RegularJoe@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 6 days agoThe Army made a tank it doesn’t need and can’t use. Now it’s figuring out what to do with it.www.defenseone.comexternal-linkmessage-square34linkfedilinkarrow-up126arrow-down11
arrow-up125arrow-down1external-linkThe Army made a tank it doesn’t need and can’t use. Now it’s figuring out what to do with it.www.defenseone.comRegularJoe@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 6 days agomessage-square34linkfedilink
minus-squareexu@feditown.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·6 days agoHaving a tank is better than not having one
minus-squarecatloaf@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 days agoIt is if it’s a sitting duck of a deathtrap.
minus-squareTheMightyCat@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up4·6 days agoWith T-55s and T-62s still being used in this conflict I think this proves exu’s point. A vehicle that can protect against small arms fire while lobbing 105mm HE shells is still very useful for infantry fire support.
minus-square52fighters@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·6 days agoWorse case scenario, park them in urban areas that Russia might invade and use them as fixed cannons.
minus-squareknightly the Sneptaur@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·6 days agoThey might make useful roadblocks, I suppose.
Having a tank is better than not having one
It is if it’s a sitting duck of a deathtrap.
With T-55s and T-62s still being used in this conflict I think this proves exu’s point.
A vehicle that can protect against small arms fire while lobbing 105mm HE shells is still very useful for infantry fire support.
Worse case scenario, park them in urban areas that Russia might invade and use them as fixed cannons.
They might make useful roadblocks, I suppose.