This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Ukraine tried to do a Western combined arms by 88_92WSND

assault without all the pieces needed for such an assault. What is galling, though, is looking at what they did do with the penny packet deliveries of systems the West did provide. The HIMAARS, Storm Shadow, PATRIOT, Gepard. All had outsized impacts on the conflict relative to the numbers deployed. But they were piecemeal. It's almost as if we want to push, but not TOO hard...to not be seen as the reason for victory in terms of equipment. And since the Ukrainians have killed off all the stupid generals, the Russians will eventually grind Ukraine down. We missed the window to make a difference with equipment deliveries.