Russian special military operation in Ukraine #22

ALAMO wrote:
Why you insist to compare something that runs in higher league is a mystery for me, but be my guest

He is obviously a troll, but with all his trolling he has clearly demonstrated his lack of basic military knowledge on several occasions now.
When things turn south for him the response is usually "You are a liar!"

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Ah fanboy BS,

Why do you keep trying to go on about salvo load? oh right because that's the only point you can bring up

HIMARS isn't designed with that in mind, its designed to hit a needle in a haystack, it's a tactical MLRS designed to strike very specific points strategic points and that's what its been used for and has done so.

"Fanboy" seems to be your only response while ignoring what for instance I and others have posted regarding the accuracy and range. HIMARS isn't bad at all, it is actually quite good, however, you make it appear like it is a Sniper tool and better than SMERCH while it is indeed inferior at range, area covered, damage potential and costs. If a 300mm Smerch round with 90/130kg payload lands in 10m CEP of it's target will not matter, they are dead. HIMARS accuarcy is about 7m CEP, which isn't precisely big difference for a a rocket that size and payload, it won't matter to soft targets and for anything harder than a usual civilian building you need bunker-buster capability anyways. So accuracy makes no difference for this sized missiles and payload.

Yes, HIMARS is indeed nothing else but trying to be a cheap version of an Iskander with low range, low payload and "low cost". While Iskander's production line was ramped up and one missile costs roughly 275.00 0 USD and one HIMARS 227mm Rocket costs 100.000 USD. As a tactical MRLS(Surface-to-Surface) it is overpriced with not even a 20% of the capabilities an Iskander has.

The US has indeed no MLRS system for high intensity war. The US was always a Naval/Aviation force while Russia was and will always be a land force super power with not rivals in that field. Artillery (Howitzers, Towed-Howitzers, MRLS and Mortars) are Gods of the battlefield and the only thing Russia needs to do is keep pounding all airfields, weapons depots, logistic centres and deny aviation and naval in it's vicinity. Most of that is covered by Russia's advanced PGM's like cruise missiles and SAM's. In 1980's during Afghanistan war the Soviet Union has produced more than 2 Million Artillery and Mortar rounds. Russia's  1970's stock hasn't even been depleted and 80's stock is untouched. Even with the corruption and sell out of some warehouses during the 90's. In the 9Y0's mainly Ukraine suffered from selling it's war stock to the world (Lord of War) is based on that period of time. You can make your own guess what can Russia do to the entire European countries and cities if it would decide to go the democratization route the US  has invented.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Also Smerch is not more mobile you literally just lied buddy.

Please own up to your words and provide the definition for "mobility" and please don't be a shit talker without proving what you say.

I liked many of your comments due to the fact that you had to some degree sober response to certain events or aspects and closer to reality, however, in this case you are just talking bollocks.

Mir wrote:
He is obviously a troll, but with all his trolling he has clearly demonstrated his lack of basic military knowledge on several occasions now.
When things turn south for him the response is usually "You are a liar!" Laughing Laughing

He is not a troll. He is like a politician who run his mouth without researching and now has to go this faulty route with excuses and will not be able proof any of his claims. He can't admit if he was wrong. Politician quality of excuses.

Claims made:

-HIMARS is a tactical MLRS (its designed to hit a needle in a haystack)
- It has a higher mobility
- Smerch is inferior

