solid points. doctrinally Ukraine employment of HIMARS is no different from SRBMs, owing to the fact that they get sufficient intelligence support on locations of stationary targets like an ammo depot. thinking back now it was likely that HIMARS was chosen to be the supplied to Ukraine because NATO always knew where these ammo depots were and wanted to hit them. I think it was a textbook case of successful arms supply to a foreign partner. HIMARS itself was no game changer as no single weapon other than nuke can be, but with NATO intelligence support HIMARS has been used to noticeable effect (might be slightly exaggerated by media).
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
In the third paragraph, soldiers from our brigade refused to perform their military duties and escaped from combat missions. In the fourth paragraph, they forgot their soldier's oath, their commitment to defend their country, betrayed the trust of their colleagues and loved ones, and some lost their weapons and escaped. The ones with photos should be officer sergeants
Novokachovka, part of the projectile of the HIMARS rocket was shot down by the Russian air defence system.
The Russian side claimed that Ukraine would have fired the BM-27 before firing the HIMARS thus depleting the air defence system ammunition and then firing the HIMARS while the air defence system was being loaded
The Russian side claimed that Ukraine would have fired the BM-27 before firing the HIMARS thus depleting the air defence system ammunition and then firing the HIMARS while the air defence system was being loaded
Real live drone video of the strike of a German smart 155mm artillery munition from a PzH2000 of the Ukranian Army on a Russian vehicle ( below a picture of the type of shell in question )
That's clever, if true. On the other hand, it probably suggests that russian systems do have the capability of intercepting HIMARS but are being saturated at the expense of the civilian population around the target and interception areas, which we have always known, the Ukrainians don't really give two shits about.
What do you think about the theory that HIMARS was sent more for the datalink than for its own capabilities? That Ukrainian HIMARS hitting Russian depots is because the rockets are being fed real time targeting data and not because the rockets themselves are actually good?
This would actually point to the deficiency of data sharing otherwise, if the only effective use of it was to basically take it out of Ukrainian hands and use them as basically just the drivers.
These GMLRS is very expensive. Probably at least half a million USD per rocket. It's pretty crazy how America is spending trillions of USD on GMLRS rockets for its vassal Ukraine just to shell a few civilians. It is far more expensive than America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
It makes sense, as the UAF is bled of capable personnel and still offers plausible deniability about the level of US involvement in the conflict.
Which leaves the russians with three options: hunting the HIMARS as soon they are spotted, reworking the security of their logistics as to avoid getting targeted by western intel or start hitting the source of the intel which probably means having to down an RQ-4 or two and escalating things.
Or a combination of those three, though the last one is the least likely.
Last edited:
HIMARS should be primary targets of Mi-28 NM, Ka-52 M attack choppers, Tornado-S MRLS which out ranges HIMARS by about twice the range, Islander ballistic and cruise missiles.
Or, if HIMARS is difficult to find, then the last resort would be to blow up the dams / bridges on Dnipr river which will prevent HIMARS from crossing Dnipr river.
Or, if HIMARS is difficult to find, then the last resort would be to blow up the dams / bridges on Dnipr river which will prevent HIMARS from crossing Dnipr river.