>they would have won just by surviving the dust and breaks in logistic chains.
Where did this myth come from where US/NATO weaponry were these delicate things but for some reason Soviet weapons were wonderfully engineered. We saw the US go into various conflicts against various enemies during the cold war and get a real life test of its methods and equipment in Korea and Vietnam and later in the Balkans and Iraq.
The Red Army saw action in Afghanistan where an largely unfunded resistance fought them off. Later, in Georgia, we saw how delicate the Soviet-era equipment is and how poor Russia's ability to maintain a supply chain is.
If I had to go to war tomorrow, I'd want NATO's weaponry, not Putin's. I'll carry the AR15 instead of the AK47, thanks. It has longer effective range, better accuracy, and less weight.
AR15 cannot survive harsh environments. I saw many photos of American soldiers using AK47 in Iraq. Israeli Navy Commando probably still using it(try to dive and then shoot with an AR15).
And from my personal experience with M-16 you need to spend a lot of time cleaning this plastic toy, and when you jump from tanks, apcs and hit it on some metal by mistake.... good luck. I could take my Galil(Israeli "clone" of AK47) and just throw it on down on sand from a story high, pick it up and continue shooting. Can you put AR15 on the ground and drive a tank on it and then pick it up and continue shooting ?
And the sentence about Afghanistan is completely bonkers. US /Saudis spent many billions on arming islamists against SA.
On the other hand NATO just lost to a bunch of drug traffickers over there ...
Anedcotes aren't data. I've seen pictures of broken imacs, but that doesn't mean its a poor product. The biggest problem with the AR15 in in Iraq/Afghanistan was soliders not getting ammo fast enough or prefering its higher fire rate for suppressing fire and eating through ammo quickly. Nor is it plastic, the body is 7075 aluminum plate. These modern materials save 3 lbs of weight compared to the wood casing of the AK product.
>US /Saudis spent many billions on arming islamists against SA.
Still unfunded compared to a nation state on par with the USSR and all its resources. A largely unfunded rebel movement chased off the Red Army. That's a fact.
Where did this myth come from where US/NATO weaponry were these delicate things but for some reason Soviet weapons were wonderfully engineered. We saw the US go into various conflicts against various enemies during the cold war and get a real life test of its methods and equipment in Korea and Vietnam and later in the Balkans and Iraq.
The Red Army saw action in Afghanistan where an largely unfunded resistance fought them off. Later, in Georgia, we saw how delicate the Soviet-era equipment is and how poor Russia's ability to maintain a supply chain is.
If I had to go to war tomorrow, I'd want NATO's weaponry, not Putin's. I'll carry the AR15 instead of the AK47, thanks. It has longer effective range, better accuracy, and less weight.