Russian special military operation in Ukraine #45

If Russia now change policy and target Orcs and backers out of uniform or in barracks or at home or office , then Mr . Iskanders is overkill , unless in underground concrete bunker or needing nuke warhead . Drone with 50 kg warhead is ok for fixed target exposed above ground that can not walk away . But for walking target with ears , behind brick walls , need something silent and/ or fast that can reach a pizzeria and punters quickly , before they finish eating or texting . Therefore a stealth reusable drone with long range and glide SDB , can not be seen or heard , is needed . These can be purchased . Idea of turning SAM into BM , not bad idea , can programme SAM to turn into glide bomb , on fail to intercept primary target , hitting secondary ground target . Keeping everything else the same . Cheap mods !

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr8lhxOur58&pp=ygUWU0FNIGZhbGxzIGZyb20gdGhlIHNreQ%3D%3D


Yes agree in general with what you say . Providing little or no shortages , then specialist tactic works best , most efficient . That is why many creatures are specialist hunters ..But in unpredictable environment of shortages ( of food in animal kingdom ) then a generalist approach of Swiss Army knife best . This suggestion a cunning plan to disable Russian AD in pointless mods ? Yes could be . Still possible to modify a prototype of two , and use in grid pattern , to see if it work ? At some point SAM falling to Earth like a Brick !

As per the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)

How many Ukrainians have close relatives and friends who were injured / killed due to the Russian invasion ?


The absolute majority of Ukrainians - 78% - have close relatives or friends who were injured or killed due to the Russian invasion . Among those who have such close relatives or friends, the average number (the median value was used) was 7. That is, on average, such respondents have 7 close relatives or friends who were injured or killed.

With:

- 64% of Ukrainians have at least one close relative or friend who was wounded (on average, they have 5 wounded relatives),

- and 63% have at least one close relative or friend who died (on average, they have 3 deceased loved ones).


https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=1254&page=1

Ukrainian monitoring channels again report missile launches from Tu-22M3 of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

As stated, missiles are flying in the direction of Zaporozhye (occupied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine) and Dnepropetrovsk.

We are waiting for more information.

Twitter source

Nothing wrong with using older stock up before it expires, even if your factories are churning out newer missiles. Just means u save yourself the hassle of disposing old stocks which costs money, and you get to keep the newer produced missiles for the more important targets or just to build up a good supply. The Houthis with the help of Iranians turned the Sa-2 into a guided missile with some pretty good success. I remember people harling on about that Russia wasn't getting or didn't need Iranian drones, then when it turned out they did get some and a useful design it was all talk about how good Geran 1 and 2 is cheap and effective.

Russia is fighting scum and up against NATO de facto, and worlds biggest sanctions package (although largely failed with only minor pains) so why shouldn't it save a bit of money and use up old stocks, makes perfect sense why pay money to dispose of old stocks when u can launch them at Nazi scum.

Ukraine had issues with theirs because the S-300 missiles which are sealed in containers expire around 30yrs they have had theirs expired and most likely kept in poor conditions hence the issues also lack of training of newer crews. Russia is actually quite lucky as a lot of its AD tcan used in surface to surface role if needed something that the west doesn't have. I would imagine that Russia has plenty of casings, of Soviet era that could be repurposed.

Another idea would be to use up old Soviet era drones and turn them into Geran type drones.

There was talk on here a while ago about why Russia develope a missile that could be launch by a Tornado launcher or smerch launcher that could carry four missiles that had a range of around 300-500km that was less sophisticated and cheaper than iskander for targets that didn't need Iskander something along the lines of the Belarusian Polonez-M not every target will require an iskander or kinzhal especially if the enemy AD systems are limited. I still believe that their is scope for such a system.

And if the west want to use the same old story Russia running out of missiles as it turns to using up older stock then I say let them it's only to their detriment at the end of the day. And they have been using that old story for over a year now yet missiles keep flying.

Why would Russia use S-300 missiles against buildings if they DID want to "use up old stocks" ?

The fragmentation warheads would be good at peppering forest or fields with infantry full of shrapnel - a building, not so much?

If anything maybe they SHOULD use it against infantry camps and concentrations... assuming it can even be done.

