Russia's has always seen tanks use like what we saw attempted at the beginning of the war.
Start with an overwhelming artillery and air attack to decimated defensive positions. Then send long columns of armored vehicles pushing straight across the front line with the tanks in the lead to soak up fire and clear mines. Then the infantry hops out and mops up defenders. This is WW2 level strategy.
Tanks needed thick front armor, a fast fire rate for the cannon, a low profile to deflect incoming fire, and no need for a fast reverse.
What actually happened: the artillery was inaccurate and mostly ineffectual. The air couldn't get close to the line and lobbed inaccurate attacks. The tanks got wrecked quickly by the defenders (drones, javalin etc). This left the rest of the column to turn around or attempt to continue the attack under heavy defensive fire without support. It was decimated..
It's normal to cite your own work if the new paper is a continuation of that research. A references or three is normal and expected.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
A sign it's all bullshit is when you see the majority of the citations for the paper from the same author. This usually doesn't pass peer review anymore. In hyperspecialized fields with few researchers, they commonly get a little creative on the introduction section to include other authors.