this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
913 points (98.7% liked)

World News

46695 readers
2401 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

And yet somehow they will attack nato until 2030, according to the news...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

I don't know what to think anymore. I feel like every week for the last 4 years it's been "China's economy is going collapse any day now" and "Russia is losing so many people and resources in this war. They might as well give all of Russia to Ukraine"

I don't take any news written in English with any seriousness for these two countries.

Also, pretty sure modern warfare has learned heavily that tanks are completely obsolete against drones. Or even less modern warfare tells us how useless they are in cities against gorilla fighters.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Russia has been coasting on old Soviet stock for a while. Most of their modern t-90s and t-14s have been exploded. They've been sending mothballs tanks and apcs to the front for years now. Last year a good deal of frontline troops were using unarmored Chinese golf carts to move around. They never had the manufacturing capability to keep modernized armor at the front, and it is costing russian lives

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

t-14s have been exploded

Ehhhh, more like they only had like 15 of the things and none where really out of a prototype phase. Not worth sending due to the bad propaganda when they do get blown up (since there has been no tank platform in that conflict that does not get got).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Unfortunately I think this also has to do with the changing tech around war. Drones are the new hotness and it is a very good counter to tanks warfare.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Even without drones, they are awful I'm so much of modern warfare. If you've watched any footage out of Gaza you'll see a dude pop up out of tunnel and just completely disable a tank without them ever seeing him. Tanks are quickly going the way of the cannon. In much the same way.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Drones don't hold ground, soldiers do. Soldiers that have tanks are going to be more effective than those without them.

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

Yeah dead soldiers inside of tank that got 1 shot by a micro drone with a grenade the moment they opened their hatch don't hold ground either.

Also, if you've seen them in Gaza they are next to useless in rubble that heavy with dudes popping out of tunnels that disable them without ever being seen.

Historically even, tanks are awful against gorilla fighters. Which is what a lot Ukraine combat has become. Them not using tanks is not surprising.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm sorry but have you seen what a drone with a grenade does to a tank with an open hatch?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Have you seen a photo of what tanks in combat look like these days? They have cages welded on top of them. Also the hatches can be closed. A lot of tankers like to have the hatch open so the commander can have have more visibility, but it's not a necessity.

There have been ways to take out a tank with missiles for a long time now. The reason why they're still used is that air defenses exist and nothing beats the cost efficiency of moving a big gun close to the enemy and firing a lot of cheap ammunition at them.

Also are you going to tell civilians they can move back into their towns based solely on drones? If the civilians are behind a bunch of tanks, they're safe because the drones will go after the tanks before going after the civilians. You need soldiers to hold ground. A soldier in a tank is going to be harder for a drone to kill than a soldier that's not in a tank.

Yes drones are effective, but drones can't hold ground and keep civilians safe.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

For the price of one tank with cope cages you could buy thousands of drones instead. Tanks are not cost effective anymore. They’re the land equivalent of battleships in an era of aircraft carriers.

The land equivalent of an aircraft carrier is a soldier with a couple of drones in a backpack.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem is still getting people from one place to the other

Even with drones taking out tanks, people would rather be in a vehicle than walk

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That’s what APCs and lighter infantry vehicles are for. They’re not going away. It’s main battle tanks (the ones that cost millions of dollars) that are going away.

Moving troops around in safety is going to be extremely challenging but that’s because of enemy drones, not enemy tanks. Drones can fly recon around a moving personnel carrier just as easily as planes fly recon around an aircraft carrier.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Mourn the loss of historical vehicles, but blame the people who threw them to be destroyed.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

the industry is not covering combat losses

Since it's not clear from the headline, that's the restoration industry. We're not even talking about the production of new tanks (which was never that impressive at any point in the full-scale war).

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Edit It looks like Ukraine has began serious production of truck mounted mobile 155mm artillery systems, something the US doesn't take seriously here because it can lean on an assumed air superiority to deliver overwhelming force, something Ukraine can't do . This coupled with a depletion of Russian tanks might actually be decisive here since the more Ukraine can field mobile, extreme lethality cannon artillery the more necessary it becomes for Russia to have main battle tanks with significant armor and extreme survivability under the hellish conditions of metal shards hurtling at terrible speeds in all directions from exploding ordnance....

