Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
bingham67 said:
Would you buy anything Russian after this :cry:
Click to expand...
Not if you value your sovereignty but there will still be plenty of tin pot dictators in Africa and Asia who will be willing to buy old hardware for knocked down price.

Russia had one customer willing to buy the SU-57 but when India saw Russian couldn't deliver on it's promises it pulled out the $6b venture which has starved the SU-57 program of cash.
 
Last edited:
Hagar said:
I would say that government and the MOD, military intelligence has learned reams of stuff in the last nine months. The trick is to put it into practice and arm intelligently.
Apparently Russian tech and tactics have evolved little since the end of the cold war. In fact they may be worse. Once again we need to out spend the 'soviets' bringing down their empire through lack of currency and the people's desire to end tyranny.
Click to expand...

We've seen the value of 1 smart artillery shell vs hundreds of dumb ones a lot in this fight. Same with MLRS barrages vs a cheap drone conducting a pinpoint strike.

Quality beats quantity.
 
Last edited:
Minstadave said:
We've seen the value of 1 smart artillery shell vs hundreds of dumb ones a lot in this fight. Same with MLRS barrages vs a cheap drone conducting a pinpoint strike.

Quality beats quantity.
Click to expand...
True but the only trouble is systems we've given them were never designed with this level of intense fighting and as such M777's and the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 have to be sent back west for refits and repairs (from what I've read they commonly need new barrels and in the case of the Panzerhaubitze the loader jammers). Ideally Ukraine needs 2 of everything we send them, 1 for combat and 1 in reserve so it can be deployed immediately once the first one needs maintenance.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
The vaunted T-90 proved to be little improvement over the T-72 and I don’t think the Russians dare field their latest, the T-14 even if they have more than a handful of them.
Click to expand...

I think they have 2 combat serviceable T-14s and one of those was videoed recently having issues :s (T-14 is also not in active service).

Does seem they are pulling more T-90Ms out of storage to send to Ukraine though.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the route to victory is through Crimea or wrapping around Luhansk along the Russian boarder and moving south and cutting off all supply roads into Donbass?
 
Freddie1980 said:
True but the only trouble is systems we've given them were never designed with this level of intense fighting and as such M777's and the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 have to be sent back west for refits and repairs (from what I've read they commonly need new barrels and in the case of the Panzerhaubitze the loader jammers). Ideally Ukraine needs 2 of everything we send them, 1 for combat and 1 in reserve so it can be deployed immediately once the first one needs maintenance.
Click to expand...

Been some quite stark lessons, seemingly forgotten from earlier conflicts, on the realities of this kind of combat - especially when it comes to how quickly you get through ammo stocks.
 
Freddie1980 said:
True but the only trouble is systems we've given them were never designed with this level of intense fighting and as such M777's and the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 have to be sent back west for refits and repairs (from what I've read they commonly need new barrels and in the case of the Panzerhaubitze the loader jammers). Ideally Ukraine needs 2 of everything we send them, 1 for combat and 1 in reserve so it can be deployed immediately once the first one needs maintenance.
Click to expand...

Eh? Of course, they were designed for real war, the West might have only used them in Iraq and Afghanistan but that doesn't imply that they weren't designed for full-on conventional armed conflict; neither does the fact that they need repairs, barrel replacements etc.. that is to be expected! It's not like we're sending one of each either, Ukraine does have multiple and will rotate them. The argument that Ukraine needs more weapons can always be made.
 
I've said before I suspect the military applies something along the lines of six sigma on our hardware for two reasons (6 sigma is 3.4 per million defects, ie in this case 3.4 failures per million when that reaches x shots fired)
1) H&S, we wont stand for our military guys getting blown up on training exercises due to failed barrels
2) Accuracy, as wear increases then there will be a point that the force will not be enough for the long ranges and accuracy will fall off a cliff at close to max range

I would hazard a guess that in a "real war" they would be quietly dropped and a much lower tolerance required. Eg 4 sigma would be 99.35% or 6500 failures per million, but I would bet the rounds fired to go from 6 sigma to 4 sigma would be very considerable.
 
Rroff said:
Been some quite stark lessons, seemingly forgotten from earlier conflicts, on the realities of this kind of combat - especially when it comes to how quickly you get through ammo stocks.
Click to expand...
Wartime vs peacetime economy, during wartime factories are turned over to munitions and equipment production, we're supplying munitions for a war while in a peacetime economy where you simply stockpile in the event they may get used, more of a deterrent, we've been getting thru stockpiles awfully quick.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Eh? Of course, they were designed for real war, the West might have only used them in Iraq and Afghanistan but that doesn't imply that they weren't designed for full-on conventional armed conflict; neither does the fact that they need repairs, barrel replacements etc.. that is to be expected! It's not like we're sending one of each either, Ukraine does have multiple and will rotate them. The argument that Ukraine needs more weapons can always be made.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they weren't designed for real war but being these are NATO weapons I would imagine the vision was they would be a support piece with the primary offensive weapon being air strikes and not allowing any frontlines to form up. We've sent them to Ukraine were neither side has air superiority and as such artillery pieces have gone from being a support weapon to the primary offensive weapon. Although the weapons are capable of fulfilling that role the logistics and demands on support menas about a 1/3 of the systems we've sent are in need of repair at any one time and Germany is struggling to come up with enough spare parts to keep up with demand (we know at least one Panzerhaubitze has been cannibalised to repair six others).
 
Freddie1980 said:
I'm not saying they weren't designed for real war but being these are NATO weapons I would imagine the vision was they would be a support piece with the primary offensive weapon being air strikes and not allowing any frontlines to form up.
Click to expand...

Artillery is combat support, it's combat support in Ukraine too, whether you have air superiority or not doesn't change that, nor does it mean your guns/gunners are going to just chill or not try so hard or that the manufacturers would have magically made better barrels that didn't need replacing so soon. Sorry Freddie but this just silly.

Edit: In fact, for comparison, the M777 can fire 2500 rounds before the barrel needs to be replaced, the 155mm gun it replaced in US service, the M198 (designed in the 70s), could fire 1750 rounds before the barrel needed to be replaced, the M1 (a WW2 era 155mm gun also used in Korea) could fire 1500 rounds before the barrel needed to be replaced.

It's simply not true that these guns weren't designed with this sort of combat in mind, guns like this have been used in the most intense conflicts, it's an improvement on its predecessors.
 
Last edited:
COunter battery fire - attacking enemy artillery, is being done by drones now for fire correction (the role of a forward spotter) - the fact the videos are then released is the `new` part. As for unguided vs guided ; I do think that Russia follows the ethos of quantity has a quality of its own....
 
That isn't an impact scorch mark (check older imagery and/or other parking stands for these aircraft).

PhPKPPt.jpg

Also I highly suspect there was a direct hit and they've reshuffled the scene to look like it was less impactful and have at least 1 complete hull loss as well as damaged airframes which are no longer air worthy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom