I don't think they are disabling CCTV cameras. Looks like they are shooting long distance over the truck. Bullets do come down.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Or Ukrainian AN-124 will fly them.
Fly them where ? 2 or 3 apc/ifv at a time ? Common... It would take even longer than by boat. Ukrainians have 7 An-124, don't know how many can fly, how many are stuck in Ukraine or destroyed. No spare available. Pipe dream.
Assuming they really send it.
You want them fast. then fly the AN-124. Otherwise. Channel strait tunnel. where the armored vehicles are loaded onto train and head to EU that way. Now. British did send Tanks to continental Europe that way. Shipping might be good to carry many goods, but you should not forget the railway.
Yep, rail would do the thing but i would not see them coming before a month at the front line in western Ukraine... probably more.
and they have to train for it too..especially if it has any digital fire control or something else. Unless British got some Akatsiya or Gvozdlika around to send.
Don't be stupid, M777 is far too expensive to be sent to Ukraine
Hindu Brahmins being put in their place by a Sikh. OMG, it is not going over well in India. Well, at least the US is smart not to ask Katherine Tai to deliver that message.
I'm loving their sore loser attitude.
In Chinese: 咱就喜欢看到你恨咱恨得牙痒痒，却又拿咱没办法的样子，嘿嘿 ！（I love seeing you Anglo-Muricans' grinding-your-teeth-pissed-off at us, but can't do ANYTHING about it to us. hehe!）
Alright, first off, it's a bit odd you took all that I said yet still came to conclude that I assumed the opposite.
But anyway, let's address what we have here -
Nothing wrong with this statement, though it should be noted this only covers a part of what modern AA guns do and reflects more on the conventional thinking of "spray-and-pray" and "hardkill" approach that's prevalent in both Western and Soviet/Russian doctrines on close-in air defence which, ironically, is very much a Hollywood-inspired notion.
A good example, of course, would be the Vulcan-equipped Phalanx. It's not a "precise" weapon not because it's by design, but because of what that weapon inherently does, as you're shooting a linear projectile against a non-linear target that's wholly determined by relative velocities and angles of approach, and the physical limits of the delivery platform and the payload themselves.
You might think it's semantics, but they don't "design" a multi-barrel gun that fires 4,500rpm to destroy an incoming target. It's what it would take to destroy an incoming target, and it still won't be as precise as a RAM, which precisely(!) turns this argument on its head because why would you then make such less effective weapon still?
Cost-effectiveness.
But that's not nearly the point.
When you talk about intercepting your regular aircraft and missiles vs drones, esp. commercial ones, it's important to also consider the time to detect + intercept vs approach speed, angle and sensor range of your target.
Yes, size is a factor, and you're right on time as another factor.
Take something like a DJI. Their enterprise model has max speed of 80kph, service ceiling of 3,000m, resoluble sensor range of 600m/1,200m with 2x zoom, transmission/operational range 7,000m. That is much slower moving and low flying than, say, an attack craft or a helo, and well within the effective range of even a 23mm round from a ZU-23.
So let's take the ZU-23, or better yet the Shilka that's basically ZU-23 x2 on tracks with a targeting radar that, without getting too technical, has an engagement envelop that can discriminate small blind speed targets against passive interference that is also aided by an optical tracker similar to the Strela-10, which we saw took out exactly a small multi-rotor drone a few days ago... granted that was with a 9M37/333.
Anyway, what differentiates it from the "spray-and-pray" proposition as dictated by groupings and dispersion patterns, is the ammo it uses.
Unlike the 20mm rounds in a Gatling gun which are impact-fuze, hence the need for tight spreads, the 23mm family from the Russian side comes in different flavours from HEF, to airburst, to timed-fuze self-destruction rounds that address exactly the shortfall in accuracy and coverage.
The Allies used to employ proximity-fuze rounds in WWII and you don't need me to explain how it doesn't need to actually hit the target to take it out. Russian 23mm operates on the same principle, which basically makes it an AAA in a 23mm package.
Which also makes the shotgun analogy that you based your assumptions on arguably flawed, because you aren't shooting just one buckshot round of 8 pellets per shell at a catapulted, outgoing target, instead of an incoming, slow moving and loitering one. The approach is all wrong from the get-go.
Aided by the fact the quad guns on the ZSU-23-4 i.e. Shilka can dish out 4,000 rounds (itself limited by 2,000 rounds in the mag) of self-explosive shells per min. of guided bursts, you're basically blanketing the whole engagement envelop with frags instead of spraying furiously praying for a hardkill as you would with traditional shells.
So from 7 klicks out the Shilka would be expected to already know what's up, and before that pesky lil thang so much as take a peek of who's lying by the pool it'd already be peppered with shrapnel and spiral down like a dead fly.
This isn't some drummed-up theory as the Czechs and the Finns are retaining their ZU-23s for precisely this reason due to the proliferation of small drones -
Then there's SPAAGs like the Derivatsiya that augments what works with the Shilka in a modern package -
And of course the Pantsir with its 30mm and SAM combo -
I think it's pretty clear the Russians know the value and effectiveness of flak even in an age where SAMs have become ubiquitous, so much so that their new platforms still retain this capability is indicative of their rationale.
In the face of economy of force, I would agree -
To be sure, all that is not to say such countermeasures are 100% effective, esp. in the face of swarm attacks. Nobody realistically expects that. Hence the layered defence doctrine.
To make it sound like there's no counter to it at whatever the level you may want to clarity for yourself would be incredibly dismissive and inaccurate, when you realise the whole Western vs Soviet/Russian air defence doctrines revolve around cost-effectiveness vs saturation attacks!
In the Cold War it was anti-material missile salvos, predominantly on the naval front against Soviet missiles, and the aerial front against Western air assets. I won't name all the countermeasures developed since we should be reasonable informed here.
Add to that, we've now got drone swarms that are harder to track (not impossible, mind) but not necessarily difficult to neutralise provided you have the right tools, as I've explained in length.
I understand the urge to scoff at such terms like "ack-ack" as some bravado instilled by Hollywood culture. Fact is, it's tedious enough to dive into a complex subject such as this, since this is neither the most appropriate place nor an occasion for such brainy discussions right from the get-go.
But since we're still on the subject of Russian countermeasures against drones in Ukraine, it shouldn't be too OT to invite some relevant thoughts in this regard, if I may say.
Last edited:
- Status