No, he hasn't really responded.
He always does the same thing, starts with something related and writes a wall of text based on assumptions we don't know and ends up responding tangentially.
Ok Then let's jump into it.
He starts talking about "cope cages" as a response to the Javelins. But is there any proof of this?
Wouldn't it make more sense for cope cages to be a response to a weapon that we have seen to be more devastating, simple grenades and other drone-launched shells?
If they wanted to give a minimal response to the Javelin they would put ERA blocks on top of the cope cages and with very rare exceptions we haven't seen that, and we can't talk about there being few blocks available for this task, as the Kontact-1s are everywhere.
I agree with that. The idea of "cope" cages being designed to help Russian tankers cope with the idea of getting hit by Javelins and NLAW's was a myth spread by Westerners who wanted to denigrate Russian forces. I read that these cages were based on the experiences in Syria in which ISIS would use drones to drop grenades and other explosives. Such a concept succeeded and they must have thought that such a piece of equipment would be useful in a near peer conflict.
He then connects it to something a Pole said, again writing about artillery stopping more tanks, which is something that has nothing to do with the conversation that was being talked about, however true it is.
Then he says that ATGMs basically don't really stop tanks?
There is a myth going through the Internet that Javelins and NLAW's were the main killers of Russian armor. His reference to that presentation was to explain which weapons platform is the major reason behind the destruction or damage of Russian tanks, and ATGM's aren't it. Artillery is. He was providing more reasons for why the myth about the Javelin is still a myth.
Then there is a another chunk of the wall of text talking about how the Kiev "blitz" was stopped by flooding swamps ...
He was continuing to destroy the idea of the Javelins being the wonder weapon and said that successful combined arms maneuvers and offenses along with selection of terrain defeated the Russians, not soldiers and partisans running around with Javelins.
It's also funny that he says that Ukraine has no media despite being inundated with NATO media and having Starlink for example, which has seen extensive use by the military.
Then he says that the best defence strategy is movement.
Great!
But the only problem is that the war has taken on a static character for both sides since 1 year, it is not about what is "ideal", it is about adapting to reality. If Ukraine has no means of communication, why did it advance on Kharkov? In fact this seems to be, in fact, one of Russia's biggest advantages, as NATO has been able to flood the Ukrainian army with such equipment. And my own friends in the AFU have told me about this!
And please, more than a year into the war, it is simply unrealistic to pretend that Ukraine does not have a "NATO" army today, most of my friends are military, they have trained operators of all kinds during all this time, every system there is, Ukraine has it. From SPGs to small arms and all systems in between means of any kind.
Of course, Ukraine operates more NATO SPGs than most NATO members combined, but they have not been given communications systems ...
If I am reading this correctly, you are saying that:
Ukraine actually does have the necessary C4 equipment. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to coordinate their various SPG's and conduct a maneuver like the one demonstrasted in Kharkiv. So you are implying that a lack of C4 equipment isn't the cause of Ukraine's inability to maneuver to fight and counter drones and that the ideal counter shouldn't be the main counter in this conflict ( in this case, the ideal counter is movement).
If so, I can't judge since I have no clue about the amount of C4 equipment Ukraine has. Markoz was explaining that movement and tempo is the best counter to the drones, but you counter that Ukraine can't do that due to the static nature of the conflict. Obviously, he would say that Ukraine lacks the C4 equipment to move, but you just said that they do via your friends in the AFU and the Kharkiv offensive. That does sound like a fair point unless verified stats are brought up from him.
