5 ms·

Here is something I don't understand about this war: Russia probably has many thousands of rockets with which they can attack Ukraine's territory, right? How

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• delecti 4y ago
  Russia has leveled many areas held by Ukraine. But as things have progressed, the west has been giving Ukraine a ton of support, including anti-missile defense systems. The war has also demonstrated quite clearly that Russia's military might was overblown, and they've actually been severely undermined by decades of corruption.
  • stjohnswarts 4y ago
    I suspect that it is very "overblown" at this point. Russia are using shit equipment all over. Maybe they're afraid those "thousands of missiles" will land on their heads instead of where they're aiming it because they haven't been maintained for decades.
    • bnt 4y ago
      Russia is using shit, but that shit caused 100s of billions in damage. Yes, Ukraine is pushing them out with more superior weaponry, but the damage Russian “shit” left will be felt for decades. Source: lived through something similar 30 years ago, sponsored by Russia.
    • smcl 4y ago
      There have been a few cases of Russian missiles being launched then after 50 metres or so turning round and targeting their own launch site. So you’re not far off Here’s one: https://youtu.be/6IwqmezeSuQ https://youtu.be/6IwqmezeSuQ
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• sofixa 4y ago
  As the sibling comment points out, Russia has been leveling many areas with rockets and artillery. But those are not infinite, and stocks need replenishing, which Russia is incapable of doing. Which is why we've seen them going into the reserves with obsolete Tochka missile systems, and buying artillery ammunition from North Korea. TL;DR: They tried, but they have more targets than ammunition, so failed.
• atoav 4y ago
  Rockets alone don't get you (and even less hold) territory for you. If you wanna use rockets effectively you need damn good intelligence (potential targets) and the ability to hit them (accuracy). And there is evidence the Russians are lacking both to a certain degree. When you imagine two rocket systems that are pointed at each other there are multiple factors deciding which side wins. Accuracy and range being two of them. The western HIMARS rocket system used by the Ukrainians is far more accurate than everything Russia has (in sufficient numbers) and the range is (afaik) better than the artillery range of the russian side. Which means the Ukraine can hit them, before they can hit the highly mobile HIMARS (which might already be at a different place once they fired their payload). That being said one of the major factors in this war has always been that one side is defending. That means Ukrainians have better morale and better intelligence, because the people living in these regions might still supply them with information about Russian troups.
  • TekMol 4y ago
    This brings up two interesting questions: 1: A rocket fired from Russia into Ukraine - with which precision can it hit specific coordinates? 2: What is the radius of destruction of such a rocket?
    • johnthewise 4y ago
      Depends, they have kalibr cruise missiles that can hit pretty accurately but they are expensive and they don't have many. Other than that, it's mostly the artillery doing most of the punching and they aren't accurate and subject to being arty'd back. They don't have precision munitions for these arty and ukranians do have som M982 Excaliburs which are pretty accurate.
      • mylonov 4y ago
        russians have Krasnopol shells.
        • trasz 4y ago
• imtringued 4y ago
  Russia is running out of precision guided munition. They can level things but can they actually hit the targets they need to hit?
• qaq 4y ago
  well they used up most of their stockpile of cruise missiles without much success. From missiles getting shutdown to missiles targeting system being so crappy they don't actually hit the targets to intel being so bad that the target is some rando abandoned warehouse/factory.
• Hamuko 4y ago
  There's some reporting/speculation that suggests that Russia has actually gone through a lot of its weapons during the invasion. It's possible that the quantity and quality of the Russian rocket stockpile was greatly overestimated, much like that of the army's: you don't mobilize reservists if your great army is still in top fighting shape. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/09/01/russia-missiles-running-out/ https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/09/01/russia-missiles-ru...
  • rippercushions 4y ago
    The easiest possible grift is to get a contract to procure (say) 100 rockets, actually build and deliver only 50 (or 20 or 10), then forge the paperwork for the rest, pay off the right people and split the proceeds. And this kind of thing is notoriously endemic in the Russian army.
• Barrin92 4y ago
  something not mentioned in the other comments, the frontline is large and the density of soldiers is low. The entire frontline is something like 2000 kilometers. That's larger than the distance from Berlin to Rome. Rockets can do damage against strategic targets but as fanned out as many of the confrontations are, there's limits to what any single strike can hit. Ukraine has made good use out of very mobile, small units.
• captainmuon 4y ago
  Land is large compared to the blast radius of a missile. You can't blanket the landscape with conventional weapons to destroy the land. You have to target individual units. What you can do is to semi randomly shoot into occupied territory, like with old fashioned howitzers or the London blitz. And while both sides did that, especially Russia shelling cities like Kyiv in the beginning of the war, I guess it isn't really effective militarily. What I wonder though is why Russia doesn't use satellites combined with (dumb) rockets against moving troops, even if it is not very efficient. Does that mean they don't have much of a stockpile left?
• SanjayMehta 4y ago
  It appears that the Russians are not interested in leveling civilian infrastructure. It took them six months to attack energy installations unlike some other alliances which wrecked water and power installations in Syria in six hours. Maybe that has something to do with it.
  • eternalban 4y ago
    They did not shy away from leveling Chechnya, in case you are attributing some sort of inherent virtue to RF military and political command. Complex internal and external equations are scoping RFs actions, just as they do any other aggressive military power's behavior. US doesn't have to live next to future generations of its leveled victims. Russia's victim, in this case, lives next door and is family. And sure I know of the famous Russian Indian affinity, but there remains the appearance that only brown nations get that treatment. Including from Russians. Something to keep in mind ..
  • drran 4y ago
    Russians were not interested in levelling civilian infrastructure, because they planed to use it for their own needs. Their plan was to capture territory, murder "nazi" (Ukrainians), and then steal everything valuable, like wheat, complex machinery, computers, phones, or even toilets.
  • rasz 4y ago
    they very much destroy everything https://www.wsj.com/articles/photos-chronicle-the-devastation-of-mariupol-11648373400 https://www.wsj.com/articles/photos-chronicle-the-devastatio...
• md_ 4y ago
  Some interesting reading: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/october/lessons-russian-missile-performance-ukraine https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/october/less... https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2022/07/russias-missile-inventories-kitchen-use-points-to-dwindling-stocks https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2022/07/russias-... tl;dr: - Low accuracy - Poor performance (duds/failures) - Limited inventory
• amalter 4y ago
  There is no evidence Russia has a large inventory of useful standoff munitions. For example, Russian has been making extensive usage of s-300 surface to air missiles in ground to ground mode. While this capability was considered during design, it's an act of desperation. SAM's are mostly propellent with a small warhead. (The point is to catch up quickly with a delicate fast moving object and frag it to shreds). The s-300 is pretty inaccurate in this role and is mostly useful as a terror weapon. (They are fast and hard to counter). Additional, they have been repurposing air to ship missiles (kh-22's), which are notoriously inaccurate. The high causality shopping mall incident in late June was a kh-22 likely attempting to hit a nearby factory. All said, there is no evidence that Russia has any surplus of tactical weapons. Estimates that up to 70% of dedicated LACM weapons have been expended already. Alternatively perhaps you mean tube artillery and unguided MLRS systems like the Grads? That is precisely how they battle. Artillery grinds down everything into rubble and infantry moves forward a few kilometers - rinse and repeat. Ukraine has blunted this tactic by pressuring artillery supply with HIMARS, partisans and drone delivered munitions. Now the big question is if Russia will use a tactical nuke as an area denial weapon. Russian troops have limited capacity to operate in a radiological environment, and NATO repercussions would be monumental. Personally I believe a tactical nuke would bring us to the edge of a thermonuclear war. Here's how I see it playing out; Russia drops a small dial-a-yield outside Kherson to deter Ukrainian advance. NATO attacks the Black Sea fleet and starts to provide air cover over Western Ukraine. Poland moves "peace keeping" troops along the Russian/Ukraine border. Rus/NATO incidents start to occur, triggering an escalatory spiral. Once you've used a tactical nuke once, it's easier the second and third and fourth time. NATO article 5 is invoked after food supplies are poisoned from fallout. Russia's conventional forces are totally depleted, leaving only the strategic air force and nuclear triad left as a response to NATO. Putin deep inside his nuclear bunker, isolated from outside contact, makes a decision. ...
• justnotworthit 4y ago
  What most people don't understand about (this and most) war is what Clausewitz said plainly: Warfare has three main objects: (a) To conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy; (b) To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and (c) To gain public opinion. Notice that none of that says "gain and hold terrority". Think about that and compare it to what you're hearing. I'm simplifying, but you are now more informed than most people.
• mlindner 4y ago
  > Russia probably has many thousands of rockets with which they can attack Ukraine's territory, right? Russia has already used much of their cruise missile stockpiles, or at least the amounts they're willing to use while still reserving some in case of an invasion of Russia by some other state. Further, they're likely limited in how many they can produce because many of them used western components. While they certainly stockpiled some components, how many they have stockpiled is an open question. > How can the Ukraine hold on to any territory in this situation? Cruise missiles don't help you hold on to territory. They are used for strategic targets. > Can't Russia just level any area held by Ukrainian forces with rockets? If you're referring to unguided rockets, i.e. so-called rocket artillery, those have relatively poor accuracy and don't get you much better than regular artillery barrages. They've also used many of those earlier in the war and Ukraine has captured some as well.