Yes they are, especially LDNR units.
Meanwhile many of you make fun of ukraine using 85mm and 130mm field guns.
I read pretty much everything on this forum and I don't remember anyone joking about the quality of the Soviet artillery the Orcs are using.
It is the western wonder weapons that seem to have fallen short in terms of cost effectiveness and performance.
They seem to prefer to use them and their long range against unprotected civilian targets it seems...
Which is retarded. Its not a prototype also, it was officially greenlit for service in 2016.
It might have passed its tests but getting it into serial production and actually deployed to front line operational units is rather something else... such systems are normally sent to specific units who work out tactics and develop manuals on their proper use and maintenance... it would be rare for a brand new system to be thrown into a war as standard equipment.
And that's why you're spewing disrespectful ignorance that would make any actual russian cringe.
Navalny is an actual Russian so who cares?
Someone is not right just because they are Russian.... they actually also have to be right to get my support.
Except both didnt say the sky is falling. They said that there were catastrophic problems which were gradually IMPROVED, but there is still a lot to be done.
No, you are the one telling us the sky is falling Chicken Little... people on the front line telling us there are problems which are being fixed is a GOOD thing.
The west doesn't seem interested in fixing its air defence capacity which is its greatest weakness... their Harpoon missiles are supposed to be amazing but turn out to be totally useless... in theory they should have amassed hundreds of them and then launched them in numbers to overwhelm their targets... that is the US Navy plan... and it does not seem to work at all.
He confirms that orlans are still very rare. He also said losses are completely manageable in his unit, so hes not some doomer. Actually talk to russians in russia.
What the **** does he expect... everyone gets a drone each?
The Units that need drones don't need one or two, they would require dozens... a drone can't cover more than one area at one time but an artillery piece can cover and enormous volume of airspace with the swing of the barrel... operating several drones per battery should be normal and for each drone in the air they would need four or five drones on the ground for when the flying drones run out of battery or fuel and need to land and be fixed up and sent back out. Plus occasionally there will be crashes or shootdowns that write off drones which will also need to be replaced... or do you think operating artillery in 40 minute windows when their drone is working and then 2-3 hours while they fly back and get refuelled or recharged and fixed up with their camera lenses cleaned and sent back on their way to the region they are looking for targets to...
You should have more god damn respect for these patriots. They're russian, and they want to win. You get flustered when any source, no matter how credible, reports a problem in the army.
No I get pissed of when dickheads like you whine that Russia doesn't make enough drones or doesn't do this or that... and why don't they have HIMARS ignoring the fact that only a rich country who pisses away their money like the US would need a HIMARs in the first place.
HIMARS would note enter service in Russia... it is too expensive... it would probably cost five times more than a GRAD or a Smerch and definitely not be five times better... in fact it wont be better at all.
HIMARS is an indication that the US military gets fucked by its MIC... it is an F-35 but with less problems.
The F-22 was too expensive to build in the numbers required to have a stealth airforce so the F-35 was designed to be the cheap affordable mass produced super stealth fighter that everyone bought which makes it cheap.
HIMARS is not cheap.
Firing 227mm calibre GPS guided rockets is not amazing or state of the art... especially when you only carry 6 damn rockets and each vehicle operates on its own.
The new replacement for Uragan and Smerch will carry 12 x 300mm rockets or 30 x 220mm rockets, but even the old Smerch has 12 x 300mm rockets and the old Uragan has 16 x 220mm rockets and are wheeled vehicles that are fast on roads and have some cross country performance and lower operating costs than the M270 which is a rocket system based on a bradley IFV.
Imagine a Smerch on a BMP-3 chassis and how costly that would be to operate... how often would it need its tracks... a 90km and now 120km range rocket vehicle needs to leave a road system why? A tracked vehicle would need service and maintenance after driving 2,000km... a truck based Smerch could drive 2,000km and then drive back in a week and not need much more than fuel and oil... and it would travel that distance faster than any tracked vehicle could.
HIMARS makes sense for the US, but they have taken a cheap powerful system and they have done everything they can to make it too expensive to use in serious numbers.
How many hundred Smerch systems did the Soviets have?
Guided shells are nothing but a crutch, for lack of accuracy with unguided shells, so theyre not the be all end all. However grid square bombardments are extremely inefficient and ineffective.
When you have three or four HIMARS launchers then hitting area targets does not make sense because 18-24 rockets is completely inadequate to stop an enemy force advance on an width of front.
A Smerch battery with hundreds of rockets launched in the path of an Orc charge would be devastating... they are using civilian vehicles because they can't get basic spare parts for the western wonderwaffen... how vulnerable would an SUV be to artillery barrages?
Having drones monitoring the attack and calling in corrections is how it is done, not launching thousands of drones with target marking lasers and coded lasers trying to mark hundreds of moving targets at once... the kill cycle would be minutes which means a fast moving force could simply consider their losses to be the equivalent of an advance through a surprise mine field... in other words your artillery barrage becomes background noise.
In comparison a heavy barrage along the line of advance would be devastating and might not even include a single direct hit but lots of fragment wounds and damaged vehicles and a wall of HE and fragments in the direction the enemy troops are told to march...
And that ignores all the different rocket types the Russians have... there is a fragmentation warhead with 650 or so munitions that cover a significant area with lethal fragments, or the sensor fused top attack anti armour munitions...
Having a gps guided rocket is useless against an advancing enemy because you have to set the target coordinates before the rocket is launched and in the seconds it takes to reach to the target that target might have moved... in fact it probably did move so your rocket misses.
The best solution for artillery is to be extremely accurate with unguided shells. The krab and pzh2000 unguided shells have extremely low CEP. After just one correcting shot, they hit almost exactly at the coordinate. Russian artillery, other than the koalitsiya and maybe 2С19М2 cant do that. Thats why modern NATO SPGs are superior to cold war and WW2 artillery.
One of the excuses for the western guns breaking down is that the Orcs are not being selective about which rounds they are loading into the guns... every country that makes their own guns presumably makes rounds optimised for those guns, which suggests that unless you are using the correct ammo then those guns wont be very accurate in actual practise.
Why do you think Russian guns are not accurate?
Artillery is maths and the Russian artillery doctrine is very very precise and mathimatical... the accuracy of each shell is calculated and all the variables can be taken into account so they can very quickly work out how many shells of a given calibre need to be fired at a specific target to achieve a certain level of damage.
There is no such thing as an artillery barrage that kills everything... even with guided shells.
Russian artillery is on average as good as or better than western artillery... the fact that you don't understand that is more to do with their marketing and propaganda than anything else.
Thats why modern NATO SPGs are superior to cold war and WW2 artillery.
Yeah, like the Tiger and Panther were superior... but they still lost.
On paper superior is meaningless in real conflict.
The orc equivalent of these guys complaining about things we would never hear because they would be banned from speaking because the risk of undermining morale would be too great, but they would be complaining about those wonderwaffle you seem to be in love with, and asking for more ex-Soviet stuff that could at least keep firing more than half a day.