(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
I thought GLSDB probably wouldn't be available until late 2023? Like Sept, Oct or Nov or something. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/03/ukriane-aid-includes-longer-range-bombs-00081112 Interest in getting production ready only began to pop up late last year from what I remember. I don't think it got approved to be paid for until not too long ago.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2023 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Yeah I saw that. I'm assuming they made a mistake ID'ing what they shot down. I think the US gave the Ukrainians some other glide in bombs (JDAM-ER) and I'm guessing that might be what got shot down instead. Supposedly GLSDB can't even be fired from the launchers Ukraine has yet since they need updates to work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2023 13:36
|
|
|
Rear and side hits from a T55 can still penetrate on modern tanks so they can be dangerous under the right (mainly defensive or if they have a numbers advantage) circumstances. They get penetrated rather easily by anything with a 105mm+ gun though, just about any RPG can knock them out, and the sights as well as crew ergonomics suck pretty badly compared to a OG unupgraded T72 much less a Leopard or Leopard2. The unupgraded T55 is basically the last of the simple WWII-esque tanks and its interesting from a historical perspective (it was actually pretty good when it was introduced in the late 40's) but they don't really have a place on a 2022/2023 battlefield in a tank fighting role. From what has come up about most of the T55's the Ukrainians have they seem to be upgraded versions (of which there are many different ones) of varying quality. Some are only moderately better than a unupgraded version. Some of them have pretty substantial upgrades and are a decent 2nd or 3rd line tank. I don't think they try to use them in a tank battle role but instead as ersatz SPG or for scouting. The Russians supposedly were doing something similar but who knows what is really going on right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:What do you mean "inside" the frontal fuel tank. The weight limitations (around 40 tons) they required (so they could roll over most bridges) forced them to build their tanks relatively small compared to western tanks but like anything there are trade offs. One of those trade offs being they had to get 'creative' with how they fit enough fuel and ammo into the thing to be viable in combat. So yeah think of a giant plastic fuel tank full up with diesel with big holes in it that you stuff big 120mm ammo into as a storage ready rack. Couldn't find a good one of the T-62 or 64 off hand but this one about the T-72 can give you a idea of what its like. This is from a video game but they've accurately modeled the interior of a T-72 so you can get a surprisingly half way decent feel for what it'd be like and how it looks. 17:40 he shows the fuel/ammo tanks. Also note the ammo is scattered around all over the inside of the tank too. For some of it you'd be pretty much sitting on some of the ammo too. The 'carousel' autoloader gets lots of blame for the Russian tanks blowing up but going by the Cheiftan's comments and some Ukrainians its actually the ammo in the fuel tanks and all over in the ready racks that is the real problem. Some of the Ukrainians were commenting back in mid or late last year that they'd go out with all the ammo from the ready racks removed and just a full carousel. It meant they couldn't stay in the field as long but they felt that it improved their survivability so it was worth it in their eyes. Actually here is a vid with the T-62 interior and he showed the fuel tank/ammo storage racks at 10:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ZJoJtEDiQ As the loader they'd essentially be directly in front of your legs. Again note how cramped and tight everything is in there. Making your tank small does save weight but the impact on the crew can be high. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Apr 15, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2023 10:31
|
|
|
e: dammit sorry deleted
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:So what are the downsides (apart from cost, etc.)? There is a training round that is supposed to be cheaper and extend the life of the barrel during training and then there is the full power round. The training round is apparently fairly nice to shoot out of the Spear since the rifle is pretty heavy and has a good muzzle brake/suppressor combo. Going by Ian's and Carl's vids anyways. The full power round kicks fairly hard and that is where the comparisons to the M14 start becoming a bit eerie IMO. There's some vids out there of people shooting it and the rifle is starting to buck off their shoulders in full auto. For slow aimed fire its 'fine' of course but its still comparable to a 7.62x51 firearm which is kinda high for something that is supposed to be a full auto assualt rifle of sorts. Or maybe its supposed to be a compact DMR that is close enough to assault rifle that it gets issued widely. I dunno. That scope is pretty bad rear end no matter what. Wish it was cheaper though. Reputedly the army