3 Abrams is correct, 8 Bradleys sounds about right, but I didn’t hear anything about HIMARS. It is odd that they’re not bragging about the Ukraine confirmed loss of a Patriot system (albeit not the radar but two launchers). I mean, that’s what they’ve been claiming forever. Maybe because they said they destroyed all of them already and can’t now claim destroying any actually?
Fucking weirdos. Still, compared to Russian losses in manpower and vehicles, this is nothing. For the numbers that Ukraine has, it’s not insignificant for sure. The main thing and difference between Russian losses and Ukraine losses is that the crews often survive the loss of the vehicles on the Ukrainian side, whereas Russia loses both vehicle and crew.
There is a video showing the destruction of a HIMARS, seems genuine, sadly so.
Devastating if true. Is this fallout from the new commander?
3 Abrams seems likely, Bradleys probably as well and at least one HIMARS. Also they could have destroyed a Patriot battery and a NASAM radar. But hey, it’s war, those aren’t indestructible. I also"admire" US with “here, take 30 ‘not even a better model’ Abrams and go win the war against Russia”, no more help from us required.
Yeah. Losses are to be expected from materiel that is in use, and people shouldn’t be surprised when western equipment shows up in loss statistics. It wouldn’t be a problem or even that noteworthy if the US could pull its head out.
There’s video of a destroyed patriot launcher as well. No point blaming the new command staff. The freeze on munitions by the republican party in the US has meant rationed fire by the UAF. Their casualties have climbed, and they have been steadily forced back. They are forced to push critical equipment forward to prevent the steady retreat from becoming a break in the line.
Whether consciously or not the US Congress has given the Russian war effort a much needed boost. Artillery is the jab of the battlefield, once the ammunition runs out it’s all eye gouging and knees to the groin. Losses are inevitable.
This is not especially devastating. Bragging about killing 3 tanks in 10 days is, frankly, quite pathetic.
To put that in perspective, if those losses were to continue at that rate, Russia would kill approximately 100 tanks over the next year. In comparison, Russia has lost 1120 tanks in that same time period.
I appreciate that perspective, but the alternative perspective is they lost 10% of all their Abrams. It’s not great news.
It’s not great, no, and Ukraine is really going to struggle without continued support, but it’s still really telling that Russia considers it such an accomplishment.
Absolutely, the real problem is the west is failing to live up to its promises. I hope republicans either develop a conscience or can have their arms twisted into doing the right thing.
😂
THANKS GOP, you fucking chodes are giving the russians an edge by blocking artillery.
Let’s not forget now, these aren’t exactly new equipment. And that’s a long period of time and a small amount of destruction for such a protracted engagement from a superpower.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Wednesday, Russia said its forces had destroyed a U.S.-made Abrams tank operated by Ukraine close to the captured eastern city of Avdiivka, which Moscow has controlled since mid-February.
Moscow claimed it knocked out a first Abrams tank in late February, and said on Monday that it had taken out a second one during clashes around villages west of Avdiivka.
Analysts say the handful of tanks are a boost to Ukraine’s stocks, but they came in too small a quantity to make a real difference to Kyiv’s war effort.
Fighters deployed around Avdiivka earlier this year told Newsweek that Russian armored vehicle crews were “afraid” to launch operations “when they know that a Bradley will be against them.”
On Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry said it destroyed a Ukrainian Bradley infantry fighting vehicle on the eastern frontlines around Avdiivka.
Videos shared by open-source intelligence accounts in recent days also appear to show an Abrams tank in flames.
The original article contains 436 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 64%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
how hard could that be… I could do that with just one nuclear bomb…
