Russian special military operation in Ukraine #21

lyle6 wrote:

Sujoy wrote:Modularized pods seems to be the way forward for any modern multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS).

Pods are the poor man's answer to having dedicated vehicles for each munition weight class. And like most el cheapo solutions they are false economy: a heavy duty truck fitted with sophisticated fire direction capabilities for long range BM is supposed to moonlight as an old Ural firing unguided Grad rockets.    

The more I think about it the less the concept makes sense. The supposed allure of self-reloadable MLRS like M270 is that they can load pods from the ground without assistance. Yeah, but what about the part where you're just making up yet another security headache - you now need to guard a few pods from attack. At least with a transloader the launcher merely has to meet them halfway, 10 minutes reload and after you both go on your merry way.

Western weapons are infested with gimmickry. The huckster culture of primarily the US which has permeated into the Europe as well.
This gimmickry clearly dominates the minds of western fanbois who think that every gimmick is a game changer and proves innate
superiority over the primitive enemy.

kvs wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

Sujoy wrote:Modularized pods seems to be the way forward for any modern multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS).

Pods are the poor man's answer to having dedicated vehicles for each munition weight class. And like most el cheapo solutions they are false economy: a heavy duty truck fitted with sophisticated fire direction capabilities for long range BM is supposed to moonlight as an old Ural firing unguided Grad rockets.    

The more I think about it the less the concept makes sense. The supposed allure of self-reloadable MLRS like M270 is that they can load pods from the ground without assistance. Yeah, but what about the part where you're just making up yet another security headache - you now need to guard a few pods from attack. At least with a transloader the launcher merely has to meet them halfway, 10 minutes reload and after you both go on your merry way.

Western weapons are infested with gimmickry.   The huckster culture of primarily the US which has permeated into the Europe as well.
This gimmickry clearly dominates the minds of western fanbois who think that every gimmick is a game changer and proves innate
superiority over the primitive enemy.  

Merely proves you don't understand anything about logistics or operational cost.

The ability to change pods thus able to change armaments and only require one vehicles to use them greatly reduces all the spare parts and such you need when operating various vehicles and makes production a whole gell of a lot easier.

Clueless fanboys alright, but that's you

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

Ukraine failed to destroy this bridge and they may struggle to destroy any of these bridges in future - but we'll see.

They haven't even tried to destroy them because there is no need to as of now, why are you making false accusations.

This is normally the moment when any discussion with you becomes pointless - when you falsely accuse people...whilst you are actually the guilty party!
The Antonovskiy Bridge on the Dnepr was attacked by Ukraine. This is the bridge I am talking about - and they failed to destroy it.

VARGR198 wrote:

https://twitter.com/RoyalIntel_/status/1551120710692737025

Moldova knows what happens when you attack Russian peacekeepers - Georgian war which lasted 12 days, but in this scenario Moldova will lose within 2 days. Moldova won't be attacking any Russian peacekeepers unless it feels suicidal.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Merely proves you don't understand anything about logistics or operational cost.

The ability to change pods thus able to change armaments and only require one vehicles to use them greatly reduces all the spare parts and such you need when operating various vehicles and makes production a whole gell of a lot easier.

Clueless fanboys alright, but that's you

All of this boil down to the cost components.

From the same ammount of money, includign sustainment and operation cost, what system could give the same capability for less?

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

Ukraine failed to destroy this bridge and they may struggle to destroy any of these bridges in future - but we'll see.

All this hoo-haa about the HIMARS just for a few potholes on Antonovsky bridge that can be repaired in a day's work

And some of ya'll acted like the sky was falling when the Ukraine started using this weapons system and Arestovich was promising an offensive in Kherson.

Mir wrote:

This is normally the moment when any discussion with you becomes pointless - when you falsely accuse people...whilst you are actually the guilty party!
The Antonovskiy Bridge on the Dnepr was attacked by Ukraine. This is the bridge I am talking about - and they failed to destroy it.

He has a point though. These bridges will be destroyed if Ukrainians see that they will lose control over them. They destroyed dozens of bridges during withdrawal.

flamming_python wrote:

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

Ukraine failed to destroy this bridge and they may struggle to destroy any of these bridges in future - but we'll see.

All this hoo-haa about the HIMARS just for a few potholes on Antonovsky bridge that can be repaired in a day's work

And some of ya'll acted like the sky was falling when the Ukraine started using this weapons system and Arestovich was promising an offensive in Kherson.

I thought we where referring to the bridges else were the only reason Ukraine failed to total that particular bridge is because the russians moved to fast and gave them no time to plant charges etc.

when destroying large bridges like these you need to destroy them at the base and Ukraine will have more then enough time to rig the explosives for this purpose

Thats not going to happen again, there will be no surprise. Ukraine will total any bridge Russia comes close to, so acting like Ukraine cannot destroy them is moronic as they have destroyed many many bridges already and trying to this one bridge has an example of why they can't is also stupid, it was a unique circumstance at the start of the war.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

Ukraine failed to destroy this bridge and they may struggle to destroy any of these bridges in future - but we'll see.

All this hoo-haa about the HIMARS just for a few potholes on Antonovsky bridge that can be repaired in a day's work

And some of ya'll acted like the sky was falling when the Ukraine started using this weapons system and Arestovich was promising an offensive in Kherson.

I thought we where referring to the bridges else were the only reason Ukraine failed to total that particular bridge is because the russians moved to fast and gave them no time to plant charges etc.

when destroying large bridges like these you need to destroy them at the base and Ukraine will have more then enough time to rig the explosives for this purpose

Thats not going to happen again, there will be no surprise. Ukraine will total any bridge Russia comes close to, so acting like Ukraine cannot destroy them is moronic as they have destroyed many many bridges already and trying to this one bridge has an example of why they can't is also stupid, it was a unique circumstance at the start of the war.

I'm talking about the threat of using the HIMARS systems to destroy the bridge in Kherson region and cut the Russian group of forces there from resupply, ripe for an encirclement operation by the million-man army Kiev is getting ready to introduce in theatre

I mean Himmers could cause a collapse of a small portion if it hits the same area over and over.

As you saw from the images Himmer is highly accurate (etc all the rockets hit within feet of each other) it has good enough range to fire, move and rinse and repeat.

So in Theory Himmers could damage the bridge enough to prevent large scale support from crossing.

Now will that happen? Unlikely.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has confirmed striking targets in the major Ukrainian port of Odessa on Saturday, revealing that its missiles hit military infrastructure and arms stockpiles.

“In the seaport of Odessa, on the territory of a shipyard, a docked Ukrainian warship and a warehouse of Harpoon anti-ship missiles, supplied by the US to the Kiev regime, have been destroyed by sea-based high-precision long-range missiles,” the ministry said on Sunday.

Hole wrote:

How far away from the grain storage was the Russian missile strike?
It looks rather close on that map, but there is no scale to work from.

I thought we where referring to the bridges else were the only reason Ukraine failed to total that particular bridge is because the russians moved to fast and gave them no time to plant charges etc.

Planting bombs around a bridge take few minutes frankly. They had all the time they needed. They probably though they could do some counter offensive and retake territories.

Anyway Russia has a lot of experience creating pantoon bridges now so even if they destroy them that won't stop russian moving forwards.

Isos wrote:

I thought we where referring to the bridges else were the only reason Ukraine failed to total that particular bridge is because the russians moved to fast and gave them no time to plant charges etc.

Planting bombs around a bridge take few minutes frankly. They had all the time they needed. They probably though they could do some counter offensive and retake territories.

Anyway Russia has a lot of experience creating pantoon bridges now so even if they destroy them that won't stop russian moving forwards.

Arm chair experts yo~

Depends on the bridge...how much explosives you need. etc it will not take a few minutes, I have blown bridges.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Merely proves you don't understand anything about logistics or operational cost.

The ability to change pods thus able to change armaments and only require one vehicles to use them greatly reduces all the spare parts and such you need when operating various vehicles and makes production a whole gell of a lot easier.

