The Lee was the British name for the American variant of the M3, not the M4. The M3 also came in a British-specific version, which they called the Grant, but the Brits ended up operating both variants because they needed any armor they could get their hands on through lend-lease.
Yeah, but it blundered by pretending to be the U.S. and not committing enough people to the operation.
Keep in mind though that Ukrainian forces had been preparing for quite awhile to be able to fight the Russians as well. The whole country had been prepping to fight a Russian invasion and the military had been getting training from NATO. I wouldn't use Gulf War I as a comparison because with that, the Iraqis knew the coalition forces weren't coming in to enslave them and place them under subjugation, so surrendering wasn't the danger that it would have been for the Ukrainians.
Yes, but M1 carbine rifle or M1 Garand rifle? M3 medium tank or M3 light tank? My understanding was that it was standard British practice to give names to their different weapons systems, for example their Churchill and Matilda tanks, and so to avoid the otherwise confusing American system which did not do this, they started giving the American systems names.
Easy…just read the actual name…United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1 or U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1. Rifles and carbines are different. Same as the No.4 Mk.1 SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) - kind of obvious if you read the actual designation.
That's actually the simplified version
The German language seems to like to make words out of what would be whole sentences or phrases in English (although to a German I suppose they'd say English likes to make whole sentences out of what should be words), so they then shorten the name of the weapon system. So "PzKpfw VI Ausf. E" is actually shorthand for "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung E." The German "Flak" gun was shorthand for "Fliegerabwehrkanone" or "Flugabwehrkanone." The "Stuka" dive bomber was short for "Sturzkampfflugzeug," the Stug assault gun was short for "Sturmgeschütz," and the Sd. Kfz. 9 "Famo" half-track was short for "Sonderkraftfahrzeug."
Sure, but we should stay on topic. Russia, with a far larger field force, has failed to perform well in the Ukraine.That's actually the simplified version
I've read their logistics are really crappy. Like that they have fewer logistics trucks than the U.S. Army has despite having (had?) on paper a larger force. Also their trucks aren't like the ones the U.S. and the Brits use, which carry a container pallet which the truck then lifts off using a crane, so the truck lifts the pallet off, sets it down, then can go drive off to get another one while the troops unload the container. The old way was to have to unload the truck directly itself, so the truck would be stopped for some hours. This is how the Russian trucks are. The containers also allow for protection of the supplies from the elements and can also be used by the troops for protection if needed too, whereas the Russian supplies sit right out in wind/rain/snow/cold/mud.
You think the Iraqi rank and file soldier felt less afraid of being subjugated by the US, whom they were raised to hate and are different from them culturally in so many ways, than the Ukrainians with Russia? Ukrainian soldiers had only to look to Crimea to see what their future was if Russia won, and it wasn't slavery and subjugation. Add this to the fact that the Iraqi army was huge and fighting an adversary based on the other side of the globe, whereas Ukrainian soldiers surely felt way outgunned and were facing their neighbor, and I don't think your assertion about why Ukrainian soldiers held the line and Iraqi ones did not makes sense.
The Ukrainians would have been forced to live under a pro-Russian regime with all that that entails. Any freedoms in terms of criticizing such, and anything Western-style, would have been prohibited.
Iraq was never really a "country" in the sense of having any national sense of nationhood though, and I don't think those troops really believed the U.S. would subjugate them in spite of Saddam's propaganda. They also knew their own level of actual training and that the U.S. and coalition forces were likely far better trained and equipped. Whereas the Ukrainian troops had received training from NATO and very much have a national sense of identity, a sense of Ukrainian nationhood, and do not want to be subjugated by Russia.
From what I've read, it's really been a lifesaver for the Ukrainian military.
I think also because NATO's strongest military members are the U.S. and U.K., two nations that historically have HAD to be good at logistics in order to fight anywhere in the world.
Yeah, gonna go ahead and once again ask you to source that claim.
I don't have a specific source, but that is my understanding of Iraq based on its history. It was created by the British unifying multiple provinces. The country consists of multiple religious and ethnic groups that don't like each other and was ruled by military strongman throughout most of its history. Once the strongman in charge (Saddam) was toppled, the country quickly descended into chaos. The different groups started clashing and fighting with one another creating a lot of violence. So there wasn't really a national sense of being an "Iraqi," but more of being say a Sunni or a Shi'ite or a Kurd or whatnot within the country called "Iraq" and living under Saddam's oppressive Sunni regime.