It has nothing to do with schizophrenia.
And a lot to do with a need to convict themselves.
The problem is, that sometimes we discuss things with folks who can't understand the basics.
Not because they are stupid, but living in an alternate universe.
It is hard for someone who lives in a house made of wood&board all his life, and that is the only standard he knows, what "a hardened target" means.
This Artemovsky bridge saga is something like that.
The target was picked&approved by the NATO chain of command and on-field advisers.
They really thought that a 227mm system with 120kg HE warhead will kill a bridge made in the 80s to withstand a nuclear blast
Entire NATO sucks at artillery. They won't admit that, so we will have all that bullshit coming. A light, inexpensive&simple MLRS will be pushed in propaganda as some sort of hammer of Thor or something
People really are using the insane price of a single missile for the system ... to prove how supa dupa it is because they can't name the real advantages. As those are nonexistent.
If you take a Grad out of a context, what you will get is a HIMARS. Only made 40 years earlier Sure the caliber is half of it, but the delivery is heavier. With new missiles, its range hit 40+ km, and with the latest correction packages, it can be used to pinpoint strikes when needed, not aerial coverage. A funny fact is, that HIMARS and M270 is not capable for heavy aerial bombardment, which proved to be devastating to both gear&troops, not to mention the morale. It was a massive aerial bombardment that broke the neck of Ukro army in 2015. Dobalcevo and Ilovaisk are both effects of devastating firepower delivered by a massive aerial bombardment provided by multiple Grad salvos. And how in detail we can expect it will be commented by a people representing a way of thinking, that a howitzer will fire few rounds per hour?

Mir wrote:

He is obviously a troll, but with all his trolling he has clearly demonstrated his lack of basic military knowledge on several occasions now.
When things turn south for him the response is usually "You are a liar!"    

A kiddo way I would say
I will tell your mom!!!

Werewolf wrote:

"Fanboy" seems to be your only response while ignoring what for instance I and others have posted regarding the accuracy and range. HIMARS isn't bad at all, it is actually quite good, however, you make it appear like it is a Sniper tool and better than SMERCH while it is indeed inferior at range, area covered, damage potential and costs. If a 300mm Smerch round with 90/130kg payload lands in 10m CEP of it's target will not matter, they are dead. HIMARS accuarcy is about 7m CEP, which isn't precisely big difference for a a rocket that size and payload, it won't matter to soft targets and for anything harder than a usual civilian building you need bunker-buster capability anyways. So accuracy makes no difference for this sized missiles and payload.

To begin with, the accuracy for non-guided ballistic missiles like the most used for MLRS is measured with a distance deviation. The longer you shoot, the bigger the CEP is. Making a comparison for 32km round and 70/90 km round is clueless. That applies to M26 and it's derivatives.
A short fact check : all corrected missiles for M143 and M270 are carrying smaller warheads, and that is the clue of it's bigger, 70km range if we compare it to lets say BM21. Modified missiles, made in Poland, Bulgaria or Russia reach 40+km without decreasing the warhead mass.
A thermobaric warhead for 300mm Smerch has a sole blast radius of at least 25m, while the combination of pressure and blast wave covers about 70m. A maximal range CEP is lower than that, which makes a whole discussion pointless. You will be dead anyway.
If the mission is to hit a positional target with a solid monoblock warhead, a whole shooting sequence is different. One does not shoot salvos, but single rounds that can be corrected via observation means, let it be own T90 that can transmit visual data all way back, and hover over the target for 20-30 min. You can put a whole load of a battery in a 50m radius, which will deliver a secured direct hit to any structure.
The spread of missiles you see when firing salvo is due to the inevitable movement of the chassis, and can be resolved by slowing the fire rate. It all depends on the character of a target and the mission objective. US systems are nowhere close in the versatility, so the only thing left is put more propaganda.
A poor man's bastard of Uragan and Iskander masqueraded as a God of war ... well ... if one's ego needs this kind of ridiculous way of flattering himself ...

MLRS systems were not designed to be used as PGM weapons and Russia has not used MLRS single rocket in a highly crowded civilian Area against military targets.

We know they have developed a guided version of the Smerch rocket... the purpose of guided would be to be able to selectively hit a precise target amongst non targets... the smaller payload of the Smerch rocket would actually be of benefit in this case reducing the radius of damage and containing it within the area the target is occupying at the time.

Hitting the same target with Iskander (a shorter fatter missile with a 500-600kg warhead) or a cruise missile like Calibre (right length but no wings visible and no visible tail surface control fins either and also a 400kg HE warhead) would create a lot more damage nearby and it seems to be in a well built up area with civilians.

The smaller warhead of a guided Smerch would make more sense in this case assuming it was accurate enough to get where it was put... which is the whole point of guided.

Looks more like the UK is running out of "instructors" that are being send through the meat grinder back in Banderastan.