Isos wrote:No one says they used it against building but it is possible to do so with little updates.

While I don't believe that Ukrainian S-300s have misfired so frequently that they hit apartment buildings every single time a Russian Telegrammer claimed they did, it is pretty clear that the implication is that every time a Ukrainian apartment is damaged that Russia supposedly used the S-300 missile out of desperation ("running out of missiles", right?) to hit a ground target which it missed (because the S-300 would be expectedly inaccurate against ground targets) and thus it hit an apartment building, as opposed to a Ukrainian S-300 which misfired/failed to intercept and landed on the apartment building.

So yes, that is exactly what they are saying: "Russia tried to hit a military ground target (building), but instead ended up hitting an apartment."

kvs wrote:Using the argument that S-300 missiles should be used for ground attack because there are large stocks is inane.   Who decides
what is large and what is small.   Why tap a different role missile when you have production lines churning out the proper role missiles?
This is how NATzO propaganda worms its way into people's brains.   It's plausibility rot.   Everything is plausible even bald faced libel
and slander.   It is literally throw the shit and hope it sticks and it does.

I am sure the ministry of defense knows what is the correct stock. They also keep SAM lines churning and as you noticed, not so many Air targets. Also as someone pointed out, you may have aging SAMs that may no longer be as effective against air targets and latest EW and decoys, but are perfectly good against ground targets. Also SAMs are really fast, so if the target is time sensitive, a large SAM is ideal .

dionis wrote:
While I don't believe that Ukrainian S-300s have misfired so frequently that they hit apartment buildings every single time a Russian Telegrammer claimed they did, it is pretty clear that the implication is that every time a Ukrainian apartment is damaged that Russia supposedly used the S-300 missile out of desperation ("running out of missiles", right?) to hit a ground target which it missed (because the S-300 would be expectedly inaccurate against ground targets) and thus it hit an apartment building, as opposed to a Ukrainian S-300 which misfired/failed to intercept and landed on the apartment building.

So yes, that is exactly what they are saying: "Russia tried to hit a military ground target (building), but instead ended up hitting an apartment."

I don't know where are you from, so I can't make any clue about the propaganda level you get as a daily load, but I can tell you how it is here.
The whole "Orcs are using S-300 missiles to hit civilians!" narrative was turned on early in the conflict, and pushed forward above all the limits.
This propaganda was so powerful and targeted, that I know several people who are actually quite intelligent who fall a victims to it.
Judging the accumulation of this propaganda effort, I can easily judge that from the very beginning, we faced a situation when the missing AD missiles caused enormous damage on the ground. Big enough to release a full scale cover up propaganda operation.
On the other hand, every real case of Russian missile hitting some target that could have been assigned a civilian, used to be exploited to the last piece of the missile debries, in some cases in an absurd manner. Like this halfbrain Klitchko parading western jurnos in front of a "shoot down Kinzhal" where there were randomly collected debries, including western ones
Or when he called the Russian Calibr hitting some home, and showing babochek fragment clearly from the Buk-M1
What is an interesting part, is that I can hardly remember any case when Russian missile really strikes some undisputed civilian infrastructure other way than malfunctioning. Or really shoot down.
Remember the case of Ch-22 hitting a home? Well, first of all it didn't hit it per se, only fall on the other side of the street, causing severe damage. It fell down in pieces, and - suprice suprice - it was probably the only missile of the type that was really taken down by the Ukro AD. It was fascinating to watch about how the triumphant announcements of hitting it faded to be replaced by evil Russkie missile hit civilians.

sepheronx wrote:I'm unsure why we are even talking about this.

Because some of us have brains capable of make critical due diligence.
I will give you a hint : those are the same ones who were talking about Iranian weapon supplies for months.
While there is another group, that is still at denial stage I suppose.

Shot down around Berdyansk

JohninMK wrote:Theresa
@tretter50001
·
4h
Replying to
@tretter50001
The training took place in Britain. He was wounded and was abandoned by his own. So they found him - in a British armored car. The wounded marine lay in the Mastiff for four days until he was discovered by the reconnaissance group of the RF Armed Forces.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1674658964317806594

at the end of the video look at the nick of the interior of the UK mastiff especially the dashboard, with all those wires exposed, looks like something was removed before it was shipped

I remain skeptical that Russia uses SAM interceptors as ersatz ballistic missiles.

