Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3357
  • 191126
  • 2


Ukraine weapons thread   General Military Discussion

Started 24/2/22 by gatnerd; 182000 views.

From: Mustrakrakis


schnuersi said:

This was never up for debate. Russia never wanted that in the first place.

Is this true?  You decide.  I will be the first to say that you should never believe the news without additional verification, but when the news assigns a conversation to someone by name and they don't refute it...well, then it might actually be true.  This is not an anonymous source.

schnuersi said:

This is simply not true. Most of the Western world for decades tried to be friend with them and gave them a lot of leeway and benefit of the doubt.

Like how?

schnuersi said:

That is also not true.

Yes, it is.

schnuersi said:

One of the problems the Russian military has are the massive stockpiles of old gear. This makes it very time consuming and expensive to really get new stuff out there.

Having massive stockpiles of old gear is not a problem.  Lacking the money to purchase stockpiles of new gear is indeed a problem.  Would you agree that the lack of money is a problem in this case?  (I understand that you're not a native English speaker and my terminology may not be entirely clear.  When I earlier said that Russia doesn't have the wealth to put it together, assume that wealth = money = credit, as I'm using it.  I apologize for my imprecise language.)

schnuersi said:

Only the party poopers in the West did shower UA with really modern weapons which can deal with old gear with ease.

Because the old gear was, and is, crap, at least when compared with what the west had, and has.  Hence my earlier comments about an elaborate act of theater.  

schnuersi said:

Keep in mind that UA on its own would never have comparable equipment.

I absolutely agree.  In fact, I remember this forum making fun of Ukraine's native arms industry pre-invasion (and indeed pre-Covid) for the stupid garbage that they were peddling.  Ukraine and India were the running jokes around here for quite a while.  I also seem to remember a thread on here (again, pre-Covid) about some big exercise that concluded that Russia would successfully invade Poland in a matter of days.  I don't think that it exists anymore due to how this forum deletes old threads, but man...can you imagine that thread today?

Oh, how the times change.


From: Mustrakrakis


graylion said:

The best reason I have seen suggested is operator fatigue - hours and hours of staring at an analog radar screen

Might be, particularly if there was a lot of drone activity before the strike specifically to annoy the CS people.  That explanation came from a source that I don't trust, but it would be completely plausible from anyone else.

It could even have been a fluke.  I remember a few years back when a US carrier famously failed to engage a drone with its CIWS.  We all had fun with that.  My personal (if limited) experience with the USN version of CIWS is that for a ship with two mounts that was expecting trouble, you didn't have to worry much about the first couple of objects headed your way.  I'd imagine that six mounts would be better.  I'd imagine that six mounts plus a shitload of short and medium ranged SAMs would be even better than that, but western ships aren't nearly that well protected.

It might even be that Moskva's systems worked exactly as designed, and she was simply overwhelmed by the amount of missiles that went her way.  I don't know how many Neptunes that would take, but I'd assume that it would be more than a few.  Some folks have done DCS videos on it.  Of course, DCS assumes that the systems all work as advertised, and that's not an assumption that I share.


From: renatohm


I have issues with this version.

Some analysis I've read show that (at least some of) the radars were in stand by mode.

My opinion? Russians got complacent. There are several pre-war reports in pro-Russian media saying that Neptune is crap.

If you do believe your enemy's weapons are crap, there's a not insignificant possibility you'll get complacent and not follow the book.

I'll illustrate this with a Brazilian piece of history:

Briefly, after police failed to deal with an insurrection in 1896-1897, the local governments asked for help from the central government, which sent one of its most feared and ruthless Army generals - who had just quelled what was probably the biggest insurrection Brazil ever had until then - with a group they thought was big (1,300 troops) and well armed (including howitzers) enough to deal with the group. The insurrectionists were armed with rudimentary weapons pikes, stones, sticks, machettes, plus only a handful of very old firearms, but by then they had already defeated everything the local governments threw at them.

This general inspected a captured firearm, which was basically a flintlock musket, and reportedly said something like "these peasants are doomed". He then went to battle, in front of his troops, on his white horse, in full garment - a very beautiful one which could easily be seen from quite a distance - and stopped from time to time to check around with his binoculars.

He was shot dead by a well hidden 'peasant', his troops dispersed and mauled during the rout that followed. The insurrectionists now had the modern weapons of the defeated Army troops.

Lessons learned, the Brazilian Army finally sent an even larger and better armed force, 3,000 troops packing even more howitzers, which were able to siege the insurrectionists but unable to finish them off. The rebellion was finally quelled by a much larger force of 8,000 troops and yet more howitzers.

This brief 'history lesson' shows that even 'peasants with machettes and sticks' can be quite dangerous if you are complacent with the basics.

Even if Neptune was crap, the Ukrainian Air Force is still flying, and if so wished might have been able to attack the Moskva with dumb bombs from Su-25 Frogfoot aircraft. That possibility alone, no matter how remote, should be enough to keep the Moskva people on high alert 24/7.

  • Edited 07 July 2022 8:04  by  renatohm

From: gatnerd


Mustrakrakis said:

I don't know how many Neptunes that would take, but I'd assume that it would be more than a few.

Estimates I had read at the time of the battleship sinking put the number of Neptunes in existence at about 12 pre-invasion. 

So there would hardly be a fireworks factory level of missiles available to swarm the ships defenses. 

That said, the general history of anti ship missiles seems very favorable to the missile / risky to the ship. So it's not unprecedented by any means that 2 missiles would be fired and a ship would be destroyed.


From: EmericD


I would rate the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles very close to the effectiveness of anti-tank missiles.

SAM shot against helicopters are sligthly less effective, but that's probably because even a low flying helicopter is still moving at more than 150 km/h, something no tanks and no boats could do.

SAM shot against planes are even less effective, but again the velocity of the target is not the same...


From: Farmplinker


Several guys on a naval forum have told me that a Phalanx system will shoot down a supersonic missile no problem. IF they are aware a missile is inbound and all necessary gear is turned on.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)


From what i could decypher on Russian naval forums Moskva was more or less naked against supersonic sea skimming AShM , only thing that could take the AShM out were its guns AK630, S300 System used on Moskva has 20-30m ceiling but more importantly, the hit probability drops dramatically against low-level targets to something under 10% range ,while useful against aircraft at long ranges and heights an absolute dud against sea skiming  AShM. And even AK-630 in the configuration used on slava class is quite limited, by fire-control that was designed to target planes and helicopters a AShM is exposed to them for less than 10 seconds so unless they are all ready and waitiing  there is little chance of interception.Moskva was never upgraded only repaired and coms modernised rest of it was as it was the day it was launched. Not far from tech used in the Falklands.

'' single MR-123 radar system can simultaneously control two guns, either two 30 mm gun mounts, or two 57 mm gun mounts, or one 30 mm gun and one 57 mm gun. The radar system can engage aerial and surface targets at 4 and 5 kilometres (2.5 and 3.1 mi) respectively. The electro-optical system can detect a MiG-21–sized aerial target 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) away, ''

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)


It seems like lots of duct tape holding together the Bayraktar drone in Moscows Patriot Park stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye