Seems like a bad strategy?

[strateguy632]

disclaimer i oppose russian invade ukraine, but if i were putin...

1, Russia started with around 3,000 operational battle tanks, beside around 9000 in storage.

2, russia lost "half of their modern tanks" but could send old ones.

3, wouldn't strategy be better? to use the thousand old tanks, made between 1983 and 1991, considering now has a use in war, so better than just sitting. and can risk because "old minor loss", maybe they will accomplish before getting destroyed and if destroyed they were the old ones, 30-40 years old.

4, Russia did use and lose nearly 200 old t62 and t64, but i mean newer 1983. and did use and lose nearly 500 old t72, but have hundreds more to use? rather than just sitting in storage like a millionaire "i have so many" now is war use them?

5, similarly the thousand ones produced from 1991 to 2003 also old so loss is "minor" because it is the old ones, should risk for use? seems dumb to store them instead of use them during war?

[BCA6010]

When you hear "modern Russian tanks," you have to take it with a dose of salt and reality. The T72 and T90 are essentially the same tank, with the latter built from factory with new systems while the former is retrofitted. The vast majority of Russia's tanks are T72 variants, but that doesn't mean they aren't of comparable standard to the T90A. The T80's development was suspended as soon as they saw combat for the first time (in Chechnya I believe) in which they underperformed for the associated cost. You also have to keep in mind that the vast majority of news sources don't know sh*t when it comes to what military equipment is, and frequently misidentify anything with visible armor plating (even on wheels) as tanks, such as the BTR and BMP series of vehicles. From my own sources, Russia has brought out a lot of these older BTR-60 and 70 series vehicles that our own Intel community didn't think were still in their arsenal with such numbers specifically to use as cannon fodder. Ukraine is also inflating/lying about the losses they're inflicting while deflating/lying about their own losses, which implies there's a significant amount of friendly fire incidents happening, which is to be expected considering both sides field a lot of the same equipment.

The biggest mistake Russia made early on was not annihilating the Ukrainian Air Force by crippling the airbases in the opening strikes. It is absolutely bewildering why any modern military wouldn't have considered this a critical priority. In fact both sides have fought this war almost as if the lessons learned during and after world war 2 were just completely forgotten, and the situation on the ground more closely resembles world war one if both sides had a significant number of tanks - even the politics of petty tyrants sacrificing hundreds of thousands for miniscule gains repeats itself (at the peak of Ukraine's counter-offensive, they reclaimed less than 5% of lost territory and there's been a back and forth tug o'war for two years). There's a certain level of absurdity that a modern war has dragged on long enough that Ukrainian pilots can be trained from scratch to fly foreign planes out of their own airfields.

[strateguy632]

russia didn't attack the ukraine air base due to surface to air radar guided missiles.

[strateguy632]

your details are helpful, i will try to make time for a mytake. much thanks!

[love_conquers_lust]

San Zhou say strike hard, strike fast, strike first.

San Zhou also say if your enemy is incompetent, do not interrupt them.

[milyjohn]

Delete the asshole, who called you a shit strategist.

[Drewtate]

They are outdated. Tanks are good for the advance but as Russia is dug in they font need that many just a reaction force to plug up the gaps