War in Karabakh exposed the uselessness of tanks in the mountains

October 7 2020 49

The armed confrontation in Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrates the actual uselessness of using a tank equipment in the mountains. In the first days of the conflict, dozens of tanks of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces were destroyed, while Baku reports the destruction of tanks of the opposite side with the help of the Bayraktar UAV.

According to National Interest experts, the mountainous terrain is not suitable for the use of heavy combat vehicles, since they are very vulnerable to attack drones and ATGMs. If the conflict in the NKR continues to develop according to this scenario, the loss of tank equipment will become the largest since the war in Iraq.

According to Yerevan, the Armenians have hit 137 enemy tanks at the moment. Baku, in turn, assures of the destruction of 130 tanks in Yerevan - this data already exceeds the losses of the Iraqis in the Persian Gulf, when the coalition burned 85 tanks of Saddam Hussein's troops.

Such large losses are associated not only with the successful actions of unmanned aerial vehicles, but also with unsuccessful combat tactics - the opposing sides do not have enough means to protect their military equipment from the air. Meanwhile, the armies of Great Britain and the United States went to a significant reduction in the number of tanks. The Russian Federation is also in no hurry to adopt the T-14 Armata platform, planning to release only a small batch of these combat vehicles.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

steelmaker

0

7 October 2020 09: 39

with unsuccessful combat tactics

I think this is the main reason.
amateur

-1

7 October 2020 09: 40

The uselessness of tanks was proven even during the Arab-Israeli wars. When the "brave but handy" Arab tankers threw serviceable tanks with working engines and scrambled to the rear at the first threat. You have to know how to fight on a tank.
1. Vladimir Tuzakov
  
  +1
  
  7 October 2020 10: 29
  
  The problem is that today anti-tank weapons exceed the capabilities of OB tanks, so they are burning massively tanks that have not yet entered combat use ... This is a significant state of the development of tank construction, the concept of further development should radically change, because the existing level of development has become a dead end, an example of this is the combat use of tanks over the past decade, losses exceed combat usefulness ... Perhaps unmanned tanks will become an option.
  1. Bitter
    
    +1
    
    8 October 2020 11: 33
    
    ... they are burning massively tanks that have not yet entered combat use ...
    
    Yeah, right at the exit from the assembly line, in factories.
    Tanks as they were and will remain powerful firing points in direct contact with the enemy. So it was in the Second World War, and today a tank without cover is an easy prey. Their use today must comply with modern requirements, which means that the main striking force must always be used prepared and comprehensively, then success with minimal losses is ensured. This is for a minute already tactics, planning, support and organization, and this is often unavailable for many commanders, especially ministers, for various reasons. Many uncles seem to think what a big formidable piece of iron they must cope with, but after all, load ammunition, start the engines and give the order to attack, this is essentially the final touch in the whole chain of preparatory measures.
    
    ... unmanned tanks are an option.
    
    Well, it's like the crew will sit in front of the screen "in the trench", but what about a stable connection if the enemy is not some kind of "natives"? These are still wet dreams.
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov
      
      +1
      
      8 October 2020 14: 06
      
      When UAVs, especially loitering bombs, etc., become a familiar and widespread weapon, not counting attack helicopters and airplanes, where their AT weapon reaches tens of kilometers, what kind of cover is said only about air supremacy. From this and it is necessary to "dance", and the tanks are already secondary means ...
      1. Bitter
        
        0
        
        10 October 2020 00: 37
        
        ... UAVs, especially loitering bombs and so on ...
        
        What difference does it make which manned tanks or not will be blown up by a UAV or a gliding bomb? In this case, it remains only to cover yourself with a sheet and crawl to the cemetery, because there is no salvation from them for either the tankers or the infantry, and they have absolutely nothing to hide behind.
        Tanks and infantry are PRIMARY combat units, the rest is support.
        
        Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        0
        
        10 October 2020 10: 23
        
        Quote:
        
        Tanks and infantry are PRIMARY combat units, the rest is support.
        
        This was the case in past wars, today it is a means of ENSURING victories, and LOSSES are carried out by other means (for example, even Karabakh, where Armenian air defense, TANKS, L. SOTAV mainly knocked out Turkish shock UAVs) ...
        
        Bitter
        
        +1
        
        11 October 2020 18: 34
        
        ... an example of even Karabakh, where Armenian air defense, TANKS, L. SOTAV mostly knocked out Turkish drone UAVs ...
        
        This is exactly what I wrote earlier, it makes no difference Armenian or Soviet tanks or infantry. A military operation without a COVER from the sky, including, is doomed. At all times, in fact, mother infantry fights, and everything else is a means of support. But if, in your opinion, aviation and missilemen are fighting and winning, then it is high time for all the others to be dispersed and / or replaced by the police.
        
        Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        0
        
        11 October 2020 20: 08
        
        all the rest is high time to disperse and / or replace with the police.
        
        - a very correct definition in the increasingly widespread hybrid wars, when the country is conquered by its zealous citizens (from Libya to Ukraine, etc.) Therefore, an effective police force is the main antidote to hybrid wars. In the 21st century, the roles and tasks are changing, and who was the main one departs to secondary roles, like the cavalry once, and today the tanks ...
        
        Bitter
        
        +1
        
        12 October 2020 12: 11
        
        Many people have their own point of view or point of view on various things. What some people think is foolishness or evil, sometimes the other side sees it completely differently.
        With good air defense, no air force or air force is afraid, and so on in a spiral up or down, depending on the targets set.
        The development and progress in aviation has managed to move a little forward, now it is the turn for ground vehicles. I am sure that they will catch up and overtake. With appropriate investment, this is a matter of a short period of time. After all, purely theoretically, a tank platoon may not consist of three tanks, but also some kind of "Tunguska". As well as MP not only on BMP, but with the corresponding modern requirements, cars with eared and big-eyed tactical missile-machine guns.
2. Igor Pavlovich
  
  -3
  
  7 October 2020 11: 34
  
  Tell us more about fifteen hundred pieces of armored vehicles lost in Afghanistan and who was "brave, but handy" there - just by looking into the eyes of those surviving guys-tankers ... I understand that an amateur victor would show them all fight in a tank ...
  1. unholyknight
    
    -3
    
    7 October 2020 12: 18
    
    but the guys were not hand..opy. The tanks themselves were bad - they sent mainly outdated equipment, such as the T-62. However, all sorts of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers did not fit well under the conditions of a counter-guerrilla war of a low-intensity conflict.
  2. amateur
    
    +3
    
    7 October 2020 13: 45
    
    I understand that the dilettante Viktor would show them all how to fight in a tank ..
    
    Why don't you remember "the best minister of defense of all times and peoples Pasha-Mercedes", who sent tanks with combined crews to take Grozny on New Year's Eve? He must have known tank tactics better than the Dilettante. You shouldn't have read my comment to the end:
    
    You need to be able to fight on tanks.
    1. Bitter
      
      0
      
      8 October 2020 11: 45
      
      He probably should have known tank tactics better than ...
      
      He had a whole "general staff of" specialists "behind him, but the wishes of the father of Russian democracy were beyond common sense.
gorenina91

-5

7 October 2020 10: 23

War in Karabakh exposed the uselessness of tanks in the mountains

-Ha ... - Yes, personally, I just wrote about it ... in the subject:

Iran has pulled at least 200 tanks to the Armenian-Azerbaijani border

-Namely :

-And what can the Russian Army use there ??? - Apply tanks ??? -It will simply turn into a terrible disaster for the Russian army ... -the area is mountainous, hilly and completely unfamiliar, there is no cover; and the mercenaries probably have "TOW" (and even "Javelins") ... - Helicopters (as a cover) will not help there either ... -they can also be knocked down with various MANPADS ...

- On the topic, I can also add that carpet bombing could most likely be the most effective there, after the suppression of all air defense systems by means of shock UAVs ...
- Most likely ... - something like that will start soon ...
1. unholyknight
  
  +1
  
  7 October 2020 11: 22
  
  Maybe because you know nothing about military technology? It is unrealistic to suppress normal air defense by some UAVs, but the fact that the Armenian Strela-10 burns seems to be nothing surprising. This machine is still dense in the 70s of the 20th century against modern UAVs. Normal saturation with shells did not really allow the Turks, who seemed to have more of these bayraktars than Azerbaijan now, so insolently using them in Syria and Libya. Yes, sometimes they were lost too, but there were much less vidosiks with the insolent defeat of tanks, which in itself is a direct evidence of the effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns. It does not come out to use the UAV with normal cover, only occasionally single targets are hit. In the case of Syria, they did not help the Turks at all, and the Syrians pushed the front even closer to the borders of Turkey. Plus, the Russian Federation also drew conclusions and adopted the Pantsir with the best radar and missiles specifically against UAVs.
  
  And the Russian army can use OTRK and aviation. Airfields are simply hammered from the air, from which UAVs take off, ammunition depots, centers from which operators work, planes that fly to Turkey for fresh consignments of UAVs and ammunition are destroyed. As if the squadron in the Caspian Sea, plus the existing air connections, allow this to be done without any problems. Yes, Azerbaijani. there is an S-300, but I have great doubts that they will be able to provide them with normal cover and that their defense is echeloned and not focal. After that, it won't even be necessary to introduce anything - Armenia will cope on its own, because the infantry and tank crews near Azerbaijan are trained at the "Red Army 41st Year" level.
  1. gorenina91
    
    -2
    
    7 October 2020 13: 42
    
    Maybe because you know nothing about military technology?
    
    - Have you decided to hit the most (as it seemed to you) "vulnerable target" with your "appraisal" ??? -We saw that the audience blurt out some minuses to me and plucked up the courage ... -well, well ... -laudable., "Hero" ...
    
    One UAV is unrealistic to suppress normal air defense
    
    -The fact of the matter is that "normal air defense"; and to destroy the air defense of Karabakh ... and such UAVs are quite enough ... -The same Turkish "Bayraktar TB2" will destroy everything and everyone ... -During the "Olive Branch" (and in many other cases) they showed their effectiveness ...
    
    Normal saturation with shells did not really allow the Turks, who, as it were, had more of these bayraktars than Azerbaijan.
    Plus, the Russian Federation also drew conclusions and adopted the Pantsir with the best radar and missiles specifically against UAVs.
    
    - But the notorious "Shells" ... - so they could not prove their effectiveness and ability to protect against anything ... but they themselves suffered more than once (and not only in Syria, but also in Libya) ...
    - Generally ... - in Karabakh it would be possible to do without aviation ... - UAVs alone are enough; but the Turks are saving their money ... - playing for time ... - they want; so that Russia would get involved in this conflict ...
    - Most likely ... - in vain I answer you ... - if you are from the "category" ... - "hurray our all won" ... it's in vain ...
    1. unholyknight
      
      -1
      
      7 October 2020 19: 17
      
      Quote: gorenina91
      -The fact of the matter is that "normal air defense"; but for the destruction of the air defense of Karabakh ... and such UAVs are quite enough ... -The same Turkish "Bayraktar TB2" will destroy everything and everyone ... -In time
      
      These are the problems of Armenians and Karabakh. The RF Armed Forces will not have such a problem, the saturation of troops with normal air defense systems is quite good.
      
      Quote: gorenina91
      - But the notorious "Shells" ... - so they could not prove their effectiveness and ability to protect against anything ... but they themselves suffered more than once (and not only in Syria, but also in Libya) ...
      
      Where have they failed to prove effective? In Syria, where suddenly, despite the massive use of UAVs, the Turks with their proxies were discarded altogether? Oh well. Maybe because the Turks are embarrassed to upload videos from their wrecked UAVs? Well done - such vidosiki bad PR. Only there were much fewer vidosiks with such impudent blows as in Armenia in Syria. In Libya, it is worse with the gasket between the air defense system and the seat - they were taught by their own Arabs (and how they taught the big question), and the complexes there will be older for the most part, even in 2004. And all the same, such a huge catastrophe did not work out, and the Turks, according to calculations, lost no less dough than the emirates who put the Armor. Plus, you modestly kept silent that most of the damaged shells were caught on reloading. Well, yes - the shells needed a finish according to the results, they carried it out and adopted a new modification of the installation and new missiles - specifically against the UAV.
      
      Quote: gorenina91
      - Generally ... - in Karabakh it would be possible to do without aviation ... - UAVs alone are enough; but the Turks are saving their money ... - playing for time ... - they want; so that Russia would get involved in this conflict ...
      
      And why intermeddle if the Russian Federation is enough to simply smash the entire infrastructure of Azerbaijan?
Bakht

+4

7 October 2020 10: 37

Tanks cannot be used in the mountains. On flat terrain, they are burned from long distances. In cities, they are burned from close range. Where can tanks be used at all?
But nevertheless, they are in all armies. Why, back in 41 it was clearly demonstrated that a tank by itself is worthless. But if used correctly in cooperation with other branches of the armed forces, this is a terrible weapon.
1. GRF
  
  0
  
  7 October 2020 14: 50
  
  Passive protection is outdated, in the light of new threats, and a tank with an active protection complex will still fight ...
Hodor

-6

7 October 2020 10: 59

The tank is conceptually outdated. Now whose air decides everything. And then just shooting ground targets by attack aircraft and information security.
1. Barmaley_2
  
  -2
  
  8 October 2020 00: 42
  
  it has been exaggerated for 50 years somewhere
  1. Hodor
    
    -2
    
    8 October 2020 09: 47
    
    Was the example of Yugoslavia not enough?
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      
      +3
      
      9 October 2020 00: 36
      
      Was the example of Yugoslavia not enough?
      
      What happened in Yugoslavia?
      72 days of continuous bombing, missile attacks totaling $ 36 billion (500 million per day)
      Destroyed about 15% of the small military infrastructure in itself. The rest is civil.
      That's all air superiority can do without a subsequent ground operation.
      1. Hodor
        
        0
        
        9 October 2020 08: 33
        
        My friend, you are blind. All political objectives of the operation have been completed. Serbia made concessions, the economy was destroyed, the infrastructure was also destroyed. And 15% is cunning demagogy, bridges, factories or power plants are "strategic objects" and not "civil infrastructure."
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        9 October 2020 10: 13
        
        My friend, you are blind. All political objectives of the operation have been completed.
        
        You are blind because you do not know the political tasks that have been set. They remained incompletely completed.
        Well, of course, if you think Serbia was bombed to divert attention from the Clinton scandal with Monica Lewinsky, then you are right. Distracted.)
        
        And 15% is cunning demagogy, bridges, factories or power plants are "strategic objects" and not "civil infrastructure."
        
        Speaking about 15%, I meant purely military potential. How are we talking about it now? (see article title)
        And if you have already climbed into the jungle with "strategic objects", then, in your opinion, there is no need to be distracted by any army in Karabakh, but to bomb the Azerbaijani hydroelectric power station and the Armenian nuclear power plant immediately, and with this all the tasks set by the parties will be fulfilled?)
        Then why bother with these your own, useless arguments about "air domination"? ))
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        9 October 2020 12: 11
        
        You are blind because you do not know the political tasks that have been set. They remained incompletely completed.
        
        You are talking nonsense.
        According to the Russian Balkan historian and member of the Senate of the Republika Srpska E. Yu. Guskova, the goals of NATO in the war were as follows:
        
        change of leadership in Serbia and Montenegro, its reorientation to the West
        division of Serbia and Montenegro, transformation of Kosovo into an independent state
        elimination of the armed forces of Yugoslavia
        free deployment of NATO forces on the territory of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro
        rallying NATO, testing its military power, testing new weapons and destroying old
        demonstrating to Europe the importance of NATO, creating a precedent for the use of military force without the consent of the UN Security Council.
        All goals were achieved in one way or another, immediately or in a few years.
        
        Speaking about 15%, I meant purely military potential. How are we talking about it now?
        
        Well, so what? The air defense was suppressed, the Air Force was defeated. All infrastructure is in ruins. The remaining 85% are just targets for bombs and missiles.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        9 October 2020 13: 12
        
        change of leadership in Serbia and Montenegro, its reorientation to the West
        
        That's it. This reorientation has been dragging on for a long time, don't you think?)
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        9 October 2020 14: 15
        
        For many years now Serbia has been making concessions, making any concessions in order to join the European Union. Since 2005, active accession negotiations have been going on between Serbia and the European Union, but so far they have not been crowned with success. They were ready to sacrifice everything just to join the European Union.
        
        https://pokeda.ru/vhodit-li-serbiya-v-evrosoyuz-ili-net.html
        
        Bitter
        
        +1
        
        10 October 2020 00: 55
        
        For many years Serbia has been making concessions, making any concessions, in order to join the European Union.
        
        If I had really walked, I would have already been there. But it seems that not everything is so simple. Although it is understandable, they simply do not have Yeltsin! Here he would show them the way in Europe.
        
        Hodor
        
        -2
        
        10 October 2020 10: 29
        
        You at least read what they write there before writing it.
        
        In the European Union, they say that it is possible in the future, namely not earlier than 2026, they will be able to accept Serbia into their ranks. But no one gives an exact answer whether this promise will come true. Even if Serbia joins the European Union in the near future, it will take the countries at least two years to ratify the agreement. Some of the EU members say that they will not accept anyone else into their ranks, let alone Serbs. Others believe that Serbia could become their ally.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        10 October 2020 02: 32
        
        For many years now Serbia has been making concessions, making any concessions
        
        Everything goes and goes, goes and goes ... everything cannot reach. Just like that, I see Serbia, exhausted by walking, with a knapsack on his shoulders.)
        By the way, do you know what Albania has done (together with Kosovo). Why are they not allowed into the European Union ???)
        
        Oh dv, and when will your "urkainu" be allowed on the threshold? It seems like the British have already freed your place.
        But the European Union is in no hurry to take you into its arms. Eh, bowing in vain, Maidan, it turns out.
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2020 10: 32
        
        Do not try to dodge to the side. NATO achieved 99% of its objectives through an exclusively air operation. Is there anything to object to in fact?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        10 October 2020 11: 48
        
        Do not try to dodge to the side. NATO achieved 99% of its objectives through an exclusively air operation. Is there anything to object to in fact?
        
        In general, it achieved nothing, showing that it can bomb the weaker ones with impunity.
        At first, we prepared for 2 months in front of the Serbs. Do you think NATO will have that much time if they want to bomb someone stronger? All these boats and jump airfields will be targeted before something will shoot or take off from there.
        Then all this will be able to shoot / take off only once. NATO will not have any 72 days to comfortably shoot defenseless targets.
        
        Second: 72 days of dense bombing of a small territory, and the destruction of only 15% of the far from the most modern military infrastructure - this is complete FIASCO! This is nothing! This is a military IMPOTENCE!
        The operation was not completed.
        The bombing was planned as a preparation for a staging ground for ground forces. When NATO realized that they were able to destroy only 15%, and a "bloody mess" awaited them on the ground, they scaled down their adventure and left, having completed only the "minimum program"
        So don't talk your bullshit here.
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2020 15: 33
        
        And the Serbs surrendered to them only so as not to offend the poor, I suppose? Another inhabitant of a parallel universe is not otherwise.
        
        Bitter
        
        +3
        
        10 October 2020 00: 50
        
        Well, so what? The air defense was suppressed, the Air Force was defeated. All infrastructure is in ruins. The remaining 85% are just targets for bombs and missiles.
        
        So what if Russia didn't even need rockets in the 90s. They smiled a little at whoever needed it, gave someone a drink, gave someone a fund, the pet shops sang a song, wrote out a loan and that's it. The entire infrastructure is in ruins, and the remaining population with the "dream of the occupier", some to China and some to Poland. The country has shrunk at times both geographically and demographically. Here are the targets.
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2020 10: 34
        
        But nothing. The conversation was about the role of the Air Force in modern wars.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        10 October 2020 18: 25
        
        But nothing. The conversation was about the role of the Air Force in modern wars
        
        That's it!
        You cited the example of the NATO bombing of Serbia.
        And I ask you: what have they achieved, besides the dastardly destruction of the defenseless civilian infrastructure?
        The military potential of the Serbs suffered only 15%. With such a massive attack, it's nothing.
        
