That’s true, but recall that at the start of the war in Ukraine the narrative very much was that US weapons are superior to Russian weapons, and every time they sent some new toy like HIMARS or Abrams they were sold as game changers. We now have concrete proof that US weapons aren’t better in any way.
Not game changers doesn’t mean ineffective, it just means they aren’t magic. An example of a weapons system being blown up doesn’t mean it isn’t effective - in a peer war, weapons systems should be looked at as consumables. I’ve no doubt about American perfidy about the capabilities of patriot systems viz a viz hypersonic for example, but flip it around - there have been a number of Russian alligator choppers shot down but they are nevertheless fearsome and effective. The myth of American weapons invincibility has been punctured to be sure but I think it is incorrect to believe that makes them ineffective.
I would argue that they are ineffective in a sense that they’re too complex, too expensive to produce, and too hard to maintain in the field. The inefficiency of these systems doesn’t matter when beating up on a much smaller opponent, but it becomes a huge problem when going up against a peer competitor.
I very much agree that weapons should be looked at as consumables in a peer conflict, and that’s precisely what makes US weapons inefficient. It’s more expensive and more time consuming to produce them, and they’re not as durable as Soviet style weapons Russia is using.
Incidentally, recent French military report notes that Western equipment is considered less efficient than Soviet due to maintenance issues and degraded mode capabilities…
As far a the propaganda war side of things, the effect of the weapons was that they MUST be game changers. And since they failed to single handedly turn back Russian troops on any front, that means the equipment was ineffective.
That’s true, but recall that at the start of the war in Ukraine the narrative very much was that US weapons are superior to Russian weapons, and every time they sent some new toy like HIMARS or Abrams they were sold as game changers. We now have concrete proof that US weapons aren’t better in any way.
Not game changers doesn’t mean ineffective, it just means they aren’t magic. An example of a weapons system being blown up doesn’t mean it isn’t effective - in a peer war, weapons systems should be looked at as consumables. I’ve no doubt about American perfidy about the capabilities of patriot systems viz a viz hypersonic for example, but flip it around - there have been a number of Russian alligator choppers shot down but they are nevertheless fearsome and effective. The myth of American weapons invincibility has been punctured to be sure but I think it is incorrect to believe that makes them ineffective.
I would argue that they are ineffective in a sense that they’re too complex, too expensive to produce, and too hard to maintain in the field. The inefficiency of these systems doesn’t matter when beating up on a much smaller opponent, but it becomes a huge problem when going up against a peer competitor.
I very much agree that weapons should be looked at as consumables in a peer conflict, and that’s precisely what makes US weapons inefficient. It’s more expensive and more time consuming to produce them, and they’re not as durable as Soviet style weapons Russia is using.
Incidentally, recent French military report notes that Western equipment is considered less efficient than Soviet due to maintenance issues and degraded mode capabilities…
As far a the propaganda war side of things, the effect of the weapons was that they MUST be game changers. And since they failed to single handedly turn back Russian troops on any front, that means the equipment was ineffective.