Okay, let's say that the Middle East/Yugoslavians DID misuse their Russian tanks, HOW should have they been used then?

Ambush them in urban areas, tanks need to be hidden inside buildings so aircraft can't see them. Fighting at close range negates most of the advantages of superior optics, fire control and weapons the M1s have.

That's pretty interesting. Do you have a sauce on that?

>T-72 was a spiritual successor to the T-55/T-62 model where they meant to equip Motor INFANTRY and not meant to engage head on with WESTERN models of tanks
Well then you'd be wrong, because that isn't true.

Hiding armored divisions in an open fucking desert is pretty hard, my dude. Especially when your opponent has air supremacy, the best surveillance aircraft built by man and spy satellites.

Iraqis were training and developing for an Iran-Iraq war 2. Their strength, including domestically made tanks, was appropriate for an inter Arab skirmish. They got blindsided when they got an opponent of a different class. Whether they used the tanks wrong or not, their tactics weren't suited for the opponent they got.

Also if you compare the Iraq then, where they left their T-72's behind, and the Iraq now, where they left their Abrams behind, there's consistency.

How did yugo's misuse their tanks?

>Even the russians had a really fucking hard time following their own doctrine they developed during the cold war if we look at the first chechen war where they combined with no actual valuable information on the chechens strength and fighting will drive straight into grozny and loose hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles in a few hours.
That was smack in the middle of Soviet collapse. Things were too chaotic and unfunded. I think it's unfair to say they couldn't follow their own doctrine.

This. You gotta keep in mind the Russian fondness for cliche post-apocalyptic bullshit steams from the fact their childhood was a post-apocalyptic scenario.
Just like the writer of Metro said. It's not a story about post-apocalypse, or Moscow metro, or anything of the sort. Just an oblique view on his own experience as a Russian right after the disollution of USSR.

The country was in shambles from top to bottom. There's really no point using that as a basis of comparison fo the kind of strategies developed for Cold War scenarios.

>The country was in shambles
What do you mean was? Did it recover while I blinked?

They lucked out on a commodities boom that drove up the price of energy

Compared to 90s? Yeah. You should ask some Russian anons stories from the 90s some time. A birthday present might be a soda or a bag of chips. Meat was a luxury.

This is probably not the right thread but anyway. I was looking at some footage of Abrams tanks in eastern Europe on YouTube and i noticed that some still have patches on their turrets that are desert camo. What are these for and why can't they be painted?
Pic related

Attached: NOTABLE-00001~2.jpg (1080x926, 349K)

It was even worse.

Those are detachable recognition symbols - like a less obvious VS-17 panel.

They're supposed to counter friendly fire

I thought the point of training was to not do retarded shit once things are chaotic?

>Did it recover while I blinked?
It's not perfect but a hell of a lot better than it was for the decade or so just after the collapse of the USSR.

It was not chaotic just on the battlefield, it was chatoic from the bottom all the way to the top. You can't try your guys to fight without supplies and be ready for constant AWOL's.Also you implying those cannonfodders were train, but you are very wrong.

Attached: 1447274596927.jpg (1024x661, 223K)

*You can't train your guys
*cannonfodders were trained
I should start proofread one of these days

Looking at the thumbnail I swear that was a Merkava

Attached: 1299779084011.jpg (338x481, 23K)

it's an IR panel, if you have your thermals set for white hot, they are black, and if you have them set to black hot, they are white, hence why they say "do not paint"

No Chaim, it slowly bounced back over 2 decades of the Putin regime keeping Yeltsin's oligarch pillagers in check

Imagine being retarded enough to believe that Putin had anything to do with Russia's economic "recovery" lmao

>in Urban Combat against dug in insurgents
With infantry support and other lighter vehicle support

>against Western model of tanks
With newer ammo, better air defence and telling the crew not to store ammo outside the autoloader.

The ammo saddam had was barely able to pen the abrams at any range though, not much he could have done.

>keeping Yeltsin's oligarch pillagers in check
that's a funny way of saying they demanded bribes and if they didn't get them, you would get killed and your fortune divided up among the state and the other loyal oligarchs

its simply false,
the situation where motor infantry and tank divisions had different tank types arose in the seventies with the t64 t80 going to tank divisions.
Before the 1970s almost all tank units used t55 t62 irregradless of whether or not they belonged to tank or infantry divisions

>the Putin regime keeping Yeltsin's oligarch pillagers in check
Why is all the taxpayer paid property in the hands of the criminals still, then?

That isn't true.

>Putin caused Russia's "recovery"
Imagine being this retarded

>Before the 1970s almost all tank units used t55 t62 irregradless of whether or not they belonged to tank or infantry divisions
And the T-72 was introduced when?
The 1970s.
Is a oversimplification to the extreme, and flat out wrong in the historical perspective of the use of t-55/62, but it has some truth to it.

But he is. Soviet tank doctrine in general tells that tanks should not fight against tanks.