The Russians have gone in

Status
Not open for further replies.
heard some related things, like the explosive from their explosive reactive armor was replaced with sand after the good stuff was liquidated on the black market.

for me it's an elephant in the room.
we hear they have blown their battle budget, yet they are using the most costly munitions they could fire while fighting on used Cuisinart parts.
Whatever this is we are looking at, it's probably not what we are being told

You should read "The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine", by Andrew Cockburn. It picked large holes in the myth of of the mighty Soviet machine we were all fed in the 70s and 80s. Unless there has been a sea change in the way things are done in Russia, for which I see no evidence, I see no reason to doubt the reports of using SAMs as artillery. They simply just don't think/operate the way we do in the West.
 
You should read "The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine", by Andrew Cockburn. It picked large holes in the myth of of the mighty Soviet machine we were all fed in the 70s and 80s. Unless there has been a sea change in the way things are done in Russia, for which I see no evidence, I see no reason to doubt the reports of using SAMs as artillery. They simply just don't think/operate the way we do in the West.
On some levels, it's a bit like watching a psycho girlfriend slowly devouring your will to live.
We'd be putting in a Starbucks on every corner by now if it was our show
 
I would think the Russians would be starting to run low on smart weapons. Vlad just calls Yuri's Used Rocket Lot for more? The media now almost nothing about anything they cover. One needs multiple sources.

Some of my sources say they are doing some improv work with air to air missiles in mud moving roles
It's stuff like this that makes me shake my head.
A2A gets by with a slack job. It just has to get a decent start on destroying it's intended target, gravity and tera firma will team up to finish it.
I can't see it's adaptation being anything more than mediocre.
A good ol' TNT packed tube with a cone up front and fins at the rear has a much better bang for the buck since the Su30 has to deliver it anyway
 
Some of my sources say they are doing some improv work with air to air missiles in mud moving roles
It's stuff like this that makes me shake my head.
A2A gets by with a slack job. It just has to get a decent start on destroying it's intended target, gravity and tera firma will team up to finish it.
I can't see it's adaptation being anything more than mediocre.
A good ol' TNT packed tube with a cone up front and fins at the rear has a much better bang for the buck since the Su30 has to deliver it anyway

Nobody flies over anything to drop bombs any more unless they have achieved total suppression of enemy radar controlled SAM defenses (SEAD). Even the low-level dash stuff in Gulf War 1 got some RAF Tornados shot down by shoulder launched stuff. These days you have to stand-off and launch (missiles, JDAMs) or fight bad guys without any capability first place, think Taliban.

The Russians have never really got into SEAD in the same way the West did because in their doctrine they were going to swamp the NATO air defenses with sheer numbers. On their side they invested heavily in SAMs from the 50s on because they saw what air power had done in Germany in WWII, and that wasn't coming to the Rodina, nyet tovarishch. I knew a former RAF guy who told me that after the Warsaw Pact dissolved they got a view of how many SAM systems and actual missiles they had facing our folks. Apparently, the NATO estimates were grossly short. Sure, the Soviet era missiles probably weren't as good as ours in terms of kill probability, but launching them 2 or 3 at a time makes up for that if you do the math.
 
Just read two different sourced reports that Russia is “ very concerned” about the Kerch straight bridge, the possibility of Ukrainian missile strike which would cut off a major supply route.
Second report stated that Russian troops are “ worn out” from constant combat and poor supply and support.
Go figure.
 
Last edited:
...with all the shix going on in todays world, especially in East Europe
just this comes to mind (WARNING: It is getting a bit BRUTAL !):
[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXamwdjtqY[/ame]

Let's hope the best + GOOD LUCK for the FREE WORLD !!

P.44
 
There is news about the death on the field of combat of the 12th Russian General yesterday. The Ukrainians have proven adept at expert targeting of invading staff officers. The claim is that US donated HIMARS we're used for the strike, and that at least five other high rank officers were killed.

"After a strike by HIMARS on the headquarters in the Kherson region, Major General [Artyom] Nasbulin, the head of the 22nd Army Corps of the Russian Armed Forces (military unit 73954, Simferopol), was killed. "


Major General Nasbulin:
f9e06f2ba9ce7b88f84e01257ea23a44.jpg


Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 
And speaking of HIMARS...

Has anyone else noticed how well our advanced weapons are working against the Russians even when manned by newly-trained troops? I am quite impressed. The amount of devastation HIMARS has been raining down is completely out of proportion to the numbers of them present (originally 4, and now only 8 are in service). If you listen to the intercepted phone calls from Russian troops that are posted online it seems that HIMARS is being blamed for nearly everything. It's the new "bogeyman" of the 21st Century battlefield.

I am of the generation that was brought up to believe that "advanced" weapons were usually unreliable and certainly not "tough" enough for real combat. Without a doubt, Hollywood and popular TV has reinforced that belief over the years with all of the movies and such portraying the failings and shortcomings of high-tech on the battlefield. Speaking for myself, things like HIMARS and our advanced guided artillery rounds certainly seem to be dispelling that myth!
 
And speaking of HIMARS...

Has anyone else noticed how well our advanced weapons are working against the Russians even when manned by newly-trained troops?

I think the whole world is learning much from this conflict, but for the most part, the weapons the west makes available to Ukraine are from stockpiles of almost obsolete equipment, that has already been replaced in the donors military services, not our most advanced equipment.

I think a key to the success is that they've been fighting Russia for years, are fighting on home turf, and know from the recent past how bad life controlled by Russia is.

The HIMARS has been around 39 years, and coincidentally, the Army took delivery of it's first A2 level upgrade refurbished launcher yesterday.

"Media - Lockheed Martin - Releases" Media - Lockheed Martin - Releases


Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 
Reports of successful battlefield
weaponry again strengthen my
belief that this proxy war is
just what the U.S. was looking
for.

It's proving and disproving systems
and just how well they can be used.
 
Reports of successful battlefield

weaponry again strengthen my

belief that this proxy war is

just what the U.S. was looking

for.



It's proving and disproving systems

and just how well they can be used.
Hardly an accurate proxy fight for our current arsenal.

Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, they are getting almost nothing western front line troops will take into battle.

The decades old HIMARS launchers they received were our oldest, and sent with our shortest range rockets.

Even the low-tech M-777 Howitzers we shipped them did not include the targeting computer our troops use.

"US-supplied howitzers to Ukraine lack accuracy-aiding computers" US-supplied howitzers to Ukraine lack accuracy-aiding computers



Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 
We may not want "accuracy aiding computers" to fall into Russian hands. They are lucky to be getting what they are. It's free help in dire times. They seem to be doing pretty well with whatever they get. It's not that often that the rest of the world has pitched in to help a small country fend off a much bigger country. I'm happy to see them getting supplies, but we can't send them all our newest and best stuff, we may need it.
 
They are lucky to be getting what they are.
Granted. The point was directed toward UncleEd's statement about "It's proving and disproving systems and just how well they can be used."
Ukraine gets little that proves or disproves anything new. Usually it's Israel that does that job.





Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top