NATO tanks are far superior to Russian trash. Ukraine's Leopard 1s & 2s aren't the best NATO tanks, not that it matters.
Russian tanks have been getting destroyed constantly to the point where Russia had to totally stop using them since Ukraine was knocking them out so fast.
Tanks are functionally obsolete.
The sole point of tank armor is to survive hits. It doesn't work anymore since enemy tank guns & anti-tank guns are irrelevant & the threat instead is from ATGMs which can blow right through the armor of any tank either with top attack or simply slamming a big HEAT warhead into it.
Not sure I'd go so far as to say tanks are obsolete.
Certainly, if you're using them badly, as the Russians have been, pushing forward with no support, yes, they're little more than targets for AT gunners, but any weapon used badly could be argued to be obsolete on that basis.
As for the Ukrainian losses, I don't know the details, but if they're going on the offensive, well, they're going to have to take some risks, aren't they?
As for the Ukrainian losses, I don't know the details, but if they're going on the offensive, well, they're going to have to take some risks, aren't they?
They are. And so far, the hardest part has been pushing in through the south where the Russians are heavily dug in and have mines out the ass at every strongpoint. The infamous picture of the disabled Bradley's and Leopard that was getting shared around came from an attack where they got boxed in by mines and then Russian gunships came in and attacked them when they had limited movement options.
However, it is also worth pointing out that unlike Russian vehicles (on both sides of the war), the crews in the Western vehicles have been suffering significantly less losses than their counterparts. Which in the long run will allow crews to learn from their mistakes and avoid making them again. Similar to how in WW2, the US Navy initially suffered against Zero's because the Wildcat was slower and less maneuverable. But since it was tougher and had higher crew survivability, eventually American pilots developed tactics that let them get around their weaknesses that Zero pilots typically fell for because they were usually newer pilots (the old guys got shot down).
Also true. One of the interesting ones to find out when you look at the stats was that the American-crewed Shermans were one of the most survivable tanks in the war, but British-crewed Shermans were running in line with most others (making them significantly less survivable than the American ones).
This is largely because the British classed them as "Cruisers" for the purpose of their army, which were tanks that took on an effective role on par with cavalry. And like the cavalry of old, British Cruiser tanks were crewed by the insane and the unhinged, who would do things like "Shove extra shells into every last nook and cranny" and "carry extra fuel tanks outside of the armored ones", which ends rather explosively as I am sure you can guess. But since the British were the first to get the Shermans into combat, and those issues existed then in Africa, it was the reputation they got even if they didnt deserve it.
Another interesting thing is that when Shermans and T-34's fought in Korea, the Shermans usually won. Because it turns out the T-34 also has an overly inflated reputation (being much more dangerous to crew and easier to destroy than the reputation says), and while both had similar guns and armor, the Shermans had significantly superior "intangibles" (things like crew ergonomics, optics, magazine placement, etc) that allowed it to usually be the one to get the first shot off and win the fight.
NATO tanks are far superior to Russian trash. Ukraine's Leopard 1s & 2s aren't the best NATO tanks, not that it matters.
Russian tanks have been getting destroyed constantly to the point where Russia had to totally stop using them since Ukraine was knocking them out so fast.
Tanks are functionally obsolete.
The sole point of tank armor is to survive hits. It doesn't work anymore since enemy tank guns & anti-tank guns are irrelevant & the threat instead is from ATGMs which can blow right through the armor of any tank either with top attack or simply slamming a big HEAT warhead into it.
Not sure I'd go so far as to say tanks are obsolete.
Certainly, if you're using them badly, as the Russians have been, pushing forward with no support, yes, they're little more than targets for AT gunners, but any weapon used badly could be argued to be obsolete on that basis.
As for the Ukrainian losses, I don't know the details, but if they're going on the offensive, well, they're going to have to take some risks, aren't they?
They are. And so far, the hardest part has been pushing in through the south where the Russians are heavily dug in and have mines out the ass at every strongpoint. The infamous picture of the disabled Bradley's and Leopard that was getting shared around came from an attack where they got boxed in by mines and then Russian gunships came in and attacked them when they had limited movement options.
However, it is also worth pointing out that unlike Russian vehicles (on both sides of the war), the crews in the Western vehicles have been suffering significantly less losses than their counterparts. Which in the long run will allow crews to learn from their mistakes and avoid making them again. Similar to how in WW2, the US Navy initially suffered against Zero's because the Wildcat was slower and less maneuverable. But since it was tougher and had higher crew survivability, eventually American pilots developed tactics that let them get around their weaknesses that Zero pilots typically fell for because they were usually newer pilots (the old guys got shot down).
Also Sherman crews in the same war. Contrary to popular culture, Shermans weren't death traps and had better crew survivability than most other armor.
Also true. One of the interesting ones to find out when you look at the stats was that the American-crewed Shermans were one of the most survivable tanks in the war, but British-crewed Shermans were running in line with most others (making them significantly less survivable than the American ones).
This is largely because the British classed them as "Cruisers" for the purpose of their army, which were tanks that took on an effective role on par with cavalry. And like the cavalry of old, British Cruiser tanks were crewed by the insane and the unhinged, who would do things like "Shove extra shells into every last nook and cranny" and "carry extra fuel tanks outside of the armored ones", which ends rather explosively as I am sure you can guess. But since the British were the first to get the Shermans into combat, and those issues existed then in Africa, it was the reputation they got even if they didnt deserve it.
Another interesting thing is that when Shermans and T-34's fought in Korea, the Shermans usually won. Because it turns out the T-34 also has an overly inflated reputation (being much more dangerous to crew and easier to destroy than the reputation says), and while both had similar guns and armor, the Shermans had significantly superior "intangibles" (things like crew ergonomics, optics, magazine placement, etc) that allowed it to usually be the one to get the first shot off and win the fight.