I am smelling a rat here. Russia is using older equipment from the start, because it suffices to fight the zombies, and these claims do not fit at all with the available facts.
The Russian forces are using older vehicles because they are mostly Naval Infantry and that it the vehicles they use... in Afghanistan they had T-55s... but they were the only T-55s with APS systems installed... seems they lost their faith in APS systems...
none of russian air defenses "good enough" if they don't shot down those drones as soon they take off ,
Hahaha... keeping it real... those drones can take off from any where at any time but you demand they be destroyed as soon as they take off...
The equivalent of demanding the US forces in Afghanistan destroy IEDs just after they are laid in ambush...
Explains why you think the Russians are doing so badly... noone could live up to the expectations you set... you are being unreasonable.
The internet is full of destruction of russian positions by guide artillery and drones flying day and night all the time over russian soldiers zones..
The Internet... the orcs are not shooting down all of the Russian planes let alone their drones, but the Russians are the ones with the problem.
Air space domination ---> this is what russia needs.
You keep advising them, you are the space cadet expert here.
I don't think it's even him. It's a psyop
Or possibly what Vann is...
I don't think zelensky will though under any circumstances. Unless he is captured , has a gun pointed at his head and is promised to be released only if he signs.
So do they capture him ? How ?
Zelensky has proven to be a bad leader... he made lots of promises and broke them as soon as he got into power... he is a token jewish leader they could claim was proof they were not nazis...
Killing him on the first day would not effect the balance of power in the Ukraine and another pro American pro EU pro HATO stooge would get the position... they need to hit HQs and buildings with his party to weaken their position along with continuing to defeat them on the battlefield so that eventually the balance of power shifts away from being pro west and more for anti war and pro peace settlement... which might result in Zelensky being couped out of office himself with someone Russia can actually talk to... Zelensky is not going to be part of the solution because he was at the heart of what was the problem for so long.
I'm beginning to think, ATAGS are always fated to come cropper against SPs. The only exception is probably mountain warfare where ATAGs may have an upper hand.
Their mobilty is critical... shoot and scoot... quick and easy to set up and fire and then take down and leave... much more important than range.
There was a video of a Vasilesk 82mm automatic mortar... it was in use by Ukrainians... they set it up and fired some shots and then were about to leave and about 2 minutes into the video they started to receive counter battery fire that seemed to take them out.
When the Russians and Soviets trained with those guns they deployed them in about 30 seconds... fired off dozens of rounds in bursts for about another 30 seconds and then were gone in about 1 minute and 45 seconds... and that video of the Ukrainians getting pounded shows you why.
I hope that artillery branch of land forces get some much deserved love after this war. It has shown that it is still Russia's bread and butter, but not much money from MoD went that way.
They invested a lot in Coalition which is not being used AFAIK... the improvement on its own will be pretty dramatic... and even more of an effect when Russian ships get the navalised version too. Would be interesting if they look at their experience in extending the performance of the 152mm guns and applied the same technology to the 203mm guns they operate too.
Shows how clueless you are in military subjects and tactics, the m270 is a multiple launcher system , and nato can fire long range missiles from it..
Shows you are not paying attention... the unguided rockets for MLRS don't go further than 80km as he mentioned... Biden has already said they wont get the long range guided missiles with it or HIMARS.
but to encourage it in the radical nuclei of its population. If Biden were to die they would be in absolute chaos. It would also be a message for the globalist elite.
That doddery old fool... expectations on both sides were that he would not last an entire term anyway... no need to kill enemies that are this stupid...
Why hasn't the derivatsiya been used against quadcopter drones?
Probably has.... in tests...
As far as I know the 2S38 is not in the Ukraine, which gives an indication that drones are not wiping the floor with teh Russian forces as Vann suggests.
The Terminator was going to be equipped with command detonated 30mm cannon shells... and we know there are Terminators in the Ukraine...
I hope they are very careful about neutralizing all AT weapons where t-62s will be used
They are not bog standard T-62s... they have the BDD armour upgrades which offers quite decent protection from RPG rounds as shown in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
It seems like a kh-29T or older kh-59 which also vme with an optical guidance.
It uses a high quality thermal imager... it is not TV guided... I would guess it was either a Kh-38 or a thermal guided Kh-25... or perhaps a thermal guided bomb... the trajectory seems kinda steep for a missile.. and the size of the target would suggest a reasonably heavy weapon would be used so the Kh-38 which carries a payload of 250kg would be more likely IMHO.
It might be a Kh-59MK2 model with the box shape and wings for internal carriage on the Su-57 too of course... the thermals are modern.
Because it's needed, it's all domestic, and uses matured components. It's bullshit that it's not being mass produced.
It is not fully tested and you want to throw it into war?
Risky.
Same for Hermes.
Same for the drel glide bombs.
