3 ms·

The U.S. has apparently sent M982 Excalibur shells to Ukraine, according to leaked budget documents: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/most-acc

by wahern 4y ago

The U.S. has apparently sent M982 Excalibur shells to Ukraine, according to leaked budget documents: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/most-accurate-us-artillery-shell-is-quietly-added-to-ukraine-aid https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/most-accu... AFAIU, Russia doesn't have any munitions comparable to these guided artillery shells or even the guided HIMARS rockets. Arguably these deployments in Ukraine may inch Russia a little closer to resorting to tactical nukes. Their military doctrine relies on tactical nukes as an answer to conventional weapons beyond their own capability, and that's part of the reason Russia has so many tactical nukes deployed (at least at sea).

topspin 4y ago
> The U.S. has apparently sent M982 Excalibur shells to Ukraine, according to leaked budget documents The DOD straight up announced that a recent military aid package included 1000 M982 Excalibur rounds. Another thing the US has been providing is M1156 PGK. It's a kit used to make unguided rounds more precise by adding GPS guidance and it dramatically reduces long range CEP. Anecdotally I have noticed a large increase the frequency single shot artillery strikes on Russian tanks appearing in Telegram videos. Previously it would take a few shots to adjust fire. Now it's often boom! tank gone with no previous impacts evident.
_kbh_ 4y ago
> AFAIU, Russia doesn't have any munitions comparable to these guided artillery shells or even the guided HIMARS rockets. Arguably these deployments in Ukraine may inch Russia a little closer to resorting to tactical nukes. Their military doctrine relies on tactical nukes as an answer to conventional weapons beyond their own capability, and that's part of the reason Russia has so many tactical nukes deployed (at least at sea). What, Russias nuclear doctrine is to use nukes against the threatening of their own sovereignty and borders, not against conventional weapons that are better than theres. What kind of pathetic military has a nuclear doctrine to drop nukes because the other country has modern technology?. It doesn't matter anyway because Russias nukes are just for sabre rattling, Russia knows full well the any use of nuclear weapons, tactical or not in Ukraine will bring an overwhelming response that will likely just straight up end the war in Ukraines favour.
- tempay 4y ago
  I think you might be confusing tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. As far as I know strategic weapons are only for protecting their sovereignty and the use of tactical weapons is potentially more flexible.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > I think you might be confusing tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. As far as I know strategic weapons are only for protecting their sovereignty and the use of tactical weapons is potentially more flexible. I don't believe their doctrine makes a distinction, because the rest of the world would not make a huge distinction. Im happy to be wrong thought if you could link a primary source.
    - tempay 4y ago
      I’m only directly aware of speculation with regard to there being a possible distinction such as https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        I don't see that as being a distinction but more Russia just rattling the nuclear sabre. They have been doing it since the start of the war and do it about every single large shipment of weapons to Ukraine. I suspect its mostly for a internal audience but also to make the west scared to send weapons which clearly hasn't worked.
        greedo 4y ago
        Russia (and before that, the USSR) viewed nuclear weapons as just another form of artillery. The US did as well, between Davey Crockets, SADM, Pershing 2 and GLCM.
  - boc 4y ago
    The US doesn’t differentiate between those two cases, and thus a “tactical” strike from the Russian pov would lead to a massive escalation. Putin should remember that US doctrine explicitly approves massive nuclear first strikes when a situation appears to be escalating to nuclear conflict. Plus the US actually has thousands of mission-ready nukes and only two cities to hit.
myrmidon 4y ago
Russia has the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system), which is quite comparable and was used in the war already. Strongly disagree about tactical nuclear weapons; I consider it extremely unlikely that these will be ever used by anyone- way to much escalation for very little gain.
- wahern 4y ago
  Russia has laser-guided weapons, which have been around for decades. GPS-guided artillery and rockets are relatively new. According to Wikipedia, they were developed because laser-guidance turned out to be too cumbersome in Afghanistan, where the Taliban might be too well concealed or too far away for convenient laser targeting. Perhaps drones and fancier features (e.g. top attack flight modes) make laser guidance more effective than before (presuming the Russian versions can benefit from such technologies), but M982 GPS-guided shells have a range of 25+ miles, and HIMARS GPS-guided rockets 50+ miles (up to 120), which provide huge advantages in distance in addition to not needing a laser designator on the target the entire time.

by wahern 4y ago

topspin 4y ago

> The U.S. has apparently sent M982 Excalibur shells to Ukraine, according to leaked budget documents The DOD straight up announced that a recent military aid package included 1000 M982 Excalibur rounds. Another thing the US has been providing is M1156 PGK. It's a kit used to make unguided rounds more precise by adding GPS guidance and it dramatically reduces long range CEP. Anecdotally I have noticed a large increase the frequency single shot artillery strikes on Russian tanks appearing in Telegram videos. Previously it would take a few shots to adjust fire. Now it's often boom! tank gone with no previous impacts evident.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> AFAIU, Russia doesn't have any munitions comparable to these guided artillery shells or even the guided HIMARS rockets. Arguably these deployments in Ukraine may inch Russia a little closer to resorting to tactical nukes. Their military doctrine relies on tactical nukes as an answer to conventional weapons beyond their own capability, and that's part of the reason Russia has so many tactical nukes deployed (at least at sea). What, Russias nuclear doctrine is to use nukes against the threatening of their own sovereignty and borders, not against conventional weapons that are better than theres. What kind of pathetic military has a nuclear doctrine to drop nukes because the other country has modern technology?. It doesn't matter anyway because Russias nukes are just for sabre rattling, Russia knows full well the any use of nuclear weapons, tactical or not in Ukraine will bring an overwhelming response that will likely just straight up end the war in Ukraines favour.

tempay 4y ago
I think you might be confusing tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. As far as I know strategic weapons are only for protecting their sovereignty and the use of tactical weapons is potentially more flexible.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > I think you might be confusing tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. As far as I know strategic weapons are only for protecting their sovereignty and the use of tactical weapons is potentially more flexible. I don't believe their doctrine makes a distinction, because the rest of the world would not make a huge distinction. Im happy to be wrong thought if you could link a primary source.
  - tempay 4y ago
    I’m only directly aware of speculation with regard to there being a possible distinction such as https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      I don't see that as being a distinction but more Russia just rattling the nuclear sabre. They have been doing it since the start of the war and do it about every single large shipment of weapons to Ukraine. I suspect its mostly for a internal audience but also to make the west scared to send weapons which clearly hasn't worked.
      - greedo 4y ago
        Russia (and before that, the USSR) viewed nuclear weapons as just another form of artillery. The US did as well, between Davey Crockets, SADM, Pershing 2 and GLCM.
- boc 4y ago
  The US doesn’t differentiate between those two cases, and thus a “tactical” strike from the Russian pov would lead to a massive escalation. Putin should remember that US doctrine explicitly approves massive nuclear first strikes when a situation appears to be escalating to nuclear conflict. Plus the US actually has thousands of mission-ready nukes and only two cities to hit.

myrmidon 4y ago

Russia has the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnopol_(weapon_system), which is quite comparable and was used in the war already. Strongly disagree about tactical nuclear weapons; I consider it extremely unlikely that these will be ever used by anyone- way to much escalation for very little gain.

wahern 4y ago
Russia has laser-guided weapons, which have been around for decades. GPS-guided artillery and rockets are relatively new. According to Wikipedia, they were developed because laser-guidance turned out to be too cumbersome in Afghanistan, where the Taliban might be too well concealed or too far away for convenient laser targeting. Perhaps drones and fancier features (e.g. top attack flight modes) make laser guidance more effective than before (presuming the Russian versions can benefit from such technologies), but M982 GPS-guided shells have a range of 25+ miles, and HIMARS GPS-guided rockets 50+ miles (up to 120), which provide huge advantages in distance in addition to not needing a laser designator on the target the entire time.