The War in the Ukraine

H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
pmc said:
you made statement that 305 missile is limited quantity when the larger missiles are not in limited quantity.. They have ordered 114 Ka-52M and they are going to upgrade the rest to that standard. The are ordering far complex X-69 square shape missile in largest quantity ordered to date. and that mean surpassing the thousands cruise missiles already fired. Every one is exaggerating and your baseless statement we can take at face value.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
The original statement was,

The issue with Russian attack choppers, is that they've never really had a good fire-and-forget PGM in large quantities. Izdeliye 305 has only been seen a few times in this conflict. I don't really see a pressing need for Ka-52M tbh, I think the original version was just fine.

Post #11,192

And there is nothing baseless about it. The original LMUR was only accepted into service 10 years ago, and there are only a few platforms capable of firing it. It wouldn't make sense for Ru MoD to have ordered large quantities of this missile when they had much more pressing concerns at the time. I don't know why you are being so insistent on "discrediting" my statement, when there is nothing categorical about it.

They could have 1,000 LMURs or 1 LMUR. It wouldn't really make a difference because these missiles are a fairly niche item to begin with.
 
J

jvodan

Junior Member
Registered Member
HighGround said:
The original statement was,

The issue with Russian attack choppers, is that they've never really had a good fire-and-forget PGM in large quantities. Izdeliye 305 has only been seen a few times in this conflict. I don't really see a pressing need for Ka-52M tbh, I think the original version was just fine.

Post #11,192

And there is nothing baseless about it. The original LMUR was only accepted into service 10 years ago, and there are only a few platforms capable of firing it. It wouldn't make sense for Ru MoD to have ordered large quantities of this missile when they had much more pressing concerns at the time. I don't know why you are being so insistent on "discrediting" my statement, when there is nothing categorical about it.

They could have 1,000 LMURs or 1 LMUR. It wouldn't really make a difference because these missiles are a fairly niche item to begin with.
Click to expand...
according to wikipedia the LMUR has featured in over 40 videos from the Russo-Ukraine war
Additionally the LMUR wiki page states that it is only supported on Mi-28NM, Ka-52M and Mi-8MNP-2s (used by FSB)
So upgrading Ka-52 to Ka-52M is a pressing need if they wish to use the LMUR in Ukraine on anything beyond the FSB operated Mi-8MNP-2s
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
sheogorath said:
Abrams does have a nice post-penetration survival rate in part thanks to isolated ammo rack and blow-out panels. That said, if your turret front or sides penetrated, your crew will be liquefied anyway.

And if by any chance, a direct hit on the bustle compromises the blast door or the bulkhead, the ammo explosion will follow the path of least resistance as well.

The worse of the lot will certainly be the Challenger 2, with ammo being stored all over the fighting comparment

View attachment 105815


They do but they are shallower than the Abrams cleats as it doesn't sit on top of a rubber pad, though, offering more more contact area once it sinks into the ice.
View attachment 105811

Also the cleats on the Abrams aren't fitted to every track link but only every 5th link, so you are still dealing mostly with rubber pads. I guess it is impractical to put cleats on every link
View attachment 105812


Still the vulnerability of the gaps was likely considered not relevant enough to incur in the expense of redesigning the mounting points and speeds up the modernization process


They are hard to see and made of some sort of rubber so they might burn off. Also, they have to be removed to fit the Nakidka thermal cammo.
Click to expand...

Will the Abrams to be sent to Ukraine be equipped with DU armor? I understand that was not the case for those sold to Saudi Arabia.
 
C

CrazyHorse

Junior Member
Registered Member
broadsword said:
Will the Abrams to be sent to Ukraine be equipped with DU armor? I understand that was not the case for those sold to Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
Since the DU armour package has been upgraded numerous times since its introduction in the HA variant, some older versions may be supplied due to them no longer being cutting edge, while still being more effective than old Soviet composite arrays (Dolly Parton type).
 