They could use them like that because that is a secondary function of the weapons, and if they did use them that way they would actually be more effective than we see with Kievs use of them because they are not using them as ballistic weapons, they are using them as SAMs and they are failing as SAMs and just landing in random places after losing lock.

For the Russians however it would make more sense to keep such older missiles for use as SAMs in case HATO starts something... there will be all sorts of things they use including drones and even decoys that will use up Russian missiles in a conflict so it would make sense to launch SA-3s and SA-10s and SA-12s at such targets saving the SA-20s and other better newer missiles for more challenging things.

Having lots of missiles in stock does not mean they are deployed to the front line ready to use all the time... many just get taken out to be used as air defence targets for air defence forces practise.

Old systems like OSA which are still used are also used as air defence targets, but TOR and Pantsir are command guided missiles and that technology is simple and cheap so applying it to older missiles might be an option where existing guidance technology has become obsolete.

The OSA vehicle itself is mobile and carries 6 ready to fire mach 2 plus targets... that can adopt a range of different flight profiles to simulate different targets with different loadouts including corner reflectors to simulate much larger objects if needed.

I'm not deluding myself, the effect of using 1983 produced 5V55 from a Russian system would be not much better than what we see now

They are getting collateral damage level performance because they are using them as SAMs and they are failing because those missiles were never intended to engage the sorts of weapons they are encountering...

If they wanted to hit surface targets with them they would probably be rather more effective... but would likely be shot down by Russian SAMs.

Not entirely solid rocket propellant also ages, there are changes that can then cause the missile to malfunction. Unless they also change the fuel

Stored and handled properly they are pretty good.

The Russians still have SA-1 missiles...

Missiles have expire dates. Look how faulty ukro s-300 are because of lack of maintenance.

They are not faulty... they were just not designed to intercept Iskander and Kh-101s and drones...

Russia won't keep old 5V55 missiles or old 48N6 missiles when it is constently producing new ones.

They use old missiles as targets for training and for other purposes including with upgrades for export, or use against targets that don't require anything newer.

They make SAMs and ATGMs in enormous numbers... unlike the west.

Changing the warhead for some military grade C4 is also easy. They can carry 100-150kg warhead. That's big.

The fragmentation warhead is rather powerful and effective on a range of targets because it was designed to engage a range of targets.

I remember people harling on about that Russia wasn't getting or didn't need Iranian drones, then when it turned out they did get some and a useful design it was all talk about how good Geran 1 and 2 is cheap and effective.

They didn't get any, they licence produced their own version of the drones and made them in Russia with Russian components and equipment.

Using up old stuff makes sense, but the risk of moving enormous stocks of old SAMs to a front line so you can use them up risks them being spotted and destroyed by the enemy, or failing and doing collateral damage.

Better to use the correct ammo for the job.

There will likely be Kh-22Ms that will be used up and of course large old anti ship missiles that are no longer efficient in their original role that could be used against targets on land, but again using them sensibly and carefully is important.

There was talk on here a while ago about why Russia develope a missile that could be launch by a Tornado launcher or smerch launcher that could carry four missiles that had a range of around 300-500km that was less sophisticated and cheaper than iskander for targets that didn't need Iskander something along the lines of the Belarusian Polonez-M not every target will require an iskander or kinzhal especially if the enemy AD systems are limited. I still believe that their is scope for such a system.

The core issue has been the INF treaty limited medium and intermediate range missiles and rockets, but now their hands are free.

Another factor would be trying to find targets 300-500km away to hit with these weapons... the new Hermes system of ground launched missiles offers potential for a 100km plus range system that evades air defence systems so is more likely to get a hit without needing to be launched in enormous volumes.

If anything maybe they SHOULD use it against infantry camps and concentrations... assuming it can even be done.

The point is that Smerch would be much more effective against a range of targets than even quite a large volley of old S-300 missiles.

The warheads of Smerch are more sophisticated and that is what they are designed for...

