>>49912
>1. The Tank is outdated on the battlefield (if tanks are useless why Ukraine requested for MOAR????)
This was a silly idea and people came out to attack it quite quickly. Though of course there are still people in the Defence sphere that believed it before the war and still believe it now.

>2. Bayraktar TB2 is an invincible weapon (it's just cheap, easy to employ, maintain, use, it's a quick fix, but quite a few important drawbacks)
In the very early days they were effective as the Russians had their Air defence turned off because they assumed their own air-force would deal with any air threat and because their AA was effected by their own electronic warfare
But those early TB2 attack type clips went away very quickly as the Russians turned their AA on.

>3. Battalion Tactical Groups are the best military structure (they lack infantry, and when this taken out, they fail quickly)
Yes, though I don't think this was ever that much of a myth as the west didn't adopt BTGs themselves so must have not thought that they were the best. It's also not made for this kind of war, it's made to fight the west.

>4. Special Forces will turn the tide of a war (hard to make them, limited use, when no special missions, they are used as normal infantry roles where they die fast - or just sit idly)
I had never heard of this or even know why people would think it.

>5. Close Air Support dominates the battlefield (only if you have complete air superiority, and against groups with no AA, otherwise it's the cheaper artillery)
Yes, Air power in general seems to be far less effective than people thought it would be but then all we had to base this on was Iraq and the Iraqis were incompetent.