RegularJoe@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 1 month 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-square46linkfedilinkarrow-up1163arrow-down15
arrow-up1158arrow-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 · 1 month agomessage-square46linkfedilink
minus-squareexuAlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up27arrow-down3·1 month agoHaving a tank is better than not having one
minus-squarecatloaf@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17·1 month agoIt is if it’s a sitting duck of a deathtrap.
minus-square52fighters@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15·1 month agoWorse case scenario, park them in urban areas that Russia might invade and use them as fixed cannons.
minus-squareknightly the Sneptaur@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up6·1 month agoThey might make useful roadblocks, I suppose.
minus-squareTheMightyCat@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up14·1 month 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.
Having a tank is better than not having one
It is if it’s a sitting duck of a deathtrap.
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.
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.