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.

Western armor isn't meant to be driven across the country into battle on the front lines. It's meant to operate in areas of air dominance where most defensive fortifications have been bombed well in advance. It's also designed to be able to attack and move with speed and accuracy, not charging forward.

"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."

Interesting, I wonder which vehicles are they talking about. There are different types of vehicles. Heavier armors, of course, could sustain high intensity conflicts.

Anyhow, glad to see Russian sock puppets on this thread, with not an ounce or iota of knowledge of warfare, simping for Putin again. As people already pointed out, many of these Western vehicles are designed with combined arms working in tandem with air support, artillery and infantry in mind. But Ukraine has no air support because they lack these expensive and more sophisticated airplanes. Despite the limitations of Ukraine, Russia should still realise that Ukraine is the one making more advances than them in the past 18 months since the conflict started. One could argue that, if we are talking about which has the lesser effective and flimsier war machines, it looks like Russia has more of them.

It is a strange article. It argues that western armor isn’t designed for sustained conflict but offers up the solution of more cheaply made vehicles. I would assume that would greatly increase the number of human casualties. Can Ukraine sustain an increase of human loses? Training troops takes time also. The simple vehicles could make it easier to get troops training but I don’t know if trading troops is a good strategy when fighting a country with a higher population.

It was designed to make money for shareholders. Like every other piece of planned obsolescence trash that gets shit out now days.

This isn't WW2, there's plenty of anti tank weaponry available. It's a lot cheaper than tanks and it's going to do what it's designed to do. Look how well tanks worked out for the Russians. Tanks are just not nearly as effective in modern warfare.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

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."

Despite Chmut's comments, some advanced Western systems Ukraine has received were conceived with the highest-intensity combat in mind — NATO going head-to-head with Soviet forces.

The US-made Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and Abrams main battle tanks were built specifically to counter Soviet ground forces.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly criticized Western allies for delays in the deliveries of weapons, saying earlier this month that slower arms shipments were hurting Ukraine's chances of success in its ongoing counteroffensive.

Sergej Sumlenny, founder of the German think tank European Resilience Initiative Center, previously told Insider that Ukraine was stepping up its domestic production in part because of concern that Western deliveries would not keep up with its military needs.

The original article contains 468 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

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

This is a nice way of saying "Where in the name of cyka are those F-16s?”

What about the 500 helmets we send from germany? I was told this is exactly what the Ukraine needed.