might not end up getting rid of their M4's and might use both M4's and M5's side by side for a long time to come since the extra ammo you can carry with the M4 is still a strong point in its favor. Interestingly going by Carl's vid the M4 still handles dirt better than the M5 will but the M5 isn't a bad gun mechanically. Only thing that truly looks stupid to me is the 2nd charging handle. I'm sure there is a argument for it but I don't think its worth it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhFjUliSvVc PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 16:54 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Edit: Addressing the post immediately above Yeah full auto isn't something for long range, and is really more of a 'oh poo poo' option, but that it might be practically unusuable for most average guys is still a issue. And 'oh poo poo' situations apparently do happen every now and again. The low recoil of the M4 was also considered a strong point in its favor for training avg. joes who've never shot a gun before even in semi auto. You can train away a flinch that comes from noobs firing higher power weapons their first time but it takes a while. Ynglaur posted:[i]The US Army is explicitly issuing the M5 only to infantry, forward observers, scouts, combat engineers, and special forces. Everyone else is keeping the M4/M16. Ynglaur posted:The second charging handle is for charging the weapon in constrained environments (e.g. the back of a Bradley, or on a helicopter). I agree it's probably a little extraneous. Tigey posted:I would have assumed it would also be frankly very undesirable from a logistics perspective to now have a new and completely different sized cartridge that is incompatible with your old weapons, or any of your allies weapons. You lose the ability to use ammo from NATO partners, and now have to lug around (and manage) even more different ammo types Yeah I forgot this. Its a good point. I can't help but wonder if the US is going to start trying push 6.8 as a NATO standard. While everyone is focused on the rifle the LMG (M250) is actually really impressive and might be a bigger deal militarily speaking. If the US is willing to foot the bill I wouldn't be surprised if NATO ends up adopting it at some point. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 17:12 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Let's check back in 2 years to see if there's some radically updated and expanded ammunition supply line. They've already paid for it (~$30 billion). https://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-dramatically-expand-155mm-200500634.html And not just 155mm shells either. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/03/13/pentagon-budget-aims-to-max-munitions-production-make-multiyear-buys/ Factories and equipment don't get put into place overnight unfortunately so 2yr or so is about the timeline generally being given for all this to come online.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2023 11:23
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I think the west is just out of things to sanction. Tracking what parts are making into the weapons would make it easy to find out who to go after or at least to start figuring out the gray market supply chain at work. Cpt_Obvious posted:but cutting off Russian access to SWIFT hasn't really done much to the ruble. The rouble is being propped up by extraordinary measures and the Russian economy is in pretty bad shape. They've already blown through nearly all their financial reserves that they expected to last the whole year too. Those reserves were a big part of keeping the lid on things too. Once that is all gone there are still things they can do that, on paper, make the economy look good but will also put it increasingly out of touch with reality since they have a hard time getting foreign currency.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Without a more coherent western strategy for arming and training Ukrainian forces I think the conflict is going to freeze very soon unless there’s some hidden morale erosion on the Russian side that could cause a collapse. Its hard for them to demine because when they send out the equipment it gets blown up pronto by a missile or artillery. Doing it by hand while under fire is basically suicide too. Going after the Russian planes, TEL's, or artillery means getting more air power, or at least better GBAD to protect demining operations, ultimately and right now they can't do that. So they seem to still be focusing on 'preparing the ground' by blowing up Russian ammo and supply dumps. That does seem to be having some sort've effect given some of the desperate pleas that Russians in the trenches are putting out for ammo and supplies lately. That and apparently the Ukrainians are starting to achieve local artillery superiority in a few areas is a significant sign that its having a harsh effect on the Russians in the field as well. This hasn't caused a collapse yet but assuming that it won't or can't and that the war will freeze from here on out seems premature.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 14:24
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:I can't remember which Ukraine thread it was in, but a summary was posted that said very clearly that it very much is a training issue. And yes its something many countries wouldn't be able to do. Its also something I clearly mentioned in that very part of my post you quoted. That isn't their only option though. Weakening a opponent in the field by destroying their supply lines while also continuously doing probing attacks to keep pressure on them isn't some new and unheard of tactic. Its something that, arguably, they've already pulled off at least once so far in the war. That is what the 'preparing the ground' quote I made was referencing. Kraftwerk posted:Then the GBAD side of things doesn’t work because the US/NATO is optimized towards letting their air forces do all the heavy lifting while ground formations mop up. The MIC simply isn’t configured to produce GBAD in sufficient numbers and effectiveness. But you're ignoring the existing supply of old but still serviceable weapons that while not great can still be good enough for some circumstances. For instance apparently Ukraine is getting around 100 upgraded Hawks from Taiwan soon. Spain has plenty of Aspides to sell or give away too. Those are NOT at all new systems but they're still good enough to shoot down helicopters and drones and help keep fighters away from a area you want protected. Apparently systems like NASAMS can also use common missiles that were produced in large numbers over the years and stockpiled as well. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jul 21, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
LordLeckie posted:People are quoting the taiwan defence minister saying otherwise This still leaves plenty of Aspides to use assuming they don't get any Hawks. And NASAMS to though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Huggybear posted:Is there a school of thought that they might as well field lighter cheaper vehicles because ATGMs, drones, precision munitions, and long range helicopters are so lethal now even the most uparmored modern tanks are target practice? No not among any who actually know anything about tanks or ATGMS in a modern sense. The reason why is things like APS (Active Protection System) like Trophy and such which are already out there in fairly widespread use for years now. Merkavas (Isreal) and newer or upgraded Abrams have it. Russia was already supposed to have their version (Afganit) out years ago. But they were supposed to have mounted them on the T14 Armata which should've (according to their early projections) have had it in widespread use too by now as well. Right now the T14 is still pretty much a show piece prototype. And the rumors are that their APS doesn't work nearly as good as it was hyped to. You're going to see more and more new versions of Trophy and other APS being developed and implemented over the years. The focus now is on making it cheaper, lighter and smaller so they can stuff them into trucks and IFV's as needed as another layer of defense against drones, missiles, and mortars. So no armor isn't going to be obsolete. Its role and use are going to change at least somewhat though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
Kaal posted:or consider a lighter and more modernized redesign in the form of the Abrams X. As far as I know GDLS is still contracted to produce SEPv3 Abrams for another 4yr at least and the current expectation is that Abrams will still the US's primary MBT until at least 2030 and probably will serve until 2040 in one upgraded form or another. Right now the SEPv4 upgrade is supposed to be (I think there is still some testing going on so that could change) coming around 2025 and it probably won't be the last upgrade the Abrams gets. Abrams is a pretty expensive and a terribly heavy tank but its also still one of the best out there and its cheaper to do add ons or adaptations to it than a new tank so the current expectation is that it isn't going away.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The worth of the tank really depends on how well the next generation of anti-missile systems work out in practice against threats like Javelin and Spike and APKWS. The Israelis tanks get shot at with modern Russian ATGM's fairly frequently so they get plenty of real world practical experience to work with and reference. Currently the best thing to do with a tank that has APS like that is to shoot at it with another tank since the APS can't stop high power cannon rounds. APS can be pretty drat good. The problem with it isn't the effectiveness with older or current ATGM's. The problem is the cost and weight which are pretty dang high and prohibitive for most countries right now which is why you don't see everyone using it everywhere. I think it adds around 5,000lbs to the Abrams and the initial price to refit it to a tank early on (back in 2017, it might be cheaper right now, not sure) was almost $1 million per tank. Thats why the focus now is on getting weight and cost down instead of trying to add new features to it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:It sounds like drones have been showing as cheap and very effective in comparison at this point? For Ukraine at least. Drones have been effective for both sides though it appears Ukraine has done a better job