This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 20:49 by stancrist
Latest 20:31 by gatnerd
Latest 2-Oct by gatnerd
Latest 2-Oct by stancrist
Latest 30-Sep by Refleks
Latest 30-Sep by Refleks
Latest 28-Sep by graylion
Latest 25-Sep by stancrist
Latest 16-Sep by schnuersi
IR look at lobbing rockets , looks like 2 helicopters fired a salvo , From the vids on the net i think most of the helo firing is done with smaller 57mm rockets while SU-25 use a lot of 122mm
Machine translated :
1) This method is just used for strikes “on area targets”, the spread of missiles is quite acceptable for that purpose
2) Yes, in terms of power, this strike is not comparable to the "Grad", but it all depends on which warhead is in the rocket, that is, which modification of the rocket is used.
For example, 8KOM penetrates 400mm of armor , and one 8C carries 2000 flechettes (when striking a trench, such a missile will destroy / disable most occupants)
8DM with a volumetric detonating mixture has a high-explosive effect in the equivalent of ~ 5kg of TNT (multiplied by 40-80 depending on whether 1-2 sides released a full BC and then imagine the effect, if seen)
3) "Grad" still has to drive up to firing point, and then leave before receiving a response ( roads are needed)
The helicopter, regardless of the terrain, can reach the necessary distance, remaining unnoticed and also leave.
The entrance to the air defense zone is present, but it is short-term and they do not have time to react (extremely low altitude + terrain folds) (as personal experience, not reasoning from the couch of some commentators).
I saw something in the German news that apparently the PzH2000 have already started breaking down?
Yes its all over the news and the Internet.
Its not correct though. The UA has ofgicially reported some issues and requested spare parts.
The PzH2000 delivered have not been new. These are the same guns used to train the UA crews. So they saw more use in the last couple of weeks than in all the years befor. It also seems that the delivery of PzH2000 did not include a complete package of spares and replacement parts.
Since the PzH2000 has never been used like this, the way it was originally intended, bevor there are no experience what will wear out how fast.
The footage of PzH2000 in use in UA I have seen all show the Rubber pads of the tracks are worn down. The tracks themself are silvery like polished. These are signs of intense use. During my service time i have seen comparable wear only once. During a four week high intensity training campaign with large scale excercise in Canada. At this point stuff starts to break down and needs replacement. Once the parts are replaced the reliability goes up significantly. The long times of standing around and low intensity use are poison for a lot of parts. Especially non wear and tear parts.
I wonder who the generous donor of absolute antique was - FIM-43 Redeye production of which ended in '69
I wonder if it's still functional!
I am kind of fascinated by the explosions in Krim. That is impressive coordination between govt and sf and guerilla.
Crimea now has an open flow of people and goods with Kherson 25+K folks per day ,so its much easier to move about than any time in past 8years and folks moving about are Ukrainans so its also easier to carry out sabotage and if you have ever seen open air depos in eastern Europe these things are not really guarded much. They just had one go tits up in Bulgaria as well plus these days you don't need to sneak in and place a charge you fly in a Mavic and do the job .
For same reason Ukainans have Mikolaiv under lockdown and are looking for Russian 'sympathizers' door to door , things keep blowing up on the other side as well only the delivery of HE might be in the form of a cruise missile.
I've been wondering about UA's tank conundrum. It has been reported that Western tanks are too heavy for the existing infrastructure. Would something like the Lynx FSV be an option?
An option for what exactly? Providing direct fire support to UA infantry units? Maybe if this capability is required.
The problem is not the infrastructure alone. Its part of the problem. The entire UA logistics, maintenance, recovery and support organisation and equipment is layed out to support vehicles of the 40 t class of soviet origin. Even giving them 40 t Western equipment is problematic. The more the new equipment differs from the old the more problematic it gets. Just Look how much troubles the PzH2000 create. These are only a handfull and not really being shot at. Delivering tanks is much more problematic.
The UA asked for Leo 1 for a reason. These would be available in significant and usefull numbers quickly once refurbishing starts. Spares are available as well. The tank is in the same weight range as their soviet equipment and Leo 1 is a vehicle family which includes support assets like ARV and AVLB. So they could create fully equiped formations based on Leo 1. Which would still mean more complicated logistics but it would be contained in so specific units.
In the long run it makes little sense to go for stuff like Lynx FS as MBT replacement. It can only be long run since the production of a usefull Nummer of Lynx would take years anyways. Better to get a fleht of proper western MBTs while adjusting the infrastructure and support. Would be far more effective.
So the way to go would be refurbishment of Leo1s, possibly with a new turret too? How many does Germany have kicking around? And if the order for 100 PzH 2000 did actually happen and is approved, surely buying Leo1s should not be a problem anymore?
Would there be a point to giving them new turrets? And what, apart from the failures we already discussed are the issues with P2k? I you can share them of course. The problems that I see with infrastructure is retaking territory.