Side note to the "could drive the tank". I had a conversation with a friend and I said I could fly a helicopter and all I would need is a few mins to "get the feel for her".  Compared to a plane, taking off is easy, but landing takes skill.  So I would not be able to land a plane by "getting the feel for her".

I talked to my friends dad who was a Huey pilot in NAM.  He said they didn't have simulators back then.  For their first flight they took them to an open field with a small chopper in the middle of it. That's how they learned to fly after all the book work was completed.  So he agreed, that I would be able to pilot a chopper by "getting the feel".

not "undo" burden? 

Side note to the "could drive the tank". I had a conversation with a friend and I said I could fly a helicopter and all I would need is a few mins to "get the feel for her".  Compared to a plane, taking off is easy, but landing takes skill.  So I would not be able to land a plane by "getting the feel for her".

I talked to my friends dad who was a Huey pilot in NAM.  He said they didn't have simulators back then.  For their first flight they took them to an open field with a small chopper in the middle of it. That's how they learned to fly after all the book work was completed.  So he agreed, that I would be able to pilot a chopper by "getting the feel".

Big difference between being able to make a vehicle go and being able to maneuver in combat.

Not the place for OJT.

Not the place for OJT.

Not against the Russians, who invented modern armored warfare tactics.

A weapon is only as effective as the person(s) using it.

It's the crew that defines if the tank is a bad-ass killing machine or a rolling coffin.

You can have balls of steel but many battles were lost by soldiers with big balls.

Training is what wins battles.  (Along with big balls....)

What's new about this war between 2 modern nations is there aren't many tank vs tank engagements. Maybe more BMP vs tank. But the main vulnerability for the M1 would be infantry anti tank weapons.  Sending in M1's would be a waste due to the cost and PMCS they require, plus fuel consumption.  More better to send Stryker type vehicles. Quantity vs. quality or even NAM era APC's. Basically keeps troops safe from small arms while going from place to place.

After thinking about it, armored HMMMV's would be better.  Much cheaper, way easier to maintain, less resources, easier to produce  and transport.   No training required.  I mean, only training would be to how to start the engine and use the battery warmer.

This video states the crews have about a month of intensive training.  This tank is more heavier and more sophisticated than the T-80 they are used to.

Most likely the Ukranian crews will have similar half-assed training when the M1 gets delivered.

With so much corruption in that country I wonder if these tanks see service at the front lines at all, but that's fodder for another thread.

edited to add:  Lots of the comments after the video mentioned the training should have started sooner for the crews instead of last minute.  Lots of people know that training in these things don't happen overnight.

What's new about this war between 2 modern nations is there aren't many tank vs tank engagements. Maybe more BMP vs tank. But the main vulnerability for the M1 would be infantry anti tank weapons.  Sending in M1's would be a waste due to the cost and PMCS they require, plus fuel consumption.  More better to send Stryker type vehicles. Quantity vs. quality or even NAM era APC's. Basically keeps troops safe from small arms while going from place to place.

After thinking about it, armored HMMMV's would be better.  Much cheaper, way easier to maintain, less resources, easier to produce  and transport.   No training required.  I mean, only training would be to how to start the engine and use the battery warmer.

Actually, using A-7 or A-10 jets to take out the enemy tanks would be more effective and risk fewer lives.  The cost to acquire and operate would be higher compared to a few tanks, but they are more survivable on the battlefield and can overwhelm enemies employing tanks as long as they don't also have accurate anti-aircraft weapons. Whichever side owns the skies has the advantage.

To build a Hummer that can withstand a direct hit from a tank would mean basically creating a tank without the canon.  At some point, you might as well make it a tank.

Actually, using A-7 or A-10 jets to take out the enemy tanks would be more effective and risk fewer lives.  The cost to acquire and operate would be higher compared to a few tanks, but they are more survivable on the battlefield and can overwhelm enemies employing tanks as long as they don't also have accurate anti-aircraft weapons. Whichever side owns the skies has the advantage.

To build a Hummer that can withstand a direct hit from a tank would mean basically creating a tank without the canon.  At some point, you might as well make it a tank.

These things are the ground troops best friend.  And a nightmare for the enemy.

These things are the ground troops best friend.  And a nightmare for the enemy.

i graduated college in 1984.  My first AFROTC Military Banquet would have been Fall 1980.  During that event, we watched a film on the A-10 Thunderbolt (nickname: Warthog).  They were first operational in 1976, so not that many in inventory in '80.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

These things are the ground troops best friend.  And a nightmare for the enemy.

Since I was stationed at the A-10 Depot I was schooled on A-10's  at Myrtle beach AFB before they were in wide usage.
Awesome machine. The designers didn't think out some maintenance issues very well, but
survivability was excellent.
Even me, a Nav systems specialist could swap engines and repair flight control surfaces.
But then again I was a depot repair guy. Back in my day that (billet, PCS, Posting)  took special recommendations to get.
 

Since I was stationed at the A-10 Depot I was schooled on A-10's  at Myrtle beach AFB before they were in wide usage.
Awesome machine. The designers didn't think out some maintenance issues very well, but
survivability was excellent.
Even me, a Nav systems specialist could swap engines and repair flight control surfaces.
But then again I was a depot repair guy. Back in my day that (billet, PCS, Posting)  took special recommendations to get.
 

From what I read, they have about 1,200 lbs of titanium armor protecting the cockpit and avionics.

 

From what I read, they have about 1,200 lbs of titanium armor protecting the cockpit and avionics.

 

Shaped like a bathtub
guillotine to sever all
connections on ejection.
Build to get shot up
and survive.
 

 

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk