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
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?
I am not aware that Kongsberg produces ammunition for autocannons.
My bet is on NAMMO who allready produce 35 mm ammo,
I am not aware that Kongsberg produces ammunition for autocannons. My bet is on NAMMO who allready produce 35 mm ammo,
ah yes. One wonders what kind of projectile ...
Sponsored by Private Internet Access: https://privateinternetaccess.com/Perun**As always - check pinned comment for any additional caveats or comments**We've...
That was absolutely correct 20 years ago. I don't know what the kids are using these days. I'd assume that it's better now. It was pretty good back then. We weren't hit by a single missile, so I'd argue that it was perfect from my perspective.
Moskva had 6 of these mounts. If someone were to argue that they're so bad that 6 Russian mounts will underperform 2 western mounts, I won't challenge them. I know what and how many was on Moskva, but I have no idea how well they worked. That kind of goes back to my original point. Her demise, when compared with her design criteria, tells a story. It's not a good one, but it's not a new one either.
Pzh2000 using what appear to be BONUS smart 155mm shells.
I hadn't realized these were sent to Ukraine, but its a cool and handy design.
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.
Thats something I've been worried about for awhile vis a vis the US presence in the South China Sea / Taiwan showdown scenario.
I'm hoping the US starts focusing more on Cruise Missile Submarines and Cruise Missile Carrier long range aircraft, because I think the current plan of 'we'll just shoot down all the incoming missiles' is doomed for a hard reality check, barring some sort of 'sharks with laser beams on their head' secret development.