While I don't think it detracts from your position that perhaps funds would be better spent at home fixing domestic issues approaching crisis, you don't really seem to be that up-to-date about developments in the war. I suggest you write to a local MP and ask to meet with them about accounting for equipment losses of loaned equipment - it is intensively well documented, to try to avoid corruption. All MPs have access to the full papers on request.
Challenger 2 tanks, for example, have only had one loss as far as i'm aware. They've mainly been used in a short-range artillery role, firing at field fortifications from 3km or so away, a role in which i've heard they are considered capable. They cannot operate in a frontline role, no tank on either side has or can.
HIMARS has singlehandedly caused a full russian shift in tactics, placing their fuel depots, ammunition dumps, and supply lines more than 100km away from the front line, which has contributed massively to their ongoing supply issues.
Yes, evolution of tactics of drone warfare has changed the face of the battle considerably, leaving some weapons less useful. They would also be useless in the hands of our own millitary. They have already been paid for, there is no "spending", we are literally sending kit that the regular army has had for decades to the frontlines. If it proves useless, then we can be glad that the ukranians found that out for us.
Yes, some equipment is lost in war. It's perhaps worth noting that a weapon used in combat and lost is a much more worthwhile one than something sitting in storage and brought out once a year for training. That scenario, to me, is "weapons fetishism", and contributes to inane cost bloat.
Way off the main thread, however, they did not send the best Challenger 2 tanks, they sent the ones with the limited ammunition supply that use the old gun. Only one was ever spotted in the wild, that did not last long. The idea was that with Leopard tanks, those Abrams, Bradley and French things, Zelensky would be seeing the sea again in the Crimea, some time in summer 2023. A very small dent in the Surovkin Line was made near Rabotino and that was about all the Great Summer Offensive amounted to.
With HIMARS there was a problem with shooting down the missiles and taking out the launchers, but Russia got there in the end. That is why they are now using Vampire instead. They also ran out of ammo for HIMARS and had to switch up to cluster weapons, which resulted in the Russians bringing out their own cluster weapons.
The entire front is only moving one way, west. This has been at a cost of many thousands of lives, sent to this meat grinder that benefits only the arms companies.
Challenger 2 tanks, for example, have only had one loss as far as i'm aware. They've mainly been used in a short-range artillery role, firing at field fortifications from 3km or so away, a role in which i've heard they are considered capable. They cannot operate in a frontline role, no tank on either side has or can.
HIMARS has singlehandedly caused a full russian shift in tactics, placing their fuel depots, ammunition dumps, and supply lines more than 100km away from the front line, which has contributed massively to their ongoing supply issues.
Yes, evolution of tactics of drone warfare has changed the face of the battle considerably, leaving some weapons less useful. They would also be useless in the hands of our own millitary. They have already been paid for, there is no "spending", we are literally sending kit that the regular army has had for decades to the frontlines. If it proves useless, then we can be glad that the ukranians found that out for us.
Yes, some equipment is lost in war. It's perhaps worth noting that a weapon used in combat and lost is a much more worthwhile one than something sitting in storage and brought out once a year for training. That scenario, to me, is "weapons fetishism", and contributes to inane cost bloat.