Exactly which OTAN/NATO equipment is "dominating" in that conflict?
Patriot. NASAMs. SAMP-T and IRIS. All proving themselves at least as good as any Russian SAM system.
ATACMS, GMLRS, HARM, Javelin, TOW, Gepard, PZH-2000, M-777, Paladin, SCALP/STORM, Bradley... The list goes on. Of course the Ukrainians are not being provided with enough equipment and munitions to actually win, but the equipment itself is dominating when used in even a close approximation to sound strategy.
Having stats in a spreadsheet is a lot different than what the tool is actually in the field.
i.e. equipment manufacturered to code, inspected, and maintenance schedules followed.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/2011...
I wish there was a rule that forced people to spell out an acronym the first time they use it, regardless of how much they think the acronym is common knowledge.
It kinda is common knowledge though, the French version is right on the official flag and displayed all the time.
Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord
A post I submitted 85 days ago [1], an Ukrainian drone guy talking about Russian-made drones. A more recent post [2], also from an Ukrainian POV when it comes to Russian drones' capabilities.
> OTAN equipment because of their combat experience is pretty bold considering
Direct combat experience will always have the upper hand compared to militaries which are still watching from the sidelines. Seeing how you spelled NATO I highly recommend these two books by Michel Goya talking about this in connection to France's industrial-military evolution in WW1: [3] and [4]
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/178npo...
[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/18zyau...
[3] https://www.tallandier.com/livre/linvention-de-la-guerre-mod..., English translation here: https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-book-rev...
[4] https://www.cairn.info/revue-defense-nationale-2020-1-page-1...
Back in the real world:
Hangar queens: http://archive.today/2024.01.09-023929/https://www.spiegel.d...
Barrel trouble: https://x.com/DcDxii/status/1731800411965645092
Death traps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10_RC#Operational_history
And so on. If anything this war is a vindication of the Soviet approach.
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.
3x the Oryx count lol. And Ruzzia is still in the fight! Total vindication of the Soviet approach.
First Ukies were great and NATO gear was great. Then the tracks met the dirt. Now Ukies are undertrained and NATO gear is held wrongly. Can’t wait for what happens next.
it's just not as survivable
Even if it were true, having somewhat more lightly scorched tank crews sitting around isn’t going to save Ukraine.
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.
This is a war that could be won with lots of artillery shells, combined with targeting computers and drone surveillance, highly mobile artillery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But empirically speaking, the idea that Russian equipment will be better than OTAN equipment because of their combat experience is pretty bold considering the current domination of OTAN equipment in the Ukraine-Russia war.