3 ms·
> there is an emerging consensus that the "new shiny thing" weapons haven't had nearly as much effect as anticipated I don't think there's a consensus. The thi
by Const-me 4y ago
> there is an emerging consensus that the "new shiny thing" weapons haven't had nearly as much effect as anticipated
I don't think there's a consensus. The things are all different: some underperform, some others are awesome, and sometimes this even depends on the environment.
For instance, these high-tech anti-tank missiles (NLAW, Javelin, Stugna-P) were awesome around Kyiv (many places to hide in a forest or urban environment), less so in a prairie. South and East of Ukraine is a prairie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic%E2%80%93Caspian_steppe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic%E2%80%93Caspian_steppe
- justsomehnguy 4y agoIe when the tanks were used in a zerg rush. As soon as they changed the tactics to a proper infantry support the usability dropped to your average not-so-high-tech AT levels.
- wrp 4y agoAnother thing may be that reactive armor works. I read a Russian report claiming that only 1 in 10 Javelin strikes resulted in a tank kill. That's a plausible claim if you consider that Javelins are a bit old technology and reactive armor was specifically developed to counter that type of attack.
- _kbh_ 4y agoSeen plenty of videos of Russian tanks popping off entirely from a side attack from a Stugna, let alone a top attack from a Javelin. I think pretty much all of Russias claims regarding their performance in the war should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I mean, the aren't using T62's for giggles.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago> I think pretty much all of $PARTICIPANT claims regarding their performance in the war should be taken with a huge grain of salt. FTFY. The only difference is what all "not good" for the UKraine videos are mostly self-censored by the platforms out of existence.