Ukraine War Rips Veil Off of US Weapons Superiority | Hacker News Reader

Ukraine War Rips Veil Off of US Weapons Superiority

responsiblestatecraft.org

12 pointscwwc18 comments

Author and publication bias aside… I don’t find the author persuasive at all. It’s saying misused equipment and poorly supported logistics result in subpar performance. That’s like… any weapons systems. Look how the Russian tanks got decimated last year by missiles and drones. Was it because Russian tanks were bad? No - because they were sent without infantry support which is a flagrant doctrinal negligence.

You can blame misuse and incompetence, or you can say that the weapons are too specialized and fragile to be practical in the conditions you may find in an actual war.

US weapons have not been tested in a real war in many decades. When you try using unproven weapons in a war that isn't massively one-sided, it's expected that things don't work as expected. Russia faced the same situation, found that their doctrine (as implemented in the real world) was a massive failure, and eventually adapted. The West is trying to do the same, but because we are not participating in the war directly, it's impossible to say if we are actually adapting.

> you can say that the weapons are too specialized

I understand what you're trying to say... but there's too much extrapolation going on here. Are the weapons are too specialized for a country that is smaller than its adversary and has fraction of monetary and logistical support than the designer of its weapons? Or are the weapons too specialized for warfare in general?

I would feel more compelled by your argument if the author had chosen good examples instead of cherry picking them. (Like really? M1A1 being knocked out? It's being used by crew who are new to the Abrams and the variant that's being sent is the non SEPv3.)

The criticism I hear specifically about the Abrams is that it's designed for a role that doesn't really exist on the battlefield. It's a tank designed to fight tanks, which isn't very common in Ukraine. What tanks actually end up doing is engaging fixed positions and soft targets, while needing defenses from drones and top-attack missiles. The Abrams does not perform well in that role.

Maybe newer versions of the Abrams would have performed better in this particular role, but that's only a part of the problem. Weapons that only work well in the intended scenarios are not very good weapons, because wars rarely turn out as planned.

>The criticism I hear specifically about the Abrams is that it's designed for a role that doesn't really exist on the battlefield. It's a tank designed to fight tanks, which isn't very common in Ukraine.

That's a surprising statement given that we saw tank to tank battle last time US fought a "peer" adversary back in desert storm where US Abrams took on Iraqi T72's. Smarter and more informed people have gone on record (Perun and The Chieftain) to say tanks are part of both defense and offense (you can't push the front lines with just infantry).

In fact - Perun's video mentions a good example - how come we're only saying this for tanks when there are MANPADS and AA for Helis and Jets/Bombers, respectively?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q

I hear what you're saying... but I don't find the examples persuasive for me.

>Russia...eventually adapted.

Currently using motorbikes on the front lines.

Besides the JDAM failures (which do represent a genuine changing landscape of combat expectations), I'm not really sure what they're getting at here. The majority of this article is an attrition catalog with price comparisons of imported US weapons to improvised ones, which is the whole "barrel bomb" discussion all over again. On top of that, there's really not a whole lot to criticize considering how little the US has actually given to Ukraine. The US would have to commit much harder before they were humiliated, at least in Ukraine's case specifically.

Also I don’t think some of the points the author makes are accurate. Long range strike missiles like Storm Shadow or ATACMS and air defense systems like Patriot have performed well on the Ukraine battlefield.

JDAM failure could also be linked to the lack of air superiority, or parity, and who know's how well they work with Russian aircraft.

What strikes me is the continuous propaganda that gets traction somehow, to try to plant the idea that "oh the help US is giving... isn't doing much... so expensive and not worth it... just look at Russia, they are going great! Might as well just stop it... "

When in reality we're witnessing a stage of war where Russians are using dirt bikes to make assaults. You don't need to be a war expert to understand why dirt bikes are a bad idea, and the video records show why... it's a complete disregard for human life.

The Russian regime has no respect or value for Russian's lives. I can't believe we're witnessing this level of atrocity only motivated by the personal interests, of both the regime and Russian volunteers.

With that said, US Weapons from the 80's, 90's and early 00's are doing great. Could they be doing better? Of course, but what would be the alternative? A mass scale genocide unlike we've seen since the Holocaust.

Edit: Ok I just looked at the "Responsible Statecraft" website, it's filled with Russian propaganda. They continue to frame the responsible party for the invasion of Ukraine is the US and NATO. This website should be banned from posting here.

>considering how little the US has actually given to Ukraine.

This page says that since Feb 2022, the US has spent $175 billion helping Ukraine, of which $107 billion consists of transfers (of money, weapons and military equipment) to the government of Ukraine:

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine

Given what's at stake -- it's a bargain.

> how little the US has actually given to Ukraine

I suppose everything is relative, but I don't think I'd call it "little".

To date, the United States has provided approximately $51.0 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $53.8 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

Air Defense

    One Patriot air defense battery and munitions;
    12 National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and munitions;
    HAWK air defense systems and munitions;
    AIM-7, RIM-7, and AIM-9M missiles for air defense;
    More than 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles;
    Avenger air defense systems;
    VAMPIRE counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (c-UAS) and munitions;
    c-UAS gun trucks and ammunition;
    mobile c-UAS laser-guided rocket systems;
    Other c-UAS equipment;
    Anti-aircraft guns and ammunition;
    Air defense systems components;
    Equipment to integrate Western launchers, missiles, and radars with Ukraine’s systems;
    Equipment to support and sustain Ukraine’s existing air defense capabilities;
    Equipment to protect critical national infrastructure; and
    21 air surveillance radars.

