weapons systems are funny. their usefulness is determined, most certainly by how good they are, but most definitively, by how many of them are committed to the battlefield. the m-1 rifle was not a major factor in the effectiveness of american infanty during wwii by a few rifles, but by the availability of its firepower to a huge number of infantrymen. a good system (not perfect, i think the johnson model of 1941 a better combat weapon, but not widely used), and widely used.
so it is with the "terminator." it may or may not be a good weapon on the ukrainian battlefield, but, it will not be deployed in sufficient numbers to make much real difference in the outcome of battle. and, they will be destroyed in large numbers.
how many of them will the russians determine they can afford to loose? most? all of them?
and, the crews required a lot of training even to be only partially effective with all the complex weapons systems? how many of these crews can the russians afford to loose.
they have already lost resources that will require many years to replace. how many more resources can they loose before the very jeopardy of the nation's defense be placed in "peril," by objective standards, or by the more "flexible" standards of russian paranoia? ***
john jay @ 05.22.2022
*** oh, yea, they are indeed crazy bastards. full goose looney tunes!
Comments