just when i was about to commend recent posts for being mature and responsible!

I was bitten by a rabid Scot, bitten by a rabid Frenchman. So it's okay. All the coincidences are accidental.

This post was edited by Norlander on Jan 25 2024 08:13am

There is too much wrong with that post that it doesn´t warrant any effort. Which has nothing to do with the premise of the question.



1. Small drones, current AA wasn´t made for. The cost efficiency is horrible, both sides (shaheds) have clearly demonstrated this. It is also very easy to overwhelm AA. As for what russian AA was intended for, it is working, remember s300 managed to keep the entire russian airforce on low altitude (near front). Western AA has also preformed really good. Which has done a better job, cost efficiency, production, maintenance, this is above our pay grade, but to say it is under preforming because of some tiny low-alltitude drones? .. ? Both sides under preformed in that regard, because that wasn´t what they were intended for.

2. Leopards preformed horribly during the offensive. But that has very little to do with the quality of the tank, because the quality of the tank isn´t nearly as important as previously. There doens´t seem to be a massive discrepancy between modern and old tanks in current war setting.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Jan 25 2024 08:53am

1. True

2. A completely different point. Do you agree the survivability of Western tanks is greater than that of Russian/soviet tanks?

The leopard 2 is an old tank. Potentially 1979 to now ^^ coming onto half a century.
Obviously they are most likely newer specs, but potentially they are that old.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 25 2024 09:09am

So you called my musings on Russian aa being inadequate and garbage but then you agree anyways?

S200/300s have been dogshit compared to himars. It is outranged by precision munitions from the Ukrainians. Hell like yesterday, there was an entire mobile radar/aa battery (bukm2/m3s) taken out by one.

Leo's crew survivability has been well documented in this war, while t90s have succumbed to 20mm fire(lol)

Tell me why the Russians still haven't achieved air superiority? I said it's because of poor AA and being outranged, what's your take.

Or you Wana just dodge the question again.

If you only look at survivability, then western ones are better. But these tanks have different design philosophies.

Generally speaking russian tanks are smaller in size, more nimble, faster at shooting. They are also easier to produce & easier to use.

Which philosophy is better? Entirely dependent on the context. Neither is bad though.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Jan 25 2024 10:14am

Mostly agree, but from what I understand Russian tanks have more firepower at the expense of survivability.
More nimble? I don't agree with that.
Potentially in some variants being lighter they have better mobility for soft ground, bridge crossings.
You could argue in an attrition based war that for Ukraine survivability is more important; At the expense of offensive capability.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 25 2024 10:16am

1. S200/S300 has worked well against air targets and large missiles, which is what they were designed for. Without S200/S300 ukraine would´ve lost the war in the first weeks, so i wouldn´t make fun of them if i was you considering the vast majority of ukranian AA is still soviet. As for himars, we know that russians have several systems that can and have shot them down. They have been used efficently at times against softly defended targets, and other times have overwhelmed AA for valuable targets, firing large volleys. AA can always be overwhelmed, as both sides have shown many times. Patriots, iris, s500, s400, s300 are not godlike weapons. You watch 1 video and think that is all there is to the world.

As for himars, russians have plenty of similar weapon systems, and they have been used in the same way ukranians have used himars. Tornado-S. etc These are expensive ammunitions, there is a reason they are being used so sparsely. Ukraine is also a large country, it is impossible to saturate the entire frontline with AA without having tons of weak spots, or dynamic movement giving opportunities.

2. Tank discussion has been had 100 times. If leos were so godlike super human weapons, the offensive wouldn´t have stalled and failed after 5 villages. There is many factors that come into play besides survivability.

3. Russians haven´t achieved air-supremacy because AA turns out is potent in competent hands, even S200s can turn an area into low-altitude safe. This is why the war is turning into drone&glide bombs&artillery based.

4. Your way of speaking is that of a child, has nothing to do with dodging.



The attrition point you make is resonable, but im not sure if it applies to ukranian situation, which tanks they get is less important than having more tanks. I dont remember last time of tanks being supplied to ukraine.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Jan 25 2024 10:34am

1. Everysingle aa system Russia has is simply not as good as any modern western version. It's the main reason why Russia developed the tos2a, to compete in mobile aa systems. I'm well aware of the fact that ukraine uses outdated soviet gear. The fact remains that western supplied aa systems is the main reason why Russia hasn't achieved air superiority after 2 years.

2. There's only a handful of leos and all Challys and Abrahams have to stay in the rear. Crew protection is literally the most important thing about a MBT and leos have proven to be excellent at this, especially when compared to the t72/90.

3.you are correct

4. Name calling aside, I'm glad that you were able to put out a thoughtful response regarding military assets in the war. It's better when you can articulate your arguements instead of outright dismissing a post

I mean in terms of attrition of manpower. Tanks are for the most part useless other than as a deterrent for large scale manoeuvre. A $250 drone can destroy a tank using a single AT-mine.