of using them than Russia so far. The problem with drones, especially the cheap ones you can get mass produced from China, is that they're easy to jam with EW. EW is also extremely cheap for how much area it can effect and its easy to keep it running in the field for long time periods from far behind defensive lines where its hard to get at. You typically have to either get artillery of some sort to fire on it or have helicopters or planes attack it to knock it out reliably. Drones with jam resistant communications can be made but they are big, heavy, expensive, have complicated logistics, and hard to produce and so won't be used the same way the current drones are. There's also lots and lots of anti drone weapons coming from everyone who has been watching the Ukraine war from the sidelines which neither Ukraine or Russia had at the start of the fighting in 2022 and even now still have shortages of. Basically this war, at least at the start of it in 2022, was kind've the perfect storm for drones to be at their most effective but other future wars probably aren't going to play out like this because everyone is watching and adapting as necessary. OctaMurk posted:The USA would be breaching this line with the help of literally hundreds of fighterbombers. Ukraine has shortages of artillery let alone aircraft. That is where some F16's or Gripens would've really come in handy. They wouldn't change the course of the war alone but they'd allow for much more effective defense of Ukrainian ground forces while they attack. Air power is a huge part of the CAS equation and neither side has been able to leverage it as well as they want due to the large amount of GBAD in Ukraine. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Aug 13, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:In my opinion, posts like the above should be engaged and refuted, not banned; They're not interested in honest engagement. They're just trolling and don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
Libluini posted:To be fair, Russia managing to hold on so far by just pretending there is no problem They built up as big of a foreign currency reserve as fast as they could before 2022 just to try and cope with sanctions that they knew would come. That is pretty much all blown through now and their oil revenues have been cratered since late 2022/early 2023 so they're going to have to start doing more and more shenanigans to keep it together. Most would consider doing that 2nd recent shake down (they did one last year on the common people instead of on the rich) on your own people for foreign currency to be a desperation move. There are still things they can do to keep parts of their economy propped up but they're all of the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" variety that have risks and repercussions of varying degrees that can play out over many years depending on the after war circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
They've been doing "blocking brigades" in rear more and more for a while now. Since at least late last year. And its not too hard to find vids of them either shooting people trying to surrender or just being dicks to the "meat" being pushed out to die in a trench somewhere. You don't do that if you believe your forces can hold or are in good shape. You do that if you're worried they'll fold quickly in a push or just walk on over to the enemy lines and hand their weapons over. For a organization like a nation state that is a clear cut desperation move. I don't think mass surrenders or mutinies on the actual battlefield itself are imminent (I think you'd need to see signs that the blocking brigades are starting to fold on a large scale or that they largely abandon their job and just let people flee back home) but they're clearly in bad shape and know it. I think that is good reason to doubt they're going to tolerate this for another few years the way things are going.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2023 09:03
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Outside of Wagner excon suicide squads they have mostly remained war tall tales, with obligatory scary Chechens in the commissar role. If it was 1 or 2 rumors and no vids of people being shot while running I'd buy this but since reality is the opposite of that I don't think you can brush it off like that either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2023 09:57
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Being able to track something travelling in a straight line at Mach 3 by no means guarantees being able to hit something that responsively dodges laterally in random directions (at least without expenditure of many rounds or specialised ammo that explodes and blankets a volume with shrapnel). It won't be people aiming these 25-30mm cannon anti drone systems so it doesn't matter how much they juke around even when AI controlled. They're the functional equivalent of a shotgun that blasts an area somewhere around a quarter to half the size of a football field in a split second with thousands of projectiles. They're way more effective than you're giving them credit for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Now this is interesting. The US Army just announced it's cancelling the M1A2SEPv4 program in favor of getting to a new tank.. Yeah that is a complete 180 from their previous plan. Apparently they're calling the new one the M1E3. It'll still be a upgraded Abrams but the upgrades are supposed to be more drastic than the SEPv4 version though they're saying they'll still use some of the tech from that. The AbramsX demonstrator doesn't seem to be the target specs either. Its not coming until the early 2030's though so while its a big deal its not immediately relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:so in 10-15 years our allies will be operating way, way more drawn down abrams Most of our allies don't want the Abrams. Its too heavy and expensive for most of them. Its part of the reason there's huge numbers of them wasting away in desert depots still.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cw5WBURom4L/?igshid=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng== Yup Gepards work fairly well against Shaheds even with old style ammo. Against tiny fast drones they'd still probably work but the newer 30-25mm autocannons with the special fused ammo should be much much better at this task.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:I didn’t say they can’t be hit, I asked how much ammo you’d need to hit them. If you have to expend thousands of rounds to hit a $500 drone how often will you have to reload and how will you defend against a constant stream of drones? You don't need 1,000's for 1 drone. The newer ammos have on the fly programmable fuses and explosive fragmentation projectiles that explode when they get near a drone, missile, or whatever. When they blow that is where you get your 1,000's of fragments in a burst of shells. Here is an example for Bofor's 3P ammo and its effect on a small drone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG9QK-Uq_bA There are several other guns and ammo systems out there but they have similar performance for a given sized projectile. 20-30 rounds to take out a fighter or high speed missile is what some are publicly advertised as capable of. I don't know what it is exactly for drones but it'll be less. We know this because, as someone posted the vid a bit up thread, Gepards can already shoot down drones just fine with the old impact fused ammo with short 3-5 round bursts. Gepards are OLD too. From the late 60's/early 70's. They did get upgraded in the 80's I think but still. OLD. The newer systems like Rheinmetall's Skyranger are huge upgrades that you're going to see rolled out more and more. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Sep 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:The point is you can’t snipe a hundred drones per second by predicting their paths and leading them with a single bullet, because they can add random bubble to their trajectory, or even (potentially) watch for muzzle flash 200 times per second and add a random dodge manoeuvre whenever that happens. Those drones you're talking about juking around may as well be effectively sitting still for the most part. Their juking is effective and impressive on human perception time scales but not on bullet time scales or vs a computerized aiming system with radar. It won't matter one bit if they can detect the muzzle flashes or not if by the time it takes for the drone to start to maneuver the projectile has already either hit the drone or exploded near the drone and 'shotgunned' it with fragments. Also the sorts of cheap mirrors you can that are light enough to put on tiny drones won't reflect lasers, were talking something like 30-100KW range (which already exists BTW), that are going to be used for anti drone duty. It'll burn holes right through them. You need special, and rather expensive and heavy for something covering most or all of the drone, mirrors to do that. Drones are going to change things but I think you're way overvaluing what their effect could be and letting some scifi vids influence your thoughts too much here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2023 07:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The big concern would be retaining significant ammunition reserves. Giving up practical burst fire capability would be a mistake. The 50mm auto cannon that the army is interested in is using just a necked up 30mm cartridge so the logistics (size wise at least, it weighs a bit more) are the same as regular 30mm. The advantage with this approach is that you get more bang (more explosives in 50mm round than 30mm) and you can more easily and cheaply put fancy fuse tech in them for 'smart' rounds for anti air or anti trench work. The downside is the ballistics (range) won't be any better than 30mm but apparently that doesn't much matter. Or at least they think it doesn't. They're probably right since you'll still have a few km of practical range which is fine for a IFV auto cannon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The 50 mm is a reworked version of the 35 mm cartridge, not the 30 mm. Ah OK my bad. There was a pic I saw a while back of someone holding, what I thought incorrectly, was a 30mm cartridge base to base up against the 50mm one and they were identical.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:It's been a while but this thread was very adamant about cope cages being hilarious and dumb and ineffective. They're hilariously dumb and ineffective against more modern (80's onwards) tandem warhead ATGM's that were designed to deal with it and a layer of ERA. Against really old style RPG7 dumb munitions from the 50's or 60's they can still work. Slat armor first used in WWII so its not a new thing either. Both sides are still using lots of the old style dumb munitions fired from RPG7's often because that is what they have. And they're cheap and probably available in high volume too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Where does the new US booker tank fall into this? Technically the military doesn't want you to call it a tank at all but de facto its a light tank. Its meant for roles where mobility is the most important factor (ie. mountainous terrain or perhaps scouting in a pinch) or operating as a assault gun (think glorified closer range focused SPG) in close contact with supporting ground forces. Its got a 105mm gun so it won't be great in anti tank role but that is OK. Its meant to take out pill boxes, trenches, and other fortifications mostly. Not go head to head with a T90. Basically something with more bang and better protection than a Bradley but a lot lighter, cheaper, and better logistics than a Abrams. I think they're currently planning on buying around 500 over the next several years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:Tanks are not a dead end yet but they are very expensive compared to how vulnerable they are in a war like this, where EW and AA has not caught up with drone warfare at all. Neither side in Ukraine has anything like the Trophy APS system on their tanks, IFV's, or any other vehicles so the vulnerability of those vehicles is being way Waaaay WAAAAY over blown in this war vs what it would be with more modern stuff. A lot of the anti drone stuff for both sides has been mostly old stuff (Gepards from the late 60's, 57mm S-60 AAA 50's, massed .50 HMG's which technically preceedes WWII, etc) pressed back into service too which while not ineffective isn't exactly ideal or cutting edge either. Russia was already supposed to have their APS out years ago (Afganit) but its still not use yet. The US has been putting them on the newer upgraded Abrams for a while now (since 2017 or so, Bradley's will be getting Iron Fist APS this or next year I think) but those aren't going to be going into Ukraine. Everyone is slapping, or plans to soon, 20-35mm autocannons slaved to some sort've computerized aiming + short range radar system everywhere now for anti drone work. Basically there is a TON of poo poo being done to make tanks, IFV's, etc survivable against drones and ATGM's by everyone, and its been ongoing for years, but its not making the news cycle for whatever reason so "no one" knows about it. There are real world examples of modern anti ATGM systems and EW in use while supporting tanks in Israel over the last few years on their Merkava tanks (Trophy was developed by the Isrealies). There has been at least 1 documented instance, by the Israeli's, of as many as 40+ RPG's (a combo of old RPG 7's and newer Kornets) having been fired at tanks that have Trophy and they survived without being disabled. That doesn't mean they're invincible. I think Hamas has knocked out some. But they usually have to throw quite a bit of hardware at them now to do so IF they have Trophy. Not all Israel's tanks have it because its really expensive. Same for the US. There are some Hamas vids that have leaked and show it action though and it does work fairly well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:I am now going with this theory. A second watch of the videos shows I was wrong about a missile hitting a flare. There's also been some chatter that they're using modified S-200 in a frankensam system. Googling on it apparently the S-200 can be upgraded with modern solid state electronics and they're actually fairly dangerous if used properly even against modern hardware. The Iranians did a upgrade like that back in 2010 on the ones they've got and they can use them to shoot down drones from 100km+ so its not impossible the Ukrainians did something similar on a limited basis. So yeah its practically ancient tech these days, some of the equipment has been in museums for years now, but if you 'slap in' modern electronics its still a fairly long range missile with a big warhead that can be effective. Supposedly the bigger problem with them is the TEL and associated support equipment has poor mobility and is hard to use vs anything more modern. Which means everything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 07:41
|
|
|
I dont know posted:and speculated the real reason Germany didn't want to give them is because of what they are designed for compared to missles like storm shadow. Didn't the UK already give Ukraine some Storm Shadows that are specifically really really good at destroying structures already though? A quick google shows several articles from late last year saying they were given Storm Shadows with BROACH warheads, and used them, so it seems to be true. So this speculation doesn't seem to hold up at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2024 15:13
