Why is Russia losing so much military equipment?

POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Sunday, July 26, 2026 23:24
VIEWED: 5616
PAGE 6 of 9

What does it even matter?

Russia's military might as well be Dudley Do-Right compared to ours.



--------------------------------------------------

Me: "Remember Covid?"

Useless Idiots: "What's Covid, durr? Russia, Ukraine, Putin, NATO *drool*. DURRRR!!!!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
OK. So, equivalent to United States military, not so much.

Wikipedia has a list of equivalents, not sure of accuracy.

Among General Officer ranks, they have a Marshal, which seems to be highest rank. Their Major Generals are 1 Stars, equivalent to Brigadier General in US Army, Marines, Air Force.

They apparently have no rank named brigadier.

They have 4 ranks of Field Grade Officer, compared to 3 in most developed nation military.

Still have 3 ranks of Junior Officers.

For General Officers, 5 Stars in America used to be reserved for Wartime only, Fleet Admirals and Field Generals. After Clinton subverted American military commands to be ruled by any 2-bit Banana Republic, some 5 Stars would be made so that we had somebody who outranked the clowns who were handed extra Stars in their cereal boxes.

Anyhow, U.S. normally has 4 ranks of Generals. Not sure how often Russia populates their Marshal rank - they haven't had a World War in almost 8 decades.

I mention this in case you are interested in how bloated their Officer ranks are - 11 or 12 versus 10 peacetime in America.
They seem to have "Enlisted" rank of 8 including 2 Warrant Officer ranks. While U.S. has had 9 Enlisted ranks plus 4 Warrant Officer ranks (still considered Enlisted) for 13 total.

You may wish to check the Commissioned Officer/Enlisted ratio of different U.S. branches (Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy) and use that to compare to Russia military.

ETA: I took a look at U.S.
1 Officer per 4.6 Enlisted across all U.S. branches.
1 Officer per 4.1 Enlisted in Air Force (2018). About 1:3 in 2010.

1 Officer per 7.8 Enlisted in Marine Corps (2017). About 1:10 in 2010, 1:30 in the field.

Jeez, the rest is hard to find.

---

Well! Thanks for looking that up! I don't have enough interest in military matters to have bird-dogged that info, but I'm glad you did!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

There is a source of info called The Dreizen Report. This guy seems to develop his info from analyzing videos (mostly from the Kiev Army) ... weeding out the duoes, fakes etc ... to assess how weapons are performing, losses, where the front is etc. Hard to get to the videos (by subscription) but he's hoping to be on YouTube soon. He also has a blog.

The latest video is that

the Javelins don't work (sat 30 years in a warehouse, batteries don't hold charge)

The Stinger missiles were more successful, leading to higher-than-expected Russian air losses, but the Russians have adapted their tactics by flying LOW and not giving the operators chance to get ready

The towed howitzers are limited to roads, take a long time to set up, and don't have time to fire more than a round or two until the artillery tracking radar homes in on where the strikes are coming from. Then the howitzers need to be hooked back up to a trailer right quick and moved before counter battery strikes.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Looks like I wasn't clear.

Russian Army has 5 General ranks, including Marshal. Compared to 4 General ranks in peacetime U.S.

The Officer bloat causes problems in the military, partly why Air Force is the least productive or efficient, and Marines are considered highly effective. But Officer bloat is great for bureauocracy and micromanaging otherwise effective forces.

I wasn't sure if that would help you cypher or ferret out the reports.



Regarding Javelins, did you see the reports about the weapon not so great, but the optics technology that it has is what makes it valuable to Ukraine fighters. I don't have personal knowledge of this weapon.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Regarding Javelins, did you see the reports about the weapon not so great, but the optics technology that it has is what makes it valuable to Ukraine fighters. I don't have personal knowledge of this weapon.

---

Why are U.S. weapons failing in Ukraine?
2022-05-18

Javelin was supposed to burn all Russian equipment

The United States has delivered about 7,000 Javelin anti-tank missile systems (ATGM) to Ukraine. According to the American Insider Magazine, the ATGM stocks in the U.S. reserves were reduced by about a third and now 20-25 thousand sets are left. At the same time, the fighting in Ukraine showed the insufficient effectiveness of this so-called man-portable weapon.

The FGM-148F Javelin anti-tank missile system was developed in 1989 to destroy armoured vehicles and low-flying low-speed targets like helicopters, drones and light aircraft. An infrared homing head (GOS) detects the target and ensures its capture at any time of the day. After firing the Javelin missile, the shooter can immediately change his position to avoid being hit by return fire.

The target is hit by a tandem HEAT warhead capable of penetrating 600-800 mm of armour. The rocket hits a tank or other armoured vehicle in the upper part, where the armour is the weakest.

