[simonblack]

Judging by the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease, I wouldn't stake my life on their Sarmat's and Poseidons being useless.

The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own."

Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff that gets swamped by the greater numbers of 'good enough' Soviet/Russian stuff. It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio, if the enemy can throw 101 weapons at it.

[time0ut]

Certainly a single Russian ICBM functioning correctly would be the worst disaster in human history and its a safe assumption at least some have been maintained. I do not want to find out the exact number. This article is talking about a full exchange with Russia as an example. In a purely academic sense, I think its interesting to speculate on if that can even happen.

> the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease

Could you explain what you mean here? What examples do you have in mind?

[simonblack]

Examples of Western weapons that have been found wanting, and that were expected to be 'gamechangers':

Germany's Leopard 2 Tanks have been underwhelming in their achievements, and nowhere near as effective as proclaimed to be. And that's apart from the bad look of German Panzers crashing their way though the Ukrainian steppes in a replay of 1941. Just the thing to put a bit a steel in Russians' backbones.

Then there was the American Patriot air-defence system that couldn't even protect itself while expending 16 (or was it 32?) missiles. And the American HIMARS systems whose missiles routinely get intercepted

And we haven't heard much lately about the M777 artillery which were found to be very fragile when forced to 'shoot n scoot'. I've read somewhere that apparently the moving hooks are attached to the end of the barrel (!) instead of the wheeled-base and so causes stress on the still-hot barrels while towing during that shifting. And which routinely get taken out by Lancets.

Then there were the Turkish Bayraktars that were were so famous in the first weeks of the war. They are never heard about anymore, Thery just weren't up to the task.

And of course the anti-tank missiles which couldn't even punch a hole in the thin top armour of a tank when fired directly down on the tank from a bedroom window. And anyway, a lot of those had dead batteries too.

It's been said that Western weapons are designed to be profitable, and Russian weapons are designed to be effective. I'm rapidly being converted to that point of view. Tom Cruise and 'Top Gun' not withstanding.

[southernplaces7]

Defects of trial by fire in western weapons systems are just as likely as defects in trials by fire with Russian weapons systems finally facing real, heavy combat. Your examples may be valid, but similar applies to Russia as well. One example, the "top-end" Russian T-14 Armata tank, which is barely being deployed in Ukraine. Another example, Russia's newer fighter aircraft, or the Russian Kinzhal missile. But wait, there's more!

Even if the NATO Alliance weapons deployed in Ukraine don't work ideally, the total economic and technical power of the west has the ability to overcome these failures and build better for war to a much greater degree than the fragile, comparatively tiny economy of Russia can manage, and on a large scale, economic sustainability is what wins wars. Just ask the Germans after both of the World Wars they kickstarted.

[time0ut]

Thank you. This is interesting and gives me a few things to read more about.