Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I3BrigPvSk said:
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
Click to expand...

I watched a C-RAM in action once, it fired a ton of lead and hit nothing, I assume it has been improved.
 
MontyB said:
I watched a C-RAM in action once, it fired a ton of lead and hit nothing, I assume it has been improved.
Click to expand...

The CRAM is called R2D2, right? There was another hyped air defense system, the metal storm. The company making it went bust a few years ago.

There are so many rumors floating around, but I heard the US considers to give Ukraine the M2 Bradley's. The Bradley IFV shall be replaced by a new IFV and the US has a lot of Bradleys in storage.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The CRAM is called R2D2, right? There was another hyped air defense system, the metal storm. The company making it went bust a few years ago.

There are so many rumors floating around, but I heard the US considers to give Ukraine the M2 Bradley's. The Bradley IFV shall be replaced by a new IFV and the US has a lot of Bradleys in storage.
Click to expand...

Yep, thinking about it I can see why they would call it R2D2.
Given that it was deployed to Afghanistan I assume it does function (although assumption can be fatal).
As for the Bradley, I wish we had purchased them instead of the LAV but I am not sure the US will be ditching them as it was the Puma they were looking at initially replacing them with.

On 2 April 2013, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that advised purchasing current infantry fighting vehicles instead of developing a new vehicle for the GCV program. Buying the Puma would save $14.8 billion, and was called the most capable vehicle
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Yep, thinking about it I can see why they would call it R2D2.
Given that it was deployed to Afghanistan I assume it does function (although assumption can be fatal).
As for the Bradley, I wish we had purchased them instead of the LAV but I am not sure the US will be ditching them as it was the Puma they were looking at initially replacing them with.
Click to expand...

Isn't the R2D2 better suited for ships?

The US tried to replace the Bradley a few years ago, but it didn't work out. The Bradley is a decent IFV, but it begins to be quite old. The US has a lot of older Bradley's that need to be upgraded. The US was looking at the South Korean IFV and the CV90 as well. Now when the Puma doesn't work well, they might reconsider to buy other IFVs instead
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Isn't the R2D2 better suited for ships?

The US tried to replace the Bradley a few years ago, but it didn't work out. The Bradley is a decent IFV, but it begins to be quite old. The US has a lot of older Bradley's that need to be upgraded. The US was looking at the South Korean IFV and the CV90 as well. Now when the Puma doesn't work well, they might reconsider to buy other IFVs instead
Click to expand...

I struggle to see the US buying "foreign" equipment, I like the idea of more universal equipment for NATO forces (by default western troops) in order to maximise production and minimise the myriad of variants but it seems most nations are determined to go their own way.
 
MontyB said:
I struggle to see the US buying "foreign" equipment, I like the idea of more universal equipment for NATO forces (by default western troops) in order to maximise production and minimise the myriad of variants but it seems most nations are determined to go their own way.
Click to expand...

The US has bought foreign stuff from time to time. They bought the Swedish CG and the AT-4, the Belgian Minimi machine gun and their Rangers have the FN-SCAR, but NATO has a logistical problem when almost all NATO countries have different systems.
 
MontyB said:
Is this thing genuine or is it an oddly timed German April fool's Day joke?

https://www.armyrecognition.com/ger...8x8_wheeled_self-propelled_howitzer_data.html

It looks like it will fall over backwards the minute they fire it due to being narrow and top heavy?

The reason I ask is that they are building them for Ukraine it seems..

https://defence-blog.com/kmw-begins-building-new-rch-155-howitzers-for-ukraine/
Click to expand...

I searched for it on YouTube because I needed to see it fire that 155mm howitzer. I found several videos. It is the first time I have ever seen a howitzer fires while moving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAy6CW6N_eE
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I searched for it on YouTube because I needed to see it fire that 155mm howitzer. I found several videos. It is the first time I have ever seen a howitzer fires while moving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAy6CW6N_eE
Click to expand...

Did you notice the twist on the back end of the chassis when it fired on a 90 degree traverse and the heavy suspension compression when firing forward.
It seems all of the recoil force is pushed down through the turret pivot and backwards which given the height of the vehicle looks like a potential weakness.

I3BrigPvSk said:
A compilation of videos from 2022.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJpVk8G8d_M
Click to expand...

Love that they titled it Ukraine's greatest hits.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Did you notice the twist on the back end of the chassis when it fired on a 90 degree traverse and the heavy suspension compression when firing forward.
It seems all of the recoil force is pushed down through the turret pivot and backwards which given the height of the vehicle looks like a potential weakness.



Love that they titled it Ukraine's greatest hits.
Click to expand...

I thought it would tip over when it fired. I assume it will use the stabilators while firing, but the boxer looks too small to be a howitzer. It will be a great contribution to the Ukrainians. This war has turned to be an artillery war and the it shows what modern artillery can do
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I thought it would tip over when it fired. I assume it will use the stabilators while firing, but the boxer looks too small to be a howitzer. It will be a great contribution to the Ukrainians. This war has turned to be an artillery war and the it shows what modern artillery can do
Click to expand...

This war was an artillery war from the first day on .
All wars are artillery wars .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I thought it would tip over when it fired. I assume it will use the stabilators while firing, but the boxer looks too small to be a howitzer. It will be a great contribution to the Ukrainians. This war has turned to be an artillery war and the it shows what modern artillery can do
Click to expand...

All the information I have seen say that it is designed to fire on the move as such I doubt it will use stabilisers.

lljadw said:
This war was an artillery war from the first day on .
All wars are artillery wars .
Click to expand...

The New Zealand wars werent.
However, I think many of us saw "massed" artillery as a thing of the past and are somewhat surprised by how fast this war degenerated into WW1 trench and artillery warfare.
 
lljadw said:
This war was an artillery war from the first day on .
All wars are artillery wars .
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. The Russians didn't follow their own doctrine and still don't use it.

No, not all wars are artillery wars. Symmetric wars usually have artillery as the warring parties uses infantry, armor, engineers etc. But artillery doesn't work well in asymmetric wars because one or several of the warring parties are in urban areas among civilians.
 
MontyB said:
All the information I have seen say that it is designed to fire on the move as such I doubt it will use stabilisers.



The New Zealand wars werent.
However, I think many of us saw "massed" artillery as a thing of the past and are somewhat surprised by how fast this war degenerated into WW1 trench and artillery warfare.
Click to expand...

That's weird to fire on the move, but it increases the survivability of the howitzer and the crew. It will give the Russian additional problems.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
That's weird to fire on the move, but it increases the survivability of the howitzer and the crew. It will give the Russian additional problems.
Click to expand...

If you look at the first video you posted it is shown firing while moving in the first few seconds of that.
 
MontyB said:
If you look at the first video you posted it is shown firing while moving in the first few seconds of that.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I didn't expect to see a howitzer doing that.

This war has brought something else. It seems to be a killing zone for helicopters
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, and I didn't expect to see a howitzer doing that.

This war has brought something else. It seems to be a killing zone for helicopters
Click to expand...

Umm not really, wars have never been good for helicopters.
The US lost almost 12000 in Vietnam, Russia lost 340 in Afghanistan at least 100 coalition helicopters were downed in Afghanistan, about 130 were downed in Iraq.
 
MontyB said:
Umm not really, wars have never been good for helicopters.
The US lost almost 12000 in Vietnam, Russia lost 340 in Afghanistan at least 100 coalition helicopters were downed in Afghanistan, about 130 were downed in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Even among the helicopter gun ships? Helicopters and attack helos were a part of the Soviet Russian military doctrine, but the doctrine has failed quite badly in Ukraine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top