I would say the UK military is full of soldiers who know exactly what is happening in the Ukraine and likely do not want to train soldiers to go and die by artillery or air strike... which no training can protect you from if your commanders order you to take well defended enemy positions that are just waiting for you to step out into the no mans land for slaughter... let Canadian and Swedish instructors tell them what to do and build their hopes up and send them to slaughter.

The first few hundred recruits are receiving instruction at sites across Britain in the first phase of program that aims to train up to 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers in weapons handling, battlefield first aid and patrol tactics,

Oh, weapons handling, first aid and patrol tactics... you didn't say they were getting special forces training...

To repeat what Lyle said...

This is just cruel. This war is an artillery and missile war. No amount of infantry training can make up for the insane deficit in firepower the Ukrainian soldier would face on the battlefield. Just give them the couple of months with their families, and then bus them to the front afterwards. It won't matter either way.

Better still let them choose their own barracks... have one set up with nazi uniforms and pictures of Hitler, and the other made out like a normal UK barracks... give the nazis the training and then send them back to the Ukraine... the other ones just hang on to till the war is over or train them in regime change tactics and send them to Kiev.

When it detects radar emmission it homes in otherwise it self destructed.

Which explains finding fragments rather than a missile wrapped around a radar...

Smerch is not an equivalent of HIMARS, and someone who is stating that is either misinformed, with agenda in mind, or stupid.

The Guided Smerch rocket is the equivalent of HIMARS, but as a system Hermes is closer... but probably still not as expensive as HIMARS and with better guidance options that would include more than satellite guidance.

Again, this all bullshit is a commercial campaign targeting potential buyers across Europe. Nothing more.

Which is ironic because HATO members don't usually get much of a choice anyway...

May have been 45,000kg not 45,000,000kg. Certainly more believable.

Might include launch vehicles and other material, and of course all ordinance is very carefully packaged too...

About this Harm , why they need it ? Why not keep using Himars ?

HARM is fire and forget and could be launched ahead of a rocket barrage to try to take out Russian battlefield radar that they use to track their artillery and both try to shoot down the rockets and shells but also locate the guns and launchers so they can be attacked.

Obvious problem of course is that HARM is a very easy weapon for Russian air defence systems to shoot down, so actually in their arse about way it would work better launching it after firing a salvo of artillery shells and artillery rockets in the hope it might sneak through and catch the radar while the AD systems are being overwhelmed... but they talk about missile fragments being found... I rather doubt they were wrapped around a radar antenna at the time.

Most Russian battlefield radars have corner reflectors located nearby and if a radar thinks it is under attack it can direct a pencil thin tracking beam at the corner reflector in a direction where the reflected energy will divert the incoming missile away from the radar and have it explode HARMlessly. A corner reflector is just three pieces of metal wielded together to reflect a radar signal... you can make them from scrap metal if you want and they are cheap.

HARMS were fired in their thousands in Kosovo and didn't hit didly squat... ALARMS were much more capable and dangerous but not sure they were much more successful.

HIMARS isn't designed with that in mind, its designed to hit a needle in a haystack, it's a tactical MLRS designed to strike very specific points strategic points and that's what its been used for and has done so.

HIMARS is a missile system... like Hermes... it is too expensive to be used as rocket artillery.

Also Smerch is not more mobile you literally just lied buddy.

300mm SMERCH and 220mm Uragan and 122mm Grad are all very mobile... their only rocket launcher able to negotiate rougher terrain is the 220mm TOS-1 on a T-72 tank chassis.

And generally, I am amazed with the Schizophren view of few.

Totally agree... it is rampant in small arms... 9 x 18mm Makarov pistol rounds are useless but the 9 x 19mm western round is amazing but the 9 x 21mm new Russian cartridge is OK... the 7.62 x 51mm is amazing and a super cartridge for machine guns and sniper rifles but the 7.62 x 54mmR is not, the 12.7x99mm Browning HMG round is amazing and all powerful while the Soviet 12.7 x 108mm is exactly the same... etc etc...

The US has indeed no MLRS system for high intensity war.

They can't deliver cheap mass produced ammo... by making it guided they can charge more per missile by claiming it works out cheaper.

