>>64230598
>underestimation of the power of shoulder-launched ATGM's
>heavily mechanized force which relies on the existence of the tank to secure itself rather than through combined arms
>surprisingly well-ordered ambushes early into the war crippling experienced tanker corps
>tanks facing threats that they were never designed to defend from
outdated tanks were pushed into service against weapons much cheaper and much more modern than they are, without the required defenses or modernization to protect them. i assume the calculus was that they would absorb the losses without issue and win anyways, so losing some tanks would just let them later justify or lionize things, but since those initial days the effects of crippling their own tanker corps has reared it's ugly head every time. not that the ukes have it any better, their tanks are just as unprepared for modern AT weapons, and the cold-war hand-me-downs aren't either, their only saving grace is because they know they don't have as many, they're much more conservative and expend a lot of effort to protect them.