Quote:

---

if they are launched through the torpedo tubes.

---

Why would they be launched through torpedo tubes?

Lots of older or smaller submarines did not have vertical launchers installed due to lack of space, so boosted missiles were designed to fit in and launch through the torpoedo tubes. They basically get launched out, turn up to the surface with a booster, the casing falls away and the rocket motor ignites when it is clear of the surface.

Early generation US sub launched cruise missiles or anti-ship missiles could be launched this way. It is inefficient and takes up torpedo room space so it is not generally done any longer.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

if they are launched through the torpedo tubes.

---

Why would they be launched through torpedo tubes?

---

Some subs (like our Los Angeles class) can launch torpedoes or missiles through the torpedo tubes. This gives you the option to change your loadout according to the mission, and you can store extras inside the sub. With vertical launch tubes, you typically have to surface and mate with a tender to reload the tubes. So you are stuck with one salvo of however many vertical tubes you have. While with torpedo tube launched varieties, you can launch/reload repeatedly until you run out of stored weapons. Our LA class could launch torpedoes, rocket assisted torpedoes, Harpoons, and Tomahawks through the torpedo tubes, and some of the boats had 12 vertical tomahawk launch tubes as well.

Aah! Thanks all. Learn something new everyday.

txags92 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Quote:

---

Explosions were reported in Uman as Ukrainian air defence shot down Russian cruise missiles

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/8-august-explosions-were-reported-in-uman-as-ukrainian-air

Question about occurrences like this: are these cruise missiles usually fired one or two at a time, indicating that the air defense ended the threat (excepting falling debris), or is this more like destroying one out of several missiles with the rest hitting targets? As I understand, air defense basically fires its own rocket to hit an incoming cruise missile.

Obviously there are other caveats, but I'm trying to make sure I understand it on a basic level.

---

It depends on where they are coming from. The subs in the Black Sea that they have been using carry 8 Kalibr missiles each I believe, but I am not sure if they are in vertical launchers or if they are launched through the torpedo tubes. If they are launched through the tubes, they may only be able to launch two at a time. Also, with only 8 on board, they may be reluctant to salvo the whole lot in one mission.

---

Do they launch missiles horizontally? Reminds me of this I just watched... again...

https://clip.cafe/the-hunt-red-october-1990/could-launch-an-icbm-horizontally/

fka ftc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Quote:

---

Explosions were reported in Uman as Ukrainian air defence shot down Russian cruise missiles

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/8-august-explosions-were-reported-in-uman-as-ukrainian-air

Question about occurrences like this: are these cruise missiles usually fired one or two at a time, indicating that the air defense ended the threat (excepting falling debris), or is this more like destroying one out of several missiles with the rest hitting targets? As I understand, air defense basically fires its own rocket to hit an incoming cruise missile.

Obviously there are other caveats, but I'm trying to make sure I understand it on a basic level.

---

It depends on where they are coming from. The subs in the Black Sea that they have been using carry 8 Kalibr missiles each I believe, but I am not sure if they are in vertical launchers or if they are launched through the torpedo tubes. If they are launched through the tubes, they may only be able to launch two at a time. Also, with only 8 on board, they may be reluctant to salvo the whole lot in one mission.

---

Do they launch missiles horizontally? Reminds me of this I just watched... again...

https://clip.cafe/the-hunt-red-october-1990/could-launch-an-icbm-horizontally/

---

I would be surprised if they could launch an ICBM through the tubes just due to the size and fuel load necessary to create the long range ballistic arc. The tomahawks, Kalibrs, and harpoons are cruise missiles that are boosted to the surface then start their onboard propulsion. And as the movie asked, maybe you could, but why?

Might be a stupid question, but isn't the point of a sub launched missile to be closer to the target so you don't have to launch an ICBM?

agent-maroon said:

---

Might be a stupid question, but isn't the point of a sub launched missile to be closer to the target so you don't have to launch an ICBM?

---

Partly, but it is also so that you can put an ICBM where it is much harder to be taken out by a surprise first strike.

benchmark said:

---

Damage from last night's attack.

🇺🇦💥Antonovsky bridge today after the night strike of the Armed Forces of #Ukraine. #Kherson.#UkraineRussiaWar #UkraineWillWin #Ukrainian #UkraineRussianWar #Ukraine️War #Ukrainians pic.twitter.com/E7ulgoR1qN

— 🇺🇦Ukraine News Live🇺🇦 (@UkraineNewsLive) August 8, 2022

---

Looks like regular artillery rounds to me this go.

The orcs sure look committed to repairing this and I wouldn't want to be part of that crew. They also have to be utilizing a ton of resources to keep UKR/partisan spotters from targeting the bridge when explosive type materials or armor are being transported across.

It seems like there are always a few days between strikes as if they are harassing the orcs versus knocking the bridge out completely. "red rover red rover I dare you to come over"

Also not sure why orcs would post this video. Is it to show minimal damage, ongoing repairs, or send more while were not seeing any video of the RR bridge upstream or is just some idiot with no understanding of OPSEC.

UPDATE

How many of these reports need to come out before there's serious action to better control Russian access?

"So how exactly has Russia been able to get its hands on these high-tech components?
It seems to have found several methods. A clandestine network has been in existence in some form since Soviet times. Operated by Russian intelligence officers it uses intermediate shipment hubs like Hong Kong and Malaysia. In addition, some companies exporting these vital components are unaware of who the end user really is. Others, says Dr Watling, prefer not to ask too many questions."

PARTS

russian convoy ambushed looks like combined arms artillery and infantry.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wj9tlj/ukrainian_territorial_defense_unit_based_out_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Ukrainians happy with the P2000.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wjafl7/ukrainian_forces_striking_russian_positions_with/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

"This package provides a significant amount of additional ammunition, weapons, and equipment that Ukrainians are using so effectively to defend themselves," says @SecBlinken in a statement. pic.twitter.com/Z09iUjCgbr

— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) August 8, 2022

Interesting that they just say "additional ammunition" for the HIMARS. That leaves a lot of gray area... I like it.

benchmark said:

---

Red1 said:

---

I would attrit them and eventually want to fix them.

Patton was known for decisively engaging and fixing the Germans with forward elements or fighter planes, so he could attack the Germans on his terms.

---

Kinda lost in the semantics/analogies here ... but there's no need to attrit if the Orks wisely decide to leave Kherson voluntarily. My vote is to fix Kherson with only necessary and minimal engagement for the moment ... while pivoting east to take the dam at Novo Kakhovka. I know I'm a broken record on this but Kherson is political and the dam is strategic.

---

If done right, could starve an entire bear division into submission. Theoretically, blocking action could be performed under the HIMARS umbrella. Annihilation/ surrender of an entire division changes the equation.

I suspect that cutting water to crimea would have complex geopolitical repercussions. Someone more knowledgeable can assess whether they would be acceptable to Uke.

Rebuilding the dam means killing crops in crimea, but not parching the population to death. They get 10-15% of their water from other sources.

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

If done right, could starve an entire bear division into submission. Theoretically, blocking action could be performed under the HIMARS umbrella. Annihilation/ surrender of an entire division changes the equation.

I suspect that cutting water to crimea would have complex geopolitical repercussions. Someone more knowledgeable can assess whether they would be acceptable to Uke.

Rebuilding the dam means killing crops in crimea, but not parching the population to death. They get 10-15% of their water from other sources.

---

Assaulting Kherson would be ugly and a last resort IMO. Much better to wait to see if the Russians voluntarily vacate. Block their reinforcements but provide an exit. Circle back later only if they refuse. Bigger fish to fry.

Ukraine shut down the fresh water canal to Crimea for 8 yrs from 2014-22 until Russia reopened in March. The canal would be a huge bargaining chip in a settlement. It's unlikely Russia would blow the dam itself. They might blow the bridge over the dam but repairing this bridge is less challenging than repairing the post-tensioned Antonovsky bridge near Kherson.

benchmark said:

---

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

If done right, could starve an entire bear division into submission. Theoretically, blocking action could be performed under the HIMARS umbrella. Annihilation/ surrender of an entire division changes the equation.

I suspect that cutting water to crimea would have complex geopolitical repercussions. Someone more knowledgeable can assess whether they would be acceptable to Uke.

Rebuilding the dam means killing crops in crimea, but not parching the population to death. They get 10-15% of their water from other sources.

