Western-made armor is failing in Ukraine because it wasn’t designed to sustain a conflict of this intensity, a military analyst told The Wall Street Journal.
Taras Chmut, a military analyst who’s the head of the Come Back Alive Foundation, which has raised money to purchase and provide arms and equipment to Ukraine, said that “a lot of Western armor doesn’t work here because it had been created not for an all-out war but for conflicts of low or medium intensity.”
“If you throw it into a mass offensive, it just doesn’t perform,” he said.
Chmut went on to say Ukraine’s Western allies should instead turn their attention to delivering simpler and cheaper systems, but in larger quantities, something Ukraine has repeatedly requested, the newspaper reported.
Western doctrine is what happens when you ask nazis, people who ideologically are incapable of learning from history, “Hey, why did you lose to the Soviets? How should we beat them?”
Please note that ukraine and russia were both part of the USSR during this period so claiming this is “Russian propaganda” is denigrating the lives of millions of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians who died at the hands of the nazis or pushing nazis out of eastern europe. (Also even if you could say it was favorable to Russia, which it is not, it is also factually true)
Remind us which is the one who could not subdue a country, one-fifth the size, in ten days as planned in the early days of the “special military operation”? Which one regained 200 km of ground last year? And which one is struggling to contain an offensive and could not make any more advances in the past 18 months?
Note that my comment isn’t pro Russia, it is just ragging on NATO thinking listening to nazis about war was a smart idea. As I explicitly stated. Since the illegal dissolution of the Soviet Union Russia’s military has been running on a skeleton crew and not adapted to that at all.
Which one regained 200 km of ground last year?
You do understand that 200 square kilometers is really small right? Like, look at their gains on a map. Not my dog not my fight but kinda a weaksauce argument.
And which one is struggling to contain an offensive and could not make any more advances in the past 18 months?
??? Only 200 kilometers. And it is October.
200km is the size of the area liberated in the Kharkiv oblast from last year (I forgot about the Kherson area liberated from last year too, which is roughly of the same size).
Anyhow, the amount that the area reconquered by Ukraine in the past year is still a lot than what Russia has gained since the start of the invasion.
You claim to not be pro-Russia and yet keep invoking about Nazis this and that, a talking point repeated by Kremlin propaganda. It is very telling where your sympathy tuly lies. No matter, Ukraine is still surprisingly militarily competent than the Russians. The results of Ukrainian territorial gains and Russian military losses speak for themselves (and let’s not forget that Crimea is now vulnerable to Ukrainian missiles, which just wrecked the Russian Black Sea naval command).
Western doctrine is also largely based on the US’ needs. Artillery just isn’t practical for the US, who needs to be prepared to fight all over the world oceans away from home. Artillery is much more stationary compared to air power due to the size of the guns and the difficulty moving them, while the US can easily fly planes anywhere we need them. As such, Western doctrine became heavily reliant on having air supremacy and massive amounts of air support and our equipment was designed for that battlefield. Ukraine just doesn’t have nearly the same arial capabilities as NATO, relying much more on artillery which NATO weapons and doctrine weren’t designed around, and they’re having to figure out how to make them work without air power
So brave. Well, I’m off to the power plant, those ukrainian red army soldiers and civilians spinning in their graves aren’t going to hooked up to generators by themselves.
