What kind of view of the people against Russia is in anyway right ? I mean of course in case of war in fear of calling the general population to fight the rich and middle class not all but many try to flee this has been seen many times in history. People think if out of millions of Russian population if 100'000 or 200k people flee means Russians are not in support of war ?
Let me make this straight the Russian people have questioned the performance of Russian operation for last 2 week failures but they will not let this easily without a fight.
T55 rounds are still produced. rifled tanks are good against AFV and APC's. Russia if lost is not due to there technology or mobilization it would be internal political defeat not because of decisive war victory.
This.
Rifle tank round were still in production, but not 100mm. That's WW2 era rounds, the world move on from 100mm 70 years ago, the closest round that still in production is UK L7 105mm rifled round.
On the other hand, you have to look at this war from an angle of structure. Which mean you need to find crack in order to continue prosecuting this war. The crack for Russia in this war is poor leadership and poor logistic, which had displayed time and time again. Both of which would not be solved, in fact, it will probably magnify when you put more people into theater.
I mean they are all conscript, which mean they are most likely started from a lower rank, then the question is, how did you lead them into battle, are you conscripting Officer as well? (Which is not going to work) or you some how slot them in and expand the rank and file? Which if the leadership stink, it just get stinker, or did you promote people from the current structure? If so, you are stripping at least 1/5 of the current man power to put them in charge with the new conscript.
Not to mention Russia have problem supplying 210,000 troop in the initial phase of the war, and the subsequent troop surge in May, now with the 300,000 conscripts, are we supposed to believe Russia can supply 600,000 in theatre now?
I agree with you mostly but i think you made one oversight, all mentioned countries are not commited to the war production and send helps from stocks, i really doubt that mentioned democracies will change guns and butter ratio without turmoil, for russia it is easier to sell their people that kind of effort as the accountibility and political system is diametral opposite of liberal democracies.
That's because you failed to realise one thing of all those country, majority of equipment are manufactured by US, UK, France, Germany and Japan. But the most important factor is that each of these countries make their own perishable. Munition, Kits and etc, those are the stuff that is going to out produce Russia.
Sure, US can send 1000 tanks to Ukraine, then what? If you don't get constant munition and store supply, it's pointless, it's just a tank that can't fire. Now it may be hard to have US or UK or Germany to bump up Tanks production by a thousand, but it's not hard at all for each of these countries would easily bump up the munition production rate without turmoil.
That's why we have NATO standard, because France or even Greece can produce rounds that US Abrams uses, because they are all in a single standard. That's what dwarf the Russian. Not because US can make more tank than Russia. (Well, they can too but that's beside the point)