The problem with artillery smaller than this is that it doesn't actually pose an existential threat to very highly armored/entrenched targets and the range is that much more limited. Again, if the U.S. had taken arming Ukraine seriously, they would have made sure that the Ukranian military had a very deep and resilient supply of mobile artillery pieces that could serve in place of the role U.S. airpower plays (or U.S. forces assume air power will play at least). As long as Ukranian infantry has access to effective, shoulder launched anti-tank weapons this could tip the balance of the war significantly.

longer answer

I hope this hits Russia hard, but I wonder how much Russia needs tanks at this stage of the war vs a breadth and depth of infantry and artillery reserves.

Main battle tanks are for punching through enemy defenses and making a run on enclosing enemy forces/enemy territory.

Once you capture that territory tanks are still very much useful, especially because of their mobility and ability to reposition quickly, but they aren't necessary in the same way that you need some kind of tank or something behaving like a tank in the maneuver portion of the war. Even if Ukraine counterattacks with main battle tanks, the most effective counters in that case are artillery, entrenched infantry, and mechanized infantry with effective AT that can respond and reposition to slow down armored columns attempting to break through their front lines. Don't get me wrong, tanks would absolutely decisively help too, but if I had to choose between depriving Russia of artillery and depriving Russia of tanks, I would choose artillery. I mean... obviously but especially at this stage of the war.

Who knows though, I hope Ukraine can get a steady supply of main battle tanks from someone (do they currently?), if Russia can't field main battle tanks even if it doesn't immediately affect the strategic balance of the war, the immediate psychological impact and tactical efficiency of tanks chewing through emplaced machine gun nests and enemy positions will be huge. No matter where you are on the battlefield you know that if Ukranians show up with an actual main battle tank, you are fucked as a Russian unless you have a whole lot of artillery/air support at the ready (which they do sometimes).

A single tank if used with an effective screen of infantry can delete entire columns of armored personnel carriers and armored fighting vehicles, I hope Russia suffers severely from a lack of tanks to directly counter this.

The problem though is that the Ukranians need much more artillery or extensive & resilient close air support for their tanks to be anything other than juicey targets for Russians unless they are always kept in the rear and deployed as very limited motorized artillery pieces. To the Ukranians an abrams mbt is effectively just a shittier paladin in the current status quo.

...Add the persistent presence of self propelled 155mm artillery backing Ukranian infantry and armor though and the current status quo of fiddly uav flying bombs and horrific close quarters fighting will simplify for the Russians to "get in a trench or heavily armored vehicle or die". This will hopefully create a situation where tanks are much more necessary for Russia.

Modern war is like rock paper scissors, tanks are the rock, infantry are the paper and artillery is the anvil dropped on the rock paper scissors game...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 month ago (4 children)

According to the researchers, even though there are still about 4,700 tanks in storage, most of them will be difficult to restore due to their poor technical condition.

This is Russia though - "poor technical condition" is "ready for service."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Nah. In those photos, where there's one or two tanks left but all the others have gone... those are immovable tanks. Couldn't even get them to the service bay. Why else would that one tank have been left behind?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Nah, adjust for Russian standards in what "poor technical condition" even means. It's not going to Ukraine if it can't drive off the base.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Covert Cobal has been classifying in mainly 4 categories. Abysmal is the lowest one, and are often missing such minor accessories as the turet, tracks, engines, and wheels. Not to mention having sat outdoors for upwards of 50 years. Those conditions are mostly what they're down to. It might allow for slightly higher throughout on production to start on these rusted husks rather than from raw steel, but it'd definitely be harder and more expensive to make these usable than to build a new tank from scratch.

https://youtube.com/@covertcabal

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Devils advocate, but given the way they’ve been building metal sheds around the prior tanks and almost completely negating the main gun, a missing turret might just be a weatherproofing issue for the ~~Orks~~ Russians.

It’s not like a main gun helps you survive a mobility kill from the umpteenth TM-62 in the dirt that got replanted after the last assault failed.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Here's to hoping 🍻

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Amazing.

SLAVA UKRAINI!

[–] [email protected] 207 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I really hope Russia is collapsing soon so Ukraians can have actual peace.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not if Trump has anything to do about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don’t worry, the US will probably bail Russia out to keep that from happening

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

lets bankrupt them next. they obviously have too much power and dont know how to be responsible with it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 120 points 1 month ago

And the world. Fuckers have infected everything

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 month ago

Agreed. I want the killing to stop and Russia to stop it's conquest.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

decommissioned = destroyed? Funny way of describing it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No but non-functional can be considered destroyed in this context...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Even in modern war, a significant amount of armor is lost not from literally being blown up, but from breaking, getting stuck, being abandoned after a flank cuts off retreat in a vehicle etc...

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›