Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says
Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says
Sophisticated, Western-made armor is proving inadequate on the battlefield in Ukraine, a military analyst told The Wall Street Journal.
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.
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.
There isn't enough armour in the world to stop a few proper anti-tank mines or anti-tank missiles or anti-tank drones.
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.
Uh have they tried using anti mine systems to clear a path? I'm pretty sure western military doesn't just go charging forward crossing their fingers...
For known minefields yes. For a regular road that might have one or two mines, no. Mine clearing is extremely slow. Even if you do it, someone might come in the night and plant more mines. The best you can do is keep an eye out for signs that mines have been planted.
The Russians made the defensive mine fields more than double the width of any mine clearing explosive device. This means they can't quickly clear a section and move through without being sitting ducks.
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.
So... Basically, it's not designed for use in a peer engagement?
no, it's because the core doctrine and design (at least of the leopard 1/2) is to use them in defensive battles against larger numbers of tanks - that was the entire NATO strategy in western Europe during the cold war, when all of that hardware was designed
not for rolling into unknown territory and getting hit by entrenched infantry AT, as Turkey discovered a few years ago
NATO has no peers, so yes.
parts of that design difference is the size: western tanks are all larger silhouette, which they had to pay to have better accuracy at extreme ranges
afaik, they're made for defense in depth and retreating at their effective range while thinning out attacking tanks
The large silhouette is more of an armour/survivability thing rather than a FCS/accuracy thing
The west probably should have anticipated having armour that works in these conditions. *Especially *considering they've been trying to get this war going for over a decade at least.
Permanently Deleted
"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.
The lack of air power is easily the biggest issue for Ukraine. NATO countries have made air superiority the central pillar of our strategic and tactical thinking since WW2, so it's hard for us to adjust our thinking to a conflict where air power is thoroughly limited. While Ukraine has done an excellent job of neutralizing Russian air power, that just leaves the whole thing at a costly stalemate.
That said, I'm not sure what Ukraine expects to get out of this request for cheaper, more plentiful vehicles. It's not like we can just design new IFVs for them in a matter of weeks. Maybe take existing designs and strip off any "unneeded" features? I don't know how far that gets you, but probably not very far.
Permanently Deleted
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.
The thing is, an increase in armour casualties reduces infantry casualties by more than 1:1. There's a reason the Tiger and Panther in WW2 are largely seen as strategic blunders today: a few complex and technologically superior tanks aren't very useful, particularly if they require complex supply lines to support.
Yes true if they lack appropriate air support and logistics support. Which is the case for Ukraine.
Modern western strategy is very different from that of WW2. The key is integration of air support, artillery, armor, infantry, etc. If Ukraine had superior fighter jets, to gain air superiority and anti tank and anti personnel platforms like A10 and Apache, all platforms working in sync and all backed by logistics support to keep everything operating, it would be a different story I guess.
Related, I wonder if they're suggesting the old Russian tanks would somehow perform better than the western ones? Because as far as I know, western tanks have the best armor systems, the highest accuracy, and the ability to fire while moving. Maybe they need to adapt their tactics to make better use of their platforms?
Pretty much all US equipment requires extremely complex and advanced supply lines.
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!
This is a nice way of saying "Where in the name of cyka are those F-16s?”
Basically it was designed for wiping out civilians in the off chance a few of them actually shoot back.
Permanently Deleted
Well we don't give them planes, do we?
What about the 500 helmets we send from germany? I was told this is exactly what the Ukraine needed.
I'm not sure if you are joking, but in this case armor does not mean body armor, but tanks.
Sounds like a euphemism for confessing that Western made armor is poor-quality and vastly overestimates itself. Quelle surprise.
Wunderwaffen #42069 fails... Russia win, NATO stay mad.
Well that sucks. We made shit armour for Ukraine. We have to step up our armor making quality
Incorrect doctrine usage ≠ poor quality
Sounds like NATO needs their own monkey models
Cost cutting from the west based off warfare experience in places that are dirt poor? Say it ain't so!
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.
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)
Remind us which is the one who could not subdue a country, one-fifth the size, in ten days as planned in the early days of the "special military operation"? Which one regained 200 km of ground last year? And which one is struggling to contain an offensive and could not make any more advances in the past 18 months?
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.
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
Yes, because US military doctrine is meant for colonialism, not fighting a war. Theyre a piper tiger and now the world knows it.