We see it now? Old and less capable export variants of western systems dominating the best of Eastern Technology. Look how HIMARS alone has single handely changed the battlespace and Ukraine only has a dozen and doesnt even have the best missiles. The West has hundreds of these with missiles that outrange what was supplied to Ukraine by hundreds of miles…keeping in mind that Ukraine doesnt have the intel and weapon sensor integration like the west does. Russia is just another seal to the club.
The only way to compare would be if the US waged a war against other western countries but none have the industrial might of the US.
So effective that they used it on every goddamn target, car, counter-arty, even a small group of infantry despite the designation that HIMARS only used for “highly” valueable target, so smart that using HIMARS as normal Arty should be used for those target.
Do Russian have that, plenty, Tornado, Tos-2, Krasnopol and what i saw is another thing being called “holy weapon”, TB2, Javelin, Stinger, Leo 2, all of them, milion of them since last year and they still “ask” for more, with that, i thought they gonna win right ?, those thing highly advanced, expensive and they has alot, right ?
You said it, it’s so effective it can be used for anything.
Extremely limited range, requires ground illumination. Compared to HIMARS that exceeds those ranges and guided by GPS… Again…old obsolete tech vs new tech
Pretty cheap by our standards, expensive for the east.
Who knows if Ukraine will win, but we know they won’t win with Eastern tech.
I don’t see the use of western aviation, which is their main argument. I do not see the dominance of Western armor, because the leopard dies from artillery or drones exactly as easily as the t80, but this is more of a problem that we probably need to change the current concept of the mbt to something new. I see how the vast majority of the equipment Ukraine uses is Soviet one.
So we seen nothing of how full-scale western war machine can really operate and how good it is in long big war. And Russia is clearly not an true opponent of the United States, (even less for NATO), in a war. There is simply a colossal difference in human and economic resources.
It’s not cheap even by western standards. This cost is appropriate as long as losses are minimal. But will it be optimal if you need to fast replenish for example a third of aviation and half of mbts? Big war = big casualties.
Western aviation, specifically the US is the ONLY nation currently that can effectively implement SEAD. No other country has the training and resources for effective SEAD operations. This alone opens up air dominance. No other country has the same stealth capabilities of the US, least of all detection and response.
As far as armor, I mean my personal opinion is armor was made obsolete by attack helicopters. No other country has the the sensor integration of the current Longbow, I love the abrams but in a full spectrum war, tanks are kind of the fish in the barrel.
Not to mention the naval power alone rivals most of the world combined.
I mean launching a cruise missiles is cheap. Obviously replacing an Aircraft carrier not cheap but the economy can handle a lot more cruise missiles that every other country.
I think at the end of the day, it would require a large alliance to compete with the US.
Even with western technology the US has a lot, 9000 Abrams tanks, two dozen carriers (essentially the largest Navy, I know China has more speed boats but I’m talking real power), largest Airforce. It’s genuinely unrivaled.
I think something that is forgotten is that the US specifically has more training and experience. The US has over an entire century of carrier operations experience combined with multiple conflicts and wars, no other country has this. More flight hours, more tank miles, more everything.
The most known fact in aviation is that US hides, Russia jams. US doesnt have the Russian jamming capability, Russia doesnt have US stealth tech. Both VERY scary and effective if employed to its strenghts. Tanks in general stopped being “big dawgs” even as early as 2. WW when the US saw the capability of Air power against anything on the ground.
One other fact that is weird is that we saw the indestructible Challenger on the battlefield, Leopard aswell but so far no Abrams in active engagements, just driving around looking fancy. Aviation in the current Ukraine will never work so pointless even in talking about it.
On the topic east vs west I could easily expand on this whole topic but I doubt anyone would take anything seriously so I will just save my time because you wont like the answer.
Regarding SEAD and all the other shenanigans about RUAF, how do you even know that? Dont forget that A LOT of the anti Russian propaganda derives from the 2nd WW and Cold War and guess what? Its all bollocks just adapted into the new conflict because it helps shape the narrative and thats all that matters in the west.
Sorry but can’t have a discussion with someone whose first sentence is based on a fallacy. Not even bothering with the rest of your post.
Please do some research on what SEAD actually is, unfortunately you are wrong as mentioned US is the only nation that can implement SEAD effectively. For the simple minded, they jam better than the Russians.
Because all the west does is boast about their awesome vehicles while downplays on the Russian ones. I NEVER claimed Russian vehicles are better or worse, just saying that the western arent as good as the popular propaganda made them out to be when engaged in an ACTUAL war and not hunting tents and sandal soldiers
On the contrary - it is REALLY hard to find solid documentation of Western Vehicle tech - particularly when it comes to performance. That’s part of why the whole ‘Gaijin wants proof’ of this or that Western MBT protection is so thorny - this stuff is kept secret and under wraps.
On the other hand - you don’t have to look far or hard to get all sorts of Russian sources claiming that they are hypersonic this, invulnerable that, able to defeat all forms of this, etc. Hyperbole is very much in their DNA. That’s great for winning the info-war or making your stuff to be a low-cost no-brainer for anyone who can’t afford Western kit. The trouble is when it meets reality.
Western stuff tends to cost a lot and take a long old time to get into service - leading people to wonder why we spend all this money and so on. Yet when the shooting starts it usually works. Quite well actually. If you get hit in a Western vehicle you are likely to live to fight another day. It’s not a snazzy sale brochure tagline - but it counts.
Russian stuff doesn’t cost a lot and promises a great deal. However it doesn’t work out all that well when it is used in a war - when people shoot back. I mean, if I were to mention a T-90M being mullered by an old 1980s vintage Bushmaster 25mm cannon you’d think I was nuts a few years ago. Now it’s the source of much hilarity on the internet.
Call it cultural - but Western militaries would far rather lose metal than meat. As opposed to a certain military that appears to hurl vast amounts of meat and metal into the grinder for virtually no gain.
Whats with the Krynki PR bridgehead? Isnt that hurling massive amounts of meat to hold a PR narrative? Leopards blew up just as hard as any T-XX in Syria when the ammo was detonated, Challenger the same story. Simply keeping the ammo in the crew compartment is a bad idea. Back in the days of the soviet times the doctorine was different thus the design of the vehicles was done accordingly-meaning cheap easy to use and manufacture vehicles for the mobilised because the actual army was pretty much wiped out in the 2. WW. Technologically they did have some awesome prototypes and innovations but rather few of them came to actual production and lets not joke around, the US back than was a giant compared to now a deflating old grandpa (Joe Biden literally). If I were to tell you back in the 70s that Abrams would be destroyed by Iraqis and Houthis with a cheap ass RPG 7 everyone would call me crazy aswell so thats not really bringing you anywhere.
I wouldnt call it no gain, Europes economy is in shitters, Germany the almighty industrial giant of Europe and the world pretty much is becoming a woke green peace vegan tofu loving joke of a country where being German is the worst you can be. Economy is ruined, inflation is MUCH higher than what they like to give out. Half of the Europe is in protest mode for quite some time. US homelessness is through the roof, they lost literally everyone except Israel in the middle east, recruiting numbers are in tatters (same in the UK), political disaster one after the other. You call that no gain? Thats just the start, so I wouldnt call it no gain. Defeating Ukraine would bring Russia exactly NOTHING in geopolitical terms. Defeating the western/US dominated hegemonic world order makes HUGE geopolitical shifts in the whole world which we have a chance to see happening right now. The only question is, do we want to see it or are we too ignorant to?