Clueless fanboys alright, but that's you

You don't want to compromise for a system which is already cheap and able to bring mass fire on the enemy

For example, in designing 1 vehicle you compromise on size of ballistic missile, as well as carrying capacity of rockets

What you end up getting is a half assed solution, unable to deliver good salvo on Rockets, and able to deliver small and short ranged ballistic missiles

It is preferable to have a separate vehicle to carry a ballistic missile like Iskander or Tochka U , and to allow that crew to have a separate mission, namely targets which are hardened or far from the front

While regular MLRS truck focuses on counterbattery and saturation fire on a frontline or near frontline target

There's no need to compromise when these systems should have a segregated mission

HIMARS carries 6 - 227mm rockets or 1 ATACMS 300km missile

I'd rather keep my 12 salvo Uragan or Tornado, and my 2 round Iskander with 500km capability, and kalibr winged variant for different strike mission

On Tornado launcher pods are included, but as a reload solution, not to have rockets and ballistic missiles crammed onto 1 platform

So from an efficiency standpoint pods make sense, but not from reducing the types of vehicles standpoint

You still want a dedicated ballistic missile platform

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

I thought we where referring to the bridges else were the only reason Ukraine failed to total that particular bridge is because the russians moved to fast and gave them no time to plant charges etc.

Planting bombs around a bridge take few minutes frankly. They had all the time they needed. They probably though they could do some counter offensive and retake territories.

Anyway Russia has a lot of experience creating pantoon bridges now so even if they destroy them that won't stop russian moving forwards.

Arm chair experts yo~

Depends on the bridge...how much explosives you need. etc it will not take a few minutes, I have blown bridges.

They can easily just pack 125mm shells around the base or on one portion to create a big hole and at least damage it to make too dangerous for tanks to drive on.

C4 should also be available in good quantity.

caveat emptor wrote:

Mir wrote:

This is normally the moment when any discussion with you becomes pointless - when you falsely accuse people...whilst you are actually the guilty party!
The Antonovskiy Bridge on the Dnepr was attacked by Ukraine. This is the bridge I am talking about - and they failed to destroy it.

He has a point though. These bridges will be destroyed if Ukrainians see that they will lose control over them. They destroyed dozens of bridges during withdrawal.

For most part they destroyed the bridges around cities and villages --- in order to stop civilians from fleeing.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

I thought we where referring to the bridges else were the only reason Ukraine failed to total that particular bridge is because the russians moved to fast and gave them no time to plant charges etc.

when destroying large bridges like these you need to destroy them at the base and Ukraine will have more then enough time to rig the explosives for this purpose

Thats not going to happen again, there will be no surprise. Ukraine will total any bridge Russia comes close to, so acting like Ukraine cannot destroy them is moronic as they have destroyed many many bridges already and trying to this one bridge has an example of why they can't is also stupid, it was a unique circumstance at the start of the war.

By the time the Russians will get near the bridges on the Dnepr in the central and northern parts, the Ukrs will have no time to think about destroying these bridges. All they will think about is dodging Russian artillery and air strikes whilst running.

The best they could do in the south was long range HIMARS attacks - that failed.

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Yes and no.

Ukraine will destroy them anyways if the russians get to close, and Ukraine is using these bridges to send supplies over, if the bridges are going to be blown up anyways you may has well slow supplies down for your enemy by destroying them, Russia isn't capturing those bridges in one piece

Ukraine failed to destroy this bridge and they may struggle to destroy any of these bridges in future - but we'll see.

They haven't even tried to destroy them because there is no need to as of now, why are you making false accusations.

This is normally the moment when any discussion with you becomes pointless - when you falsely accuse people...whilst you are actually the guilty party!
The Antonovskiy Bridge on the Dnepr was attacked by Ukraine. This is the bridge I am talking about - and they failed to destroy it.

I guess this is some other (smaller) bridge in the area which was also lightly damaged.

Erk wrote:

Hole wrote:

How far away from the grain storage was the Russian missile strike?
It looks rather close on that map, but there is no scale to work from.

Roughly 1km

@Ark

Ballistic missiles and MLRs systems are two DIFFERENT THINGS, this entire rant of yours was completely pointless dude.

I was comment on the post about MLRs not BML systems.

Geez before you get triggered to do some defensive post think first

Hole wrote:
I guess this is some other (smaller) bridge in the area which was also lightly damaged.

Well this proves that the Russians are going places with this bridge

Hole wrote:
Roughly 1km

Oh, then it falls within the crummy Russian missile CEP.

Hole wrote:
Roughly 1km

Unlike the NATzo high precision weapons that normally cause a lot of "collateral damage" - the Russian one's are HIGH PRECISION!