I actually have ''addressed'' the points you raised...... I was also not ''asking questions'' but stating facts.You're now asking questions, but failing to address my actual arguments.timeline is erratic and without any guarantees of when nor if the next batch purchases is.
I well understood what your point was but as I previously said that wasn't what the discussion was centered on .....My point is that for one army, the choice of laying down their weapons because of their fatigue, has a lot more dire consequences.
Mosin Nagants are included in the ''antiquated'' weapons you brought up. Are there any other 'antiquated'' weapons apart from the Mosin Nagants? Rusty AKs don't count. As has been pointed out to you it's not as if whole Russian Corps or Fronts are being equipped with ''antiquated'' .I made the claim that Russian's are increasingly being sent into combat with older, less capable equipment. I never raised the issue of the Mosin Nagants.
By right units should not be equipped with 'antiquated'' weapons but they are because of the state the Russians are in? It's no revelation.....
I say what I said previously : ''any MBT not protected properly and not deployed as part of combined arms formations will be ''death traps''. If the Russians can't get anything else then older, obsolete designs will have to do the job. Is it an ideal arrangement? No but it is what it is.it would be disingenuous for anyone to argue that Russian armored ability isn't degraded every time they lose a modern / semi-modern T-80 variant or T-90 variant, and are forced to replace it with an older model T-72 or T-62
''Again, simply put'' [Archer is a great gun] but is will not necessarily add more value to what is currently operated .... If the French say "sorry, we can't give you anymore right now" then yes maybe but from a logistical/support perspective the Ukrainians would be better off getting more of what they already operate. The Ukrainians have to be the ones who decide whether they want Archer.Again, simply put
Was it an argument that was made or debated to begin with? BTW unless it had a APS or new gen ERA a decades old T-62 isn't more survivable than an 11 year old T-90.That's a pretty easy argument to arrive at.
- Yes it's relevant but unless things have changed not all Ukrainian units are as well knitted out as the ones we see or the ones they want us to see.It's a relevant point in that as the Ukrainian replacement troops are coming back from places like Britain, kitted out with modern western equipment, making them better equipped than many of their dead brethren that they're replacing, the Russians are having the opposite happen.
- Is it holy writ or written in stone that in a few months Russian troops will still be badly equipped? I have no idea. Just like although the Ukrainians currently have the initiative and that things seem to be getting worse and worse for the Russians; I will not make any assumptions as to how this all ends.