The duration of the war speaks volumes. The commentary may well be true, as personal observations go. But it isn't a winning strategy for Russia, as it stands. They aren't in a commanding position and they obviously didn't achieve initial war aims.

I do think most "but it didn't work" stories are survivor bias, but against that a lot of wartime mistrust of the Sherman was founded on misunderstood survival. They weren't actually worthy of the ronson nickname, and Patton was probably right to rail against homemade armor additions. Postwar analysis showed Sherman tanks had higher survival rate than people said at the time. It's because crews got out alive, we know crews didn't die.

That said, I think there's an awfully large number of ruined supply chain, light armoured vehicle, and other vehicle videos. They do not look like dud javelin outcomes. Maybe this "half are duds" is like scarecrow shells in the bombing raids on germany: you tell your own guys half the missiles fail to make them feel better. (There were no scarecrow shells: the shells exploding looking like US and British bombers being hit, were indeed bombers being hit, according to Len Deighton)