---

Assaulting Kherson would be ugly and a last resort IMO. Much better to wait to see if the Russians voluntarily vacate. Block their reinforcements but provide an exit. Circle back later only if they refuse. Bigger fish to fry.

Ukraine shut down the fresh water canal to Crimea for 8 yrs from 2014-22 until Russia reopened in March. The canal would be a huge bargaining chip in a settlement. It's unlikely Russia would blow the dam itself. They might blow the bridge over the dam but repairing this bridge is less challenging than repairing the post-tensioned Antonovsky bridge near Kherson.

---

I think if the Ukrainians can approach Kherson and prevent meaningful resupply for the orcs, they will turn and run or surrender quite quickly. Unlike the Ukrainian troops who were defending Mariupol against the orcs, the orcs can expect there to be a knife or rifle pointed at their back from every doorway while they are trying to focus on repelling the Ukrainian advance. Without any special ties to make them want to defend the city, I can't see the orcs wanting to die for it.

Exactly. Nobody is advocating full frontal. The HIMARS could theoretically put the Russian occupiers under siege.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62466998

Russia halts US inspections of its nuclear arsenal

If I had to attack the 42nd I would treat it kind of like siege warfare. Weaken the Russians by attrition. I think that would be less risky and costly than to fight a meat grinder.

That is my 2 cents.

Interesting note about Bakhmut starting at 5:54. He discusses the situation there, which sounds pretty dicey for the town. However, he also mentions that there is dissension among the ranks in that area. Apparently the different ethnic groups in that part of the Russian forces are arguing about who will actually attack because they don't want to be the ones to charge in.

I think people are using "attrition" differently. Some mean "wear down" others mean something close to "tit for tat."

Waffledynamics said:

---

Interesting note about Bakhmut starting at 5:54. He discusses the situation there, which sounds pretty dicey for the town. However, he also mentions that there is dissension among the ranks in that area. Apparently the different ethnic groups in that part of the Russian forces are arguing about who will actually attack because they don't want to be the ones to charge in.

---

What's wrong with being cannon fodder? lol

HIMARS time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/wjkp5w/you_know_what_time_it_is_himars_oclock/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

AMMO Dump in Melitopul hit. Many secondaries cooking off and fire/explosions growing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022/comments/wjm7ez/ukrainian_forces_have_just_shelled_a_russian/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Red1 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Interesting note about Bakhmut starting at 5:54. He discusses the situation there, which sounds pretty dicey for the town. However, he also mentions that there is dissension among the ranks in that area. Apparently the different ethnic groups in that part of the Russian forces are arguing about who will actually attack because they don't want to be the ones to charge in.

---

What's wrong with being cannon fodder? lol

---

Nothing. As long as it is the other guy doing it.

txags92 said:

---

Red1 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

Interesting note about Bakhmut starting at 5:54. He discusses the situation there, which sounds pretty dicey for the town. However, he also mentions that there is dissension among the ranks in that area. Apparently the different ethnic groups in that part of the Russian forces are arguing about who will actually attack because they don't want to be the ones to charge in.

---

What's wrong with being cannon fodder? lol

---

Nothing. As long as it is the other guy doing it.

---

Hahaha I wonder if they have machine guns trained on their soldiers so they don't retreat.

Pretty sure that is the only reason the Chechins are there.

My concern also.

The Ukrainians Are Hitting The Russians Where They Aren't

Quote:

---

If there's a danger for Ukraine, it's that its army also is exhausted. Ukraine enjoys geographic and morale advantages over Russia, yes. But Ukraine still is a much smaller and poorer country than Russia isand its army is smaller. If raw counts of troops and tanks decided the winner of this war, the outcome would be clear.

They don't. But that's not to say numbers don't matter. Ukraine has made good its own losses in part by pushing reservists and local territorial troops into the fight and leaning on saboteurs to chip away at Russian occupation forces.

Those forces might struggle to sustain intensive counteroffensives, retired U.S. Army general Mark Hertling explained. "For the [Ukrainian army] to conduct deliberate attacks mixed with relatively untrained territorials and resistance forces will be hard."

Maybe Ukraine now has the momentum. But that momentum might not last if Ukraine can't muster the combat power to press its advantagesand defeat the Russians where the Russians are weakest.