Obviously it works out cheaper against point single targets you would normally fire a 203mm or 152mm guided shell at, but most of the time rocket artillery is used in a heavy barrage in which case guidance is a waste of money.

Even the earliest Smerch rockets had built in gyros... they were relatively cheap but did not improve precision... they didn't get the rockets on target... what they did was steer the rockets to keep them together so none strayed off by itself so they all landed together in a group... because they are used against area targets.

Each rocket can cover x amount of area with its fragments... when the target is an enemy artillery batter with towed guns placed ready to fire, their trucks that towed them there sitting 20m away and each gun 30-40m apart no single rocket is going to get more than one gun or one truck... but a volley of 24 rockets delivering airburst bomblets could obliterate every truck and gun and soldier in that field in a few seconds... not time to run.

The 9N176 Smerch rocket is a cluster bomb equipped rocket that carries HEAT fragmentation submunitions... each rocket carries 646 munitions... or just HE Frag the 9N139 carries 72 fragmentation bomblets per rocket... if there is armour nearby the 9N152 carries 5 sensor fused submunitions with self forging fragments and MMW radar and IR sensors using top attack self forging fragments... these are not their latest rockets...

To begin with, the accuracy for non-guided ballistic missiles like the most used for MLRS is measured with a distance deviation. The longer you shoot, the bigger the CEP is. Making a comparison for 32km round and 70/90 km round is clueless. That applies to M26 and it's derivatives.

My understanding is that all Smerch rockets that don't actually have guidance or need it (like the drone rocket or Illumination rockets) have a gyro system to keep the groups together by resisting the effect of wind on the groupings... not making them more accurate, but making them land closer together than they otherwise should.

If the mission is to hit a positional target with a solid monoblock warhead, a whole shooting sequence is different. One does not shoot salvos, but single rounds that can be corrected via observation means, let it be own T90 that can transmit visual data all way back, and hover over the target for 20-30 min. You can put a whole load of a battery in a 50m radius, which will deliver a secured direct hit to any structure.

Smerch and Uragan and Grad are what they are... systems for hitting area targets all at once with enormous volumes of HE and fragments or munitions or fire.

To make them more versatile there are guided versions, but they are already developing ground based HERMES for pin point targets on the ground up to 100km away with guidance including MMW radar and satellite guidance and likely IIR guided models as well so it should be able to engage fixed as well as moving targets.

HIMARS is an American HERMES because MLRS are too cheap to make a decent profit from so they perverted the concept to surgical strike.

MLRS replaced a lot of US artillery when it was introduced because it was so expensive, and now it is too expensive to use as actual artillery.

I seem to remember discussions here about how amazeballs the M777 was and why didn't Russia have anything like it and why was Russian artillery so shit and so awful, while western artillery is so amazeballs.

You see Caesar and PZH2000 and M777 are all ledges... can you not read marketing material?

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:
Concerning ARM use it can be easily transformed for ground to ground use. Exocets were transformed in Argentina to be used on airplanes when they were sold for only ship use back in the malvinas war.

The range of it would put f-18 in direct view of the radars. And if launched from the air it means its US planes because no su- or mig can.

They probably launched it in a general direction in hope it finds a radar and lock-on.

Argentina had a couple of French Super Etendards in service back then - which was the only aircraft they had that could launch the Exocet missiles as far as I know?

A ground launched Harm ARM would be possible but the already fairly short range of the missile would be even worse. I can only think that they are somehow launching them from whatever fighter aircraft they may have left.  

They had french engineers doing maintenance on them when the war started. Some sources say they were tasked to modifiy the exocets taken from ship that were no longer used into air launched exocet.

Plane used was indeed Super Etandards but back then they didn't had a universal missile like kh-35U that can be used by any launcher. Ship based and aircraft based exocet were and are still different. But adapting them on other launchers isn't extraordinary diificult. Some software changes sometimes are enough.

I doubt ukro soviet jets were modified to launch ARMs. They are from different origins. I stick with my idea of a ground launch which is very easy to do. Even houti easily used r-27 from the ground. Ukros have Raython doing all the work or them. Such changes can be made in 1 or 2 months. For sporadic launches it's a good solution.

