this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
100 points (83.8% liked)
World News
32323 readers
836 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Devastating if true. Is this fallout from the new commander?
3 Abrams seems likely, Bradleys probably as well and at least one HIMARS. Also they could have destroyed a Patriot battery and a NASAM radar. But hey, it's war, those aren't indestructible. I also"admire" US with "here, take 30 'not even a better model' Abrams and go win the war against Russia", no more help from us required.
Yeah. Losses are to be expected from materiel that is in use, and people shouldn’t be surprised when western equipment shows up in loss statistics. It wouldn’t be a problem or even that noteworthy if the US could pull its head out.
There's video of a destroyed patriot launcher as well. No point blaming the new command staff. The freeze on munitions by the republican party in the US has meant rationed fire by the UAF. Their casualties have climbed, and they have been steadily forced back. They are forced to push critical equipment forward to prevent the steady retreat from becoming a break in the line.
Whether consciously or not the US Congress has given the Russian war effort a much needed boost. Artillery is the jab of the battlefield, once the ammunition runs out it's all eye gouging and knees to the groin. Losses are inevitable.
This is not especially devastating. Bragging about killing 3 tanks in 10 days is, frankly, quite pathetic.
To put that in perspective, if those losses were to continue at that rate, Russia would kill approximately 100 tanks over the next year. In comparison, Russia has lost 1120 tanks in that same time period.
I appreciate that perspective, but the alternative perspective is they lost 10% of all their Abrams. It’s not great news.
It's not great, no, and Ukraine is really going to struggle without continued support, but it's still really telling that Russia considers it such an accomplishment.
Absolutely, the real problem is the west is failing to live up to its promises. I hope republicans either develop a conscience or can have their arms twisted into doing the right thing.
What proportions of its planes did Russia lost? Of its warships? Of its tanks? :-)
I'm genuinely fascinated by the use of a smiley face here. Like, based on the question I assume your point is that Russia's losses are significantly less relevant compared to their overall capabilities, which is a prefectly valid point to make.
But the addition of the smiley face suggests that you're happy about this fact? Like, are you actually cheering for an autocratic dictator to succeed in bringing more people under his heel? Because that seems like the only way to read that, unless I'm really missing something here?
My point is the exact opposite. The smiley face is to point the hypocrisy of making the loss of 3 abrams something meaningful when Russia lost far, far more.
Ah, I see. Sorry for misreading your intent. I deal with so many weird ass tankies on Lemmy who genuinely do seem to get off on the idea of Russia successfully annexing Ukraine that it's really hard to tell.
😂