These have been tested in Syria so using them in Ukraine would make sense... but I suspect Vikhr and Ataka and Khrisantema are already doing a good job.
But most of all, derivatsiya. I want the Russian army to be ble to give 100% of quadcopters a lifespan of minutes, and I don't want any Ukrainian Twitter accounts posting footage from their drones.
I would think it would be easier to load up the command detonation 30mm rounds into a few Terminators and use those to test the concept first.
Su 57 is a hunter killer, designed right from the outset to detect and destroy enemy stealth aircraft. Why un necessarily use it against Ukrainian s whose Air Force and SAM systems have already been destroyed.
The Su-57 is not an interceptor fighter only like the F-22 was originally or the F-15C is... it was intended to engage ground targets too, so practise of attacking ground targets would be useful and interesting... especially if a sneaky attack is required like an HQ target that is emitting signals or a target that Humint has warned about that might have people you want to get but are afraid that launching a missile might give them too much warning to get out.
Su-57 would be good for getting Zelensky and his clan when the time is right.
In all fairness though, those M60s are more advanced than any T-62M.
They might have fancier optics but their armour is no better...
This is concerning. The hermes is taking far to long to be put into service, so much so that the ukrainians have truck mounted brimstones, but russians have 0 truck mounted small surface to surface missiles. the israelis also have had spike NLOS since the 2010s. What made these missiles be put into service and mass produced unlike the hermes, given that russians have far superior missile technology?
Stop looking at the infomercial and look at the facts on the ground... Russia has had no problems cleaning up the armoured vehicles of the Ukraine, yet still manages to operate with the vehicles they have which suggests that Kiev cannot say the same regarding Russian armour.
A truck mounted Brimstone is not the same as Vikhr and Khrisantema on Hokums and Havocs...
Brimstone is supposed to have a range of 40km or something ridiculous... but tell me how will its super advanced MMW radar sensor tell the difference between a Ukrainian tank and a Russian tank?
I would expect a lot of own goals.... assuming it even finds any targets... but most importantly it is an opportunity for Russia to get a good look at the system and work out how to defeat it... TOR and Pantsir already can shoot down Hellfire missiles so Brimstone shouldn't be any problem...
This war should be a proving ground for Russian prototype weapons. You cant perfect a system effectively without real combat.
It is but I suspect it would be more valuable to test anti drone systems than new anti armour weapons simply because I suspect the Russian forces will struggle to find enough Ukrainian tanks to test it on.
The bottom line is that ukrainians have brimstones. Russians have 0 hermes.
The bottom line is that so far the effect of thousands of NLAWs and thousands of Javelins the Russians still seem to have a lot of tanks, but the Orcs don't so the need for Hermes for Russian forces is low... but then how can we assume they are not using Hermes?
Meanwhile ukrainians are sending all their nazi on the front which keep being destroyed. This war isn't only against Ukraine but against western system.
The nazis so keen to kill Russians don't seem to be in a rush to get to the front line but they are being chewed up too which is changing the balance from a Nazi dominated force to a force where nazis are a minority and don't control anything... which is where Russia is trying to take the Ukraine... which as you say takes time.
Turkey upgraded them with 120mm guns if I remember correctly and with modern optics and fire computers.
Their guns weren't their problem... their armour is average... worse than up armoured T-62s.
I think this is impossible to achieve for Russia in Ukraine but also for NATO to achieve this against a peer or near pear opponent.
The definition of air superiority is not that you can operate where you please and never take casualties in aircraft... it just means you control the air and can use it but you wont lose your entire air force in using air power.
What Vann is confusing with air superiority is air supremacy where you completely dominate the air and anything taking to the air is destroyed before it can do anything, while your own aircraft can operate with reasonable safety in most places.
The advent of drones that can pop up from anywhere makes air supremacy against a peer enemy nonsence.
And to be clear Ukraine being a former Soviet state has much higher concentrations of air defence vehicles and units than HATO forces have so defeating every air defence vehicle in the Ukraine would be unlikely by any enemy force, whereas doing the same against a HATO force is quite realistic and likely... while HATO being able to achieve the same over Russia would be zero which is a serious and critical issue for HATO which is so air power centric for attack and defence.
Now, and I'am no expert on this, I always was teached that the Russian armed forces relied more on rockets, tactical ballistic missiles and artillery to get the same job done were NATO uses its air force for.
That is very true, and the Su-25 and Hind used rockets a lot but in direct fire mode to get the accuracy required to make them effective.
Since the end of the cold war however the Russians have developed systems that allow lofted delivery of rockets and presumably bombs to extend their delivery range outside of the air defence capacity of the target... something ignored in the west who prefer using rather more expensive guided weapons.
Toss bombing is only used in the west for nuclear bombs to increase the distance from the aircraft and the explosion during low altitude delivery.
They have thermal optics and updates FCS. T-62M, not so much.
And they are vulnerable to ATGMs from the 1980s like Faggot, and Metis-M.
I hope that T-62 will not be used anywhere where heavy fighting is going on. This tank is not for modern day fighting anymore.
Especially, since Russia has 7-8000 T-72 in reserve.
Those 7-8K T-72s don't have thermals and advanced FCS fitted either... so marginally better armour than the up armoured T-62s and a better gun... but against troops in trenches what advantage is that exactly?
I have to disagree with this,
On the Russian border, Russian situational awareness is top level
You are right... with all their lauded situational awareness and JSTARS and AWACS they didn't hit a single Scud launcher before it had launched its missile during the entire conflict despite having such air superiority and as mentioned they lost a lot of planes to fairly basic air defence systems...
There has never been a situation where the attacker has no fears for teh safety of their aircraft and there is no chance of a loss of aircraft or sneak attack.
ok remind me which T-62M has a pretty modern FCS and at least thermal optics for the gunner?
Remind me which Ukrainian tank is currently operating on the front lines that would require a modern FCS to hit?
Bunkers don't move so if you hit it with your second shot it still gets destroyed... firing at targets 500m to 1km ahead of the vehicle supporting infantry working their way up to enemy positions is what they will be using it for.
And what it will be fine for.
Base T-72 is much better tank than base M60. That's not even for debate. I'm puzzled why Russians activated T-62 with so many T-72 in reserve.
Perhaps because a T-62/M60 like tank is good enough for the job... and they might have other plans for those T-72s.
and you believe in that because ?
let me guess , the west said so?
You think the Russians wont notice rockets coming from MLRS vehicles travelling 300km?
If they can shoot down Tochkas then they can shoot down ATCMS easily enough too.
And when they do they can then start targeting things they have not been hitting so far... like sites in the Ukraine that western intell operate in, and of course they can hammer all the storage areas for everything in the Ukraine and of course simply burn this years harvest of grain and the silos and infrastructure...
The USSR lag in microelectronics dates back to the invention of the transistor and semiconductor. Putin didn't invent this issue, but he certainly didn't close the gap.
The lag in consumer electronics was clear and obvious but the lag in military systems didn't exist... hense PESA radar arrays on interceptors in the Soviet Union in the 1980s... the west didn't get AESAs till the 21st Century...
T-14 will never get introduced in full until they get rid of the old stuff
The new vehicle families are a new concept in armoured warfare... using the same engine and wheels and transmission in every vehicle in an armoured force means the logistics tail is much shorter and more efficient making the force rather smaller and more mobile and also more unified because there are not hard and soft vehicles... they all have similar levels of protection making them better protected than units of today.
If anything, take T-72B from the storage install ERA and that tank beats T-62 in every aspect.
Which is not to say the T-62 is not already good enough for what they expect of them.... it is a much simpler and lighter vehicle with reasonable protection and a decent gun.
With the correct tactics they will be fine... with the wrong tactics... well any tank is junk in that situation.
Why do the russians never use S-24 and S-25 rockets for their aircraft?
The S-25 are used and are popular, but are essentially rocket powered 150kg bombs and are used against rather hard targets... there is a laser guided model of the S-25 for smaller targets, but also HE and HE Frag rockets.
The unguided S-24 has a similar effective range and a slightly lighter warhead of 125kgs.
Was it a case of Russia being reluctant to deploy them over fears NATO will snoop data on them (which is now going to happen anyway), or a case of bad organization?
Most likely the former... plus they were likely shooting down plenty of enemy drones every day and underestimated the number of drones the west is clearly supplying to them so although they are getting shot down they are being replaced rapidly.
Allied forces make extensive use of the same class of COTS UAVs that share the same vulnerabilities to EW which complicates things.
It is going to be valuable experience for the Russian forces to learn to deal wiht enemy drones without effecting the ability of their own drones to do their work.
Why do they need to do more of this? Su-57 is not needed. Russian UAVs have destroyed similar factories a few dozen times.
And Kalibres and Kinzhals and a variety of other air launched weapons have also taken out such targets too.
Testing Su-57s might be interesting but I would be keeping it for a decapitation attack to wipe out Zelensky and his entire team when the time is right... hopefully when they are meeting their US handlers... in Brussels...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Briefing by Russian Defence Ministry 
The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation continue the special military operation in Ukraine. 
High-precision long-range air-based missiles of the Russian Aerospace Forces have destroyed industrial buildings of the smithy-mechanical plant on the outskirts of Lozovaya (Kharkov Region), where the AFU armoured vehicles were being rebuilt and repaired.
In total, 190 Ukrainian aircraft and 129 helicopters, 1,127 unmanned aerial vehicles, 330 anti-aircraft missile systems, 3,424 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 473 multiple launch rocket systems, 1,795 field artillery and mortars, as well as 3,446 units of special military vehicles were destroyed during the operation.
Arrow
