(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Seems extremely unlikely to be near 1:1 from a historical point of view. Assaulting prepared, entrenched positions is usually very costly for the attacker compared to the defender.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2023 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Svaha posted:Invading Crimea is a horrible bottleneck that has historically annihilated entire armies, so probably not. Better to besiege it for a while before you even try. Historically Crimea fell to both the German and Soviet armies without much fanfare. A small peninsula is a lovely place to defend if the other guy controls access to the mainland.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
Svaha posted:Not much fanfare? Some of the bloodiest battles of wwII happened there. You should perhaps read a bit into it. The peninsula fell to the Germans very quickly - aside from Kerch and Sevastopol which ended up in protracted urban sieges, eventually leading to the capture of 65,000 Soviet troops while the main German advance moved on. The defenders lost substantially more than the attackers. The Russians retook it (including the cities) in a month. 85,000 casualties includes wounded and sick - and again the defenders took heavier losses than the attackers and just barely avoided losing a shitload more in a close evacuation. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Either way, I don't think that's a war Ukraine has the equipment to fight. Neither does Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The Siege of Sevastopol held up German units for 8 months. It was quite a bit of fanfare at the time. The Germans continued Eastward after bottling up the Soviet army in Sevastopol, leaving enough behind to successfully destroy the trapped army. In the end, despite the propaganda value of the holdout, they managed to lose far more troops than the attacking Germans by a factor of 3-4 for the simple reason that they had no means to withdraw or, eventually, maintain the siege because they were trapped in a pocket on a loving peninsula. The Germans didn't even bother to try for a siege, because at that point the fortifications were rubble, they knew they'd be hosed if they tried anyways, and instead got a big chunk of their army dead covering a desperate evacuation because they were trapped in a pocket on a loving peninsula. In both cases the attempt ended poorly for the defenders, and wasn't particularly outstanding compared to what was going on all along the front it was a small part of. Sevastopol was also a literal fortress at the time, with a gigantic amount of modern static fortifications and heavy naval and sea logistics component that was at least initially largely unopposed to support it. This is no longer true. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
Svaha posted:So how do you see it playing out this time, considering the considerable defenses the Russians have built up over the last 7 years, and Ukraine's complete lack of a navy? They haven't built significant defenses over the past 7 years (and are still working on the two half-assed trench lines they threw up recently), Ukraine hasn't needed a navy to deny the Black Sea Fleet from playing any significant combat role (or existing above the water) near the front lines, and the Ukrainians still appear capable of dealing with the entire Russian air force which continues to play a minimal role in the conflict. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Apr 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2023 06:25
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:yeah, for me it is overthinking to suggest that effectiveness of Russian T62T54/whatever is held back because they don't have trained loaders sitting around. The answer is obvious, mobilize 100 old rear end tanks, put them at training barracks and spend months training 100's to 1,000's of loaders (and gunners and drivers, the TC are probably the real shortage and hardest to train). They're held back by numerous factors - the poor state of the equipment, second world war gun/optic/fire control technology, protection more akin to an IFV than a modern tank, old ammunition, and the lack of trained crews and effective training cadres (which isn't exclusive to the old tanks). I tend to agree that poorly trained loaders is just the tip of the iceberg compared to the other factors though. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Apr 15, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Also, just from watching a lot of Warsaw Pact tanks brew up in Syria, it's the gas fire that starts the ammo explosion, because a lot of those tanks ran their fuel lines around the turret ring. They would catch fire when hit, then the fire spreads to the ammo carousel just under the turret ring, and suddenly the turret is airborne. The vigorous sudden flames or pillars of fire aren't fuel, they're caused by propellant. The T-64/72/80/90 series tanks use a separate propellant charge rammed in behind the shell. These propellant charges are mostly stored in the autoloader carousel, right next to the shells but can also be stored around racks in the crew space with additional shells. Basically it's much easier to light up propellant than high explosives (this is after all what it's meant for) and unlike fuel (but more like gunpowder) once it burns, it burns quick and very hot. Hot enough to cook off a high explosive shell in the vicinity, causing the earth shattering kaboom. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Apr 17, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
Haystack posted:Yeah, this was huge. Pre-2014, the Ukrainian military was notoriously lovely and rife with divided loyalties. Eight years of civil/proxy war was plenty to shake out a lot of the usual parasites that inhabit peacetime armies, to say nothing of those that had Russian sympathies. Putin clearly planned his war based on Ukraine's 2014 showing and got completely blindsided what was actually waiting for him. Even in 2014 they dramatically underestimated the Ukrainian government and military. The Crimean invasion was the Russian leadership testing the waters (and grabbing what they wanted most). In doing so they confirmed that the Ukrainian government was unwilling to risk starting a larger conflict by shooting back and that they were able to grab some portions of the Ukrainian military where loyalties were split, particularly in the Navy. International response was similarly promising - NATO wholly avoided conflict and to a large extent international media was initially willing to parrot Russian talking points w/r/t these being rebels seeking independence/Ukrainians all being Nazis/genocide of Russians and the like similar to Georgia. So, confirming their expectations, they began the invasion in the East using the same tactics. Then things started to go off track. First, they got very little local support so the invasion remained a Russian military affair - unlike Crimea they didn't have a bunch of troops here to secure the territory they were taking. Second, the Ukrainian military remained intact and organized - initially withdrawing and taking their hardware with them. Third, the Ukrainian government eventually stopped waffling and was willing to not only send in troops to restore control, but also ordered them to shoot back this time. Finally, when they did start fighting the Ukrainians fought *hard*. They pushed Russian irregular forces rapidly back and bottled them up in a few cities while nearly recapturing the border. Then, when regular Russian formations crossed the border in force to save the situation, despite being caught by surprise the Ukrainians actually fought a bunch of pitched battles and inflicted serious losses - eventually leading to the assault faltering at the 2014 lines where they failed to even secure all of Donetsk and Luhansk, much less the coast. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Apr 18, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If russian military is reduced to vfr pilots then god help everyone Look man, it's hard to get your Garmin eTrex RMA'd with the sanctions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:You’re assuming a deliberate release at that point rather than equipment malfunction or pilot error, which is quite an assumption. Pilot error insofar as the pilot deliberately doing the multiple tasks necessary to release a weapon without actually intending to release a weapon is a lot less likely than you'd think. Equipment malfunction is flat out not a realistic cause, similar to the missile launch near the NATO surveillance plane last year we had people arguing about and predictably turned out to be intentional. Pilot error meaning "dropped the bomb in the wrong place" is definitely possible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Equipment malfunction in the sense of "it was supposed to use wings and glide, but it fell like a rock" is totally possible. Or "guidance failure," which can and has put bombs miles off target. One of the most infamous examples of the latter was a UK flight trying to hit a bridge, but guidance failure put two bombs squarely into a civilian marketplace. Congratulations, you've just listed a bunch of cases where people did all the things necessary to launch a weapon, causing a weapon to launch in what amounts to "dropped the bomb in the wrong place", plus one extra-not-applicable "intentionally fired live munition they thought was an inert practice munition". You made the exact same bad argument last year with regards to the shot taken at the aforementioned NATO surveillance aircraft. A technical issue causing the bomb not to glide is possible - though still extremely poor mission planning dropping glide bombs over a city and probably not explaining the FAB-500 with no glide kit sitting in the ditch.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Your original post was misleading and was backed up by zero evidence. I provided real world examples that give people a better understanding of aviation mishaps with regards to unintentional weapon release or weapon release that lands somewhere other than intended. You linked real world examples that either lined up with what I already stated was the likely cause or had no relevance to the discussion. You linked an AMRAAM launched by a guy who thought he had a dummy weapon onboard and got a surprise when it actually fired off the rail after attempting to launch it, a pilot firing rockets into the wrong part of a firing range during a live fire demonstration, an A-10 hitting birds resulting in a trio of little training bombs dropping off, and a guy who lobbed a bomb off a training range. Examples 2 and 4 are literally dropping the bombs/rockets in the wrong place, which I covered in my post as a likely cause. Example 1 is a guy intentionally launching a thing he thought couldn't physically be launched off his aircraft, which doesn't seem to conflict with my post and doesn't really seem applicable to a discussion regarding live ordnance in a warzone. In example 4 the article explicitly says they don't know how it happened and an investigation had been launched. Even assuming