What’s the alternative? Unprotected infantry advancing at 5 mph?
I think that’s largely because neither country has a real Air Force or Navy. There’s a some video that was posted here comparing the “super power shit” America did in gulf war 1 and it was pretty crazy what they did… and how Russia can’t do that shit at all
If they can be properly supported by troops they can be similar to artillery, but more mobile and better protected.
1 Like
What happened to the Russian Air Force? Who is Maverick fighting?
1 Like
similar only upto a superficial point. modern artillery has range into tens of kilometers, reachable with a high arc trajectory. a tank shoots much flatter and at short distances of a few kilometers. their deployments are very different.
This is a story mainly because of the failure of Russian combat air support. If the USAF were flying combat air support for the Ukrainian forces, the HIMARS would probably be more of a cute mop up vehicle for them rather than a singular tide turner. If you haven’t read the article goofy posted on strategic bombing (in contrast with combat air support), I’d recommend it. Combat air support can be absolutely devastating, and it’s been used as such in the two Iraq wars. The main lessons from the article are that, one, bombing non-military targets behind enemy lines is at best ineffective and more likely counterproductive to the overall war aims, two, boots on the ground are how you capture and hold territory, and three, using your air force to support your ground troops is extremely effective.
So, since the Russian air force has failed, and no one is really giving the Ukrainians much of one for themselves, the HIMARS is basically the Ukrainian combat air support, shelling Russian positions from relative safety.
2 Likes
In the Gulf Wars, American tanks would laugh off Iraqi RPGs, but now Javelins and NLAWs have the upper hand. I assume someone out there is working on how to fortify tanks to once again give tanks the upper hand.
yeah I get that they probably are critical for something because … people keep using them, my question is… what?
yeah this makes sense. if you can blunt the effectiveness of nlaws/javelins, then sure, tanks can make infantry advances obviously a lot easier. but dang, if there are $200 point-n-click tank killers in every backpack, they suddenly seem pretty useless.
Javelins cost like 200k+ per pop according to wiki. Very few forces have a lot of them. They work because they shoot up high in the air and then hit the top of the tank, and are more advanced than you might think
Boots on the ground are how you take and hold territory, but just a bunch of guys walking are slow and vulnerable. So usually you mix guys walking with tanks so the guys walking can watch for guys with NLAWs, and the tanks can take out hardened targets.
1 Like
i’ve never been in the military so take this as simply paraphrasing war ob the rocks podcast. tanks are often deployed to provide heavy mobile cover for infantry, which is also still essential to secure areas. they can take out defensive shooting posts and can overcome tough terrain that is not accessible by wheeled vehicles.
also nlaws aren’t $200 in a backpack. that’s much simplistic look.
4 Likes
https://twitter.com/NichnyjMesnyk/status/1591485013807308803
Remember back when this thread was all arguments about “Russians are people too!” and “I’m just sickened SICKENED by the war-mongering of some of you itt!”? Good times.
The Russians might have got across the river but they aren’t safe.
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1591493708091899907?t=dIOqt0AUkXpx9RVj3y0R7w&s=19
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1591493714064691202?t=O-Pavej5VtW1Xu6KYJU2tw&s=19
2 Likes
Keep them on the run.
(post deleted by author)
1 Like