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.

  • neptune@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

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

      There isn’t enough armour in the world to stop a few proper anti-tank mines or anti-tank missiles or anti-tank drones.

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

      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.

    • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure if you are joking, but in this case armor does not mean body armor, but tanks.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Basically it was designed for wiping out civilians in the off chance a few of them actually shoot back.

  • zinguszna@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds like a euphemism for confessing that Western made armor is poor-quality and vastly overestimates itself. Quelle surprise.

  • taanegl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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
      1
      ·
      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.

  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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)

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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:

            https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/8CC0/production/_130623063_ukraine_zoomed_in_territory_zaporizhzhia_region_640-2x-nc.png

            Is worth depleting your strategic reserves over. This reeks of Hitler in his bunker energy, except youre in an armchair halfway across the world.

    • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, because US military doctrine is meant for colonialism, not fighting a war. Theyre a piper tiger and now the world knows it.