a mechanical issue as the cause you're still trying to compare an 11kg cast-iron training bomb with a single suspension lug to an actual 500KG steel bomb with multiple suspension lugs. It doesn't seem "realistic" that this Su-34 hit something mid-flight substantial enough to break a 500kg bomb off a pylon, particularly given this occurred during a combat mission in a warzone during which the pilot would be intentionally dropping it. You also mentioned "it was supposed to use wings and glide, but it fell like a rock" and "guidance failure" as potential causes. Both seem rather unlikely given we've got a photo of one of the bombs and it's an unguided FAB-500 with no glide wings or guidance package strapped to it. Coquito Ergo Sum posted:I wrote a small snippet of my thoughts on the T-series tanks both Russia and Ukraine are using, but generally the problem with the design that Russia has been using since basically the T-54 is its limit in overall design. The T-64 (and by extension, the T-72 and T-80) was so built around its autoloader at the expense of everything else that there's nothing it could do to really stand up against more modern adversaries. The T-64 was ahead of its time when it was adopted, but there have been severely limiting factors (which even the designers acknowledged), and its overall design keeps it from being able to properly modernize. With regards to the T-64, the design was ahead of its time when it was adopted. On paper. In reality it was an unreliable hot mess that very nearly got the axe because the Red Army loving hated it. A lot of its issues, including the autoloader problems, come down to having to get super creative to cram everything into a such a small package. Small tank with a big gun? Welp, it's completely full of ammo and propellant now. Autoloader made as compact as possible in a compact tank? Hope you didn't ever want to load longer ammunition! Want your little tank to have lots of engine power? Enjoy your miniaturized diesel engine that breaks down all the time. Even the whole reliance on ERA thing from the 80's comes down to running out of space/weight on the chassis. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Apr 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Just to point out: these are not factory munitions. These are existing bombs with a shop made packaged mounted to them. I know. The one photographed almost fully dug out of the mud in Belgorod had no visible additions (fins, wings, etc.) or marks to indicate they had been removed. Looks like a plain old FAB-500. mlmp08 posted:Maybe we are talking past each other. I think there is insufficient evidence to make a call on why the bombs fell. Fair enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That policy will thus be returned in kind, which I believe is the point. They don't want their soldiers to defect by surrendering. It won't be returned in kind, at least not on a large scale. Ukraine has some major incentives to at least attempt to fight a lawful war.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2023 12:49
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:If there was a time to force a large scale surrenders it was in Kherson - there will not be no more ideal conditions. In Kherson they had their backs to a large stretch of river with three (at the time of retreat, damaged) bridges across it. This was a major obstacle for moving heavy equipment and all the ammunition/fuel/food necessary to keep a large fighting force supplied during combat, but it was not a major obstacle for soldiers or light vehicles (cars) entering or retreating Kherson - you could literally swim across parts of the river, take a small boat, or just walk across the bridges. The Russian military *was* forced to leave the Western bank and part ways with a bunch of ammunition and heavier equipment they couldn't get back across the river - including one of the better condition T-90M's captured to date because they could not actually maintain the defense and they could not hold the defensive lines along the river - running the risk of Ukrainian advances similar to those just prior to the retreat cutting pockets of defenders off from the riverbank.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:there's at least 3 pantsir systems in the immediate vicinity On that note, Russian air defenses actually firing at these would have been extremely obvious and more destructive than those tiny payloads.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Eh, Patriot has been updated numerous times, in both hardware and software. I'm sure it shares many features if the original, but it's not 40 years old at this point. It's worth noting that the missile isn't the only factor. Sensors, comms/networking, and better software driving things have been the focus of a bunch of upgrades. I'd wager an old PAC-2 from the 90's could be shockingly effective these days compared to the early 90's.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So is it actually possible that the separists actually take Belgorod and have it be independent from Russia? Stuff like this has me wonder what Ukraine's goal is with this No. At best the cross-border fuckery up North is an effort to force Russia to actually dedicate some troops to defend its borders by pulling them out of Ukraine. It's basically just meant to embarrass Moscow - who skeletonized the border with what they insist is an aggressive Nazi state. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:54 on May 22, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well yeah the torture chamber is what differentiates traitor jail from normal jail. This is a war where Russia disseminated a new set of army instructions on how to properly dig mass graves in the leadup. A war they also thought would end with the rapid and total surrender of the military and government, involving only minor amounts of combat for about two weeks. Where two weeks after the conflict started they still (accidentally?) ran articles in state run media detailing why Putin was forever solving the Ukrainian question. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 13:31 on May 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 13:28