C

Chevalier

Captain
Registered Member
We've seen the Abrams in action and the results are wanting:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617836398555582465

Bigger question is if the US is really going to supply the Pentagon version of the Abrams or the export version; considering they don't have enough time to train the UKR to use the tanks, it'll most likely be NATO personnel (prob Poles) manning those export version tanks with Americans 'mercenaries' manning the Pentagon version
 
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Chevalier said:
We've seen the Abrams in action and the results are wanting:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617836398555582465

Bigger question is if the US is really going to supply the Pentagon version of the Abrams or the export version; considering they don't have enough time to train the UKR to use the tanks, it'll most likely be NATO personnel (prob Poles) manning those export version tanks with Americans 'mercenaries' manning the Pentagon version
Click to expand...
The problem is combined arms. No tank is invincible if you do not have appropriate air/artillery cover available at a moment's notice. Saudis are fighting using a poor cohesion mercenary army, which leads to it's armed forces getting stuck in all sorts of ambushes, no wonder weapons will save you in a valley lined with atgms.

Ukraine is quite a bit better than that, so they're probably going to do OK with western tanks, obviously they also won't be able to leverage the full combined arms required for western doctrine, but I'd argue that due to the flat terrain and static lines at least some level of artillery support will be available.
 
P

pmc

Major
Registered Member
HighGround said:
The issue with Russian attack choppers, is that they've never really had a good fire-and-forget PGM in large quantities. Izdeliye 305 has only been seen a few times in this conflict. I don't really see a pressing need for Ka-52M tbh, I think the original version was just fine.
Click to expand...
thats the point how you came to this conclusion there is no need for Ka-52M? when new contract at Army Forum 2022 is for Ka-52M. first delivery for new year is Ka-52.

HighGround said:
The original LMUR was only accepted into service 10 years ago
And there is nothing baseless about it. The original LMUR was only accepted into service 10 years ago, and there are only a few platforms capable of firing it. It wouldn't make sense for Ru MoD to have ordered large quantities of this missile when they had much more pressing concerns at the time. I don't know why you are being so insistent on "discrediting" my statement, when there is nothing categorical about it.

They could have 1,000 LMURs or 1 LMUR. It wouldn't really make a difference because these missiles are a fairly niche item to begin with.
Click to expand...
what is more pressing concerns than adding more capability to Ka-52M?. they are even upgrading things like tires.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

10 years ago there were no AESA radar on Ka-52M and with not much advanced net centric ability. now sensors are upgraded and so are the missiles. specification are getting improved and these are the most main advantages of any aviation product on this promotion website.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
S

SolarWarden

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chevalier said:
We've seen the Abrams in action and the results are wanting:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617836398555582465

Bigger question is if the US is really going to supply the Pentagon version of the Abrams or the export version; considering they don't have enough time to train the UKR to use the tanks, it'll most likely be NATO personnel (prob Poles) manning those export version tanks with Americans 'mercenaries' manning the Pentagon version
Click to expand...
Crew survived and tank likely got repaired like many Abrams that got hit in ammo storage. All Russian T-series turrets pop like zits when their ammo gets hit.

This is a Saudi Abrams that got repaired after it blew out its panels.
main-qimg-b1cd7faa3c5fc7139bff12ffa6882347-lq.jpg
y5EUrBH.png

Some Abrams go back into service some may be too damage to fix but at least the crew survives.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
SolarWarden said:
Crew survived and tank likely got repaired like many Abrams that got hit in ammo storage. All Russian T-series turrets pop like zits when their ammo gets hit.

This is a Saudi Abrams that got repaired after it blew out its panels.
View attachment 105823
View attachment 105824

Some Abrams go back into service some may be too damage to fix but at least the crew survives.
Click to expand...
Delusional. The atgm penetrated inside which causes the crew compartment to super heat into the temperatures required to cook off everything inside the tank.

The crew could only survive if it is a handheld older rpg type weapon which isn't supposed to deal with modern tanks.

If the turret flies off or not mostly comes down to how heavy the projectile used to hit the tank was. ES_EfBaXgAAYaYg.jpg
A weak point hit by the likes of Kornet or Hellfire will generally cause that more often than not.

Whereas a hit on weak points with lighter weapons will disable the tank with less major damage, so the crew can survive.
7a662b0acbd25d9d.jpg

Abrams from the video had 0 survivors. Abrams from the above quoted still images probably had surviving crew. The major difference is what they were hit by.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
T-72 designers know getting hit and penetrated by heavy NATO missiles has low survival chance which is why blow out panel werent a thing. They instead made sure ammo must be in hull not turret to minimize ammo detonation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top