[mrguyorama]

>Lancets are winning the war.

This is a laughable claim. Lancets are awesome weapons, cost effective, accurate, and productive. But they cannot win the war on their own in any sense. They require certain intelligence to use effectively, intelligence that Russia is getting less of than Ukraine through NATO. More artillery is being destroyed by other artillery than Lancets. They just aren't made in the quantity that 152mm shells are.

>Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. Why do you state this and then immediately say you have seen zero evidence? You can't just release a swarm of RF seeking drones into the sky, you'll blow up all your own people and stuff too.

>Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.

[mcpackieh]

FFS... you're getting confused by koube's botched formatting and making the same formatting mistake at the same time! He put the claims that don't pass his sniff test on the same line as his skeptical remarks about those claims, without any formatting to differentiate the two.

> "- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates."

The first sentence is the claim that doesn't pass his sniff test. The rest of that line is his explanation for why it doesn't pass his sniff test. It should be something like

> - "Lancets are winning the war"

> Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates.

And

> "- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today."

Should be formatted like

> - "Western weapons get less useful by the minute."

> This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.

But then you made the same mistake right here:

">Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion."

That should be formatted as

> "Western weapons get less useful by the minute"

> Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.

[mrguyorama]

I think what confused me was that I didn't see anyone actually making those assertions, so I assumed they were doing so.

Ooof

[koube]

The thread now is very different from the thread at midnight when there was low comment volume. This[0] was the only top level comment and there wasn't much pushback, like one person disagreeing.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36736090