This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 18:37 by schnuersi
Latest 25-Sep by stancrist
Latest 24-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 16-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 3-Sep by Farmplinker
Latest 1-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 29-Aug by EmericD
Droping a hand grenade into an open hatch of an Abandoned T62
Dana blown up a week or two ago
A roundup of some M14's in Ukraine:
PZH2000 has an impressive rate of fire
HIMARS are finally showing up in Ukraine:
On Monday the Ukrainian ministry of defence released footage of a rocket launcher firing from the middle of a highway somewhere in Zaporizhia region, the roc...
Ukraine supplementing their Buggy Busters with motorcycle sidecars. My neighbor used to have a WW2 german sidecar bike that he'd ride around town, so this is definitely pretty cool for me.
A friend of mine took a train trip to Kiev to buy a Dnjeper sidecar in late 90's and drive it all the way back to Slovenija, at that time they were still making these sidecars and they were cheap he paid something like 900$ for a 96' model
KMZ factory in Kiev was only demolished in 2019 but i think the manufacturing stopped long before . While it ran ok in Ukraine with their 78 octane fuel at the time here on 98 octane it needed bit of work to keep it running.
The USSR getting that material to where it was needed was another problem entirely, which was not always solved satisfactorily.
Yes and without the trucks and other gear delivered by the US it would not have been solved at all. Without the US trucks the tanks the Soviets produced would have been close to useless.
The pre-2022 narrative was that the armor (with ERA) was adequate, and then it was found that it wasn't.
Yes but how they came to the conclusion that it was adequate is not simple.
And storing amunition with people is never save. But in some cases the risk is acceptable. One of the problems is the vulnurablility of the conbustible cased propellant was underestimated.
Once the general layout of the tanks was set, with the T-64, it became increasingly difficult for the Soviets and later Russians to change over to a different system.
You are familiar with what her defensive systems (at least on paper) were capable of when compared with western equivalents, yes?
Yes. I am not a naval expert but I have knowledge and information behond what is available on the internet.
The weapons suite of a Slava Class Cruiser is intended for engagements on the open Sea. Its also old. Some things have been improved over the years but the defensive capabilities of this class are not comparable to an US cruiser. Even most NATO AD frigates outperform it.
As it turned out, quantity over quality doesn't work if the quality is low enough.
That is nothing new really. Especially with missiles, aircraft and air defense systems. If you are behind you are basically screwed. Because most likely you will not even realise fast enough that you are under attack to use your numbers/quantity.
Yes six 30 mm CIWS seems a lot but if they don't fire a shot because you don't see the attack coming or because you can not track the target they are useless. You might have none. Makes no difference.
It wasn't a littoral threat that sank her.
Of course. It was a land based missile battery. This is a classical littoral threat.
The ship also was pretty close to the coast. Which means littoral conditions. Radar clutter for example.
She was meant to get away, or at least have an honest chance at doing so.
The latter yes. But there is a difference between having a chance to get away and designing a weapon system to get away. Its really the same school of thinking as with the Soviet tank design. They have a chance to survive a hit. They are not designed to survive a hit.
This is based in thinking in numbers, exchange ratios and attrition. If a Slava would be able to deliver its missiles and sink or cripple a carrier it doesn't matter if it gets back home. It has cause more damage than the loss of the unit would mean. Its big picture thinking. This concept is problematice if the conditions change.
We're talking about Soviet era equipment failing in a conventional war 200 miles away from where it was made, while operated by the people that it was built for. The old excuses won't work this time.
Yes, except for that allmost all other circumstances are different. For example talking about equipment that is old. Designed decades ago. Used against modern equipment. Which as you mention yourself turns armor that has been concidered adequate into not adequate at all anymore. This is just one factor. Add things like corruption, lack of training, lack of motivation, inability to accept massive losses and the circumstances are so significantly different that things don't work as intended.
...well, then it might actually be true.
Or it is a ruse.
You are aware of the fact that Putin is an intelligence serve man? A spy? Do you have any knowledge how the KGB operated? What strategies and tactics it used and the FSB still uses? Are you familiar with the concept of "maskirovka"?
I am not going to recite the last 30 years of policie towards Russia here. You can catch up on this yourself.
Only in short: they got very favorable treatment and lots of leeway in allmost any way. They also got financial support, trade deals etc.
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?
Well it can allways be argued that there only ever is one problem: not enough money. Yes.
But with the stockpiles its about inefficient use of the resources and money you have. Stockpiling stuff and keeping it in working condition costs money. Which is not available for getting new stuff. If you have literally thousands of AFV with all share spare parts of which you have stockpile to last decades it becomes highly problematic to introduce new equipment that renders all of this useless.
Just look at the Russian small arms programs. They simply can not shake off the legacy of the AK-47. While they tried and had some fresh and inovative ideas nothing ever really materialised. Because deviation from the familiar and compatability to exsiting stockpiles is more important. This sometimes is a problem in the West as well but for the Russians its on a completly different level.
about some big exercise that concluded that Russia would successfully invade Poland in a matter of days.
Well, nobody really thought the Russian military was in such a poor shape.
Allthough again perspective matters. UA is de facto at war since 2014 and they improved a lot since then. They also have been warned. One of the major contributors to the failure of the initial Russian operation has been the fact the the UA troops knew that they would come. This makes a huge difference.
Because of the looming threat from Russia the Polish military also imporved a lot.
So Kongsberg will be making 35mm ammo for the Gepards?