• somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    A bigger reason is that their manpower is depleted from so many dead. Not to mention various defensive lines not getting built.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      But at the same time, a lot of those deaths and shattered defensive lines were because of a lack of supplies. I’m not going to make any claims on how much, but when the Russians are firing 5 shells for every 1 shell the Ukrainians fire off, that changes things.

      • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oh yeah I certainly agree. It definitely matters a lot. I just don’t the west has the industrial capacity currently to match that rate. Most of the arms were from deep, old, stockpiles, not fresh production. There’d need to be a pretty big reindustrialization push to get anywhere close.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          From what I understand, the West has specialized more in precision ammunition, whereas Russia leans far more on dumb bombs. The industrial capacity is there, but the specific capacity needs adjusting. The West is seeing the first war in a long time involving a near-peer adversary running itself as a war economy, so this is also about getting production lines and supply chains up to the task. During WW2, the US was involved in production on the side of the allies via the Lend-Lease Act before it officially entered the war, so there was time for it to specialize. Not that I am in favor of a world war or escalation, but I don’t think it’s good to be a sitting duck.