60
Size comparison between M1 Abrams and T-72 tank (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/guns@hexbear.net
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

That the doctrine isn't built around extended periods is actually a problem

what? no country is capable of keeping their troops ahead of their supplies for very long, it'd be bad doctrine to assume you could make up for that with airlifts

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Their doctrine only works if things stay maneuver warfare, and not attrition based, is what I'm saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    when has attrition warfare been about whose troops can operate unsupported for longer? who has more material & men, and the rate at which they are replaced is what 'attrition' analyzes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sorry, what I'm saying is that tanks are less able to engage in attrition if they are constantly requiring a lot of constant work on them and guzzle more fuel as they move, including as they move from engagement to maintenance and back and forth. And requiring bridge layers and such makes logistics harder, further limiting the use of the vehicles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    reading it back you're correct, operating for over 12 hours without support would be something desirable in a tank, especially in maneuver. just because the US usually has enough support doesn't mean it couldn't be a serious liability if they get into situations support isn't forthcoming

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent