6 ms·

HIMARS is a very formidable addition to the arsenal, but in general quantities supplied are extremely modest to really turn the tide. Hopefully the deliveries w

by qaq 4y ago

HIMARS is a very formidable addition to the arsenal, but in general quantities supplied are extremely modest to really turn the tide. Hopefully the deliveries will step up.

inglor_cz 4y ago
They are enough to f*ck up Russian logistics behind the lines. Without a massive supply of shells from the rear to the guns themselves, the Russian artillery is incapable of executing their beloved "bomb everything into pieces" WWI-style doctrine. And the Ukrainians have destroyed an untold number of Russian ammo dumps in the last weeks. Some of the explosions have been truly spectacular. This isn't something you can easily remedy. Any new ammo dump in range will be quickly spotted by either American spy satellites or local Ukrainian spies that are probably still active in Donbass - and get blasted to hell. HIMARS is not enough to reconquer the lost territories, true. But it is enough to give Russians a forced operational pause.
- narrator 4y ago
  The thing that the west is unwilling to do is give the Ukrainians cruise missiles. The Russians have lots and lots of these in the form of Kalibr and Iskander missiles that they launch from ships and mobile launchers and it seems to be making all the difference.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    What difference? They hit random civilian targets far behind the frontline. This makes people angry, but does not significantly contribute to attrition of the Ukrainian military. The recent cruise missile hits in Ukrainian cities haven't helped the Russians acquire even a square inch of new territory.
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      I don't understand this terror tactic either. * It will only more cement Ukrainians against them * It will have no negative influence on Ukrainian military nor aviation. * Ukraine will use those attacks in their own propaganda to get more weapons and money from the West. So those attacks are a waste of military assets with marginally negative gain. Who in Russian leadership is planning those dumb attacks?
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        Rationally, this war wouldn't even start. We are too rational here on HN to try to emulate/parse/analyze the decision making involved. There is a big dollop of madness there.
      - philistine 4y ago
        Think instead of the people who have authority over these weapon systems. How much time they spent training to use those weapons. How important it must feel to them that their weapons are used. The fact that the intelligence needed to give them valuable targets is a secondary concern. Their main concern is the readiness and cohesion that come from pressing the fire button.
  - qaq 4y ago
    Well west is unwilling to supply modern tanks so Cruise missles look to be def. of the table. Ukraine is even short on basic armored personnel carriers and even regular consumer trucks widely used by military (mostly supplied by volunteers).
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      This is not really about "willingness". Modern Western tanks are a logistical nightmare, and Ukrainian logistical capabilities to support them are limited. In order not to overextend them, everyone concentrates on doing what is most effective. In the case of this war at this very moment, it is long range high precision artillery. HIMARS eats rockets like crazy, it needs to be supplied constantly. Once those supply chains are fully built and safe, they can talk about adding tanks to the mix.
      - qaq 4y ago
        I think it's more of a public explanation than actual reality. Even supplying soviet planes is an issue (cause ooooh it might anger Putin)
        inglor_cz 4y ago
