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.
You must log in or register to comment.
They are talking specifically about tanks in the article. The armor on the tanks provided to Ukraine is allegedly not thought enough for mines, etc.
Yeah, that’s what I wasn’t following. MBTs are going to need repairs, no matter how heavily armored, when you run them over a minefield, hit them with anti tank missles or drones. APVs aren’t designed to survive that, just to keep the occupants alive from something that would have turned them into a thick red mist.
Uh have they tried using anti mine systems to clear a path? I’m pretty sure western military doesn’t just go charging forward crossing their fingers…
This is a nice way of saying "Where in the name of cyka are those F-16s?”
They’re coming.
It’s not like you can just park a bunch of F16s there and say “tadaaaaahh!”
You need to train pilots.
You need to train ground personnel.
You need to send in maintenance equipment and spare parts, setup infrastructure, it’s a shitload of work that goes on before a single fighter can even get in the air.
Western countries already said they’d send f16s, but it won’t be until somewhere December that they can start getting operational.
Cost cutting from the west based off warfare experience in places that are dirt poor? Say it ain’t so!
Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.
The complaint about armor (tanks) being destroyed seems odd. Last report I saw had them losing five of the 70 Leopards and a single Challenger so far.
I wonder if the complaint is directed at the amount of maintenance/depot work that needs to be done to keep them running. That would kind of make sense. Countries that donated them have significantly more of them than donated, so cycling them through depot repair would barely be a cause for concern.
I noticed that the number of Western vehicles getting destroyed in Ukraine is being overemphasised in the pro-Russian narrative. Strange that they omit Ukraine still making more territorial gains.
Russians and their fan-bois need to chest beat over whatever they can find at this point.
- Omega_Haxors ( @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml ) 10•1 year ago
Basically it was designed for wiping out civilians in the off chance a few of them actually shoot back.
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).
You claim to not be pro-Russia and yet keep invoking about Nazis this and that, a talking point repeated by Kremlin propaganda.
Is bringing up actual history that explains nato doctrinal failures (not even ukrainian, theyre just working with what they’ve been given, which is equipment meant for a shitty doctrine) that actually happened evil Russian propaganda now?
You must be really upset at those mainstream US news outlets reporting on the Waffen SS criminal being applauded by the Canadian Parliament and Zelensky. So it didn’t happen, it is just Russian propaganda.
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)
Yes, this:
Is worth depleting your strategic reserves over. This reeks of Hitler in his bunker energy, except youre in an armchair halfway across the world.
NATO doctrine is not based on Nazi doctrine as you’re pushing. And the Canadian Parliament buffonishly applauding a Ukrainian Nazi has nothing to do with Ukrainian war. And lastly, the amount of territory that Ukraine has liberated in Zaporizhia is still a lot more than what the Russians have taken in the past 10 months. Show me how much land Russia has taken since they lost Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts?
I see that you have brought up Ukraine losing strategic reserves, a common Russian propaganda talking point. If Ukraine is losing plenty more trooops, they would not be conducting more offensives along the front line. If Russia has more reserves, why are they struggling for 10 months and had to rely on Wagner recruiting prisoners and losing 20,000 in capturing Bakhmut? Why did Russia deploy the Russian paratroopers from Bakhmut to Zaporizhia, even though the area around Bakhmut is slowly being retaken by Ukraine? Why could Russia not send more troops in Nagarno-Karabakh to prevent Azerbaijan and Armenian conflict if Russia still have more troops to spare to keep the peace? And why could Russia not do the same last year when Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan had border conflict when they sent troops to between bickering neighbours?
If the Russian doctrine is better, why have they still not defeated Ukraine? Seeing as how your English has gotten bad since your first comment and how grossly inaccurate your assertions are, you’re not really fooling anyone in this forum with ridiculous spins from whatever script you’re reading. The only people who would believe your spin are the domestic Russians subjected to censorship. But even then, they could get more accurate information from the likes of Telegram and WhatsApp to bypass censorship. As one of the Russian TV pundits say it, Russian losses in Ukraine is too big to ignore to be massaged by government PR. But i will give this to Kremlin, they have won the hearts and minds of the Russian public to convince them to turn a blind eye to the war in Ukraine. Other countries would have already protested and try to overthrow their government for the bad performance.
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
Yes, because US military doctrine is meant for colonialism, not fighting a war. Theyre a piper tiger and now the world knows it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.”
Despite Chmut’s comments, some advanced Western systems Ukraine has received were conceived with the highest-intensity combat in mind — NATO going head-to-head with Soviet forces.
The US-made Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and Abrams main battle tanks were built specifically to counter Soviet ground forces.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly criticized Western allies for delays in the deliveries of weapons, saying earlier this month that slower arms shipments were hurting Ukraine’s chances of success in its ongoing counteroffensive.
Sergej Sumlenny, founder of the German think tank European Resilience Initiative Center, previously told Insider that Ukraine was stepping up its domestic production in part because of concern that Western deliveries would not keep up with its military needs.
The original article contains 468 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What about the 500 helmets we send from germany? I was told this is exactly what the Ukraine needed.
I’m not sure if you are joking, but in this case armor does not mean body armor, but tanks.
