gatnerd

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.

  • 3361
    MEMBERS
  • 191291
    MESSAGES
  • 19
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Ukraine weapons thread   General Military Discussion

Started 24/2/22 by gatnerd; 190271 views.
autogun

From: autogun

12-Jul

I've re-read a rather unusual book: "Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War", by P.W .Singer and August Cole, published in 2015. It is set a few years into the future, and commences with a brief, devastating (but non-nuclear) assault on US forces by China and Russia, focusing on massive cyber attacks and the destruction of US monitoring and communications satellites. I particularly winced at the description of the problems experienced by high-tech aircraft like the F-35 which are stuffed full of electronic chips, many of which were indirectly sourced from China...
 

The US loses, with China seizing the Western Pacific including the Hawaiian Islands, and an uneasy cease-fire follows. A few years later, the US is planning its revenge, making heavy use of obsolescent equipment  without any suspect electronics.

The authors are professionally involved in the defence field, and it shows. This story is very tech-heavy and mostly quite convincing. A rather unusual touch is a 24-page Endnotes section which provides references for many of the ideas and proposed weapon systems. However, there are hazards in being too specific about such matters: much is made of the "million shots a minute" Metal Storm close-in defence gun.

Worth a read, if only to pick holes in!

autogun

From: autogun

12-Jul

Re. the quantity of weapon systems carried by Russian warships...

I recall reading long ago that this was due to a different approach to repairs and maintenance. In Western navies, major warships carry technical crew able to do a certain amount of running repairs, so expect to keep their weapons functional. Russia has fewer such engineers, so keeps them back at base. The considerable redundancy in the number of Russian weapon mountings is due to the expectation that if a system fails, it can be backed-up by another, until repairs can be carried out at the base. 

 I also recall that this was one of the defining capabilities of a cruiser-class warship in the WW2 Royal Navy. A cruiser was expected to be able to handle most of its own repairs and maintenance, so needed a lot more space for supplies, workshops etc. A destroyer was repaired at the base.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

12-Jul

autogun said...

The US loses, with China seizing the Western Pacific including the Hawaiian Islands, and an uneasy cease-fire follows. A few years later, the US is planning its revenge, making heavy use of obsolescent equipment  without any suspect electronics.

Sounds like the Fighter Mafia lives on.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

13-Jul

autogun said:

I've re-read a rather unusual book: "Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War", by P.W .Singer and August Cole, published in 2015.

One of my absolutely favorites. Terrifically entertaining.

The sort of 'evil Richard Branson' space pirates scene gets me every time.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

13-Jul

HIMARS has achieved some good hits on ammo depots; but as analysis points out, like ATGMS they are not a single 'silver bullet' to end the war. Just a very useful tool:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-more-russian-ammo-dumps-blown-up

And thread on them in a bit more detail:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1546968367315111936.html

...

Meanwhile in crossover episode that I didnt expect, Russia is now going to be getting (rather than supplying) arms from Iran. Namely various drones and 'loitering munitions'.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-getting-iranian-attack-drones-would-be-a-very-big-deal

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

13-Jul

I am actually surprised US will be supplying ATACMS as these are probably waste of launcher time and logistics, they can be intercepted by number of SAMs with relative ease like Tocka 

Still think mass introduction of Tocka U that were previously mustered out of use to DNR & LNR militias likely comes as a response to HIMARS

https://t.me/rosich_rus/14902

While iran is one of the world's most prolific users of drones and definitely makes much wider array of tactical drones and particulary strike drones that Russia never fielded in numbers. 

I would treat Iran drone news with extreme skepticism, its much more likely something published so Biden has some cover for whatever unsavory deal he will have to make to please MBS.

As long as Iran still has some access to European banks and markets so its not likely to jeopardise that , US on the other hand has no leverage left with all trump era sanctions in place.

Meanwhile Ukraine is kinda running out of bodies for its '1 million man army '

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/new-ukrainian-unicorn-million-man-army/

graylion

From: graylion

13-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Still think mass introduction of Tocka U that were previously mustered out of use to DNR & LNR militias comes as a response to HIMARS

"mass"? According to Wikipedia RF has 24 launchers and the things have a CEP of 150m - good luck hitting a HiMARS with that ...

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

13-Jul

RF supposedly retired all of theirs , but there are suposedly cca 1000 Tochka U in storage  many with cluster warheads that can be used if needed , Tochka-U CEP is well below 100m , In live firing demonstrations, CEP of 50m or so was demonstrated .

*24 launchers in Wiki probably refers to only one brigade using them prior to retirement as there are at least 18 launchers per brigade and you can bet your money there are way more than 24 launch vehicles for them in storage.Ukraine had 90 or so .

In any case in regards to HIMARS problem for the Russian's is finding them in the first place, destroying them if found is likely nonissue.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

13-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

I am actually surprised US will be supplying ATACMS as these are probably waste of launcher time and logistics

I hadn't heard anything about supplying ATACMS; rumor was that was one of the 'promised NOT to send' weapons due to concerns it could be used to strike Russia. 

I think it would be cool if they did send them. Even if a large % are intercepted, if used exclusively against high value targets, even a few getting through will have an effect (especially psychologically.)

And with the US out of INF and developing PrSM to replace ATACMS, its not likely the US will ever get to put them to good use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile

So I'd much rather see Ukraine lighting them off rather than the US warehousing them until its time for them to be demilled. 

graylion

From: graylion

13-Jul

gatnerd said:

I hadn't heard anything about supplying ATACMS; rumor was that was one of the 'promised NOT to send' weapons due to concerns it could be used to strike Russia.  I think it would be cool if they did send them. Even if a large % are intercepted, if used exclusively against high value targets, even a few getting through will have an effect (especially psychologically.) And with the US out of INF and developing PrSM to replace ATACMS, its not likely the US will ever get to put them to good use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile So I'd much rather see Ukraine lighting them off rather than the US warehousing them until its time for them to be demilled. 

There is a rumour going around about ATACMS being supplied. No idea TBH. But I second the approval. Also I am looking forward to UA letting RF find a HiMARS and welcoming them with Gepard when they accept the invitation.

TOP