guns

2448 readers

2 users here now

“Under no pretext"

Rules (Under review):

1. NO BUYING, SELLING OR TRADING of guns or accessories. Take that to Reddit and /r/GunAccessoriesForSale or Armslist.com
1. Censor all personally identifiable information in posts including serial numbers on firearms.
1. Any post or comment advocating illegal action will be removed and the poster warned. A second infraction will result in a ban.
1. Unironically suggesting the SKS as a usable rifle in the 21st Century when there are things like the AK and AR that cost only a bit more might result in a ban, it depends on how we feel.
1. Discussion of hunting is acceptable but please put "CW: hunting" in post titles. Debating the ethicality of hunting is also fine, but keep it civil and don't derail other people's threads.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Size comparison between M1 Abrams and T-72 tank (hexbear.net)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months 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