There was one hit by an IED back in 2007, in Iraq. I wasn’t able to find any prior instances of losses to more traditional peer-threat antitank weapons.
8 Likes
So not really then.
This is the first time NATO current issue tanks have been up against current issue Russian armour, and crucially, the first time without air dominance. Which is I believe key to NATO tactics.
7 Likes
Yep, “Joint Air Power” “competence” is central to NATO fighting doctrine. Just as battleships were key to US Navy doctrine up until December 7, 1941.
5 Likes
It’s just always struck me as odd that this hasn’t been recognised by NATO donors to Ukraine. All the talk in the lead up to it was they were dying to have a crack at Russian armour (which I was pretty confident was not exactly the toughest test) and comparatively little of addressing the disparity in air power. Particularly in the counter offensive in which people and equipment have been left vulnerable or useless (see the German tanks at the beginning and the manual clearing of minefields at night).
3 Likes
8 Likes
7 Likes
8 Likes
7 Likes
General Sergey Surovikin’s bio page has disappeared from the Russian Defense Ministry’s website
7 Likes
That’s a bit more money than the Russian grunts are getting paid.
8 Likes
But he came with a free helicopter.
6 Likes
6 Likes
The only risk of DU munitions that the Russians care about is the increased risk of their armor units being destroyed by Ukrainians.
Everything else is crocodile tears and distraction.
8 Likes
7 Likes
This guy has way too much power & needs to have it diminished.
Edit:
Maybe a violation of the Logan Act for interfering with US foreign policy?
13 Likes
Eminent domain? Taxpayers already subsidized SpaceX anyway 
13 Likes
“We’ve been find some really alarming metals there,” said Professor Mark Horton.
“Our real worry is that crops that grow over these bomb craters will incorporate these poisonous metals and contaminate the world’s food supply.”
6 Likes
11 Likes
9 Likes
