• Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I appreciate that perspective, but the alternative perspective is they lost 10% of all their Abrams. It’s not great news.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          What proportions of its planes did Russia lost? Of its warships? Of its tanks? :-)

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m genuinely fascinated by the use of a smiley face here. Like, based on the question I assume your point is that Russia’s losses are significantly less relevant compared to their overall capabilities, which is a prefectly valid point to make.

            But the addition of the smiley face suggests that you’re happy about this fact? Like, are you actually cheering for an autocratic dictator to succeed in bringing more people under his heel? Because that seems like the only way to read that, unless I’m really missing something here?

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              My point is the exact opposite. The smiley face is to point the hypocrisy of making the loss of 3 abrams something meaningful when Russia lost far, far more.

              • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Ah, I see. Sorry for misreading your intent. I deal with so many weird ass tankies on Lemmy who genuinely do seem to get off on the idea of Russia successfully annexing Ukraine that it’s really hard to tell.

    • Questy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • fox2263@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

  • auth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    how hard could that be… I could do that with just one nuclear bomb…