I don't think you got the point of the link. It's about wear and tear on the guns themselves. If Ukraine had more artillery they could significantly ameliorate the problem of barrel wear (which is already a huge problem given they don't have the Russian's indigenous large stockpile of spares to capability to manufacture new barrels at will). Sadly they do not.
And on its own terms the claim they don't need more guns is just nuts - Russia has way more artillery of all kinds than Ukraine does. The front line is a thousand km long or whatever it is. They absolutely could desperately use more guns, if there were any, anywhere to be had.
No, you simply have no idea what you're talking about - like earlier you claimed that Iraq was an example of the US fighting against a Russian-style IADS, which is a ridiculously ignorant claim. It wasn't anywhere close, which is why I said so at the time, and there's been no significant increase in US technological capability to make the gap equivalent in the intervening period. Hunting and destroying SAM systems to obtain air superiority is as difficult now as it was then, and again over Kosovo in 1999*.That IS the context of Russia right now against NATO. The fall of the Soviet Union crippled Russian deployment of new technologies. Putin rejuvenation of the Russian military doesn't go that far.
The US has never had to penetrate or destroy even a late Soviet air defence system, nevermind Russia's much more modern air defence system. The difference between the USSR and modern Russia's IADS is multiple iterations of new SAMs and supporting infrastructure.
LMAO, what lasting damage to Russian logistics have they done my dude? I must've missed where Russian troops were hurting for fuel, ammo, spare parts and sundry other supplies? Like what the fuck are you talking about? What version of this war are you watching?Lol you mean how Ukraine ALREADY damaged Russian logistics with storm shadows and etc ? If the mere 12 planes of Ukraine can actually hit Russian targets, Then yes, Russia does t have the ability to defend the targets from a NATO strike force.
You have this by now oft-demonstrated idea that individual incidents you've heard about somehow prove something about effects on a strategic scale, which is just ridiculous - so what if a Storm Shadow can sometimes hit a Russian target? That's always going to happen because no air defence system is perfect. Literally no one anywhere expects missiles to always be intercepted, that's insanely stupid. The point of an air defence system is to significantly raise the difficulty and costs of strikes and thereby lower their effectiveness, not present an impenetrable bubble so that any successful hit is somehow a failure. That still doesn't translate into a meaningful impediment to Russian logistics, which is a gigantic network emanating from well within Russia.
The Russians blast Ukrainian targets behind the lines with all manner of weapons day in and day out and its not a decisive impediment to Ukrainian supply, but sure, magic NATO and its magic weapons will somehow be much more effective on a much larger and much more difficult target when using the exact same weapons they gave to Ukraine.
(Amusingly, the recently leaked Luftwaffe / Taurus phonecall revealed that NATO was "Winchester" on Storm Shadow / SCALP-EG already, which goes to show the shallow depth of their supply for the mediocre effects they've achieved)
*NATO's difficulties in Kosovo speak to exactly how NATO would approach an air war against Russia and the difficulties of prosecuting it - the overwhelming majority of NATO aircraft would simply not approach within range of Russian air defence systems because the attritional cost of falling afoul of them would be simply unsustainable. They would instead be embroiled in tedious and time consuming SEAD/DEAD efforts trying to hunt and destroy mobile SAM systems in an attempt to gain air superiority. Your belief this would somehow be a walkover has no basis. It is an incredibly difficult thing to reliably and repeatedly find and destroy mobile SAM systems.
What I said has absolutely nothing to do with cargo ships mate. I'm talking about the USN's missile strikes on Yemen, which have had zero effectiveness in stopping Houthi strikes. That you immediately leapt to talking about cargo ships vs warships (which is itself an absolutely dumbass point because Ukraine uses swarming fairly advanced naval drones - against antiquated ships with few sensors appropriate for engaging such drones to boot - and the Yemenis are using relatively primitive airborne drones and missiles, which are much easier to detect and intercept) is baffling and speaks to you just wanting to engage in some childish "who's better" dick measuring competition as opposed to giving proper consideration to what is actually being discussed, which is the limitations of precision strikes.Right. Because as we know, cargo ships are so lightly defended, hence only limited offensive power needed to threaten them.
Funny how Russian warships got sunk due to drones, while USN has successfully interdicted and protected vulnerable cargo ships.
It's very funny you solely credit "paltry strike assets" as "holding off Russian advances until now" and not, you know, the blood of hundreds of thousands of men in fortified positions supported by scads of material from NATO's own arsenals, which it has largely emptied to give to Ukraine and which have now run out. Like you can tell yourself whatever fairy tale about how "NATO would wreck Russia" you want I guess - but it ain't ever going to happen, and meanwhile Ukraine is still fucked due to their malfeasance and inability to maintain a fit for purpose MIC.Lol. Again. The fact that Ukranians with their paltry strike assets COULD hold off Russian advances until now, when Western aid has faltered shows damn well that NATO forces with much more powerful n mature strike capabilities will wreck them.
