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.

  • taanegl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cost cutting from the west based off warfare experience in places that are dirt poor? Say it ain’t so!

    • flying_monkies@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • crackajack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s 10% losses, which are pretty significant given that Ukraine hasn’t been using tanks in their local pushes anymore

        • flying_monkies@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          7% of just the one type… Not of all tanks. That being said, I get where you’re coming from. 14 Challengers, 31 Abrams… Guess it’s going to boil down to if the countries can/will replace the losses.