|
|
|
Yeah if that thing detonated at the range it was at when the footage cut, the ship in question is gonna have some pretty serious damage. The key part about these drones is that they're (relatively) cheap. This is something they can produce domestically during the war and it still forces the Russian military to be more conservative with their ships and devote more forces to harbor defense.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Anti-shipping missiles are limited by sensor range - you need a radar contact or something before you start firing multi-million missiles to the horizon. If the enemy fleet stays at a safe range from your coast then coastal missile batteries can't touch them. A drone you can just send out and look for targets even in their home harbour. Russian use of radar guided anti-shipping missiles on cities suggests you do not, in fact, need a radar contact or anything to start firing multi-million dollar missiles at the horizon. You just have to be a malicious rear end in a top hat who doesn't care about what it hits. But yes, to actually engage useful military targets you need a lot more going on with a cruise missile than a USV that somebody can drive over to a target area overnight, look around for warships, and plow into exactly what he wants by remote control.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Seems to be a bunch of strikes against Russian barracks today as well They've been doing this since they got HIMARS. There's not a lot Russia can do to adapt to it - air defense in places absolutely bristling with the latest and greatest hasn't exactly had a phenomenal track record against HIMARS and it's not exactly easy to not have groups of people, ammo, or important electronic things in the same place while fighting a war.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Chalks posted:The azovstal strike is different though, using storm shadow's bunker busting abilities they seem to have done enough damage to require a major rescue operation deep within Russian controlled territory. Much further than HIMARS can reach. Yes, Russia moved a lot of important stuff further behind the lines and HIMARS has continued to hit the stuff they couldn't move. Storm Shadow makes it possible to hit the stuff that could be moved - and sure enough Ukraine is now hitting the big stuff further afield again. Many of the targets already hit are in pretty heavily defended areas, Russian air defense does not appear to have had much luck shooting them down, and good luck moving everything 200km+ further back.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:RUSI's report indicated that Russia has made several adaptations to Ukrainian deep strike capabilities such as HIMARS. Everything from displacing further back (Division headquarters are typically 90+km from the front) to ground-based air defenses targeting the incoming missiles to GPS spoofing electronic warfare assets redicing accuracy to emplacing high-value assets in concrete buildings. All of those adaptations have their own costs, of course, but Russian command and control has been fairly solid since last fall. Yet the deep strikes continued on what was left in range, and the juicy stuff that got moved back started getting hit again as soon as the Ukrainians got a deeper striking munition. And in case you didn't notice neither ammunition nor "solid" command has been in abundant supply at the Russian front lines since last fall. I don't think we're going to see a huge string of gigantic ammo dumps lit off like we did last year simply due to the fact that the Russian army isn't exactly sitting on gigantic stockpiles of ammunition anymore. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 27, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
Coquito Ergo Sum posted:There are also peculiarities when it comes to Ukraine in terms of just how much anti-tank weaponry was distributed I wouldn't exactly say the heavy distribution of AT weapons was peculiar. Remember that Ukraine basically just got a chunk of hand-me-downs from existing NATO stockpiles - just a fraction of the man portable AT munitions kicking around in case NATO actually had to fight Russia. There were certainly times Ukrainian infantry was pictured hauling around unusually large numbers of those weapons, but that's not unheard of for situations where infantry is expecting to encounter a lot of armor. Admittedly not a thing most militaries on the planet can pull off, though. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Moon Slayer posted:I remember pictures coming out of Ukrainian infantry squads in spring/summer 2022 and people with military experience going "huh, usually a Western squad would have one person carrying an ATM system not ... everybody carrying two or three." I'll bet the Ukrainian troops trained in peacetime with similar doctrinal standards. The key here is wartime realities often require adaptation. If the enemy is throwing lots of poorly supported armor at your light infantry (and you can't just bomb them into oblivion or overwhelm them with your own armor) you'd better hope your leadership is capable of the minor mental leap to distribute more AT weapons to that infantry (whom you have probably already trained to use them in a Western styled professional military). You can just look at the ersatz tank hunter teams evident in pretty much every past conflict where that has happened.