this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
17 points (66.0% liked)

Technology

34889 readers
96 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There could be many reasons. I don’t know where they are deploying them, how much training the crews have had and many others that factor into survivability. I’m not saying the Abrams is the best tank ever, just saying that there are many factors that can contribute to why they aren’t doing well in the field for the Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Sure, I agree with that. There are tangible factors that make T-72 a better tank though. It's a simpler design, making it easier to produce and maintain. It's more manoeuvrable, it's lighter so it doesn't get stuck in mud. Doesn't use a turbine engine, which has been a cause for endless problems. So, while many factors combine to decide overall effectiveness, the quality of the weapon itself is important as well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Each tank has their advantages, but if you’re going to have an army use a tank with little to no training or spare parts, the T-72 is definitely a no brainer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Or you know a tank that will be used in actual battle conditions where you're not going to have guaranteed support. The whole NATO strategy has been to invade small defenceless countries and brutalize people there. You don't need to worry about stuff like logistics in these situations. A real war is a different animal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Once again, it depends on where the tanks are deployed and what training the crews have. We do not know if these weapons were deployed and used in the same way. Unless you know this, you can’t really say.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Western media has been telling us that Ukrainians have been trained up to NATO standards. So, going by that we have to assume that that's the quality of NATO training and weaponry on display.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

more manoeuvrable

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like a 4 km/h reverse speed. That's a really tangible factor making the T-72 a better tank.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

ah the copes 😂