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Perhaps you'd need so many of them they didn't have enough to be sure they would really put the bridge out for long enough so they used them on other targets. Zasze posted:The storm shadows supposedly had uk operators which is more specifically the line they didn’t want to cross rather than whatever escalation fig leaf they are hiding behind this week.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I have a feeling American defense contractors are feverishly working on automated anti-drone technology that can be attached to things like tanks They started work on that stuff years ago and much of it is already finished. Its more of a question of how much the US will buy at this point and how it will be used exactly. Most of the better anti drone systems use a dedicated vehicle instead of being a direct on tank upgrade though. They did that on purpose because even years ago it was becoming apparent that the Abrams was getting too heavy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I imagine the cost of trying to retrofit the various 60s-70s light AA cannon systems with modern computers and other hardware to make them suitable for targeting drones wouldn't be feasible even if the cold war stocks still were there. They've already built modern versions (as in, they're SPAAG's and not exactly built like Gepards) and gave Ukraine some. They started back in mid 2023. I think the UK and some other countries have whipped up something similar and given to the Ukrainians too. They work just fine. The issue with them is they still don't have enough and the range of these guns is actually rather short. Typically only a few KM. Which means you need huge numbers of them if you want to cover large areas. Gepard runs into the same issue. All SPAAG's do. Its why so many countries started relying more on missiles instead. They give you lots more range for a similar weight. The problem with missiles is the cost and production times. They're very expensive and slow to produce in comparison to drones. Hence the switch back to SPAAGs of one sort or another over the last few years. The US started looking into it back in 2020 at least I believe when it became apparent they weren't going to have enough missiles to protect against drones. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Apr 26, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Lack of HE on a tank is shocking given even I know they mostly don't fight other tanks.... HE doesn't work well on other modern-ish tanks and Abrams prime opponent and target on the battlefield is going to be other tanks. So that is what they mostly arm for. Artillery can be called in most of the time if HE is needed anyways. Bear in mind too its not like they can fit 100's of rounds inside these things either. Abrams has space for only 55rd of 105mm and 40ish rd of 120mm. This is about the same as other tanks of similar cannon size. Cannon ammo is big and heavy. edit: true but the military doesn't see this as a huge issue though its generally acknowledged by a lot of tankers that they like to keep at least a few HE rounds in the tank if they can for just that sort've thing\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ edit 2: current load outs are based on current doctrine which will obviously change over time but more HE probably won't be issued to take out drones or ATGM teams. A better version of CROWS would however and so far if I had to guess that seems to be the way the military is drifting now. That and they've got Trophy on their newer Abrams too for ATGM defense. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Apr 26, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Russia has managed to reconstitute itself, but to what extent is that reproducible? I think most of the experts are still saying they'll start to run out of even the mediocre and rusted but still dangerous Soviet era stuff around late 2024-mid 2025 depending on what sort've stuff you have in mind. After that it'll be only fully new production (not just upgraded or refurbished old stuff often counted as new) to send to get blown up. For man power they'll probably happily send their boys into the meatgrinder for a long long time. The Russian leadership doesn't care about its people. You'd have to look at things from a more event driven perspective I think to even consider a time line though. The only time Putin has been willing to pull people back so far has been if it was apparent they were going to lose huge numbers of them in a very short time period and even for them that isn't something they can sustain for long. So whenever the Russian lines are in immanent collapse while the Ukrainians are pushing hard and taking land back by the km hourly or daily. I think we're a long way from that still...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Freudian slippers posted:This is over the top, even for you, and the sheer glee of the last sentence is disgusting. You're usually better at covering up, but the mask slipped here. The mask has slipped a few times on MikeC in these threads. I thought it was obvious he's a pro Putin/Russia troll at this point?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2024 08:48
|
|