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I don't know. If that had been the intent, they could probably have achieved it by opening more sluice gates, no? Yeah, if you're going for plausible deniability, blowing a big hole in the dam you control with explosives seems like the least plausibly deniable option. It does seem like a criminally reckless and spiteful approach that does the most damage to the area and requires the least thinking/planning to pull off, though, which is pretty in line with Russian activities in Ukraine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2023 13:46
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:I'm mildly curious, how do less-than-APC modern vehicles like MRAPs compare to ancient Soviet stuff like BMP-1s, as far as protected mobility is concerned? Is it even possible to make a meaningful comparison? The newer stuff is better on the protection side with better protection from shock and spall for the people inside, less chance of burning everyone alive if the fuel lights up, better escape options to improve the odds of escaping stricken vehicle, etc. Both are similarly protected against light arms and vulnerable to heavier stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
mrfart posted:Is this the same missile strike that killed major general Goryachev? Don't believe it was the same missile. Right now I expect is a very busy time for Ukrainian artillery as they destroy and further complicate Russian command and logistics. Both because of the need to support the ongoing offensive operations and because Russian forces attempting to reposition, resupply, etc. will open up more opportunities than usual. See also the huge number of Russian artillery systems getting got lately.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Isn't anti air notoriously hard to decoy because of the radiation emitted? Maybe! You've got a balloon that looks like an air defense radar. Is it hard to decoy against an enemy whose elint and drone/satellite/etc. surveillance data is being collated and assessed by trained experts to select targets? Yes. You could probably still pull it off sometimes if it looks convincing, because hey not all radars are kept on all the time. Is it hard to decoy somebody into lobbing an Anti-radiation Missile at a balloon? Yes. Is it hard to decoy an enemy whose target selection boils down to a guy with a laptop directing strikes ad-hoc from his commercial grade drone? No. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 16, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:not an super knowledgeable, but it could be a question of aspect. the thermal image looks like they're firing to intercept from roughly 45 degree angle, while the kinzhals were targeted at the patriot batteries themselves and presumably offered a more head on intercept. it's easier to get in front of something coming directly at you than to get in front of something that's quickly going to be moving away from you The Pantsir specifically hasn't had a stellar service record. It got hit by Israeli slowboat loitering munitions in Syria (despite engaging them in a few cases), got caught seemingly unawares by Turkish drones and drone-launched ATGMs repeatedly in Northern Syria and Ukraine, and in general has failed to shoot down cruise missiles, artillery rockets, and drones. Internally before the war Russian air defense crews had criticized it on social media for being awful at engaging low altitude or smaller targets compared to the Tor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They're obviously counting on mass defections from the Russian Army to make this work. We'll see what happens. Honestly? If Wagner's got even a quarter of the 50k troops they had before the war (plus armor and heavy weapons akin to what they were using at the front) there might not be much of significance between them and Moscow. Everything is in Ukraine and this is a period of very heavy fighting where they can't exactly just pack up and redirect a bunch of troops, especially if this isn't a kneejerk move and they took measures to delay that response. The Russian government is likely to be legitimately worried about this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:I've been trying to understand this, so please be gentle. If I'm wrong, explain it like I'm five and have brain damage. ADHD can be a real bitch sometimes: Wagner is a deniable ops wing of the Russian military. Before the war it pulled members directly and exclusively from the Russian army, only took contracts in support of Russian interests overseas, were based and trained on active Russian military bases, and exist in Russia as a "PMC" despite the fact it's been outright illegal to run a PMC in Russia. Similarly they were thrown wholesale into Ukraine along with the rest of the Russian armed forces - just under a parallel command structure. They exist so Russia has a standing pool of organized troops identifying as "Not Russian troops" to be used for things where it's politically convenient to not to have the Russian army doing them. Like helping with genocides or getting casually wrecked by the US while attempting to grab some US troops overseas. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jun 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
