3 ms·

current domination of OTAN equipment in the Ukraine-Russia war Back in the real world: Hangar queens: http://archive.today/2024.01.09-023929/https://www.spieg

current domination of OTAN equipment in the Ukraine-Russia war Back in the real world: Hangar queens: http://archive.today/2024.01.09-023929/https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ukraine-krieg-kiews-problem-mit-den-deutschen-pannen-panzern-a-cd9421ae-4a96-4d4f-983a-6205a063ae15 http://archive.today/2024.01.09-023929/https://www.spiegel.d... Barrel trouble: https://x.com/DcDxii/status/1731800411965645092 https://x.com/DcDxii/status/1731800411965645092 Death traps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10_RC#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10_RC#Operational_history And so on. If anything this war is a vindication of the Soviet approach.

petre 3y ago
They have not been sufficiently trained to man and maintain modern NATO equipment built for a different purpose: combined arms operations. Old Leopard 1 tanks would have been a better choice than Leopard 2. This is a war that could be won with lots of artillery shells, combined with targeting computers and drone surveillance, highly mobile artillery.
- rainworld 3y ago
  not been sufficiently trained FTA: In Mali they discovered a 10x breakdown rate compared to home in Germany. And that wasn’t even war. Also, they lack spare parts. The beauty of just-in-time logistics. Read up on how much of a typical NATO army is operational at a given (peace) time. '91 was a long time ago. Old Leopard 1 tanks would have been a better choice There goes “crew survived”. built for a different purpose: combined arms operations “Easy. Just win before the tanks break down. Just destroy the enemy before you ever get close.” Someone should have explained that to the Ukrainians. could be won with lots of artillery shells Shells that NATO can neither supply nor produce in sufficient quantities. highly mobile artillery They have (had) enough of those. Barrel wear ruins the range, Lancets ruin the paint job.
  - greedo 3y ago
    I'm not sure the issues with Leopard 2 tanks is indicative of quality, or more a reflection of how shallow the German military has become. And I agree with you that Leo 1 tanks aren't suitable. They have nice fire control systems, and good mobility, but their armor protection is terrible. The war in Ukraine is showing that the West is woefully unprepared for a major conflict. We saw signs of this with NATO air forces running short of PGMs during the Libya intervention. Shells won't be a problem in a year or so, and worldwide there's enough production to move enough to Ukraine if the political will is there. But Western defense contractors have been starved for so many years that expanding production won't occur rapidly. Look at the backlog for F-16s.
    - petre 3y ago
      A year is too much for Ukraine. Russia has already bought 1M shells from North Korea that are on their way to the frontline. NK has promised to deliver another 10M in total. Let's just hope they're shit quality and that the promises are typical DPRK propaganda. Also F16s for Ukraine is a questionable choice. Other than not being available, they need a good runway and are higher maintainance than the MiGs and Sukhois that the Ukrainians are used to. Also replacement parts need to be shipped (from the US?). The Saab Gripen is a more sensible choice for them: it can be housed in a barn and use a road to take off. No idea how many can Sweeden deliver and there are also political issues as well like Sweeden not being part of NATO yet.
      - greedo 3y ago
        Ukraine can hold out until the West gets its production (of all systems) back in line with worldwide requirements. Russia has already received the 1M shells, and they are of poor quality. But even at a 50% failure rate, they've had an impact. The F-16 is actually the best choice. There are multiple users worldwide, so lots of training facilities, lots of spare parts depots, and almost every NATO weapon is qualified on it. The Gripen would be great if it wasn't needed for a few years; the production rate is too slow to fulfill Ukraine's needs and the Swedes have no desire to send stock from their own air force. Can't blame them really. They've been cutting back on their military like the rest of Western Europe for decades.
greedo 3y ago
Back in the real world, the Russians have lost over 5000 MBTs and similar numbers of AFVs. You have to remember that Ukraine was provided with this gear with minimal training. It's easy to pick out small issues, (yes the Panzerhaubitze is a bit of a sensitive system to operate), but the majority of NATO gear provides better protection, and is more effective assuming the equipment is supported and maintained properly. Russian gear is tough, can survive a lot of misuse and lack of maintenance. But compared to NATO gear, it's just not as survivable.
- rainworld 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - paganel 3y ago
    No use, because it's complicated when propaganda-influenced talk is taking over talk based on the direct experience of real war, this is why I made my initial comment that both the Russians and the Ukrainians are now more experienced and can produce better drone-related materiel than the Western armies, but then someone responded with some propaganda piece about those funny cardboard-made drones (which never saw real combat). It's less funny and more tragic that the Ukrainian soldiers themselves have come out and said that this type of discourse ("Western weapons are the best! Russians weapons are the worse!") does not help them at all on the front-lines, to the contrary, it makes them a lot more vulnerable and with bigger chances to, well, die.

petre 3y ago

They have not been sufficiently trained to man and maintain modern NATO equipment built for a different purpose: combined arms operations. Old Leopard 1 tanks would have been a better choice than Leopard 2. This is a war that could be won with lots of artillery shells, combined with targeting computers and drone surveillance, highly mobile artillery.

rainworld 3y ago
not been sufficiently trained FTA: In Mali they discovered a 10x breakdown rate compared to home in Germany. And that wasn’t even war. Also, they lack spare parts. The beauty of just-in-time logistics. Read up on how much of a typical NATO army is operational at a given (peace) time. '91 was a long time ago. Old Leopard 1 tanks would have been a better choice There goes “crew survived”. built for a different purpose: combined arms operations “Easy. Just win before the tanks break down. Just destroy the enemy before you ever get close.” Someone should have explained that to the Ukrainians. could be won with lots of artillery shells Shells that NATO can neither supply nor produce in sufficient quantities. highly mobile artillery They have (had) enough of those. Barrel wear ruins the range, Lancets ruin the paint job.
- greedo 3y ago
  I'm not sure the issues with Leopard 2 tanks is indicative of quality, or more a reflection of how shallow the German military has become. And I agree with you that Leo 1 tanks aren't suitable. They have nice fire control systems, and good mobility, but their armor protection is terrible. The war in Ukraine is showing that the West is woefully unprepared for a major conflict. We saw signs of this with NATO air forces running short of PGMs during the Libya intervention. Shells won't be a problem in a year or so, and worldwide there's enough production to move enough to Ukraine if the political will is there. But Western defense contractors have been starved for so many years that expanding production won't occur rapidly. Look at the backlog for F-16s.
  - petre 3y ago
    A year is too much for Ukraine. Russia has already bought 1M shells from North Korea that are on their way to the frontline. NK has promised to deliver another 10M in total. Let's just hope they're shit quality and that the promises are typical DPRK propaganda. Also F16s for Ukraine is a questionable choice. Other than not being available, they need a good runway and are higher maintainance than the MiGs and Sukhois that the Ukrainians are used to. Also replacement parts need to be shipped (from the US?). The Saab Gripen is a more sensible choice for them: it can be housed in a barn and use a road to take off. No idea how many can Sweeden deliver and there are also political issues as well like Sweeden not being part of NATO yet.
    - greedo 3y ago
      Ukraine can hold out until the West gets its production (of all systems) back in line with worldwide requirements. Russia has already received the 1M shells, and they are of poor quality. But even at a 50% failure rate, they've had an impact. The F-16 is actually the best choice. There are multiple users worldwide, so lots of training facilities, lots of spare parts depots, and almost every NATO weapon is qualified on it. The Gripen would be great if it wasn't needed for a few years; the production rate is too slow to fulfill Ukraine's needs and the Swedes have no desire to send stock from their own air force. Can't blame them really. They've been cutting back on their military like the rest of Western Europe for decades.

greedo 3y ago

Back in the real world, the Russians have lost over 5000 MBTs and similar numbers of AFVs. You have to remember that Ukraine was provided with this gear with minimal training. It's easy to pick out small issues, (yes the Panzerhaubitze is a bit of a sensitive system to operate), but the majority of NATO gear provides better protection, and is more effective assuming the equipment is supported and maintained properly. Russian gear is tough, can survive a lot of misuse and lack of maintenance. But compared to NATO gear, it's just not as survivable.

rainworld 3y ago
[flagged]
- paganel 3y ago
  No use, because it's complicated when propaganda-influenced talk is taking over talk based on the direct experience of real war, this is why I made my initial comment that both the Russians and the Ukrainians are now more experienced and can produce better drone-related materiel than the Western armies, but then someone responded with some propaganda piece about those funny cardboard-made drones (which never saw real combat). It's less funny and more tragic that the Ukrainian soldiers themselves have come out and said that this type of discourse ("Western weapons are the best! Russians weapons are the worse!") does not help them at all on the front-lines, to the contrary, it makes them a lot more vulnerable and with bigger chances to, well, die.