The West appears to be running out of mercenaries or Polish "PVA" combatants and moving towards sending outright Special Forces into Ukraine. I don't think even 1980s Afghanistan had this level of official cover for NATO troops fighting against the Soviets.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
the main problem about HIMARS (or any other MLRS system from any manufacturer whatsoever) hunting is that it sucks without air superiority.
Trucks are very survivable, and the requirement for launchers themselves is very low - i.e. for all the trouble of hunting down a piece that is almost uncatchable by traditional counter-battery techniques, - you just kill a fancy truck with a radio.
I.e. it makes sense to kill them when you can just slap them from above - or, in any other affordable&persistent way.
Hunting for them over the frontline is a game that can not be won.
Trucks are very survivable, and the requirement for launchers themselves is very low - i.e. for all the trouble of hunting down a piece that is almost uncatchable by traditional counter-battery techniques, - you just kill a fancy truck with a radio.
I.e. it makes sense to kill them when you can just slap them from above - or, in any other affordable&persistent way.
Hunting for them over the frontline is a game that can not be won.
By the available sources, the HIMARSlauncher cost 3.6 million, each missile cost 0.1 million.
Means six salvo of 6 missiles cost as much as the launcher itself.
So, killing the launchers isn't that important, if Russia manage to destroy 100 missiles then that cost as much as three brand new launch unit.
The supply chain is the most important, if the USAlost half of the launchers that is more of an issue from logistic standpoint, and has minimal effect on the number of missiles.
Means six salvo of 6 missiles cost as much as the launcher itself.
So, killing the launchers isn't that important, if Russia manage to destroy 100 missiles then that cost as much as three brand new launch unit.
The supply chain is the most important, if the USAlost half of the launchers that is more of an issue from logistic standpoint, and has minimal effect on the number of missiles.
That doesn't even make sense. One is an opinion of what he thought the Afghan army could do the other is a claim of something physical of which Russia hasn't proven.
Lets say DOD confirms a HiMARS was it... your whole narrative goes out the window, huh? No more conspiracy theories for you about US hiding the facts of what is happening on the ground.
You see what you don't get is I and likely other pro Ukrainians don't care if one HiMARS is lost after months of raining down destruction on Russia. It's just one vehicle launcher that can be replaced but it looks like the other side has made HiMARS some wonder weapon that after months of war if one gets taken out it is cause for some major celebration. If a HiMARS got taken out it got taken out no big deal my deal is the lies and propaganda for a desperate win for the other side. This is war equipment is going to get destroyed like the future M2 Bradley that will soon be on the battlefield. I bet that when a Bradley gets taken out this will be HUGE news and cause for boasting by the other side because they have made US weapons something more that they are not.
Spot on. I said in previous post that if Russia had air superiority over Ukraine or just the eastern part many HiMARS would have been taken out by now. They wouldn't be the game changer they have become. HiMARS acts as an interdiction platform or air support hitting high value targets dozens of miles away. When you don't have an air force that is capable of striking behind enemy lines HiMARS becomes the platform for that job.
6 missiles fired in quick succession, striking a mass of Russian soldiers at about 12:02am on New Years Day indicates US raising the stakes in Ukraine, espeically if it can be believed that HIMARS are operated by US operators themselves and would have been informed by US satellites/electronic warfare/intel etc.
Not to mention the US tried to kill Rogozin, a high ranking Russian politican, only succeeding in wounding him. I fear this war will escalate outright well into 2023.
Are we still peddling this bs?. Single platforms aren't game changers unless introduced en masse or with a massive increase in capabilities, HIMARS in Ukranian hands isn't either and the true "potency" of the platform has more to do with its access to NATO ISR's assets.
So miss us with the spread of NAFO propaganda, mate. This isn't twitter.
By the Wikipedia, the GMLRS stock is 50 000 missile, yarly capacity is 7000 .
if Ukraine has 10 HIMARs, and if each launch 3 salvo each every day then they use up 180 missile / day.
It takes 5 weeks to use up the whole yearly production of the USA, and takes 10 month to use up the whole GMLRS stock.
Means the bottleneck is not the HIMARS launchers, but the available missiles.
Doesn't make sense to destroy the launchers, the most important target is the supply chain.
If the available stock for Ukraine is 18000 (I doubt it... ) then destroying 200 decrease the capability by 1%.
Destroying 2000 missile more painfull for the USA than destroying 30 HIMARS.
if Ukraine has 10 HIMARs, and if each launch 3 salvo each every day then they use up 180 missile / day.
It takes 5 weeks to use up the whole yearly production of the USA, and takes 10 month to use up the whole GMLRS stock.
Means the bottleneck is not the HIMARS launchers, but the available missiles.
Doesn't make sense to destroy the launchers, the most important target is the supply chain.
If the available stock for Ukraine is 18000 (I doubt it... ) then destroying 200 decrease the capability by 1%.
Destroying 2000 missile more painfull for the USA than destroying 30 HIMARS.
It doesn't mean much beyond someone in Russian command being unfit for the job.
Ukrainians simply prosecuted a juicy target.
What you don't get is that an army that can hold indefinitely against the Taliban vs one that collapsed in a few days is such a big difference that you can't put it in opinion. You are either outright lying and performing to an audience or your Intel is so bad they are filtering the information in which they are lying to you to suit a narrative. In which case it's quite obvious the Ukrainians have a lot to prove the "investment" of throwing tens of billions of arms their way is worth it.
I honestly don't care if one or ten or no HIMARS launcher is taken out. It's clear enough the Russians are able to intercept the rockets. It's not as if the Russians are deliberately hunting for HIMARS which they are not. They hit ammo depots because they are ammo depots. They hit transport centers because they are transport centers. They hit repair centers because they are repair centers. If HIMARS rockets happen to be in the ammo depots, if HIMARS launchers are unfortunate to be inside the repair centers or transport hubs when they are struck, it's nothing more than collateral bonus. The audience likes to know what's destroyed, and the Russians will mechanically mention what was destroyed regardless whether it was a Grad, a Krab, an M777, a D20, a HIMARS, a CEASAR, or a D30, a T64, a T-72, an Akasya, M1113, a Mastiff, a truck or even a pickup, and they do this everyday.