Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

From Politico 15 December (and every one knows the political opinions of Politico )
''US Eyes new weapons for Ukraine ''
''US plans to train 500 soldiers a month,the training includes how to coordinate infantry maneuvering with artillery support .''
Us plans ! When will this start ? And why only 500 soldiers ?And how long will the training last ? And what will be the impact ?
''One Patriot battery can need 90 men to operate and train it and the associated traning takes months ''.
But,of course these sober warnings will not prevent the media of the military-industrial complex to jubilate .
''Alan Smith (D Washington ) chairman of the House Armed Services :The Ukrainians are NOT (my emphasis ) going to be firing Patriots in the next six months . ''
Thus the blabla about the Patriots is good for under the bus .
My question : if it takes 6 months before the crew of a Patriot battery is trained ( fully ? partly ? ) how long is it taking to train the crew of a Himar ?And what is the impact of it ?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Both Putin and Lavrov call it a war. It took them about a year for them to do so.
Click to expand...

"The war that the west launched on Russia through Ukraine", did he miss the bit where it is Russian troops that invaded Ukraine and have been doing so both covert and overtly for the last 8 years.

If Russia genuinely wants to end this war just go home, it isn't as difficult as they seem to think.

The idea that vodka rots the brain might have some merit.
 
lljadw said:
From Politico 15 December (and every one knows the political opinions of Politico )
''US Eyes new weapons for Ukraine ''
''US plans to train 500 soldiers a month,the training includes how to coordinate infantry maneuvering with artillery support .''
Us plans ! When will this start ? And why only 500 soldiers ?And how long will the training last ? And what will be the impact ?
''One Patriot battery can need 90 men to operate and train it and the associated traning takes months ''.
But,of course these sober warnings will not prevent the media of the military-industrial complex to jubilate .
''Alan Smith (D Washington ) chairman of the House Armed Services :The Ukrainians are NOT (my emphasis ) going to be firing Patriots in the next six months . ''
Thus the blabla about the Patriots is good for under the bus .
My question : if it takes 6 months before the crew of a Patriot battery is trained ( fully ? partly ? ) how long is it taking to train the crew of a Himar ?And what is the impact of it ?
Click to expand...

It takes about three weeks to train the crew and additional two weeks to train them to do the simpler maintenance. The US takes Ukrainian artillery soldiers and train them. These soldiers/NCOs/COs will later train their fellow Ukrainian service men to use it.

I agree about the Patriot, it is a pretty good air defense system, but if we are listening to those making air defense systems, their systems will shoot down everything in the air several times over. Ukraine needs something similar as the Israeli Iron Dome system to effectively defend their infrastructure.

Even the Patriot system can be overwhelmed with incoming targets.
 
MontyB said:
"The war that the west launched on Russia through Ukraine", did he miss the bit where it is Russian troops that invaded Ukraine and have been doing so both covert and overtly for the last 8 years.

If Russia genuinely wants to end this war just go home, it isn't as difficult as they seem to think.

The idea that vodka rots the brain might have some merit.
Click to expand...

There are Russians believing it, but they aren't good liars. Their military has embarrassed them badly.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It takes about three weeks to train the crew and additional two weeks to train them to do the simpler maintenance. The US takes Ukrainian artillery soldiers and train them. These soldiers/NCOs/COs will later train their fellow Ukrainian service men to use it.

I agree about the Patriot, it is a pretty good air defense system, but if we are listening to those making air defense systems, their systems will shoot down everything in the air several times over. Ukraine needs something similar as the Israeli Iron Dome system to effectively defend their infrastructure.

Even the Patriot system can be overwhelmed with incoming targets.
Click to expand...

About HIMARS
On 28 September Insider said that there were 16 in Ukraine,on 7 December Politico (using as source kyivindependent ) said that there were 20 HIMARS in Ukraine .
But these figures are meaningless,as HIMARS do nothing, unless when they have rockets, the needed crew ans spare parts .
No one knows how many rockets were fired by the 20 HIMARS and how many of them destroyed their targets .
No one knows also what the real number of needed men is to operate a HIMARS,I have seen the figure of 3 for the use of the HIMARS, but that is without counting those needed for the transport of te rockets,spare part,fuel.
It is the same for the Patriots,where, following what I have read,90 men are needed to operate a Patriot .That means that 10 Patriots and 450 men means only 5 operational Patriots ( if these have the needed missiles ) and that 900 men and 5 Patriots mean only 5 operational Patriots ( if they have the needed missiles ) .
As long we have no answers on these questions, there is no reason to believe what Lockheed Martin and the others are telling us .
And, if they tell the truth,why are the Russians still in Ukraine ?
And, why did the Russians not conquer the whole of Ukraine,before the HIMARS arrived ?
All we can say is that HIMARS, Patriots,etc are not game changers .
 
lljadw said:
About HIMARS
On 28 September Insider said that there were 16 in Ukraine,on 7 December Politico (using as source kyivindependent ) said that there were 20 HIMARS in Ukraine .
But these figures are meaningless,as HIMARS do nothing, unless when they have rockets, the needed crew ans spare parts .
No one knows how many rockets were fired by the 20 HIMARS and how many of them destroyed their targets .
No one knows also what the real number of needed men is to operate a HIMARS,I have seen the figure of 3 for the use of the HIMARS, but that is without counting those needed for the transport of te rockets,spare part,fuel.
It is the same for the Patriots,where, following what I have read,90 men are needed to operate a Patriot .That means that 10 Patriots and 450 men means only 5 operational Patriots ( if these have the needed missiles ) and that 900 men and 5 Patriots mean only 5 operational Patriots ( if they have the needed missiles ) .
As long we have no answers on these questions, there is no reason to believe what Lockheed Martin and the others are telling us .
And, if they tell the truth,why are the Russians still in Ukraine ?
And, why did the Russians not conquer the whole of Ukraine,before the HIMARS arrived ?
All we can say is that HIMARS, Patriots,etc are not game changers .
Click to expand...

Whether they are game changers or not remains to be seen, however, given that Ukraine seems to speak highly of them says that they are serving their purpose.
Admittedly any high precision system that can extend their range will have that outcome and while we don't have empirical figures to validate how good the Himars is we can see the success Ukraine is having on the battlefield and attribute at least some of that to western input from training to equipment.
 
MontyB said:
Whether they are game changers or not remains to be seen, however, given that Ukraine seems to speak highly of them says that they are serving their purpose.
Admittedly any high precision system that can extend their range will have that outcome and while we don't have empirical figures to validate how good the Himars is we can see the success Ukraine is having on the battlefield and attribute at least some of that to western input from training to equipment.
Click to expand...

That Ukraine speaks highly of them can not be used as a proof,as in wartime everyone is lying .Besides,even if the HIMARS are not functioning, Ukraine will not say this publicly .
In March, afaics, there were no Himars but the Russians failed, in September there were 20 Himars, but the Russians were still in Ukraine .
Maybe, after the war we will have proofs for the claims about how the Himars are working ( but I doubt it, as 80 years after the U Boat war,the media are still telling us the fairy tale that this war was won by Western equipment and Western scientists :Asdic and Ultra), it depends on convincing proofs of Russian weapons and bases destroyed by Himars and Patriot and on the per cent of missiles fired by Himars and Patriot that reached their target : if 1000 missiles were fired and 100 reached their target ( 10 % ),we can not say that they were efficient .
The former US commander in Europe (Mark Hertling ) said that the Patriots are defensive weapons and that defensive weapons do not win wars .
About the Patriot missiles : there are few of them ,they cost 100 times more than an Iranian kamikaze drone , thus it is very doubtful that they will be used against drones and that if Kiew is attacked by 200 drones,the Patriot located in the Kiew region can do something to stop the drones .
 
The Ukrainians said that the Russians launched today 20 drones and that they destroyed 12 of them ( 60 % ).
Against drones launched by day ,Ukrainians use large machine guns and other small arms,against those launched by night, they used sophisticated weapons with the help of radar .
But as there are no figures of drones launched by day and those lost and about drones launched by night and destroyed,it is not possible to prove if an anti drone missile is more efficient than a machine gun .
It is thus possible that a HIMAR is less efficient than a machine gun .
 
lljadw said:
That Ukraine speaks highly of them can not be used as a proof,as in wartime everyone is lying .Besides,even if the HIMARS are not functioning, Ukraine will not say this publicly .
In March, afaics, there were no Himars but the Russians failed, in September there were 20 Himars, but the Russians were still in Ukraine .
Maybe, after the war we will have proofs for the claims about how the Himars are working ( but I doubt it, as 80 years after the U Boat war,the media are still telling us the fairy tale that this war was won by Western equipment and Western scientists :Asdic and Ultra), it depends on convincing proofs of Russian weapons and bases destroyed by Himars and Patriot and on the per cent of missiles fired by Himars and Patriot that reached their target : if 1000 missiles were fired and 100 reached their target ( 10 % ),we can not say that they were efficient .
The former US commander in Europe (Mark Hertling ) said that the Patriots are defensive weapons and that defensive weapons do not win wars .
About the Patriot missiles : there are few of them ,they cost 100 times more than an Iranian kamikaze drone , thus it is very doubtful that they will be used against drones and that if Kiew is attacked by 200 drones,the Patriot located in the Kiew region can do something to stop the drones .
Click to expand...

I have no idea whether the Patriot is a good option but it is a functioning and tested option and depending in the package being sent could give them up to 160km of air defence which means anything flying in occupied Ukrainian territory and Southern Russia is within range, this puts not only the drones and missile systems at risk but also the airborne launchers.
My guess however is that they will be used against Kalibr missiles coming from the Black Sea and they cost significantly more than Patriot missile.

lljadw said:
The Ukrainians said that the Russians launched today 20 drones and that they destroyed 12 of them ( 60 % ).
Against drones launched by day ,Ukrainians use large machine guns and other small arms,against those launched by night, they used sophisticated weapons with the help of radar .
But as there are no figures of drones launched by day and those lost and about drones launched by night and destroyed,it is not possible to prove if an anti drone missile is more efficient than a machine gun .
It is thus possible that a HIMAR is less efficient than a machine gun .
Click to expand...

