I'm not gonna say Russian invasion was right, just like to see the NATO weapons are not indestructible like their propagandas said.(trollfaced)
Care to elaborate on which weapons you're referring to? The ones that have received the most headlines have been the Javelin (and NLAW), HIMARS, Patriot, and Leopard 2. The Javelin seems to have been very effective against Russia's core tank design, and was ideal for a defensive fight against tanks. The HIMARS have also been rather effective and hurting Russian field command and weapon depots behind the front, which isn't bad for what is effectively a missile pod strapped to a standard truck body. The Patriot system, of which only two were provided to Ukraine, seems to have been working very well at helping to shoot down missiles (though note Kyiv's air defenses are a network of AA defenses of various weapons). More so given the Patriot's success against Russia's Kinzhal hypersonic missile, probably the most bragged about weapon system in this conflict that was claimed to be unstoppable and was especially sold as a system to defeat the Patriot. The Leopard 2 perhaps is the one you're thinking most then? Although getting it is supposed to help level the field, given the number volunteered to Ukraine, experts had already stated the number needed to make a major difference was like 3x the amount offered.
All that protection and they still couldn't return the Leo 2's back to the rear lines for repairs..
When it comes to the protection protecting the tank, the main difference between NATO tanks and Russian tanks isn't so much the tank surviving the hit, it's whether the crew survives it.
When it comes to the protection protecting the tank, the main difference between NATO tanks and Russian tanks isn't so much the tank surviving the hit, it's whether the crew survives it.
Not that many of the Ukrainians in that Leo-Bradley column survived to begin with.
