[GarvielLoken]

The Russians have all the history they need about tank losses. They suffered 76% tank losses during ww2, 83,500 tanks. You think they are stupid and don't know any better. But they have known all the facts sense ww2, it's just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV were used) that you are going to suffer high losses, that doesn't mean that you don't try to attack.

[multjoy]

>You think they are stupid and don't know any better

The entire invasion demonstrates massive tactical & strategic incompetence, which is only possible when you're a mafia state.

>it's just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV were used) that you are going to suffer high losses

Russia planned to roll in and take Kyiv. They appeared to have no contingencies for this not succeeding and that's why they're taking heavy losses. On paper, they should have cut through Ukraine like a knife through hot butter.

[GarvielLoken]

I wasn't commenting on their performance in the war. But on the viability of the tank in modern warfare.

[CrazyStat]

Comparing loss rates from a 6-year all-out war to a 3-month "special military operation" is, of course, incredibly disingenuous.

In just three months Russia has lost at least a quarter of their combat ready tanks (~750 documented losses vs <3000 combat ready tanks), in a campaign that was supposed to be over in 15 days. This is clearly not going according to plan. This is clearly not in line with whatever "facts" the Russian military leadership "knew" going into the war.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

They also had the hellish experiences in Grozny. They aren't unaware of the vulnerabilities of tanks, but a combination of lack of material resources, operational incompetence, and apparently political interference in military planning is keeping them from really fighting according to their own doctrine.

[Teever]

so if the Russians know what theyre doinn, why doesnt it look like they know what theyre doing?

like is this actually what winning looks like?