Why were they were using so many tanks and so few armored personnel carriers? It must have been an extremely intense concentration of force to be like nahhhh let’s leave the APCs out of this and just use tanks.
Or maybe they just don’t have the spare APCs to use in an armored assault like this and don’t want to risk losing more?
just use tanks
(ISW) said Kyiv’s forces repelled 36 tanks and 12 BMP infantry fighting vehicles
Probably just using IFVs instead of APCs, right?
Yeah I missed the IFV part but yeah that is kind of what I would think. I just keep conceptualizing armored assaults as using tanks to punch through a line specifically so that APCs can get through and exploit the opening and quickly maneuver troops into position behind enemy lines.
I guess when you are talking about the most intense, heavily defended parts of an enemies defenses though I guess you aren’t banking on punching through just smashing the other side back. Doesn’t seem very effective though, tanks always outrun infantry.
Why were they were using so many tanks and so few armored personnel carriers? It must have been an extremely intense concentration of force to be like nahhhh let’s leave the APCs out of this and just use tanks.
Or maybe they just don’t have the spare APCs to use in an armored assault like this and don’t want to risk losing more?
Probably just using IFVs instead of APCs, right?
Yeah I missed the IFV part but yeah that is kind of what I would think. I just keep conceptualizing armored assaults as using tanks to punch through a line specifically so that APCs can get through and exploit the opening and quickly maneuver troops into position behind enemy lines.
I guess when you are talking about the most intense, heavily defended parts of an enemies defenses though I guess you aren’t banking on punching through just smashing the other side back. Doesn’t seem very effective though, tanks always outrun infantry.