Anti tank weapons

Proving very effective. No tank battles and the Ukrainians have destroyed almost 500 Russian tanks.

The tank may be obsolete as a war weapon. In WW2 they were unstoppable. You could get a direct hit and the shell would bounce off.

Only Tigers (Panzer VI), King Tigers and the Soviet KV-1s regularly bounced off the shells of main weapons. A man with a handheld weapon is always less expensive and has more flexibility than a tank.

The Ukrainians are beating all expectations. Some battlefield experts are talking about a Ukrainian victory rather than just survival. The red line moment will come when the Russian generals (that have not been killed by snipers) tell Putin that they can't win and Putin will decide to withdraw, call for a negotiated settlement, or up the stakes with chemical or tactical nukes. According to some news reports, Putin has already started on another gambit, as many 75,000 Ukrainians have been taken from Ukraine into Russia. A tactic used by the Soviets in World War II. Few made it home.

The you tube videos show how effective those anti tank weapons are. Just guys walking around and taking out tanks left and right.

With that weapon you and I could destroy tanks.

Imagine if the Ukrainians had A-10 tank killers like in Desert storm. Putin could lose his entire tank corp. with the right weapons.

Imagine if the Ukrainians had A-10 tank killers like in Desert storm. Putin could lose his entire tank corp. with the right weapons.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

UKR have something like it. the SU25. they don't have too many of it.

they do have several turk drones, bakraytar. it has made several kills. both the anti-tank and the drones have impacted the battlefield.

look at what happened in Armenia/Azerbaijan war over Nagorno-Karabakh region. Armenia's military was completely devastated and were driven out of that region.

Just think if there was a no fly zone with a superpower such as The USA backing it.

I agree: The experience of this war and the recent conflict in Armenia may be the end of Tanks the way the Carriers of WW-II ended the age of Battle Ships. Looks like the massed formations of tanks during Desert Storm were their last hurrah.

In history, the lase mass cavalry charge in the old style by the British, was at Omdurman in 1898. WW-I showed that the time for horseback fighting was over.

The iron-clads of the American Civil War were the end of un-armored warships. and so on.

Lacking some deign breakthrough, the time for tanks has come and gone, I think.

Just think if there was a no fly zone with a superpower such as The USA backing it. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Yeah, just think of it . . .and then really think about it too.

Putin is an ego-maniac with emphasis on the maniac. With US A forcers in the air and on the ground, and Russia really losing, he might (would) widen the war to Poland and Turkey to start. Then threaten to bomb the USA with missiles.

Or he could just sell nukes to Iran, knowing that they would.

Just think if there was a no fly zone with a superpower such as The USA backing it. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Yup, been there, done that. It is called WWIII. Many, many dead. Whole world on fire sort of shit. I give it one star, not useful at all and over priced. Dumbest idea I can recall. Thankfully the Pentagon has more smarts than that ATM.


Pentagon Drops Truth Bombs to Stave Off War With Russia

UPDATED: Leaked stories from the Pentagon have exposed how mainstream media reports Russia’s conduct in the Ukraine war, in a bid to counter propaganda intended to get NATO into the conflict, writes Joe Lauria.

The Pentagon has been engaged in a consequential battle with the U.S. State Department and the Congress to prevent a direct military confrontation with Russia, which could unleash the most unimaginable horror of war.

President Joe Biden is caught in the middle of the fray. So far he is siding with the Defense Department, saying there cannot be any kind of NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine fighting Russian aircraft because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

“President Biden’s been clear that U.S. troops won’t fight Russia in Ukraine, and if you establish a no-fly zone, certainly in order to enforce that no-fly zone, you’ll have to engage Russian aircraft. And again, that would put us at war with Russia,” said U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin earlier this month. (The administration plan is to bring down the Russian government through a ground insurgency and economic war, not a direct military one.)

But pressure on the White House from some members of Congress and especially the press corps is unrelenting to recklessly bring NATO directly into the war. Secretary of State Antony Blinken who initially said NATO had given a “green light” to send planes from Poland to Ukraine had to back down and now opposes any no-fly zone involving NATO. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also supported the Polish planes scheme, which was shot down by the Pentagon because it “could result in significant Russian reaction that might increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO,” according to Pentagon spokesman John Kirby.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, hailed as a virtual superhero in Western media, has vacillated between openness to negotiating a peace settlement with Russia and calling for NATO, again on Friday, to “close the skies” above Ukraine. To save his country he appears willing to risk endangering the entire world.

Meanwhile, Western corporate media, depending almost exclusively on Ukrainian sources, report that Russia is losing the war, with its military offensive “stalled,” and in frustration has deliberately targeted civilians and flattened cities.

Biden has bought into this part of the story, calling Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal.” He has also said that Russia is planning a “false flag” chemical attack to pin on Ukraine.

But on Tuesday, the Pentagon took the bold step of leaking two stories to reporters that contradict those tales. “Russia’s conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Vladimir Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader’s strategic balancing act,” reported Newsweek in an article entitled, “Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why.”

The piece quotes an unnamed analyst at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) saying, “The heart of Kyiv has barely been touched. And almost all of the long-range strikes have been aimed at military targets.”

A retired U.S. Air Force officer now working as an analyst for a Pentagon contractor, added: “We need to understand Russia’s actual conduct. If we merely convince ourselves that Russia is bombing indiscriminately, or [that] it is failing to inflict more harm because its personnel are not up to the task or because it is technically inept, then we are not seeing the real conflict.”...

The tank may be obsolete as a war weapon. Originally Posted by VitaMan

A couple of points/issues with respect to the current Russian venture using "armored" vehicles ...

... a picture says a 1,000 words ....



...



Before the smoke and stench faded there were some articles published with discussions from Russian tank commanders who are supposed to be the front line of Russian defense on their Western front ... who quit at the risk of being punished.

Like the current batch of disposable conscriptions they were not informed of the advancements suspected within the U.S. arsenal and essentially were lied to about the potential. A missile lob might allow 50% of the armored vehicles to the "front line," but advanced technology developed by the U.S. made it a 1-on-1 affair so a missile would not miss and their tank just might be in the crosshairs. No longer were the first off the ramp a human shield for those in the back ... there are images from Ukraine that reflect the consequences of getting jammed up on the road.

Hitler made an error by waiting to invade Russia in the winter and Putin made the error of invading Ukraine in the winter thaw.

For a "legendary" spook ... his mental capacity may well be surpassed by Bitten's in so far as strategic planning and implementation.

Like some in here I suspect Putin consults the following for strategy:

Tanks are most effective in urban environments these days, as rolling cover for infantry, not so much on open fields and highways since targeting technology has gotten less expensive.

Just think if there was a no fly zone with a superpower such as The USA backing it.

Just think if the entire world was a no fly zone, from reaching a million degrees in .01 seconds.

Tanks are most effective in urban environments these days, as rolling cover for infantry, not so much on open fields and highways since targeting technology has gotten less expensive.

Just think if the entire world was a no fly zone, from reaching a million degrees in .01 seconds. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

#1: If that were the case the "tanks" would roll into the cities, and there would be no need to destroy the cities with missiles & shelling.

#2: Do some research on the weapon systems the U.S. has developed for "fly-zones" and the best the Russians have to violate it. Simple take: The Russian aircraft would not "SEE" the U.S. aircraft with their sensory/radar before the first missile strike from the U.S. aircraft, which had "seen" the Russian aircraft long before the Russians even knew they were present.

Hopefully for the past few months the U.S. military has put down their White Supremacy and Wokeism training materials and focused on highly accurate location fixing on the weapons in the possession of the Russians that might do permanent damage to the United States territory and the territory of our allies, which includes the Russian water based assets that they boast cannot be detected.*

What the lunatics supporting Bitten & Kumola don't comprehend is they will be locked down in a protective bumker with sufficient fresh air, food, water, and medical supplies for at least a year of survival until it's "cool" enough outside to start DICTORIALLY running the ruins of this country until AN ELECTION can be orchestrated with the remainder of the survivors ... most likely in the Central Moutain Region of the U.S.*

*The real "lesson" for Putin et al in the current mess is he wants a "barrier" to protect Russia from "Nato" offensive action against Russia .... which can't even defeat effectively a voluntary citizen military with few armored vehicles or air force, if any.

Putin's "thinking" like Bitten & Kumola. No brains!

Hitler made an error by waiting to invade Russia in the winter and Putin made the error of invading Ukraine in the winter thaw. Originally Posted by LexusLover

hitlers error? he started his invasion in june 1941. his problem was the weather conditions in late november 1941 turned the land into muddy slop which made it difficult for vehicles to travel. a pause took place. by december 41, ground was hard enough to resume operations. this act gave the russians additional time to prepare for the defense of Moscow.

the issue here is that he didn't complete his objective in a timely manner before winter set in.

#1: If that were the case the "tanks" would roll into the cities, and there would be no need to destroy the cities with missiles & shelling. Originally Posted by LexusLover

They do exactly that. I have no idea what tactics Russian planners use, but tanks backed by infinity is common practice for the US Army and Marine Corps to clear cities. Go ask a million or so Iraqis.

#2: Do some research on the weapon systems the U.S. has developed for "fly-zones" and the best the Russians have to violate it. Simple take: The Russian aircraft would not "SEE" the U.S. aircraft with their sensory/radar before the first missile strike from the U.S. aircraft, which had "seen" the Russian aircraft long before the Russians even knew they were present.

I’m pretty familiar with military avionics, being a retired Army maintenance and avionics technician, FAA certed A&P mechanic, CH47 Crew Chief and JSAMTCC instructor. Not that it matters, Russia won’t need a rocket scientist to figure out that it’s US firepower enforcing a no fly zone, regardless of if the pilot sees it coming.

Everyone can have their own opinion on going to war with Russia, and you’re free to think getting involved is the right move. I disagree, think it’s incredibly stupid and could easily escalate to something we’d all be lucky to live through. We’ve got a guy to old and stupid to tie his own shoes leading one side, and, from many accounts, a certifiable nut job on the other. What could possibly go wrong?

hitlers error? he started his invasion in june 1941. his problem was the weather conditions in late november 1941 turned the land into muddy slop which made it difficult for vehicles to travel. a pause took place. by december 41, ground was hard enough to resume operations. this act gave the russians additional time to prepare for the defense of Moscow.

the issue here is that he didn't complete his objective in a timely manner before winter set in. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Hitler intended to start his invasion in May, but he had to divert armored forces to Yugoslavia to bail out Mussolini. That cost Hitler a month and Hitler came within a stone's throw of Moscow before he was stopped. Yugoslavia probably saved the world's ass.