Don't know why this is an on-going discussion. Even if the Abrams is poorly suited for Ukraine.
Bad Tank > No Tank.
Bad Tank > No Tank.
Hmmmmm, I wonderThe scrutiny should be that it took a "superpower" 5-6 months to move almost 20kms to take a village/small town just over their border.
Don't know why this is an on-going discussion. Even if the Abrams is poorly suited for Ukraine.
Bad Tank > No Tank.
you count effectiveness of sorties not the numbers. otherwise all those recent Mideast wars would have been settled decisively and faster.For what it's worth, a mean of 150 sorties per day (presumably a flight day or a 24h cycle) is extremely anemic.
"Orlan-30" is designed for aerial reconnaissance, search, detection and recognition of objects in the visible or infrared range. In addition, with the help of the installed target equipment, it provides target designation to high-precision weapons for the destruction of stationary and moving objects both during the day and at night.
Every new western equipment that the Ukrainians get people must find flaw in it somehow. Even t-55s would do the Ukranians good right now considering the disparity in reasources between the two nations.Don't know why this is an on-going discussion. Even if the Abrams is poorly suited for Ukraine.
Bad Tank > No Tank.
How many available (freed up) troops does Russia have for the much rumoured big offensive, 50K? 100k?
They will need to hold that front and cleaning after advancing, clearly not sure of the numbers on the ground anyway. I would say not enough if they are not able to cut some lenght on that front line.How many available (freed up) troops does Russia have for the much rumoured big offensive, 50K? 100k?