back

by ed_balls·4y ago·view on hn ↗
I don't think it is.

> Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain.

That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.

What is more, they must have a stockpile of chips in case of war (Soviet Union was the only country with aluminum cutlery - side effect of stockpiling resources for potential wars). China and other countries would give them chips quietly.

3 comments
>> Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain.

> That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.

You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles.

> 2nd is stugna-p

Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated).

> Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.

> You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles.

To be precise UA may take out some tanks with Javelins, but I'd guess it's very tiny minority of tanks. It's a really bad investment. You need 3-7 shots for a tank (40%-30% miss, active and passive protections, $100k for a single shot). The best way to take out a tank is to cut the fuel and ammunition supply and this is what UA does.

If someone makes statements like it's an indication that his source are propaganda videos. We don't have a single video from the frontline.

> Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated).

I can't find the source but they have 10x stugna-p's comparing to Javelins. (can't find the source. They've been producing it for 10+ years and stockpiling for 8)

> Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.

Military analyst that doesn't specialise in ATGMs pointed out to me that almost all videos we see shows the damage from the artillery. Maybe it's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know what for loop is. I'm not sure.

> To be precise UA may take out some tanks with Javelins, but I'd guess it's very tiny minority of tanks. It's a really bad investment. You need 3-7 shots for a tank (40%-30% miss, active and passive protections, $100k for a single shot). The best way to take out a tank is to cut the fuel and ammunition supply and this is what UA does.

Do you have a source for that?

>>> Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.

>> Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.

> Maybe it's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know what for loop is. I'm not sure.

No, I'd say it's more like an embedded C programmer not being able to recognize symptom of the Java garbage collector going awry. Being able diagnose from a photograph what kind of weapon was used to destroy a tank seems like an extremely specialized kind of military experience.

> Do you have a source for that?

an interview with https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros Sorry, not in english.

> an interview with https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros Sorry, not in english.

1. Who is that person, and what's their source?

2. What interview, exactly?

Article here "280 Russian tanks destroyed with US missiles", dated 4th March https://www.observerbd.com/details.php?id=355843 and that they have a 93% kill rate. That must be a good proportion of those destroyed at that point.
The title is misleading. 280 armoured vehicles. 93% sounds like a propaganda number.

Good active protection system can get this number to a single digit e.g. Merkava thropy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRJzcM5ETY4

> they must have a stockpile of chips in case of war

They would also prepare enough fuel and rations for the front in case of a war, but we have seen that they did not. Maybe they thought it was just an exercise.

IMHO, this is adequately explained by stupidity.

I'd bet my money on corruption. They told the soldiers it would be a fast thing like an exercise. In that case I can burn more fuel to keep me warm, sell 1/5 to a local farmer. Old food rations? They are fine for a few more years. I can pocket the money.