        For some countries like Germany, yes. Others are itching for a fight. I wonder if this is true: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vzp17b/in_poland_a_train_was_seen_carrying_at_least_one/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vzp17b/in_poland_a... Poland is certainly one of the countries that would love to drive Putin to madness.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The Russians have lots and lots of these in the form of Kalibar and Islander missiles that they launch from ships and mobile launchers and it seems to be making all the difference. Do they still have them or have they used most of them up? IIRC, for all the attention they get, the US has surprisingly few cruise missiles and would use up its stockpiles pretty quickly in a war like that in Ukraine.
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      Russia is no where near running out of missiles. they still have a ridiculous amount of them.
      - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        They are already running out of Kalibr and Iskander missiles. Why would they started using S300 in Groun 2 Ground role? https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-now-firing-s-300-surface-to-air-missiles-at-land-targets-in-ukraine-official https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-now-firing-s-30...
        vogre 4y ago
        mike_k 4y ago
        Any proofs?
        vogre 4y ago
        First, there is no proof of the original claim, other than words of Ukrainian mayor. Second, this explanation is much more logical than the version with russians firing superexpensive anti air weapons to random ground targets. Third, there were photos of these missiles, and they belong to older series of rockets. Russia dismissed these old s-300 long ago, but Ukraine have plenty of them.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  HIMARS might be enough to retake things far away from Russia though. Russias logistics are terrible.
lotusmars 4y ago
They won’t. Europeans drag their feet on arming Ukraine and pressure it to surrender (“peace”). The reason is gas and fear of refugee influx to Europe from hunger in Africa. Plus Germans paying Russia billions for gas beats any arms supplies possible. And they will not stop doing it.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "beats any arms supplies possible" Very observably not. Russia seems to be actually incapable of buying any modern weapons for the billions of euros it receives from Germany. Even China considers such cooperation too risky. The technical level of Russian equipment deployed in the battles in Ukraine has gone downhill since February. Now they are pulling really old stuff (designed or even manufactured in the 1950s-1960s) from storage. And some of their auxiliaries from the separatist republics literally use WWI and WWII small arms. Money matters in war, but it cannot substitute for a missing/inadequate supply chain. You can't bury the enemy in an avalanche of euros, you actually need to procure the necessary equipment.
  - lotusmars 4y ago
    There is no need in sophisticated weaponry or even artillery when you have endless literal cannon fodder. Hide or deny losses and drag on just enough to exhaust your opponent. A year of slow territorial gains? Two? More? Not a problem as long as economy is propped by European money, Germans don’t bother sending enough weapons and Western media is tired of war and looks elsewhere.
    - yakak 4y ago
      Russia already had poor demographics before and now it is possibly spending years losing military age males? Russia as a low prospect J-curve state might not be entertaining to the western media but it is basically the outcome the US has been gunning for since Gorbachev left, always with a lot of resistance from Germany. After a few more years of setting up alternative gas routes, I'm not sure Germany will even have a way to offer Russia yet another chance.
    - 4y ago

