https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/19-january-4-reservoirs-with-gasoline-are-on-fire-in-klintsyQuote:
4 reservoirs with gasoline are on fire in Klintsy of Bryansk region
Reported 9 hours ago. Looks like Ukraine got more saboteurs in Russia.
***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]
7,681,652 Views |
47995 Replies |
Last: 6 min ago by DamnGood86
Reported 9 hours ago. Looks like Ukraine got more saboteurs in Russia.
Russia resorting to using giant ex-Soviet anti-ship missile to hit ground targets in Ukraine. "Use of the supersonic anti-ship missile likely a 3M44 for land attack highlights shortfalls in the Russian standoff missile inventory."
DESPERATION?
DESPERATION?
Russian shortfalls? Can't be true. All the best people have assured me that Russia is ramping up its domestic production of war materials to levels that NATO can't hope to match.74OA said:
Russia resorting to using giant ex-Soviet anti-ship missile to hit ground targets in Ukraine. "Use of the supersonic anti-ship missile likely a 3M44 for land attack highlights shortfalls in the Russian standoff missile inventory."
DESPERATION?
Not really. A missile is a one-way weapon. Why not use old missiles, would be the strategy/thought, because really it's sort of immaterial if it is a ship or land based target, and they obviously don't have a lot of naval targets to shoot at. We have been sending old inventory (ATACM, PAC2 Patriots etc.) as well as the Germans/french/brits etc. to the other side.
From your link:
From your link:
It's not the craziest/most desperate thing either side has decided to use/do in this conflict, imho.Quote:
While the Kh-22 and Kh-32 are poorly suited to attacking targets on land with any precision, their supersonic speed, as well as a steep terminal dive onto the target makes them a huge problem for Ukrainian air defenses. It may well be that Russia hopes to exploit the speed and terminal dive of the 3M44 in a similar way, as it has also down on occasion with the much more modern Bastion-P, another missile that has proven very hard for air defenses to defeat.
Russia has obviously run low on missiles and tanks and everything else in this war.
You can't argue that.
You can't argue that.
And yet, there are posters here that will gladly link Russian propaganda troll accounts arguing that. They are not buying 40 year old artillery shells from the Norks and drones from the Iranians because they are desperate or anything, they just want to spread around all their spare cash reserves with their key trading partners.PJYoung said:
Russia has obviously run low on missiles and tanks and everything else in this war.
You can't argue that.
Hence why they're buying from Iran and North Korea.PJYoung said:
Russia has obviously run low on missiles and tanks and everything else in this war.
You can't argue that.
I detect a sar-chasm.
txags92 said:And yet, there are posters here that will gladly link Russian propaganda troll accounts arguing that. They are not buying 40 year old artillery shells from the Norks and drones from the Iranians because they are desperate or anything, they just want to spread around all their spare cash reserves with their key trading partners.PJYoung said:
Russia has obviously run low on missiles and tanks and everything else in this war.
You can't argue that.
And some of them will even go so far a to say Russia has a stronger military today than in 2022. It's a ridiculous notion not based ln really and what we see the Russians actually doing on the battlefield and in procurement. But if RT says it…
nortex97 said:
Not really. A missile is a one-way weapon. Why not use old missiles, would be the strategy/thought, because really it's sort of immaterial if it is a ship or land based target, and they obviously don't have a lot of naval targets to shoot at. We have been sending old inventory (ATACM, PAC2 Patriots etc.) as well as the Germans/french/brits etc. to the other side.
From your link:It's not the craziest/most desperate thing either side has decided to use/do in this conflict, imho.Quote:
While the Kh-22 and Kh-32 are poorly suited to attacking targets on land with any precision, their supersonic speed, as well as a steep terminal dive onto the target makes them a huge problem for Ukrainian air defenses. It may well be that Russia hopes to exploit the speed and terminal dive of the 3M44 in a similar way, as it has also down on occasion with the much more modern Bastion-P, another missile that has proven very hard for air defenses to defeat.