Fires

    More than 40 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and ammunition;
    Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb launchers and guided rockets;
    198 155mm Howitzers and more than 3,000,000 155mm artillery rounds;
    More than 7,000 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds;
    More than 50,000 155mm rounds of Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems;
    72 105mm Howitzers and more than 800,000 105mm artillery rounds;
    10,000 203mm artillery rounds;
    More than 400,000 152mm artillery rounds;
    Approximately 40,000 130mm artillery rounds;
    40,000 122mm artillery rounds;
    60,000 122mm GRAD rockets;
    47 120mm mortar systems;
    10 82mm mortar systems;
    112 81mm mortar systems;
    58 60mm mortar systems;
    More than 400,000 mortar rounds;
    More than 100 counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars; and
    50 multi-mission radars.

Ground Maneuver

    31 Abrams tanks;
    45 T-72B tanks;
    More than 300 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles;
    Four Bradley Fire Support Team vehicles;
    189 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers;
    More than 400 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers;
    250 M1117 Armored Security Vehicles;
    More than 1,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles;
    More than 3,000 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);
    More than 200 light tactical vehicles;
    300 armored medical treatment vehicles;
    80 trucks and 144 trailers to transport heavy equipment;
    More than 1,000 tactical vehicles to tow and haul equipment;
    153 tactical vehicles to recover equipment;
    10 command post vehicles;
    30 ammunition support vehicles;
    18 armored bridging systems;
    20 logistics support vehicles and equipment;
    239 fuel tankers and 105 fuel trailers;
    58 water trailers;
    Six armored utility trucks;
    125mm, 120mm, and 105mm tank ammunition;
    More than 1,800,000 rounds of 25mm ammunition; and
    Mine clearing equipment.

Aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems

    20 Mi-17 helicopters;
    Switchblade Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS);
    Phoenix Ghost UAS;
    CyberLux K8 UAS;
    Altius-600 UAS;
    Jump-20 UAS;
    Hornet UAS
    Puma UAS;
    Scan Eagle UAS;
    Penguin UAS;
    Two radars for UAS;
    High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs);
    Precision aerial munitions;
    More than 6,000 Zuni aircraft rockets;
    More than 20,000 Hydra-70 aircraft rockets; and
    Munitions for UAS.

Anti-armor and Small Arms

    More than 10,000 Javelin anti-armor systems;
    More than 90,000 other anti-armor systems and munitions;
    More than 9,000 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles;
    More than 40,000 grenade launchers and small arms;
    More than 400,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition and grenades;
    Laser-guided rocket systems and munitions;
    Rocket launchers and ammunition; and
    Anti-armor mines.

Maritime

    Two Harpoon coastal defense systems and anti-ship missiles;
    More than 70 coastal and riverine patrol boats;
    Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels; and
    Port and harbor security equipment.

Other capabilities

    M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions;
    C-4 explosives, demolition munitions, and demolition equipment for obstacle clearing;
    Obstacle emplacement equipment;
    Counter air defense capability;
    More than 100,000 sets of body armor and helmets;
    Tactical secure communications systems and support equipment;
    Four satellite communications (SATCOM) antennas;
    SATCOM terminals and services;
    Electronic warfare (EW) and counter-EW equipment;
    Commercial satellite imagery services;
    Night vision devices, surveillance and thermal imagery systems, optics, and rangefinders;
    Explosive ordnance disposal equipment and protective gear;
    Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment;
    Medical supplies, including first aid kits, bandages, monitors, and other equipment;
    Field equipment, cold weather gear.

To date, nearly 50 Allies and partner countries have provided security assistance to Ukraine. Among their many contributions to Ukraine, Allies and partners have delivered 10 long-range Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), 178 long-range artillery systems, nearly 100,000 rounds of long-range artillery ammunition, nearly 250,000 anti-tank munitions, 359 tanks, 629 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), 8,214 short-range air defense missiles, and 88 lethal UAVs.[0]

[0] https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/

And there's still more to give. Even if you include future F-16s in that list, you're talking about last-generation equipment going up against whatever Russia fields. A lot of the stuff you just listed is Cold-War-era equipment that Russia has been laser-focused on defeating for decades. However long of a list you make, it entirely makes sense why this equipment in particular is being defeated (and why it's not particularly humiliating to America's modern defense industry). This is second-class commitment, on a relative scale.

No surprise that US military planners have been planning for the wars we've actually been fighting, which are low-intensity counterinsurgency operations. The goal is to minimize US and civilian casualties in an environment where we have superiority in air, land, and sea.

And it makes sense to do that. If we ever have a shooting war against Russia or China, the nukes will start flying and a) many people will die, but also b) our existing weapons supplies and industry will be destroyed.

We're building weapons that are well suited for the environment they are meant to be used in.

There's no reason to say that any war with Russia or China will have nukes.

Russia has been bluffing with this all the time, drawing "red lines" which will cause nuclear war - giving anything to Ukraine will have a nuclear response; giving artillery weapons to Ukraine will start nuclear war; giving HIMARS launcers to Ukraine; giving F-16 to Ukraine; giving ATACMS to Ukraine; saying Ukraine can shoot at all legal targets and not just those within its own borders will start a nuclear war... and yet there is no nuclear war.

In reality, a nuclear war cannot be won, but Russia is preparing for a big war or aggression against Western countries using conventional weapons, and is using nukes as a psychological weapon to extort and have its way and allow territorial expansion through wars of conquest using conventional weapons.

> its crumbling defenses around Kharkiv

Uh, Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day for minimal gains. “Crumbling” is an odd way to describe a line being held.

It was largely crumbling until the latest aid package got approved.

> was largely crumbling until the latest aid

It was at risk of crumbling. Not actually crumbling.

Crumbling means lines breaking. Ukraine’s lines around Kharkiv never broke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com