Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
This. It's why the first weapons that got sent to Ukraine was either stuff UA was already familiar with (Warsaw pact stuff), or easy-to-use stuff that doesn't require a long logistics chain to function (shoulder fired rockets/missiles, drones etc.)
It's also more than just training people to use them, you also need someone to repair these things, otherwise they'd be out of commission so quick there'd be no point in sending them in the first place.
That's why Perun's (that youtuber I keep linking to) very credible (to my ears) analysis was that Russia should enjoy a logistical advantage at about this point in the war, as they have such a massive stockpile of hardware sitting in storage that's "ready to use" on a relatively short notice. They'll have trouble replacing the high-end systems (helicopters and planes for example), and trained personnel, but they have (on paper) thousands and thousands of old tanks for example. If even a portion of them are usable, Russia can exhaust Ukrainian anti-tank capabilities with just sheer volume. Same with things like artillery and other basic stuff like non-advanced ammunition.
The US also has massive stockpiles of stuff (enough tanks to replace all the losses on both sides many times over for example), but it's not stuff Ukraine can use right away, and most of it is in on a different continent.
If the war goes long (which looks likely right now), over time we'll likely see Ukraine using more and more NATO equipment.
|
Throwing wave after wave of men and equipment at an enemy
has worked in the past.
And since Russians don't care about personnel losses, this is a fool proof plan.