I think the frustration is coming from being asked the same question over an over after it was already answered. For instance, in this case, in the first reply by Ananda when being asked for the source of his suggestion, I understood it was speculation based on whatever he reads elsewhere (I actually understood (or assumed?) that from his very first post); yet he was asked the same thing a few more times by different (and same) people.
As for the rate of losses, whether western, Russian, or whatever, here it appears that the rate is about the same by looking at those spreadsheets that I cited here a while ago when someone asked about the losses of the vehicles during the UA offensive. In other words, they all seem to burn the same, but the side on the offensive loses more vehicles, naturally. Bradleys definitely appear to save lives better. And so on.
One thing here is pretty clear: when someone rolls in with dozens of armour like it is a parade, they get hit hard regardless of what they are riding, be it Russians or Ukrainians, and they sustain significant losses.
The question was asked here a while back by me and a couple of others if the Leopards had any effect at all in comparison to other MBTs, for example. I do not believe there were any answers and I haven’t seen any since either. Now the logical answer seems to be why would there be? He only real difference was that UA had tanks vs not having those tanks.
On the other hand, some of the equipment showed to be a “dud” for this type of environment and warfare. Like AMX 10, for example. There were other units the Ukrainians (allegedly?) complained about and praised some others. Some of the equipment was described as simply not suitable because it didn’t like dirt and could handle any (which included the electronics and other ish inside).
Also, actual western equipment that was given to Ukraine was likely never intended to operate in such environment and such warfare, no? It’s like mid to late 20th century meet 21st with tactics from the early 20th. I haven’t seen any videos of a Leo doing something on a minefield that a T(insert number) did or didn’t do. The same is true when either was hit by a drone or any other munition. There were Leos that were destroyed from one hit of a “lame” FPV and I saw a T taking 3 hits before being stopped by a fourth. In other words, there is very little comparison here to be made at this time. I am sure Abrams would burn all the same if they were rolled out. I mean it is common sense, isn’t it?
For those wondering, the entire post is speculation on my part. If you have factual info that contradicts these speculations, I am sure many, but definitely I, would love to hear.