by qaq 4y ago

HIMARS is a very formidable addition to the arsenal, but in general quantities supplied are extremely modest to really turn the tide. Hopefully the deliveries will step up.

inglor_cz 4y ago

They are enough to f*ck up Russian logistics behind the lines. Without a massive supply of shells from the rear to the guns themselves, the Russian artillery is incapable of executing their beloved "bomb everything into pieces" WWI-style doctrine. And the Ukrainians have destroyed an untold number of Russian ammo dumps in the last weeks. Some of the explosions have been truly spectacular. This isn't something you can easily remedy. Any new ammo dump in range will be quickly spotted by either American spy satellites or local Ukrainian spies that are probably still active in Donbass - and get blasted to hell. HIMARS is not enough to reconquer the lost territories, true. But it is enough to give Russians a forced operational pause.

narrator 4y ago
The thing that the west is unwilling to do is give the Ukrainians cruise missiles. The Russians have lots and lots of these in the form of Kalibr and Iskander missiles that they launch from ships and mobile launchers and it seems to be making all the difference.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  What difference? They hit random civilian targets far behind the frontline. This makes people angry, but does not significantly contribute to attrition of the Ukrainian military. The recent cruise missile hits in Ukrainian cities haven't helped the Russians acquire even a square inch of new territory.
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    I don't understand this terror tactic either. * It will only more cement Ukrainians against them * It will have no negative influence on Ukrainian military nor aviation. * Ukraine will use those attacks in their own propaganda to get more weapons and money from the West. So those attacks are a waste of military assets with marginally negative gain. Who in Russian leadership is planning those dumb attacks?
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Rationally, this war wouldn't even start. We are too rational here on HN to try to emulate/parse/analyze the decision making involved. There is a big dollop of madness there.
    - philistine 4y ago
      Think instead of the people who have authority over these weapon systems. How much time they spent training to use those weapons. How important it must feel to them that their weapons are used. The fact that the intelligence needed to give them valuable targets is a secondary concern. Their main concern is the readiness and cohesion that come from pressing the fire button.
- qaq 4y ago
  Well west is unwilling to supply modern tanks so Cruise missles look to be def. of the table. Ukraine is even short on basic armored personnel carriers and even regular consumer trucks widely used by military (mostly supplied by volunteers).
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    This is not really about "willingness". Modern Western tanks are a logistical nightmare, and Ukrainian logistical capabilities to support them are limited. In order not to overextend them, everyone concentrates on doing what is most effective. In the case of this war at this very moment, it is long range high precision artillery. HIMARS eats rockets like crazy, it needs to be supplied constantly. Once those supply chains are fully built and safe, they can talk about adding tanks to the mix.
    - qaq 4y ago
      I think it's more of a public explanation than actual reality. Even supplying soviet planes is an issue (cause ooooh it might anger Putin)
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        For some countries like Germany, yes. Others are itching for a fight. I wonder if this is true: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vzp17b/in_poland_a_train_was_seen_carrying_at_least_one/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vzp17b/in_poland_a... Poland is certainly one of the countries that would love to drive Putin to madness.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The Russians have lots and lots of these in the form of Kalibar and Islander missiles that they launch from ships and mobile launchers and it seems to be making all the difference. Do they still have them or have they used most of them up? IIRC, for all the attention they get, the US has surprisingly few cruise missiles and would use up its stockpiles pretty quickly in a war like that in Ukraine.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    Russia is no where near running out of missiles. they still have a ridiculous amount of them.
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      They are already running out of Kalibr and Iskander missiles. Why would they started using S300 in Groun 2 Ground role? https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-now-firing-s-300-surface-to-air-missiles-at-land-targets-in-ukraine-official https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-now-firing-s-30...
      - vogre 4y ago
        mike_k 4y ago
        Any proofs?
        vogre 4y ago
        First, there is no proof of the original claim, other than words of Ukrainian mayor. Second, this explanation is much more logical than the version with russians firing superexpensive anti air weapons to random ground targets. Third, there were photos of these missiles, and they belong to older series of rockets. Russia dismissed these old s-300 long ago, but Ukraine have plenty of them.
oneoff786 4y ago
HIMARS might be enough to retake things far away from Russia though. Russias logistics are terrible.

lotusmars 4y ago

They won’t. Europeans drag their feet on arming Ukraine and pressure it to surrender (“peace”). The reason is gas and fear of refugee influx to Europe from hunger in Africa. Plus Germans paying Russia billions for gas beats any arms supplies possible. And they will not stop doing it.

inglor_cz 4y ago
"beats any arms supplies possible" Very observably not. Russia seems to be actually incapable of buying any modern weapons for the billions of euros it receives from Germany. Even China considers such cooperation too risky. The technical level of Russian equipment deployed in the battles in Ukraine has gone downhill since February. Now they are pulling really old stuff (designed or even manufactured in the 1950s-1960s) from storage. And some of their auxiliaries from the separatist republics literally use WWI and WWII small arms. Money matters in war, but it cannot substitute for a missing/inadequate supply chain. You can't bury the enemy in an avalanche of euros, you actually need to procure the necessary equipment.
- lotusmars 4y ago
  There is no need in sophisticated weaponry or even artillery when you have endless literal cannon fodder. Hide or deny losses and drag on just enough to exhaust your opponent. A year of slow territorial gains? Two? More? Not a problem as long as economy is propped by European money, Germans don’t bother sending enough weapons and Western media is tired of war and looks elsewhere.
  - yakak 4y ago
    Russia already had poor demographics before and now it is possibly spending years losing military age males? Russia as a low prospect J-curve state might not be entertaining to the western media but it is basically the outcome the US has been gunning for since Gorbachev left, always with a lot of resistance from Germany. After a few more years of setting up alternative gas routes, I'm not sure Germany will even have a way to offer Russia yet another chance.
  - 4y ago