        If you are not aware, then the ground army knows how to defend. And from the attack of the Air Force as well. The army is a structure specially trained for this.
        And to bomb civilians, a big mind is not necessary. The Americans have demonstrated this more than once by throwing atomic bombs on cities and burning entire settlements with napalm.
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2020 20: 19
        
        The military potential of the Serbs suffered only 15%. With such a massive attack, it's nothing.
        
        So why did Serbia surrender then, huh? We would have fought on until victory, if everything is so wonderful.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        10 October 2020 20: 31
        
        So why did Serbia surrender then, huh? We would have fought on.
        
        Who told you that Serbia has surrendered ??? Serbia defended itself against external aggression. And I'll tell you, quite successfully. The NATO never dared to conduct a ground operation.
        What do you mean, would you fight further? Serbs did not attack NATO countries.
        The only thing that NATO has achieved is to squeeze Kosovo from the Serbs in favor of the Albanians. At the same time, more than 200 thousand Serbs and other “non-Albanians” left Kosovo. I think this is not fair. Albanians should live in Albania, and not seize foreign territories. NATO acted like the last scoundrels.
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2020 20: 37
        
        Well, where is this success? Is Kosovo still a part of Serbia? no. The military-industrial complex is destroyed. Industry has been destroyed. Where is the success?
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        10 October 2020 20: 44
        
        The military-industrial complex is destroyed. Industry has been destroyed. Where is the success?
        
        Yes, and also stuffed the territory with depleted uranium munitions. Until now, peaceful people are dying there from oncology. This, too, must be attributed to the victory of NATO.
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2020 20: 48
        
        Why not. Also success, albeit doubtful. So it turned out that NATO is a complete success or something. And the Serbs have a ... tsa. and all this without a ground operation.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        10 October 2020 20: 51
        
        Why not. Also success, albeit doubtful. So it turned out that NATO is a complete success or something. And the Serbs have an ass. and all this without a ground operation.
        
        In short, as I understand it, it is very important for you that you have the last word?
        Okay, I give it up to you!
        Write some other nonsense, and that's it!)
        
        Hodor
        
        -3
        
        10 October 2020 21: 44
        
        Well, what was required to prove. merged and tries to be rude.
unholyknight

+2

7 October 2020 11: 17

Ohhh, the iksperdy are here. Is it okay that BOTH parties are using just horribly outdated technology? Ale - there are tanks with armor from the mid-80s at best! What's so surprising that they burn from being hit by modern ATGMs? The T-72A tank without VDZ holds 500mm in the forehead from the force of penetration with a cumulative jet - the Cornet has a penetration of 1200, and even ignores the VDZ of the 1st generation (and there is not a single tank even of the antediluvian contact-5, except for the rare Azerbaijani T-90, which also does not protect from Cornet). KAZs are generally absent from both sides as a class. Tanks with panoramic thermal imagers and autonomous ZPTU are also not equipped. Well, damn it, what's surprising that when they are thrown forward without infantry support, they burn?

Just a hand egg.
Barmaley_2

0

8 October 2020 00: 41

Maybe you just need to have normal weapons and air defense? Something is hard to believe that the Chinese are so stupid and quite recently adopted a medium tank "Type 15", which is called a "mountain tank". It will be necessary to tell them that they were in a hurry.
Sapsan136

+3

9 October 2020 11: 40

Any equipment without aviation cover is useless and not only in the mountains, this was proven even during the Second World War, when the German aircraft smashed the Soviet tanks and artillery that were left without air force cover. As soon as the German aviation began to receive a worthy rebuff from the USSR Air Force (the battle for the Kuban and similar battles), the military successes of the Wehrmacht ended.
Dear sofa expert.

+1

10 October 2020 20: 48

Quote: Dear couch expert.
The military-industrial complex is destroyed. Industry has been destroyed. Where is the success?

Yes, and also stuffed the territory with depleted uranium munitions. Until now, peaceful people are dying there from oncology. This, too, must be attributed to the victory of NATO.

where did we start?

The tank is conceptually outdated. Now whose air decides everything. And then just shooting ground targets by attack aircraft and information security.

And where did the execution go?
Is 15% a firing squad?
this 15% already includes the losses of both the air defense and the air force of the Serbs. And where are the losses of the ground army after 2,5 months of daily bombing ???