This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 7:28 by EmericD
Latest 26-Nov by roguetechie
Latest 26-Nov by roguetechie
Latest 26-Nov by stancrist
Latest 26-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 25-Nov by autogun
Latest 23-Nov by Farmplinker
Latest 23-Nov by Refleks
Latest 22-Nov by stancrist
Latest 17-Nov by PRM2
Latest 17-Nov by TonyDiG
Latest 16-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 16-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 15-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Nov by TarheelYank
Latest 14-Nov by JPeelen
Latest 13-Nov by DavidPawley
Latest 10-Nov by Lorrybaker
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 7-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 4-Nov by stancrist
Latest 1-Nov by roguetechie
Latest 1-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 28-Oct by autogun
Actually WW2 and the immediate post war era was the highpoint of Soviet/Russian logistics. Mostly because the US stuffed the full of truck, locomotives, fuel etc. They also did not have the deal with sea transport. The Americans handled it for them. During the Cold War they compensated by having the majority of their troops stationed less than a half day combat march away from their operational objectives.
Getting material to the USSR was one problem that was largely solved. The USSR getting that material to where it was needed was another problem entirely, which was not always solved satisfactorily.
Yes it does. Because the question is why this is happening. As usual the answer is complex and there are several key factors.
The answer is the same as when they were blowing up in the 90's. Storing ammunition with people is perfectly safe, as long as the armor is adequate. The pre-1991 narrative was that the armor was adequate, and then it was found that it wasn't. The pre-2022 narrative was that the armor (with ERA) was adequate, and then it was found that it wasn't.
No they did not. That is one of the reasons why it sunk.
You are familiar with what her defensive systems (at least on paper) were capable of when compared with western equivalents, yes? If you are, why would you even say something like that? Even as a person that thinks that they were all garbage, I can appreciate the concept of throwing shit at a wall until some of it sticks. She had so much shit to throw at that wall that I was left believing that it would still be enough. As it turned out, quantity over quality doesn't work if the quality is low enough.
I think you are missining the point. You yourself a few lines above wrote a summary of the mission profile a Slava Class cruiser was designed for. Has it been used in that way? Its a ship design from the '70 designed and build for a specific and very special purpose. It was used completly the wrong way. Sending it to basically perform litoral combat in threatened waters was a dumb idea.
I think you are missing the point. I agree with you that she had no business being there, but that doesn't matter. It wasn't a littoral threat that sank her. It wasn't as if she ran aground or hit a mine or was swarmed by small boats. She was taken out by antishipping missiles, something that she was (at least theoretically) extremely well protected against.
Basically its a glass cannon or a one use system. Its there to move in attack position on a major ocean and saturate a target with heavy AShMs. What happens to the ship once it fired its load is an afterthought.
No, yes, and no. If what happened to her after the barrage was an afterthought, they wouldn't have bothered with installing so much crap beyond the antiship missiles. I mean, come on. A ton of SAMs? And 6 CIWS? And the depth charges and torpedo tubes and such? She was meant to get away, or at least have an honest chance at doing so.
Its basically the same problem as with most Soviet era equipment. The design parameters assumed a very specific mode of opperation. This resulted in quite specialised but comparable optimised designs. For example the lower weight and size of the Soviet MBTs. Lauded since forever. But it came at the expense of flexibility. If the mode of opperation was not as intended the effectivness of the systems is massively reduced.
I don't accept that. We're not talking about Soviet era equipment failing in weird scenarios halfway around the world. We're also not talking about monkey model export versions, training ammo, and foreign soldiers that don't know what they're doing. 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.
No it was playing it safe.
No, it was all an elaborate act of theater. When a new piece of Soviet technology appeared, sooner or later it was in the west. Even when we weren't directly observing it failing in action against anything that wasn't a generation older, we had plenty of it to play with directly. The powers that be knew how bad it was on both sides, and it was in the best interests of both sides to pretend that it wasn't that bad. They both had their reasons.
You also should keep in mind that with the latest gear in several cases Russia is not the main user. This is true for the T-90 for example. How these perform is largely unknown to the wider public. We know they are not the stars of the turret tossing shows. Actually so far only one video of a T-90 being scuttled appeard and it was made quite a big deal. We also know that modern ATGMs or not the Russian army is putting immense pressure on UA and are gaining territorry. Once the fighting stops we will get reliable and detailed information over time. Currently its extremly difficult to make good acessments.
If you're trying to make the argument that Soviet crap can do acceptably against largely equivalent Soviet crap that's operated by less capable soldiers, I'll concede this point to you.
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.
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.
That is also not true.
Yes, it is.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Canudos
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.
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.
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...
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.
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, ''
It seems like lots of duct tape holding together the Bayraktar drone in Moscows Patriot Park
Droping a hand grenade into an open hatch of an Abandoned T62
Dana blown up a week or two ago