There are huge differences in how anti-ship missiles work versus land attack missiles. Land attack missiles are made to go to very precise coordinates using INS, GPS, or both. Many variants use some level of additional guidance to try to hit moving targets. Anti-ship missiles fly to a very general area where enemy vessels are supposed to be, turn on their own terminal guidance radars, and look for the biggest thing they can find which, on the open ocean, should be a ship. The problem is that on land that doesn't work very well, and anti-ship missiles have virtually no terminal guidance. Sure, the 3M44 may be harder to shoot down. It is also only a half step above a V2 when it comes to accuracy, and by that I mean the best you can expect is to be somewhere in the general vicinity and hitting something specific would be a minor miracle.
While the Russians have resorted to using some of their S-300 and S-400 surface to air missiles in a land attack mode, at least they were designed with that purpose in mind. They're not super accurate in that mode, but they at least have guidance mechanisms designed for it. You don't repurpose missiles like this unless you're trying to just throw anything you can down range.
We have been sending old inventory to be used for the exact purpose it was designed for. The Ukrainians aren't lobbing PAC2 Patriots at airfields or trying to shoot down Su-24's with ATACMS. That's how the Ukrainians took out a Russian AWACS and a bunch of helicopters the Russians thought were safe. They used the right missiles for the right jobs and played to their strengths.
That boils down to saying 'it's not accurate/a precision weapon.' Their choice is to use it or throw it away from the inventory. Using it stresses/depletes the UAF air defense network at worst, and might also hit a target. It's a depreciated, old asset, that might not be worth the cost of scrapping, otherwise.
Your description of the guidance differences may or may not be right, but I wouldn't put it up there with 'launching an explosive laden unmanned T-54 toward the front line' level of desperation.
Anyway, spring offensive talk seems quite real.
Your description of the guidance differences may or may not be right, but I wouldn't put it up there with 'launching an explosive laden unmanned T-54 toward the front line' level of desperation.
Anyway, spring offensive talk seems quite real.
Offensive with limited availability of armored vehicles and logistics using a now heavily conscript Army? It'll look like Bakunin or Adiivka. Months of grinding death and destruction to gain a few kilometers. Russia doesn't have seemingly endless resources anymore to keep making that trade.
Russia has a relatively good position and much of what it originally wanted, and some it didn't claim before the war to negotiate in trade. Why not negotiate? Yes, Russia can afford to keep grinding away, but at tremendous long term costs to itself. Worth it?
Russia has a relatively good position and much of what it originally wanted, and some it didn't claim before the war to negotiate in trade. Why not negotiate? Yes, Russia can afford to keep grinding away, but at tremendous long term costs to itself. Worth it?
nortex97 said:
That boils down to saying 'it's not accurate/a precision weapon.' Their choice is to use it or throw it away from the inventory. Using it stresses/depletes the UAF air defense network at worst, and might also hit a target. It's a depreciated, old asset, that might not be worth the cost of scrapping, otherwise.
Your description of the guidance differences may or may not be right, but I wouldn't put it up there with 'launching an explosive laden unmanned T-54 toward the front line' level of desperation.
Anyway, spring offensive talk seems quite real.
There's zero chance Russia would otherwise scrap these antiques when you look at the vast collection of Soviet antiques it has pulled from stores to continue this war. The simple answer is that if Russia had a better option than these anti-ship missiles, they would use the better option and save these for ships.
They're relative antiques and Ukraine…doesn't have a navy/large ships to shoot at. Old rockets/missiles do 'expire' for various reasons and need to be fired/scrapped. Some of these had been used for target practice prior to this round of war.Quote:
The simple answer is that if Russia had a better option than these anti-ship missiles, they would use the better option and save these for ships.
nortex97 said:
That boils down to saying 'it's not accurate/a precision weapon.' Their choice is to use it or throw it away from the inventory. Using it stresses/depletes the UAF air defense network at worst, and might also hit a target. It's a depreciated, old asset, that might not be worth the cost of scrapping, otherwise.
Your description of the guidance differences may or may not be right, but I wouldn't put it up there with 'launching an explosive laden unmanned T-54 toward the front line' level of desperation.
Anyway, spring offensive talk seems quite real.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Ukraine's partners are a little more stable than Russia's...regardless of the ongoing talks about aid.Quote:
Russia has benefited enormously from Iranian and North Korean military supplies. As is obvious from the recent visit of the North Korean foreign minister, Choe Son-hui, to Moscow, these links are likely to grow and further boost Russia's war effort against Ukraine.
Ukraine is, in many ways, even more dependent on foreign aid to sustain its defence against Russia's aggression yet this aid has become much more precarious.
nortex97 said:They're relative antiques and Ukraine…doesn't have a navy/large ships to shoot at. Old rockets/missiles do 'expire' for various reasons and need to be fired/scrapped. Some of these had been used for target practice prior to this round of war.Quote:
The simple answer is that if Russia had a better option than these anti-ship missiles, they would use the better option and save these for ships.
With all the other antiques that Russia keeps lying around, these wouldn't be any different if Russia wasn't hurting for more ground attack options.
More on that infamous video of the Bradley wrecking the T90.
A more personal and detailed interview with the crew of the Ukrainian Bradley which took on a russian T-90M. Also goes over using American-supplied Bradley IFVs in conditions of the Ukrainian winter 💪 pic.twitter.com/GtSGt8Cxiq
— WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) January 19, 2024
nortex97 said:
That boils down to saying 'it's not accurate/a precision weapon.' Their choice is to use it or throw it away from the inventory. Using it stresses/depletes the UAF air defense network at worst, and might also hit a target. It's a depreciated, old asset, that might not be worth the cost of scrapping, otherwise.
Your description of the guidance differences may or may not be right, but I wouldn't put it up there with 'launching an explosive laden unmanned T-54 toward the front line' level of desperation.
Anyway, spring offensive talk seems quite real.
I think everyone realizes that any Russian offensive is a laughable proposition at this point. They simply don't have the men, machinery, and equipment to do so. And no amount of wishcasting by RT and the like will make it so. Russia's only option is throwing men into meat grinder.
And it simply doesn't work in 2024.
That depends on the level of supply that Ukraine can get to their artillery.
The three tiny Baltic nations don't doubt Putin's intentions and are acting together on border defense.
FORTIFICATIONS
FORTIFICATIONS
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27007
Putin never would have guessed he'd be dealing with strikes deep into Russia. No where is safe. Keep it up!!!
Putin never would have guessed he'd be dealing with strikes deep into Russia. No where is safe. Keep it up!!!
Ukraine is the bellwether. Easterm NATO countries are reacting to the evolving politics in the West. How the West responds over the next 18 months may decide the East's collective future.74OA said:
The three tiny Baltic nations don't doubt Putin's intentions and are acting together on border defense.
Here are the losses I could identify... today? Is it still today? I haven't gone to sleep yet. https://t.co/lZLivxUud6 pic.twitter.com/0HTrgOmPCJ
— Andrew Perpetua (@AndrewPerpetua) January 22, 2024
I am amazed how Orcs continue to lose assets at this rate and still function. Wow!
Russian military doctrine has been dictated by their geography. They have vast swaths of easily invadable flat land to defend, thus have built up armor and mobile artillery pieces to the extent they can take heavy losses.
This is a crazy video. Not so much because of what happens, but because of the video and editing quality. It's like 4k. At times it almost seemed like a video game. NSFW, but just grenades from drones really.
Ukrainian drones repell a Russian attack on Ivanivske, west of Bakhmut. January 2024
Ukrainian drones repell a Russian attack on Ivanivske, west of Bakhmut. January 2024
From some accounts they had huge inventories of stored tanks, artillery, ammunition etc. in storage. Lots of it aging equipment that might intimidate unruly populaces and third world armies just by its strength in numbers. But has survival issues on the modern battlefield.MaroonStain said:
I am amazed how Orcs continue to lose assets at this rate and still function. Wow!
Speaking of survival rates- any data out there's on how the Bradley's, strikers and Abrams are surviving?
I saw the video on the Bradley taking out the t90. But, how's everything fairing otherwise?
I saw the video on the Bradley taking out the t90. But, how's everything fairing otherwise?
does NATO have naval ships?nortex97 said:They're relative antiques and Ukraine…doesn't have a navy/large ships to shoot at. Old rockets/missiles do 'expire' for various reasons and need to be fired/scrapped. Some of these had been used for target practice prior to this round of war.Quote:
The simple answer is that if Russia had a better option than these anti-ship missiles, they would use the better option and save these for ships.
Oh, now Putin isn't worried about the rest of Europe?
Agthatbuilds said:
Speaking of survival rates- any data out there's on how the Bradley's, strikers and Abrams are surviving?
I saw the video on the Bradley taking out the t90. But, how's everything fairing otherwise?
I don't think the Abrams have really seen combat yet. The Bradleys are proving highly effective, though several have been knocked out. However, a lot of those have been recovered and returned to service. It's really hard to tell.
I posted the same and it was removed by the moderation. Of course this is directly related to the justification given for the invasion.LMCane said:does NATO have naval ships?nortex97 said:They're relative antiques and Ukraine…doesn't have a navy/large ships to shoot at. Old rockets/missiles do 'expire' for various reasons and need to be fired/scrapped. Some of these had been used for target practice prior to this round of war.Quote:
The simple answer is that if Russia had a better option than these anti-ship missiles, they would use the better option and save these for ships.
Oh, now Putin isn't worried about the rest of Europe?
And I don't think the US wants those numbers released. We've definitely seen some ATGM, mine, and artillery destruction of Bradleys in some of the videos, but we'll never know if they were salvageable / repairable.ABATTBQ11 said:Agthatbuilds said:
Speaking of survival rates- any data out there's on how the Bradley's, strikers and Abrams are surviving?
I saw the video on the Bradley taking out the t90. But, how's everything fairing otherwise?
I don't think the Abrams have really seen combat yet. The Bradleys are proving highly effective, though several have been knocked out. However, a lot of those have been recovered and returned to service. It's really hard to tell.
We have also seen some stories of Ukrainians praising their survivability and durability and that they can provide great support / kill a localised offensive.
It seems that like Javelins and HIMARs, Bradley's have had a massive impact on the battlefield for the Ukes. Taking out the invincible T90 is just icing on the cake for the US defense sector and BAE.
That is some very high quality video.Touchless said:
This is a crazy video. Not so much because of what happens, but because of the video and editing quality. It's like 4k. At times it almost seemed like a video game. NSFW, but just grenades from drones really.
Ukrainian drones repell a Russian attack on Ivanivske, west of Bakhmut. January 2024
This is only the second time (i recall) since winter started this year, that I have seen orcs in white. I almost posted about it a few days ago, again showing how inept they are that they cannot even distribute winter camo in a timely manner.
These guys also had white covers for their rucks so maybe an above standard unit, though it does look like they forgot the space blankets for hypothermia while bleeding out.
Also first time that I have seen Ukes ignore the armor AFV and focus solely on the dismounted troops.
Edit update. I suspect Uke intel suspected this as LRS/Recon team and thats why they focused on the personnel and not the armor.
I think the T90 withstood a lot of hits from the 25MM. The Ukes said they had a problem or changed ammo at one point. Would be nice to have a few more details on that and I hope somebody from the MIC is doing some analysis for future improvements to weaponry against the T90.AgLA06 said:And I don't think the US wants those numbers released. We've definitely seen some ATGM, mine, and artillery destruction of Bradleys in some of the videos, but we'll never know if they were salvageable / repairable.ABATTBQ11 said:Agthatbuilds said:
Speaking of survival rates- any data out there's on how the Bradley's, strikers and Abrams are surviving?
I saw the video on the Bradley taking out the t90. But, how's everything fairing otherwise?
I don't think the Abrams have really seen combat yet. The Bradleys are proving highly effective, though several have been knocked out. However, a lot of those have been recovered and returned to service. It's really hard to tell.
We have also seen some stories of Ukrainians praising their survivability and durability and that they can provide great support / kill a localised offensive.
It seems that like Javelins and HIMARs, Bradley's have had a massive impact on the battlefield for the Ukes. Taking out the invincible T90 is just icing on the cake for the US defense sector and BAE.
Anybody know how better protected the T90 is compared the rest of the orc tank models or is there any other good vids where a Bradley smoked a T80 or 72 much sooner?
Featured Stories
See All
Arranging the horse-cart combo correctly is critical for Texas A&M
by Olin Buchanan
9:36
2h ago
699
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s Battle For Atlanta Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
GeorgiAg
How do we manage the offense when Amari takes a breather
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
64