So because they have no armor Ukrainians don’t have to fear shelling, tanks, drones, planes and so on? They’re going to shoot down missiles with machine guns?
This seems like some kind of logical short circuit? An army without any armour at all can still have heaps of artillery, drones, planes, missiles, etc.
Russia running low on armour means exactly that: They’re running low on armour.
There’s plenty of evidence suggesting they’re running low on other things as well, but that’s not the point being made here. The shortage of armour is especially significant because it means russian assaults become less effective and more costly (read: more dead russians per assault).
Ukrainian soldiers don’t generally need to fear missiles, because Russia use those against civilian targets.
But I like how you try to play arrogant, when you can’t even tell the difference between ammo and armor.
Usually I block people like you, but you are funny. 🤣
I’m arrogant? You’re seriously saying “armor != ammunition”. How is that not being arrogant? Everybody knows they aren’t the same.
You’re claiming that Ukraine can just defend with machine guns, but obviously that isn’t true, which is what I’m pointing out, but you then just make a statement that doesn’t do anything to add validity to your point.
Ukraine keeps hitting munition stockpiles and have noticed substantial drops in shellings. They’ve also been taking out jets and drone factories, so it’s all less overall.
But while those things can still inflict a lot of damage and do, you still need that armor to move the front lines up.
Nearly all the damage ukraine does is with drones, but those drones still need people to support and hold positions and a critical part of doing that is armor.
No armor means harder to do assaults and harder to defend positions.
What are you referring to?
They were producing 3 times more than US and Europe combined for the war according to CNN in 2024 March.
Armor <> Amunition
So because they have no armor Ukrainians don’t have to fear shelling, tanks, drones, planes and so on? They’re going to shoot down missiles with machine guns?
This seems like some kind of logical short circuit? An army without any armour at all can still have heaps of artillery, drones, planes, missiles, etc.
Russia running low on armour means exactly that: They’re running low on armour.
There’s plenty of evidence suggesting they’re running low on other things as well, but that’s not the point being made here. The shortage of armour is especially significant because it means russian assaults become less effective and more costly (read: more dead russians per assault).
Ukrainian soldiers don’t generally need to fear missiles, because Russia use those against civilian targets.
But I like how you try to play arrogant, when you can’t even tell the difference between ammo and armor.
Usually I block people like you, but you are funny. 🤣
I’m arrogant? You’re seriously saying “armor != ammunition”. How is that not being arrogant? Everybody knows they aren’t the same.
You’re claiming that Ukraine can just defend with machine guns, but obviously that isn’t true, which is what I’m pointing out, but you then just make a statement that doesn’t do anything to add validity to your point.
Ukraine keeps hitting munition stockpiles and have noticed substantial drops in shellings. They’ve also been taking out jets and drone factories, so it’s all less overall.
But while those things can still inflict a lot of damage and do, you still need that armor to move the front lines up.
Nearly all the damage ukraine does is with drones, but those drones still need people to support and hold positions and a critical part of doing that is armor.
No armor means harder to do assaults and harder to defend positions.