Small range for sure but still better than using tjem from ircraft that would be shot down before having the opportunity to use them. Survivability of ground launchers for them is way better than for airplanes. They can easily bring them 10km away from the front and use them.

Isos wrote:

They had french engineers doing maintenance on them when the war started. Some sources say they were tasked to modifiy the exocets taken from ship that were no longer used into air launched exocet.

Plane used was indeed Super Etandards but back then they didn't had a universal missile like kh-35U that can be used by any launcher. Ship based and aircraft based exocet were and are still different. But adapting them on other launchers isn't extraordinary diificult. Some software changes sometimes are enough.

I'm sure they were able to modify these missiles as ASMs. At the time of the war Argentina had 4 ships that could launch Exocets. Two (British!)Type 42 destroyers each with 4 Exocets and two ex-South African A69 corvettes (French built) each armed with only 2 Exocets, but I have read somewhere that they actually had very few Exocets available. So even though they had some success with the missile against the British, the Argentinians were for most part forced to make daring bombing runs against the British armada.

 
With sun protection for the summer 

Some wild boar on the barbie tonight!

Don't forget the elk stew

I don't know whether the news are true that North Korea is offereing 100,000 soldiers to Russia, but it sounds interesting.

Something like 6 videos out today showing Krasnopol shells in use with what looks like Orlan-10s providing targeting.

https://t.me/HersonVestnik/6797
https://t.me/HersonVestnik/6783
https://t.me/HersonVestnik/6780
https://t.me/boris_rozhin/59886
https://twitter.com/200_zoka/status/1556565505963687936

Seems like a good combo.

SolidarityWithRussia wrote:I don't know whether the news are true that North Korea is offereing 100,000 soldiers to Russia, but it sounds interesting.

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-offering-russia-100k-troops-help-beat-ukraine-reports-2022-8

I wonder if this could be the future of certain types of warfare.
The French have done it for a long time with their foreign legion.
The Americans import blacks and latinos and give them passports if they work in combat.

Saudi Arabia plans to import 50 million people for its post oil export economy. Probably most migrants with be effectively locked inside dsytopian cities like Neom.

Russia can leverage its massive military tech skills and protect its own modest population which is accustomed to peacetime non draft living. If N Koreans want a very good income... why not let them? Perhaps India would be a good recruitment ground too.

Antonovsky bridge across the Dnieper River in the Kherson region after yesterday' HIMARS strikes.

Way to spend millions Ukraine. Good job.
https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/17859

SolidarityWithRussia wrote:I don't know whether the news are true that North Korea is offereing 100,000 soldiers to Russia, but it sounds interesting.

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-offering-russia-100k-troops-help-beat-ukraine-reports-2022-8

Interesting definitely.

IMO the opportunity should be accepted if it's true.
This is big event in the world history after all. I would even call it an ideological battle where the free world confronts American fascism for the first time since the cold war. Hence every country and nation (corrupt governments of them are a different thing) in the world should have incentive to join arms with Russia.

And let's remember that when Korea was attacked by American fascists Russians helped Koreans!



Personally I believe North Koreans would mainly help in reconstruction of liberated territories though. They are under constant threat themselves so I heavily doubt they can send 100k soldiers abroad.

SolidarityWithRussia wrote:I don't know whether the news are true that North Korea is offereing 100,000 soldiers to Russia, but it sounds interesting.

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-offering-russia-100k-troops-help-beat-ukraine-reports-2022-8

IMO North Korea and China would love to send 100k fighter there.

Not really to help but to give their soldiers a real war experience which is the most important for them. Chinese army haven't had any real war since WW2 but the little one against Vietnam.

War experience is more important than having top class weapons.

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:

They had french engineers doing maintenance on them when the war started. Some sources say they were tasked to modifiy the exocets taken from ship that were no longer used into air launched exocet.

Plane used was indeed Super Etandards but back then they didn't had a universal missile like kh-35U that can be used by any launcher. Ship based and aircraft based exocet were and are still different. But adapting them on other launchers isn't extraordinary diificult. Some software changes sometimes are enough.

