Weapons the Ukraine war is proving obsolete
-
KInda.
Until the Ukranians got the U.S. 155mm howitzers and the MIRS, the Russians outranged and out massed them. They were getting their butts kicked for awhile. Mobile howitzers and mortars are better, but they cost a lot more and require more maintenance.
Trenches? Depends if an effective anti-drone defense can be implemented. Once you do that, it starts to negate their effectiveness. And while dropping grenades can be effective with massed troops in trenches, what about dispersed troops in foxholes?
Close combat air support? Here to stay.
Tanks? Tanks are only effective as a combined arms force. Infantry needs armor, armor needs infantry.
I agree with your comments. It is not so much the weapons becoming obsolete as the manner in which they are deployed. In this case the Russians are slow or incapable of adapting tactics and deployment to counter the new technology at Ukraine’s disposal. Essentially they are still fighting the last war they were in and coming up far short.
Elbows up!
-
The footage of small drones dropping improvised explosives on enemy troop positions shows how things have changed.
Imagine, 50, no 15 years ago, being able to pilot a small aircraft across enemy lines, virtually unseen, and then drop a few grenades onto the enemy?
-
I agree with your comments. It is not so much the weapons becoming obsolete as the manner in which they are deployed. In this case the Russians are slow or incapable of adapting tactics and deployment to counter the new technology at Ukraine’s disposal. Essentially they are still fighting the last war they were in and coming up far short.
@Renauda said in Weapons the Ukraine war is proving obsolete:
the Russians are slow or incapable of adapting tactics and deployment to counter
This has been the problem from Day 1. Top-down command with no understanding of what's happening in the field.
I posted a story about Theodore Roosevelt's son and how he commanded troops in Normandy. He landed at the wrong place.
No problem, "The war starts HERE."
-
It certainly takes the teeth out of their nuclear threat. Likely to detonate on the launchpad.
-
Of course not.
But it is hard to imagine they would be so bad conventionally and precise with nukes.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Of course not.
But it is hard to imagine they would be so bad conventionally and precise with nukes.
-
Of course not.
But it is hard to imagine they would be so bad conventionally and precise with nukes.
@Mik said in Weapons the Ukraine war is proving obsolete:
Of course not.
But it is hard to imagine they would be so bad conventionally and precise with nukes.
Don't have to be precise. Soviet targeting systems were never quite as good, but they had more throw weight.
-
@Mik said in Weapons the Ukraine war is proving obsolete:
Of course not.
But it is hard to imagine they would be so bad conventionally and precise with nukes.
Don't have to be precise. Soviet targeting systems were never quite as good, but they had more throw weight.
By the Reagan era throw weight really didn’t factor into the nuclear arms control equation owing the greater accuracy of MIRV weapons with smaller warheads of 150KT. Throw weight was bandied about more for public consumption as it was easier to explain than the Circular Error Probable (CEP) of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle or MIRVed warheads. It really didn’t matter that the Russian weapon systems making up the MIRVs had more mass. Rather it was that the Soviets had a lot of them and their accuracy or CEP was improving over time.