So yes, that is exactly what they are saying: "Russia tried to hit a military ground target (building), but instead ended up hitting an apartment."

Which is ironic because an S-300 missile would be quite accurate used against ground targets...

If Kiev was actually using them against ground targets they might actually be more effective than the crap they are getting from the west, but these missiles just operate as simple ballistic missiles when used against ground targets so would be just as easy to shoot down as HIMARS and other western super weapons.

Also as someone pointed out, you may have aging SAMs that may no longer be as effective against air targets and latest EW and decoys, but are perfectly good against ground targets. Also SAMs are really fast, so if the target is time sensitive, a large SAM is ideal .

You have to deploy these old SAMs to be able to use them and the men you use in the units deploying these old SAMs would not be well armed against a range of modern threats, even if they would be effective against drones or other easy targets flying at medium altitude, the point is that other new Russian missiles can handle a wider range of threats more effectively.

I will give you a hint : those are the same ones who were talking about Iranian weapon supplies for months.

What Iranian supplies exactly?

Geran is serially produced in Russian factories using Russian components... I doubt Iran sent a single drone except perhaps for further testing in Russia in Russian/Ukrainian conditions.

Russia was testing Iranian stuff in Syria and found a few that were worth making at home in their own factories... they set up factories and are making them in large numbers and using them in large numbers, but considering the level of jamming from HATO I would suspect the datalinks and navigation systems and other equipment they use is all Russian including for compatibility with Russian air defences and EW equipment for obvious safety reasons.

The idea of using older stuff makes sense.... for certain things... for instance having lots of AT-3 missiles delivered to the front line so your troops can fly them into enemy troop positions would make sense, without modification they lack the armour penetration performance to threaten MBTs but against bunkers and trenches they can do some damage... they are cheap and could be launched in enormous numbers just using them up on enemy trenches or aimed at trees near enemy positions to get a fragmentation effect.

You give away your position of course but with AT-3 the missile does not need to be close to the guy controlling it in flight.

The point is that shifting all these weapons to the front line in the hope someone there knows what to do with them and can operate them efficiently compared with sending something like AT-4 or AT-5 with better accuracy and newer missiles etc.

I would think having something like a BRDM-3 with different missiles for use against different targets where you have some old missiles for targets that don't need anything better makes sense... when the enemy is trying to rush you having lots of things you can launch at him also makes sense I guess.

But modern weapons get the job done already I suspect.

GarryB wrote:
What Iranian supplies exactly?

S-8 missiles and Tofan ATGMs were spotted, so those two are sure.
Tons of ammunition wouldn't surprise me either.
Latest 152mm ammo boxes hosting Chinese rounds and "mysterious English written" charge - I would bet the same source.
I am not paranoic enough to bet for Pakistan, you know although that would be an even better explanation.
Let's be serious - this marine traffic via Caspian is not there for nothing and is well out of the NATO recon horizon.
There is a very interesting and much telling indicator, that is traffic without AIS data. Lloyds is making this stats, and here is the cherry:
It skyrocket at the beginning of 2022, and we are talking about a stable number of around 350 vessels a MONTH, with peaks of even 450 correlated with some interesting events on the front in the background/timetable.
350 ships a month is already a huge number, even if we consider that those are Volga-Don Max, in a range of 5000DWT.
Nobody needs so much mandarines bro

https://t.me/milinfolive/102967?single

"In the name of Allah, a contract for the supply of ammunition between the Ministry of Defense and Logistics of the Iranian Armed Forces and Rosoboronexport"

This is exactly what, according to Western media, the contracts for the supply of ammunition from Iran dated September 14, 2022 look like.  The total amount of contracts is almost two million dollars, which includes not only the shells themselves, but also various equipment.  What was included in the first contract:

- 40,000 122 mm ammunition;
- 14,000 152 mm ammunition;
- 10,000 125-mm high-explosive fragmentation rounds;
- 4000 125-mm cumulative shots;
- 4000 122-mm rockets for MLRS.

The second contract for 740,000 dollars, related to the first, already includes shells for 122-mm and 152-mm artillery ammunition, gunpowder for rockets, as well as barrels for D-30 howitzers and T-72 tanks.