"Ranking Ukraine’s “Game Changer” Weapons" Topic

This video analyzes and ranks all NATO weapons supplied to Ukraine and classifies them as "turning points."

link

Miracle weapons? Some impact, I guess but I lean towards the 'Bourne Principle':

Lt Chard describes the victory at Rorke's Drift as a "short-chamber Boxer-Henry point-four-five caliber miracle.

The redoubtable Sergeant Bourne points out, "And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind it".

Ukrainian guts are the war-winners.

Is the war over?)))
Ukrainian soldiers are fighting well, but I don't see any particular differences between them and Russians…

But here we're discussing weapons. A different thread could be created to discuss the combat qualities of troops.

So, in terms of combat qualities, somewhat surprisingly for me, the French "Caesar" leads this ranking.

No one's suggesting the war is ‘over'—that's not really the issue.

You're trying to separate weapons from the people using them, which makes sense for a ranking exercise but it doesn't hold up particularly well once you step back into how wars are actually decided. Kit can amplify, enable or occasionally accelerate events but it very rarely decides them on its own.

Take your example of the CAESAR self-propelled howitzer. By all accounts it's an effective, mobile, well-handled system. But it's effective because it's being used intelligently, maintained under pressure, and fought by troops who are prepared to keep it in action under difficult conditions. Without that, it's just another gun—plenty of armies have had good artillery on paper and achieved very little with it.

On the flip side, if you genuinely see ‘no particular difference' between the troops, then logically the outcomes should be broadly even. They aren't. That suggests the human factors—cohesion, motivation, leadership, willingness to endure—are doing more of the heavy lifting than any individual piece of equipment.

So yes, discuss weapons by all means—it's interesting, and it has value. But calling them ‘turning points' risks overstating their role. At most, they're tools that allow a turning point to be exploited once it's already been created.

That was really the point of the Rorke's Drift quote: the rifle mattered, but it wasn't the reason the line held.

The term in the title is simply a copy of the title of the YouTube video I linked to. You understand that video creators use catchy titles to attract additional views… This is, perhaps, the bane of all media.

I agree that a weapon is only as good as its crew. However, the video cites statements from soldiers who have used various types of these weapons in combat and express their opinions on their qualities. I think an experienced soldier has every right to do so.

What's wrong with the Russian army's performance? Not only is it deprived of the ability to use assets from "neutral" countries in combat (for example, Starlink, Western countries' space reconnaissance and targeting assets, and their manufacturing facilities), but it is also deprived of the ability to destroy this very important enemy potential, which plays a huge role in modern warfare. If Putin had given the order to attack these assets USED in the war, they would have been quickly destroyed, and Ukraine would have suffered a very swift defeat. Since such orders are absent, Russia prefers to wage a war of attrition, conserving resources for a subsequent fight against NATO. While it remains possible to achieve its goals (transforming Ukraine into a neutral country) through negotiations, there is no point in large-scale offensive operations, which, given the drone war and the impunity of NATO assets participating in the war, would be fraught with heavy losses.
However, I hope that, given the increasing range of Ukrainian missile strikes, this form of warfare will finally be reconsidered and missile strikes will begin against Ukrainian military targets in Europe, as well as against NATO targets involved in the war (satellites and reconnaissance aircraft). Personally, I see no point in delaying the inevitable…

I disagree. With what? Practically everything you wrote in your final paragraph.

A point-by-point refutation is beyond my patience.

Tha mi duilich.

Ochoin + 10

Armand

Scotland 1 : Russia nil.

Ukraine has taken on a much larger enemy force. And though they took losses. They certainly have kept the Russian losses very high. As well as allowing the Russia to take and hold very little territory.

Bottom line Ukraine's forces have bested the Russians in almost all kinetic operations, etc. It is Ukraine's backyard … their homeland. Regardless of what Putin says. Ukraine is fighting for its survival. E.g. like Israel … They are very motivated, better trained and now experienced.

The Russian conscripts are not motived anywhere near Ukraine's troops. If at all … And their performance demonstrates they lack training, leadership and have a very poor supply chain.

The new face of war …

link

Ochoin, well, that's a wonderful way to conduct a discussion)))
I recommend reading a fairly objective study of the course of the war and the balance of power between the warring parties:

From "Special" to "Military"
Lessons from Two Years of the Operation in Ukraine

link

And here's the Russian perspective on modern warfare from the same author:

The Digital War Is the New Reality
Russia Must Quickly Adapt to It

link

Thank you, Cuprum. You'll notice I did write:Tha mi duilich.

And as fond as I am of you, "fairly objective" is not in your job description.

And lastly, this *is* a hobby site & a little casual interaction is usually deemed fine.

No problem. We're just exchanging opinions.