RockWhisperer posted:I asked about Kadyrov very early on because he was MIA. His absence was noticeable and getting stuck in traffic was comical stalling in my opinion. Military column getting stuck in civilian traffic as it approaches an area of unexpected fighting via roads is like the least surprising thing. Still funny though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Should add I have seen a number of CZ Bren 2 rifles in the field as well. They’re really nice. On the topic of the AK-12, what I've read indicates they've got poor ergonomics and reliability issues. Which is probably why you don't see the war trophy captures in use anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The thing to remember is that there's two AK-12s: The original 2012 version that was issued to elite units, units that were decimated in early fighting in the war. These tend to be the trophy prize guns. The "Object 2012" version had better ergonomics than previous Kalashnikov models, with a reverse-angled receiver to allow for a better grip on the gun, adjustable stocks, and attachment rails. However, the Obj. 2012 was probably too expensive, too difficult to manufacture reliably, etc. so a few years back, Izhmash/Kalashnikov made the AK-400 version, which is more like an upgrade to previous Kalashnikov pattern guns, with the Obj. 2012 furniture and a AR-style adjustable "buffer tube" stock added to AK receivers. The 2012 model had reliability issues come up in testing they were supposed to fix in the 2012-2014 iterations but apparently never did. It also uses nonstandard threading on the barrel which is a big problem when you don't make many suppressors for it so you end up needing suppressor adapters and dealing with the issues those bring. The stock on the 2012 model also got some criticism IIRC. Between the reliability issues, unimpressive ergonomics, and the lack of parts I can definitely see them as being an unattractive option to hold onto as other options became available (except as a trophy). Edit: I didn't even know it was part of the Ratnik program - I'm kinda surprised it wasn't much worse given the rampant grift and quality issues with everything else Ratnik related. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jun 27, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Talking about whether Prigozhin had 'enough men' to take Moscow seems a bit besides the point. He didn't have 'enough men' on paper to take over Rostov or advance hundreds of miles into Russia, but that was irrelevant because less than a dozen men total (RIP to those helicopter pilots) made any attempt whatsoever to stop him. I mean, I've got little doubt even 5000 troops with tanks, IFVs, artillery, etc. would have brushed aside the few cops willing to die for the cause along with the handful of BTRs and armored cars they managed to scape up in and around Moscow. The Russian airforce is incompetent. But then what? Putin fled immediately, probably along with everyone else of consequence. There was no mass uprising among the general population or regular military to suggest he could simply take power. The military response from the MoD would take time but it'd come eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2023 08:43
|
|
|
Frank Frank posted:But the damage would have been done by that point. Sitting in Putin’s office taking J6-style photos would have been absolutely devastating to Putin’s strongman image. Whether or not the coup succeeded long-term, it may well have signaled the end of Putin’s rule. That makes sense if his objective was to gently caress over Putin at any cost. I think his objective was simply to look out for himself. That's a goal incompatible with fighting what would (without significant support) turn into a losing war. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Jun 28, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2023 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Russia has been running out of shells since May of 2022, yet they still keep raining down. Artillery shells aren't hard to make, especially if you arent trying to stuff a GPS unit inside because your military is wholly owned by corporations trying to jack up the cost without regard for effectiveness. As for why Russia would be buying more from abroad, its because more shells is better than less shells. Industry is still ramping up and the heady days of 60k shells/day being dumped on the Ukrainian army likely won't be seen again for some time, but in the meantime they'll take any extras they can get. They've been scaling back the number of artillery fires steadily since last fall and have had chronic shell shortages because they ate up decades of Soviet and Russian shell stockpiles on top of new production in less than a year. This would not have happened if new production was even remotely near expenditures. Stuffing a GPS unit and fins into a shell means a single shell accomplishes what would require substantially more dumb shells to accomplish. Also with greater reliability, particularly against hardened targets, and with less danger to the battery using them due to less time spent stationary and substantially longer effective range for any given platform because a guided shell can compensate for the forces acting on the shell throughout flight. You might as well be railing against SAMs being a thing because lol a 57mm shell is cheaper than an igla. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jun 29, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 00:35
|
|