Why would they fire HIMARS at flying objects?
As I understand it they are surface to surface missile systems and while I doubt a HIMARS has killed anyone at 20 feet (unless one fell on a crew member) like a machine gun, I am equally as sure a machine gun hasn't killed anyone at 50+km like the missile system.
 
Patriots can't be used and will not be used against drones ,because there are to few of them and because a Patriot missile costs 3 million USD, a drone 30000 USD .
If the Russians launch 100 drones, Ukraine can not launch 100 Patriot missiles against them and how many drones can destroy a Patriot missile that costs 3 million USD ?
What remains as defense against drones ?
machine guns on trucks or on the ground,or artillery, also Himars ,because a Himars can destroy a low flying drone . But here also there is a big problem : to few Himars and Himars missiles and they cost too much .
The best and even only effective defense against a primitive weapon as a drone is an other primitive weapon as machine guns .
There are other possible weapons, as jamming, micropower and high energy laser, but it is doubtful that the Ukrainians have the knowledge to use them and,also very important,these weapons depend on the possibility of timely detection and tracking .
And, if the enemy launches 100 drones, how to know which of these are a real danger and which ones are only lures ? If you use your available weapons against the ''wrong '' drones, the others have free rein.
That's why the claims about destroyed drones are meaningless :yesterday Ukraine claimed to have destroyed 12 of 20 launched drones, which means that 8 drones were not destroyed . But it is possible that 4 non destroyed drones can do more damage than 8 non destroyed drones .How many of the 12 destroyed drones were the ''good '' target ?
 
HIMARS and MLRS (Ukraine got the MLRS too) are artillery systems and not air defense systems. I haven't seen any data about the HIMARS being used for shooting down flying targets.

The SAMs Ukraine get are most likely to shoot down missiles and not drones. Machine guns, if we are talking about 7,62 machine guns don't have the range suited to defend the Ukrainian air space. Heavier machine guns and 20mm, 23mm, and 30mm canons are suited for air defense and the majority of AAA weapons are between 20mm to 30mm. SAMs similar as the Israeli Iron Dome can defend the air space against drones and smaller missiles. But the Ukrainians need to have the Iron Dome system everywhere when Ukraine is much bigger than Israel.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
HIMARS and MLRS (Ukraine got the MLRS too) are artillery systems and not air defense systems. I haven't seen any data about the HIMARS being used for shooting down flying targets.

The SAMs Ukraine get are most likely to shoot down missiles and not drones. Machine guns, if we are talking about 7,62 machine guns don't have the range suited to defend the Ukrainian air space. Heavier machine guns and 20mm, 23mm, and 30mm canons are suited for air defense and the majority of AAA weapons are between 20mm to 30mm. SAMs similar as the Israeli Iron Dome can defend the air space against drones and smaller missiles. But the Ukrainians need to have the Iron Dome system everywhere when Ukraine is much bigger than Israel.
Click to expand...

In Singapore the RAF Regiment (circa 1967 to 1970) were equipped WITH radar controlled 40mm BOFORS. i dont remember them shooting anything down, unless you count target drones towed behind an aircraft.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
HIMARS and MLRS (Ukraine got the MLRS too) are artillery systems and not air defense systems. I haven't seen any data about the HIMARS being used for shooting down flying targets.

The SAMs Ukraine get are most likely to shoot down missiles and not drones. Machine guns, if we are talking about 7,62 machine guns don't have the range suited to defend the Ukrainian air space. Heavier machine guns and 20mm, 23mm, and 30mm canons are suited for air defense and the majority of AAA weapons are between 20mm to 30mm. SAMs similar as the Israeli Iron Dome can defend the air space against drones and smaller missiles. But the Ukrainians need to have the Iron Dome system everywhere when Ukraine is much bigger than Israel.
Click to expand...
As the Russians launch many more kamikaze drones than cruise missiles and there are more kamikaze drones than SAMS, it is obvious that the Ukrainians use against drones,not what the theory is saying is most suitable against drones, but what is available .And, if the only thing that is available is a HIMARS, they will use a HIMARS .
Ukraine can't have something as an Iron Drome, because its aerospace is much bigger than that of Israel and because the Russians fire many more drones than Hamas is doing.
Machine guns have not as mission to defend the Ukrainian air space ,they are used against ground targets if needed and possible , against aerial targets if needed and possible.
The same for HIMARS .
 
Newsweek from 23 November shows pictures of Ukrainian police officers shooting at drones above Kiew and Newsweek is also saying that Russia used some 1800 drones in Ukraine til the end of November .
This is of course much more than the number of cruise missiles that was used.
 
Last edited:
I think you are confusing HIMARS with NASAMS. Artillery systems are pretty useless to shoot down things in the air.
 
BritinBritain said:
In Singapore the RAF Regiment (circa 1967 to 1970) were equipped WITH radar controlled 40mm BOFORS. i dont remember them shooting anything down, unless you count target drones towed behind an aircraft.
Click to expand...

The air defense version of the CV90 uses a 40mm maingun to deal with air targets. The 12,7 (50cal) machine gun is also effective against air targets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top