The Once-Dominant Tank Is Getting Humbled on the Battlefield (www.wsj.com)

submitted 5 days ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/worldnews@lemmygrad.ml

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Of the 31 Abrams tanks the U.S. sent to Ukraine, six have been destroyed, according to Oryx, an independent analyst group that tracks casualties. The rest are now used only occasionally. At $10 million apiece, tanks like the Abrams are not easily replaced. Among other Western tanks sent to Ukraine, 12 of the 18 latest-model German Leopards have been destroyed or damaged, according to Oryx.

As soon as you get on the road, a drone spots you, and then you're being hit with artillery, mines, anti-tank missiles, drones, guided bombs," said a Ukrainian driver of one of the Abrams tanks whose call sign is Smilik.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 5 days ago

Of the 31 Abrams tanks the U.S. sent to Ukraine

At $10 million apiece, tanks like the Abrams are not easily replaced.

They're missing what makes these hard to replace. It's not the sticker price -- "just" 1 billion could buy you 1000. It's that the U.S. currently lacks the production capacity to quickly manufacture replacements.

Unintentionally a great demonstration of the "industrial capital vs. finance capital" conflict in this war.

[-] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

You're right, though 10mil is a lot when that financial capital that the Ukrainian military relies on is pretty sparse. Represents a nice ROI for Western powers who are definitely invested in providing maximal value for the Ukrainian military.

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 5 days ago

Exactly, the one thing the war showed is that the GDP metrics the west has been using to measure the size of an economy are completely worthless. Turns out that Russia alone has the industrial capacity to outproduce all of the west combined.

[-] cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 days ago

I wouldn't say that the GDP metrics are useless, though I don't think you mean that literally. But in this context, they aren't the point.

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 5 days ago

I find GDP by itself doesn't really tell you much. Stuff like PQLI is far more meaningful.

[-] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago

Rubbish, it was never dominant to begin with

[-] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

It was dominant to the only other tanks it was faced against, like uhhhhh Iraqi T-55s

[-] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

Which I'm sure had nothing to do with satellite targeting, air support, artillery and missiles and oh Iraqi army leadership getting bribed to flee

[-] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

We know that tanks still work well when properly supported by other parts of he military so they don't get instantly blown up. This just means that Ukraine is not using the tanks they have with proper support. I wouldn't be surprised, after all, they have a severe manpower shortage.

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 5 days ago

Right, AFU is not capable of doing proper combined arms warfare at this point.

[-] Franfran2424@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 5 days ago

On the contrary. Tanks, like any other system, will take losses.

Being able to replace material losses while avoiding and replacing personnel losses is a key part of any long conflict.

[-] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 5 days ago

Well, that is also true, but Ukraine has clearly suffered in its use of tanks if they are just being blown up when being taken out on the road. Both the tank species mentioned in the article (abrams and leopards) have been taken out of the picture mostly, either through underutilisation, or destruction.