That would be a decent strategy except for the fact we have more Abrams than the Russians have T72s.

Some people believe in the power of numerical superiority and as if it is relevant in today's battle field.

 

I believe in the power of 2000 lb. jdam.

thats true, but the where, when, why constraints have to be identified

 

and the real constraint is that theatre events are systems events.

 

the lesson on armout moving beyond ADS cover is Yom Kippur and Bekaa.  so issues of entrenchment, mobility of the force, structure of the force becomes the primary planning issue

 

tanks on their own against air are going to struggle. (eg look at the F-111 and its effectiveness as a tank buster - probably more so than the A-10)

 

what works for blue works for red.  you have to manage the air to manage the land.  Kursk type events are limited opportunities in modern war.

Speaking from a purely US standpoint, we have stealth and we own the skies. Russia can deploy all the S300 and S400s they want and our B2s will annihilate any mass formations they come across. Even a single MLRS battery is enough to wipe out a tank BN. The fact is that we have better SA (drones, all GPS satellites are owned by the US, more technologically integrated, BFT, etc).

 

If you want to just go tank for tank, the M1 is better and we have more of them. If you want to incorporate systems, the US military will crush Russia in a war like a bug. We have more planes, better planes, more/better ships, more subs, better gear for our infantry, and better training all around. The only thing Russia has an advantage over the US is ADA, and the US doesn't even invest in that because we have the F22 raptor supported by F15s.  So all we'll do is fly outside the engagement zone of the Tunguskas and drop bombs on them.

Cold,

You always speak of how technilogically advance the USSR and Russia was is please tell mey why the T-72's engine is nothing more than a poor copy of a 1930's detroit diesel engine copied from lend lease vehicles. You can spout off all of your BS to other people but I've actuall worked on the damned things. Something you have never done. Nothing like getting a new engine or rebuilding an old one ans starting it and letting it run for 30 minutes and draining the oil and straining out about 2 kilogram of metal shavings. A little history her for you. When Nixon initiated the first nuke treaties he has kissenger give the Soviets a very special milling michine which made the ball bearings we used in our ICMB guidence systems. We did that because the soviet ICMBs were so inaccurate that as many as 5 warheads were targeted on the same spot. Its also the reason they built such huge bombs compared to the US. Your missiles were less accurate than a scud missile. I'll bet you believe the russians came up with GPS first.

 

Russia has the potiential to be a great country but it will never get past the parinoia and corruption that stalin induced. I love watching that vid were putin saves those park rangers from a charging siberian tiger by at the last second snapping off a quick shot with a tranq rifle. The russias actually believe that BS.  Grow up and go do some of the things you talk about.

Unfortunately or fortunately tanks, like people, fail when used inappropriately.  The Sherman when used for tank on tank warfare was slaughtered. As you pointed out the main gun was to weak and it was underarmored. The soviets found out in afghanistan that the armored troop carriers known as BTR's were not suited for combat after losing approx 1300 of them the first year. Those high losses stoped after they were replaced with BMP's. Sadly the american army has put in the same kind of vehicle with almost the same result.