3 Abrams is correct, 8 Bradleys sounds about right, but I didn't hear anything about HIMARS. It is odd that they're not bragging about the Ukraine confirmed loss of a Patriot system (albeit not the radar but two launchers). I mean, that's what they've been claiming forever. Maybe because they said they destroyed all of them already and can't now claim destroying any actually?

Fucking weirdos. Still, compared to Russian losses in manpower and vehicles, this is nothing. For the numbers that Ukraine has, it's not insignificant for sure. The main thing and difference between Russian losses and Ukraine losses is that the crews often survive the loss of the vehicles on the Ukrainian side, whereas Russia loses both vehicle and crew.

[–] mihies@kbin.social 22 points 8 months ago

There is a video showing the destruction of a HIMARS, seems genuine, sadly so.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Devastating if true. Is this fallout from the new commander?

[–] mihies@kbin.social 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

3 Abrams seems likely, Bradleys probably as well and at least one HIMARS. Also they could have destroyed a Patriot battery and a NASAM radar. But hey, it's war, those aren't indestructible. I also"admire" US with "here, take 30 'not even a better model' Abrams and go win the war against Russia", no more help from us required.

[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago

Yeah. Losses are to be expected from materiel that is in use, and people shouldn’t be surprised when western equipment shows up in loss statistics. It wouldn’t be a problem or even that noteworthy if the US could pull its head out.

[–] Questy@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

There's video of a destroyed patriot launcher as well. No point blaming the new command staff. The freeze on munitions by the republican party in the US has meant rationed fire by the UAF. Their casualties have climbed, and they have been steadily forced back. They are forced to push critical equipment forward to prevent the steady retreat from becoming a break in the line.

Whether consciously or not the US Congress has given the Russian war effort a much needed boost. Artillery is the jab of the battlefield, once the ammunition runs out it's all eye gouging and knees to the groin. Losses are inevitable.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is not especially devastating. Bragging about killing 3 tanks in 10 days is, frankly, quite pathetic.

To put that in perspective, if those losses were to continue at that rate, Russia would kill approximately 100 tanks over the next year. In comparison, Russia has lost 1120 tanks in that same time period.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I appreciate that perspective, but the alternative perspective is they lost 10% of all their Abrams. It’s not great news.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not great, no, and Ukraine is really going to struggle without continued support, but it's still really telling that Russia considers it such an accomplishment.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

Absolutely, the real problem is the west is failing to live up to its promises. I hope republicans either develop a conscience or can have their arms twisted into doing the right thing.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What proportions of its planes did Russia lost? Of its warships? Of its tanks? :-)

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm genuinely fascinated by the use of a smiley face here. Like, based on the question I assume your point is that Russia's losses are significantly less relevant compared to their overall capabilities, which is a prefectly valid point to make.

But the addition of the smiley face suggests that you're happy about this fact? Like, are you actually cheering for an autocratic dictator to succeed in bringing more people under his heel? Because that seems like the only way to read that, unless I'm really missing something here?

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My point is the exact opposite. The smiley face is to point the hypocrisy of making the loss of 3 abrams something meaningful when Russia lost far, far more.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

Ah, I see. Sorry for misreading your intent. I deal with so many weird ass tankies on Lemmy who genuinely do seem to get off on the idea of Russia successfully annexing Ukraine that it's really hard to tell.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago

😂

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 12 points 8 months ago

Did the crews live? That's all that matters

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

THANKS GOP, you fucking chodes are giving the russians an edge by blocking artillery.

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Let’s not forget now, these aren’t exactly new equipment. And that’s a long period of time and a small amount of destruction for such a protracted engagement from a superpower.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

On Wednesday, Russia said its forces had destroyed a U.S.-made Abrams tank operated by Ukraine close to the captured eastern city of Avdiivka, which Moscow has controlled since mid-February.

Moscow claimed it knocked out a first Abrams tank in late February, and said on Monday that it had taken out a second one during clashes around villages west of Avdiivka.

Analysts say the handful of tanks are a boost to Ukraine's stocks, but they came in too small a quantity to make a real difference to Kyiv's war effort.

Fighters deployed around Avdiivka earlier this year told Newsweek that Russian armored vehicle crews were "afraid" to launch operations "when they know that a Bradley will be against them."

On Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry said it destroyed a Ukrainian Bradley infantry fighting vehicle on the eastern frontlines around Avdiivka.

Videos shared by open-source intelligence accounts in recent days also appear to show an Abrams tank in flames.

The original article contains 436 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub -4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The ": Moscow" attribution tells you everything about how useless this headline is

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 13 points 8 months ago

Remember when they said they had destroyed a bunch of bradleys even before any had been shipped to Ukraine?

Sadly this time it seems to be at least somewhat accurate.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago

There's been atleast 3 confirmed Abrams lost and atleast 1 HIMARS. Seems likely that they may have gotten a few Patriot launchers aswell.

[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago

Damn bro you’re getting mad downvoted for being fully correct. Some of the numbers in this article are relatively credible from what I understand*, but in general it’s bad practice to take Russian or Ukrainian claims at face value. Both have an incentive to lie for the purposes of morale, propaganda, and - especially in Ukraine’s case - international perception. Russia’s lies have been particularly egregious though the war, with claims that are physically impossible (see: Russia’s claim earlier in the war to have destroyed an Abrams tank months before they even arrived in Ukraine.)

*I haven’t checked open source loss data or anything, so take this with a grain of salt.