the best tank is one that can kill all armoured threats with a single shot. Which is all of them.
the better crew with better C4ISR and a worse tank will kill a worse crew with a better tank.
In ukraine most tank engagements ive seen are below 1km and i have only seen a handful of tank vs tank engagements.
those tanks are fine, but if you use them like idiots and you crew sucks (which seems to be a thing with russians) you are in trouble, better to have them than not.
Just realised, those T-55 and T-54 tank designs are older than putin himself. That country is really a joke.
It's the Ukranians saying this so take it with a grain of salt (for morale reasons), but the Russians are apparently very worn out in Bahkmut despite reports earlier this month on their breakthroughs. The Ukrainians say a "big" counterattack is coming in response.
1. To lose something you must first have it, this is not the case.
2. Prig has already said if shit goes tits up he'll just leave if he doesn't get support.
3. there are rumours prig is going to focus on Africa in any case due to feeling betrayed.
4. the MoD forces are apparently moving to the Kreminna-Lyman direction.
5. Absolutely unconfirmed and blatantly insane: prig apparently wrote a letter to the US government offering to go focus on something else...for the right price and support.
so do you people really undermine the importance of Bahkmut? I assumed if the Russians lost this one, they would essentially be a decapitated army (i.e total inhouse chaos and defeated, but still existing)
Bahkmut is utterly unimportant. It has no strategic value and the only reason its in the news is because its where Wagner decided to have their main thrust and they are the only ones that have made any progress at all by throwing waves of meat at the problem.
Outside of PR the cost of losing Bahkmut is the same as long anywhere else along the front line. It risks a breakthrough and who knows how the Russians will be able to recover from that. If they are organised its fine, if not then the entire front could crumble.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
bahkmut for the russians means they can threaten Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. Ukraine staying there means they can inflict heavy attrition to Russian forces and protect Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. It really isn't that important in terms of location, but its become a propaganda war.
The Russians have hyped it up and now they have to take or they do look stupid (which is a really bad way to wage a war) and they would have to take it at some point anyway.
The Ukranians don't really want to lose it for propaganda reasons, they can inflict heavy damage to whatever russia chucks in there and they are sort of saying 'we could go back to our next postions, and then if that goes badly go back to our next positions and eventually go back to kyiv...but why bother with going all the way back to kyiv why not make out stand here?'
Beyond the propaganda value, Bakhmut is a railroad junction.
the reason I understandably have skepticism about its supposed iffy importance is that even Ukrainian intel has stated the fighting in Bahkmut is the bloodiest and most awful for a while now, with a ridiculous mortality rate relative to elsewhere.
Why would Ukraine fight so hard for this place? I doubt they've suffered minor losses with all that's been said.