Quote:
Originally Posted by Mull
I wonder what the gap is here:
(1) Either Rob missed something
(2) Rob is showing a bias
(3) You’re missing something
I am not connecting/understanding your response to Rob’s comments properly
Rob seems respected by verified retired generals on Twitter (including one who was a “tanker” that came up the ranks working in tanks) so I assume he knows his stuff
|
My interpretation of Lee's tweet is that he believes that Russia's more advanced MBTs are better-served in Ukraine than playing in silly competitions. My response is that the modern MBTs aren't necessary given the roles assigned to the tanks. As Lee probably knows, the AFU's tank situation right now is not that great. Therefore, if the threat of the enemy's tanks isn't that great, then there isn't much of a point deploying your top-line tanks when they aren't needed.
That being said, the optics are shyte when your troops are bleeding on the battlefield while you are holding military competitions with foreign troops. In that regard, I have some common ground with Lee.
After all of that, what's your interpretation of his tweet?
I have close to 30 years in the Army; I have seen tanks in action in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Tanks were used to support the infantry in the direct fire role. They were clobbering buildings and mud huts, not engaging with other tanks. The Syrians learned the hard way on how to employ their tanks and there, too, they now support the infantry, especially in built-up areas. The T-55 is just as effective as a T-72 or T-80 in walloping fortified positions. Not much has changed in Ukraine. Why use a T-80 or T-90 if a T-64 does the job, especially if it's a captured Ukrainian T-64?