• quality_fun@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    how does russia benefit from deliberately using inferior equipment and not going all out? they don’t want a long, protracted conflict.

      • relay@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The one thing that people on both sides agree with is that Russia wants to control the economy of Ukraine. Destroying the infrastructure and people of ukraine excessively undermines that millitary objective. Unless you believe that he’s evil and just wants to do bad things.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same way the US benefits from getting rid of old equipment, which y’all chucklefucks been celebrating as grand strategy. But more importantly, it’s because they don’t need to deploy nor reveal their main forces. It keeps their enemies intelligence unreliable and it keeps their forces ready for further conflict from the bloodthirsty deranged barbarians in the US.

    • StugStig@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody ever wants a long, protracted conflict but it doesn’t mean they don’t prepare for one.

      They don’t go all out because:

      • The effective number of a weapon is not the raw number but the amount multiplied by the availability rate.

      • Mature platforms have higher availability rates and a larger stockpile of wear parts and ammo.

      • The numbers available can sustain attrition for however long the conflict may endure so they don’t run out of crucial weapons system at inopportune times.

      • The latest equipment may still be undergoing service tests or may have a limited amount of trained crews so any deployment would be more like what Zebra mission was to the M26 Pershing.

      • Combat capable forces are still needed elsewhere for security/deterrence and in case South Ossetia gets invaded by Georgia again.

      • Mobilizing the reserves would shrink the working population hurting the economy.

      • Going all out might also cause a full on intervention since NATO membership isn’t actually needed for that to happen. SMO like rules are why the US in Vietnam didn’t clash with China as it did in Korea.

      Availability rates of the F-15 vs F-35 vs F-22

      In spite of how much older the F-15 air frames are, given the same number of planes the F-15s would in combat outnumber the F-35s or F-22s two to one.