I said I’m no expert. Why? Because like I said, they are expensive, easily countered by all other arms groups and they don’t seem to accomplish much but be expensive targets. Your argument about Russia refurbing more speaks more to my argument here than yours. They are out of them, because they are so easily destroyed amd expensive, time consuming to produce and have seemingly poor survivability.
As to Ukraine wanting them and not having them, that too speaks to my point. Very very expensive to produce and don’t last long. They may be somewhat tactically useful, but strategically worthless, doubly so in a war of attrition. The sheer brilliance of Ukraine’s world leading droneworks is the other side of this coin. Cheap, easy and effective. Tactically useful and Strategically useful.
If you are in the biz, I would appreciate any facts or real world stats on survivability of tanks in war vs what they take out. I don’t know what militaries call cost/benefit analyses, but they must exist. Bang for your buck.
As for China and the like stockpiling, militaries are both innovative at times and traditional. The tradition is that tanks had proven themselves in WWI and II, but that combat environment doesn’t exist anymore. Like I said, there are many many ways to destroy an object that reported costs $2.5 to 4 million up front, plus the fuel, munitions and logistical dependencies, let alone a skilled crew of 4 or so.
The taliban won a war of attrition in Afghanistan against Russia and then the US who had M1A Abrams with every conceivable advanced doodad and are experts in combined arms. Great tacticians, shit strategists. They lost to goat farmers. Vietnam comes to mind too.
supersquirrel
