks or small formations with little support.
It is very odd.It is like Russia either don’t have the numbers we were lead to believe they have or they simply don’t want to deploy them in great numbers.
Overall I think tanks are not dead as such but the way they will be designed in the future will be different.They will need to evolve as they always have.No medals for that observation I guess.
I mean, the fact that you have to explain this to him is all the proof I need to support the statement. Furthermore, tactics are really easy. It’s all just variations on Fix-Flank-Envelop.
It’s too bad you can never do stuff like that in War Thunder. I mean you could, but it would require too much from a typical playerbase.
Not strictly true. A small detachment of CVR(T)s were deployed in the fire support role, though it’s worth noting there were about 8. In other words, not many.
“During the 1982 Falklands War four Scorpions, four Scimitars and a Samson of B Squadron, Blues and Royals, saw action on East Falkland Island, supporting 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, on Wireless Ridge and the Scots Guards on Mount Tumbledown.” From Wikipedia.
Just want to give specifics.
We studied this fight as part of our tactics training at The Basic School. The Marines tend to study fights like these because they closely match how we envision fighting.
4 Likes
You say this like it’s top secret info.
There were no MBTs.
Not everywhere is suitable for them and that was my point.
Isn’t that they using Lanz-Odermatt formula for APDS and APFSDS projectiles for 4-5 years ?
The USMC would have had tanks. It’s in our doctrine.
I just wanted to credit the source so I didn’t take credit for the verbage. The facts presented are easily verified in many places NOT wikipedia. shrug You do you though.
fair.
Point stands regardless.
Then you would have spent the war pulling them out of the marsh
Sigh. If you think scorpions don’t have the same issues I can’t help you with that. I don’t think you believe a word I say
1 Like