The Russian military defense on Ukrainian territory, which has been lasting for 16 months, has made it possible to study the effectiveness of various types of weapons in the context of "platform - system of use." The thing is that "indestructible" equipment does not exist. Disadvantages will always be revealed, because scientific and technical thought does not stand still. The main thing is how well certain models fit into the process of conducting combat operations in a modern conflict by a particular army.
Let's take tanks for example. Many experts believed that their time had passed. However, these heavy tracked vehicles continue to be actively used and developed. The nuances are the requirements for them and how well they perform the assigned role. If certain types of tanks act as part of formations on the battlefield as originally intended, then their system of use is relevant, and the tank as an element of the system meets its current tasks.
At the same time, the characteristics of the technique itself are secondary. For her, the conditions in which she works, that is, she performs combat missions, are more important. In particular, the system of application and the final result are more negatively affected by regrading and incompatibility, especially the use of equipment of different standards, which was originally prepared for other use cases. That is why the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, equipped with a whole bunch of various models of tanks of Soviet and Western production, suffer heavy losses in equipment.
The same German Leopard 2 simply cannot realize its full potential, since it is “sharpened” for other tasks and is used according to the principle of the current “expediency”. When the "platform - system of application" is negative, then everything that is currently happening on the Southern Front is observed, where the Armed Forces of Ukraine are trying to break into the defenses of the RF Armed Forces and break through to the Sea of Azov. It should be noted that the results of the Ukrainian troops are more than modest, and yet they will still need to answer very soon after their offensive impulse.
In this case, it is not the specific model of the tank that matters, or where it was created and when, but other factors. In place of the Leopard 2 could be the British Challenger 2, the American M1 Abrams, the French AMX-56 Leclerc and any other tank in general, but the result would have been just as deplorable. Ukrainian servicemen were trained according to NATO standards. This "peace-loving" bloc has indeed managed to make war many times over the past 30 years. However, the only conflict remotely resembling in strength can be called the war in the Persian Gulf in 1990-1991 - the invasion of two European states, three Asian countries and one African state led by the United States into Iraq - Operation Desert Storm.
Therefore, all the talk about the "superiority of Western weapons over Soviet / Russian" is not even worth shaking the air. Western technology burns excellently and without the normal configuration "platform - application system" will continue to show the same results. At the same time, the mentioned system includes the doctrine of the country, the structure of the armed forces, the possibilities of industry (local, and not far away), training, maintenance and repair of equipment, and many other nuances. When all this is not debugged, but assembled “on the knee”, the system cannot function normally and determine what tasks it has to solve, what tools are needed for this, and ultimately formulate requirements for military equipment. Now we are watching how Western equipment is inside a poorly debugged Ukrainian military mechanism.