Setting aside the nonsense about Soviet tactics, this article is very revealing.
British defence sources have accused Zelensky’s troops of wasting expensive weapons and equipment
Turns out that cheap and reliable weapons that Russia is able to pump out in mass quantities work a lot better than fancy artisanally produced NATO weapons.
Blaming the proxy when it doesn’t work out, and claiming the issue is cost is just cope to make NATO countries feel confident it’s the dum dum Slavs fault and not the reality that NATO has little to no tech or strategic advantage over anyone who is actually a rival military. NATO doctrine during the ‘war on terror’ involved using as many munitions as possible in “shock and awe” attacks but maybe NATO wasn’t willing to extend the use of that tactic to a lowly proxy. Or maybe NATO doctrine only applies to farmers with 1950s weaponry defending their homes
Turns out that cheap and reliable weapons that Russia is able to pump out in mass quantities work a lot better than fancy artisanally produced NATO weapons.
apparently we need to re-learn this every so often
1000 dudes with half-decent pikes will beat 50 dudes with fancy swords
500 stamped out tanks will beat 10 over-engineered tanks
100 cheap speedboats loaded with explosives will beat an aircraft carrier
etc, etc.
But muh wunderwaffe!
So much about "expensive weaponry", so little about "effective weaponry". If your tool (in this case, of war) is described in terms only of its cost and not of its effectiveness, you may have a commodity fetishization issue going on there.
There's a reason the AK rifle is the most popular in the world, and it's definitely not its massive price tag.
Sources said Ukrainian troops had repeatedly abandoned Javelin missile command launch units (CLU), which can be re-used and reportedly cost more than $100,000 (£80,000), on the battlefield as Kyiv’s military allegedly retains a Soviet-style, semi-disposable outlook towards its equipment and weapons.
This reminds me of gun nuts being in more danger than normal folks in countries where guns are illegal because they're so valuable.
Russian doctrineEmphasis on massive firepower over manoeuvrability and precision attacks. Although units do support each other, they do not prioritise coordinating assaults with rapid, spontaneous cooperation. Troops are often of lower quality, who will push forward frontally in order to probe weak spots or get masses of cheap artillery into a better position to grind the enemy down gradually.
Nato combined arms
Troops are trained to a high-level to be able to understand the entire battlefield and operate in coordination with air, armour and artillery on the fly Commanders get troops in flanking positions by using fast communications and high-tech weapons to rapidly and accurately strike threats as they appear. Emphasis is on speed, aggression and outmanoeuvring the enemy.
I may be completely ignorant on battle tactics and doctrinal differences between modern armies, but on a very shallow read I don't see the advantage of needing to train troops to a "high-level to be able to understand the entire battlefield" "on the fly" compared to a doctrine that supposedly relies on less training for troops and mass produced heavy weaponry. Not saying one is necessarily better than the other, but this framing is not helping NATO.
If one were to be snarky about this, they could say that basing your strategy and tactics on the unfounded belief that your people are inherently superior is not a healthy idea.
Nato combined arms
Troops are trained to a high-level to be able to understand the entire battlefield and operate in coordination with air, armour and artillery on the fly Commanders get troops in flanking positions by using fast communications and high-tech weapons to rapidly and accurately strike threats as they appear. Emphasis is on speed, aggression and outmanoeuvring the enemy
It's amazing how arrogant and delusional they still are despite having had almost three years now to observe what happens when you try to use those kinds of tactics. The reason why the Russians don't fight like that in this war is not because they can't but because it's a bad way to fight in this war! These tactics may work in a short war and against an enemy who is vastly inferior but they don't work in a near-peer war of attrition.
This isn't speculative or theoretical, we saw it happen. We saw what happened when Ukraine tried to do that during their vaunted offensives. They employed precisely those kinds of NATO tactics and all it led to was them finding themselves in fire bags and taking horrific casualties. Even if they did manage to rapidly take some land, was the long term cost of that worth it? Has it put them into a better position strategically in the war today?
These western commentators are so convinced of their own superiority, still believe their own bullshit despite evidence to the contrary so much that they need to jump through hoops to explain why their "superior" tactics are not working. And if the western leaders and military decision makers take their cues from these analysts and think the same way then it's no wonder they are losing and will keep losing because they refuse to learn.
This is my favourite part of the article. Western logic distilled.
“The Russian army probably has more Javelins than the British Army now,” a British source said, adding that although he and his colleagues supported Ukraine’s fight against Russia, the effort to support Kyiv “was built around lies”.
But I've read a few articles about how NATO tactics just don't work. It's hilarious to me that after 3 years, they are still insisting that their methods are the best, even though Russia has proven very effective at dealing with western materiel. The sheer arrogance, even though they haven't fought against a peer in well over half a century, much less won a major war.
I'd argue the fabled Ukrainian offensive of 2023 definitively proved that NATO tactics do not work. NATO meticulously planned the whole thing, and it results in utter debacle.
What I find really funny is that Russia built layers and layers of defence because they were really concerned about the offensive and nato's ukrops didn't even get to the first heavily defended line much less past it. The first half of the offensive everyone was sitting around saying "probing attacks" and then it slowly sunk in that that was as serious as things were going to get. There were probably some Russian generals losing their hair for months because every moment they were expecting the hammer to drop and it never did.
It's hilarious to me that after 3 years, they are still insisting that their methods are the best, even though Russia has proven very effective at dealing with western materiel.
We see this across the imperialist nations, the arrogance coupled with the ruling class being true believers in their own lies that they feed to the working masses. It's astonishing.
It is also quite heartening to know the inheritors of the crumbling empire are oblivious to the cracks.
NATO never fought a peer or near peer enemy. The US last did in Vietnam (which is a bit of a stretch, Vietnam could not meaningfully challenge US air superiority over the south), without a stretch the last time would be WW2. Over 80 years ago.
I was largely referring to WW2, but leaving it open to Korea and Vietnam, as they are both arguable (but I agree it's a stretch).
Reminds me of the Business Insider article a few years ago which was extremely positive about the Nazi tactics on the eastern front.
lol I remember that
They still think they have some cool one of a kind tactics and equipment that would win this war. Impressive how far down they manage to shove their heads.
Quantity is a quality on itself
Good enough is good enough.
"Sources also described instances of corruption when training Ukrainian troops in Ukraine. Lorries carrying equipment would occasionally go missing and shipments of vehicles would arrive at units stripped of parts, “including seatbelts”."
Why would that be?