I'm sure they were able to modify these missiles as ASMs. At the time of the war Argentina had 4 ships that could launch Exocets. Two (British!)Type 42 destroyers each with 4 Exocets and two ex-South African A69 corvettes (French built) each armed with only 2 Exocets, but I have read somewhere that they actually had very few Exocets available. So even though they had some success with the missile against the British, the Argentinians were for most part forced to make daring bombing runs against the British armada.

During the Malvinas War, Argentina had 5 AM-39 Exocet.
In addition, he managed to make an adaptation to fire an MM-38 from land, modifying a launcher from a ship.
It was used from the same Malvinas Islands.

Eugenio Argentina wrote:
During the Malvinas War, Argentina had 5 AM-39 Exocet.
In addition, he managed to make an adaptation to fire an MM-38 from land, modifying a launcher from a ship.
It was used from the same Malvinas Islands.

Geese I knew they only had a couple BUT ONLY 5!
Thanks for the additional info.

Mir wrote:

Eugenio Argentina wrote:
During the Malvinas War, Argentina had 5 AM-39 Exocet.
In addition, he managed to make an adaptation to fire an MM-38 from land, modifying a launcher from a ship.
It was used from the same Malvinas Islands.

Geese I knew they only had a couple BUT ONLY 5!
Thanks for the additional info.

The French stopped the delivery of the rest of the planes and missiles at the beginning of the war, at the request of the United Kingdom.

Mir wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Ah fanboy BS,

Why do you keep trying to go on about salvo load? oh right because that's the only point you can bring up

HIMARS isn't designed with that in mind, its designed to hit a needle in a haystack, it's a tactical MLRS designed to strike very specific points strategic points and that's what its been used for and has done so.

Also Smerch is not more mobile you literally just lied buddy.

Whether you like it or not the point is the Smerch is basically a MLRS with "no analogs" (except for Chinese copies). It is far superior in ALL aspects to the Himars. A single launcher can deliver double the amount of rockets at far greater range than the Himars for starters. You have seen the Smerch's high precision GLONASS rockets and the Smerch's ability to utilize it's own UAV.

The ATACMS is a poor man's Iskander at best - or a rich man's Tochka - whichever you prefer.

If you know anything about mobility you would realize that a 4x4 vehicle normally has pretty ok all-terrain mobility but a 6x6 is better equipped than a 4x4 to handle rough terrain. An 8x8 is even better, that is one of the many reasons why the US developed the Stryker 8x8 wheeled APC's - because the 6x6 LAV-25's lacked the necessary mobility according to the US Military experts.

The Smerch is mounted on a 8x8 chassis. The one thing incorporated into Russian wheeled vehicles is the ability to adjust the tyre pressure on the go according to the terrain. That in itself makes an enormous difference in the vehicles mobility. It makes any of the Russian 8x8 vehicles off-road capabilities virtually equal to that of tracked vehicles.

Now I am not trying to say that the Himars mobility sucks, but to think that it is just so much better than the Smerch (as you want us to believe) is a classic sample of the "Wunderwaffe Syndrome" you are clearly suffering from.

If you knew anything about mobility you'd know power to weight ratio affects speed and acceleration, you'd know turning radius is a thing, you'd know WEIGHT plays a large factor in terrian mobility.

The fact you only mentioned the amount of wheels is frankly funny, Why should I take this comment seriously now?

You say I know nothing about military matters but leave out the dozens of factors that affect mobility? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Its true if the Smerch and Himars weighed the same had the same dimensions, engine power etc then sure their mobility would be similar if not matched or one slightly ending out the offer.

But they don't weigh the same, they do not have the same dimensions and each carries different weight.

But let me help you with an example, you ever drive an Abrams near Swampy ground? probs not if so you'd know Abrams is so heavy it will sink in areas like that, where has russians tanks tend to be lighter to avoid issues like this due to the terrian they expect to operate in.