---

benchmark said:

---

My concern also.

The Ukrainians Are Hitting The Russians Where They Aren't

Quote:

---

If there's a danger for Ukraine, it's that its army also is exhausted. Ukraine enjoys geographic and morale advantages over Russia, yes. But Ukraine still is a much smaller and poorer country than Russia isand its army is smaller. If raw counts of troops and tanks decided the winner of this war, the outcome would be clear.

They don't. But that's not to say numbers don't matter. Ukraine has made good its own losses in part by pushing reservists and local territorial troops into the fight and leaning on saboteurs to chip away at Russian occupation forces.

Those forces might struggle to sustain intensive counteroffensives, retired U.S. Army general Mark Hertling explained. "For the [Ukrainian army] to conduct deliberate attacks mixed with relatively untrained territorials and resistance forces will be hard."

Maybe Ukraine now has the momentum. But that momentum might not last if Ukraine can't muster the combat power to press its advantagesand defeat the Russians where the Russians are weakest.

---

---

One of the Principles of War is Mass. Can the Ukrainians mass enough troops to prevail against Russia's larger forces? That is why I advocate causing attrition to the invaders and let cause them to wither on the vine if that is possible.

This is exactly what the US and England did in WWII in N Africa. They denied the Mediterranean Sea to the Germans. Shipping supplies to the German Army was impossible. They tried to fly in supplies, but there was no way of flying in requisite supplies for a heavy mechanized army.

Today's SITREP.

Can't post the LiveUAMap links right now due to bad connection that makes it an ordeal, but there are several reports of explosions in and just North of Crimea at airfields and ammo dumps.

One of these is at Saky airbase in Western Crimea, 200+km behind the frontline.

If someone could assist with those LiveUAMap entries, it would be much appreciated.

Noteworthy confirmation ... particularly because air launched HARM's have a longer range (>30 miles). Weakening local Russian air defense (say Kherson) may open the door for US suppling MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones.

The Drive: Anti-Radiation Missiles Sent To Ukraine, U.S. Confirms

Quote:

---

Colin Kahl, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, confirmed today that American authorities have transferred unspecified "anti-radiation missiles" to the Ukrainian armed forces that they can launch from at least some of their existing aircraft. Though Kahl did not say what type of missiles had been passed to the Ukrainians, his remarks follow the emergence of pictures on social media showing the apparent remains of an AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) said to have been fired at a Russian position. You can read more about what we know already about the potential use of AGM-88s in Ukraine in this recent War Zone report.

---

Quote:

---

If the U.S. government has indeed transferred AGM-88s to Ukraine, and these are capable of being fired from some of the country's existing aircraft as Kahl indicated, rather than some kind of ground-based launcher, questions still remain as to what aircraft are able to fire these missiles and when and how that integration work was carried out. The War Zone's Tyler Rogoway explained previously how this might be achieved:

"Air launch is ideal for the AGM-88 as it provides for far better kinetic performance (longer range and speed). It also allows for a far better, elevated sensing position to organically detect the presence and general direction, or even geolocation, of a threat emitter. The AGM-88 could work with relatively minimal integration, potentially leveraging a federated interface, such as e-tablet, for very basic functionality. Ukraine's fighters are Soviet-era machines and totally lack the right interfaces, including the basic bus architecture, for modern NATO-compatible weaponry. But it's possible a relatively crude modification could have been adapted for this single weapon. There is also the possibility of a clandestine transfer of Soviet-era aircraft from NATO states that have been upgraded with NATO-standard bus architecture and adaptable avionics that could provide an interface for the HARM."

---

I am amazed that our "back of the warehouse" equipment in low volume is so effective against the Russian military. I fully expect Russia to be thinking twice about the Baltic nations - they have no chance against modern, leading edge western equipment.

Video of explosion at Saky airbase in Russian-controlled Crimea, 200+km from the frontline nearest positions. Looks like possible fuel storage or ammunition was targeted by a strike by unknown munitions. pic.twitter.com/BDUX3EPa9M

— ELINT News (@ELINTNews) August 9, 2022

Interesting. Novofedorivka, Crimea is >130 miles behind the front lines. Begs the question ... was this a partisan or long range rocket attack?