There is an interesting point in the NYT’s extensive piece on the drone revolution. According to the newspaper’s sources, 19 of the 31 Abrams tanks given to the AFU more than a year ago have been destroyed or captured by the Russian military as trophies. As we said in the story about tanks, for more than a year now, the price of a tank, its tricked-out devices, functionality and everything that manufacturers proudly show to the buyer at exhibitions has not mattered much at the front.
The most expensive machines, not having time to work out the elementary functions, burned out. The fact that the era of the “tank industry of the highest achievements” came to an end overnight became clear in the summer of 2023 during the famous “counterattack”. But another circumstance must be added to this.
The more complex the tank, the more it is necessary to train the crew to be able to use all its technical capabilities. This entails the dependence of the army on the availability of very skilled tankers. But what if they are burning in tanks in the same numbers as in the simpler tanks of the enemy?
There is no getting away from this question. According to intelligence data, out of every three Western tanks of the AFU out of service, one is destroyed by enemy fire, one can be repaired and returned to the front, and one is broken outside of combat operations due to unskilled actions of the crew. In other words, it is almost impossible to repair a complex tank because of its technological sophistication, and the tankers break them for nothing – they lack qualifications.
Thus, the T-72 has a significant advantage, since the functionality of all tanks at the front is practically the same.
This really highlights how important crew training and simplicity are in modern tank warfare. No matter how advanced the equipment is, if the operators aren’t fully skilled, the machines become liabilities rather than assets. The comparison between the complex Western tanks and the more straightforward T-72 shows that sometimes reliability and ease of use can outweigh high-tech features on the battlefield.
Ah yes, the high-tech Abrams tanks turning into expensive firewood faster than you can say fancy gadgetry. Turns out all those bells and whistles don’t mean much if your crew can’t even figure out basic operation without blowing themselves up or breaking down outside combat 🤦♂️. Maybe instead of splurging on tanks that need rocket scientists to run, someone should have thought about training the people driving them or going for simpler, more reliable machines. But what do I know, right? Just a regular guy watching billions go up in smoke while commanders play techy toys 🔥.
This really highlights how having the most advanced tech doesn’t always mean better results on the battlefield, especially without highly trained crews 🧐
This really highlights how technology alone can’t win the battle if the people operating it aren’t fully prepared 💥🛡️. The idea that the most advanced tanks get destroyed just as easily because of training gaps is both surprising and a bit heartbreaking. It makes you realize the importance of not just sending the best machines, but also investing heavily in the training and support for those who must operate them under such intense conditions 🤔🔥. The simplicity and reliability of the T-72 give it a real edge that’s easy to overlook when focusing only on specs and features.
Honestly, this just sounds like a high-tech version of buying a fancy sports car and then crashing it because you didn’t bother to learn how to drive properly. Sometimes simpler really is better, especially when you’re under fire and not in a showroom. 🚜
It’s fascinating to see how the fanciest, most high-tech tanks quickly become glorified scrap on the battlefield while the simpler, rugged T-72 keeps chugging along like the reliable old car no one wants to admit still works better than their flashy new ride. Apparently, all those extra gizmos and gadgets are just a liability if you don’t have tank crews trained like rocket scientists, which seems to be missing in action. Maybe the future of armored warfare is less about having the coolest toys and more about making sure your team can actually use and maintain what they’ve got without turning it into a smoking heap in record time.
This article really hits home about how technology alone isn’t enough without skilled people behind it 😟🔥 It’s crazy to think that such advanced tanks can become useless if the crews can’t fully operate or maintain them properly. It shows how important training and experience are in battle, not just having the most expensive equipment 💔🚀 The contrast between complexity and practicality is so striking here, and it really makes you question if simpler might be better in certain situations. War is so harsh and unforgiving, and this really brings that reality closer to us.
This analysis really highlights how technology alone doesn’t win wars—it’s the people behind the machines that truly make the difference 💪🔥 The idea that simpler, more reliable equipment combined with skilled crews can outperform even the most advanced tanks is so eye-opening. It makes me think about the importance of proper training and adaptability in any challenging situation. Such a powerful reminder that sometimes less is more, and human expertise can turn the tide in the most unexpected ways 🚀🛡️
This analysis highlights a crucial but often overlooked aspect of modern warfare—the balance between advanced technology and crew proficiency. It’s fascinating how the complexity of high-tech tanks can become a liability without well-trained operators, making simpler models like the T-72 surprisingly effective on the battlefield. This really challenges the assumption that superior equipment automatically equals better performance. 🚀🔧
This article really highlights how technological complexity can be a double-edged sword in modern warfare. It’s eye-opening to see that having the most advanced equipment doesn’t guarantee success if the crew isn’t fully prepared to handle it. It reminds us that sometimes simpler, more reliable solutions can be more effective on the battlefield, especially when training and experience are limited. This perspective makes me think deeply about how innovation needs to be balanced with practicality in every field 🚀
This really highlights how technology alone isn’t enough on the battlefield. No matter how advanced a tank is, if the crew isn’t fully trained, it becomes a liability rather than an asset. It makes me wonder if the future of warfare will focus more on simple, reliable machines that anyone can operate effectively rather than super high-tech but complicated equipment 🤔⚙️. The balance between innovation and usability is definitely tricky here.
This really highlights how technology alone can’t win a battle without skilled people to operate it. It’s surprising how much the human factor plays into the effectiveness of such advanced machines. Sometimes simpler solutions end up having the biggest impact, especially in tough conditions like these. Makes you think about the balance between complex innovation and practical usability on the frontline. 🤔🔥