Point is you comment was hilariously misguided

SolidarityWithRussia wrote:I don't know whether the news are true that North Korea is offereing 100,000 soldiers to Russia, but it sounds interesting.

https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-offering-russia-100k-troops-help-beat-ukraine-reports-2022-8

Western propaganda BS. Russia doesn´t need help. NATO has already lost the war. The regime in Kiev is forcefully recruiting old men, women of all ages and is sending them
to the front with a week or two of basic training. They even send back wounded fighters. Sounds a lot like Germany back in 1944/45.

Belisarius wrote:

The guy shot it down? 

Hole wrote:

Belisarius wrote:

The guy shot it down? 

Judging by the pic he seems to think so!

ALAMO wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

"Fanboy" seems to be your only response while ignoring what for instance I and others have posted regarding the accuracy and range. HIMARS isn't bad at all, it is actually quite good, however, you make it appear like it is a Sniper tool and better than SMERCH while it is indeed inferior at range, area covered, damage potential and costs. If a 300mm Smerch round with 90/130kg payload lands in 10m CEP of it's target will not matter, they are dead. HIMARS accuarcy is about 7m CEP, which isn't precisely big difference for a a rocket that size and payload, it won't matter to soft targets and for anything harder than a usual civilian building you need bunker-buster capability anyways. So accuracy makes no difference for this sized missiles and payload.

To begin with, the accuracy for non-guided ballistic missiles like the most used for MLRS is measured with a distance deviation. The longer you shoot, the bigger the CEP is. Making a comparison for 32km round and 70/90 km round is clueless. That applies to M26 and it's derivatives.
A short fact check : all corrected missiles for M143 and M270 are carrying smaller warheads, and that is the clue of it's bigger, 70km range if we compare it to lets say BM21. Modified missiles, made in Poland, Bulgaria or Russia reach 40+km without decreasing the warhead mass.
A thermobaric warhead for 300mm Smerch has a sole blast radius of at least 25m, while the combination of pressure and blast wave covers about 70m. A maximal range CEP is lower than that, which makes a whole discussion pointless. You will be dead anyway.
If the mission is to hit a positional target with a solid monoblock warhead, a whole shooting sequence is different. One does not shoot salvos, but single rounds that can be corrected via observation means, let it be own T90 that can transmit visual data all way back, and hover over the target for 20-30 min. You can put a whole load of a battery in a 50m radius, which will deliver a secured direct hit to any structure.
The spread of missiles you see when firing salvo is due to the inevitable movement of the chassis, and can be resolved by slowing the fire rate. It all depends on the character of a target and the mission objective. US systems are nowhere close in the versatility, so the only thing left is put more propaganda.
A poor man's bastard of Uragan and Iskander masqueraded as a God of war ... well ... if one's ego needs this kind of ridiculous way of flattering himself ...

That's not accurate at all you are only using one means to justify your comment, Distance Deviation doesn't even matter depending on the type of guidance system, dishonest posts like these are funny. The means to determine missile accuracy varies based on the missile, there is not one universal method to check.

Lies are lies no matter how smart you try and dress them up.

In response to werewolf.

I say fanboy when people are behaving like one and using fanboy logic and this case they are.

Why you gotta lie bud? when did I say HIMARS has longer range? I said its more ACCURATE. Additionally RANGE depends on the missile type.

Next part of your comment, this payload BS you keep going on about, how HARD is this for you guys to understand? Seriously? HIMARS and SMERCH WEREN'T DESIGNED WITH THE SAME STRATEGIC USE IN MIND.

Smerch was designed to be a large salvo system, HIMARS was designed to be a pinpoint delivery system.

They aren't FULFILLING THE SAME COMBAT MISSION. This is why I use the term fanboys, because you just wanna piss and moan about how "Oh my russian systems so much better hur hur"

When really they are designed with different objectives in mind.

What did I say? HIMARS is more accurate and it is, it's more mobile and it is.

Now if you guys weren't so pissy I said HIMARS was better than Smerch at something maybe you'd realize I never said Smerch was bad or totally inferior, its better in other aspects then HIMARS for sure.

This is what makes a fanboy a fanboy pointless bitching their sides weapon got called lesser in an aspect. So yes Wolf, you Mir and the others are behaving like total fanboys for ZERO logical reason other then I said smerch was inferior in two aspects to HIMARS.