Javelins did live up to a fraction of its fearsome reputation as it managed to knock off an unspecified number of tanks. However, it was the Ukrainian ATGM Skif or Stugna-P, developed by the Luch Design Bureau, that did the most damage. While it should be a surprise for most analysts, Ukrainian soldiers are well trained in Skif ATGM handling. N-LAWs from the United Kingdom were comparatively better performers as they were lighter to carry around in urban combat. Another issue was the limited space, and tall buildings interrupted the Javelin firings. One unverified issue is that the Javelins couldn’t distinguish the targets in the urban scenario. It was not a surprise for Ukrainians as one of the opposition members, just before the war, had stated that junk was being poured into the country, and Skif’s could perform better.

The problem with Javelins is both tactical and doctrinal. The Ukrainian Prisoners of War state that the U.S. help was overhyped. The Javelins were either outdated or unkempt and often misfired. The instructors ignored the misfires and gave them basic information on how to fire the missiles. The heavy Javelins were unsuitable for urban combat, as well as in rural and remote areas. In rural and remote areas, the possibility of meeting Russian armour was remote, and the operators were exposed to spying Russian UAVs and helicopters.

The Javelins, which ended up as trophies with the Russians and Donetsk Militia, were termed ‘junk’. In fact, in the initial days of the war, the Russians spoke about the U.S. establishing an office in Lviv to prevent Ukrainians from speaking out on Javelins’ issues.

Russian tankers soon developed tactics against these man-portable ATGM’s. Russians argue that Javelins are weapons for infantry and not for large tanks.

After the initial hype, even the Ukrainian propaganda department, which churns out ridiculous statistics, stopped talking about Javelins.

The U.S. assumption that the Javelins alone were enough to burn the Russian armour and military vehicles many times over was busted. Soon the U.S. started dolling out M777 155mm guns as their next doctrinal experiment.

As a side note, the Switchblade 300 loitering munition supplied to Ukraine for anti-armour uses is not much talked about, and the mythical Phoenix Ghost remains a myth.

More at https://frontierindia.com/why-are-u-s-weapons-failing-in-ukraine/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SIGNY: The whole topic appears to be a fact-free zone.


CAPON: I keep giving you the opportunity to correct what many consider

---

A billion flies eat shit.

Quote:

---

FACTUAL, but you keep running away. It's more of a Signym-free zone than anything else.

---

Your topic was (may I remind you) "why is Russia losing SO MUCH military equipment?"

The you spend most of the rest of your post discussing almost anything but.
HOW MUCH is "so much"?
HOW MANY tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, artillery, etc has Russian lost?

Quote:

---

The following are what many sources - outside of the combatants directly involved and their biases - consider to be observably true. I've numbered them for your convenience. Please consider the number keeps growing.

Which ones do you consider false and why?

1. - Putin misjudged how his invasion would only unite "Ukies" and motivate them to fight back and embarras the Russian *army.

---

How do you know this? Have you been sitting in on Russia's Seurity Council meetings? How does this describe "HOW MUCH" military equipment has been lost? Where are the numbers?

Quote:

---

2. - Putin couldn't take Kyiv in 7 days despite his (anemic, train wreck) of a bull rush to do so. If it was a feint it was the most costly, dumbest feint in military history. In fact, ANY attempt to explain it as a "plan" makes it look even worse. "He meant to do that??"

---

Same as above

Quote:

---

3. - Russian military used insecure communications - "Hello, Dimitri? I am sitting here with the Z 48 battalion waiting for you... I am at the following coordinates..." boom.

---

You can see the secure comms antenna on Russian equiment. Plus, it is the policy of the Russian MoD to take soldiers' cellphones away, which is why you see so few Russian-sourced videos online. If this happens IT IS RARE.
Plus, how does this provide a number for HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

4. - Putin keeps losing generals.

---

Only one.
HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

5. - Putin has united the West and the EU and NATO.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

6. - Putin completely misjudged Finland and Sweden. Both are applying to join NATO, Putin's nightmare.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

7. - Putin's own "G7" he has only one ally, Belarus, who have yet to join the fight. No ally really.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

8. - Putin completely misjudged how many companies would leave Russia. ANY attempt to say that it was a plan makes it look even worse.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

9. - Russian army failed to use proper logistics. 40 mile traffic jam/ cluster-fck.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

10. - Russia loses their Prized ship to a country without a nvy.

---

Ah, one ship. It was not "prized". It was due for decomissioning back in the 1990s.

Quote:

---

11. - Putin has motivated many of the most educated Russians to leave the country - brain drain just like Stalin.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

12. - Putin has caused long term damage to Russia's economy

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

13. - Putin has caused long term damage to Russia's world standing.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

14. - Putin miscalculated how many young Russian soldiers would die.

---

HOW MANY soldiers died?
HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

15. - Russia failed to take out Ukraine air defense system.

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

16. - Putin has motivated some of Russia's largest oil and gas customers to find alternative suppliers, and - maybe most significantly - to accelerate their alternative energy programs (thanks Putin!).

---

HOW MUCH military equipment?

Quote:

---

17. - Putin

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME