Martin Y wrote: ↑
Thu May 12, 2022 12:55 pm
The claim may be accurate but the video illustrates the story rather than showing it accurately.
There's an edit in the video about halfway through, so although it does show two shots (it's not the same bit of video repeated twice) we've no info about the time between shots or even which one came first.
Ah, missed that as I was in a hurry.
The cutaway video of the explosion shows smoke already rising from the target and it's possible the big explosion is not a second shell hit but rather ammunition cooking off in a fire caused by a hit we aren't shown.
The big explosion is definitely the ammunition cooking off, there isn't an artillery piece in the world these days that hits that hard.
In general re: my comments about the west neglecting artillery.
Western formations generally have a lot less artillery than Russian ones, as Western forces tend to assume they'll have air supremacy - which of course they have against Iraq/Libya/Various Insurgents in the last few decades. It's not that Western artillery is bad as such, it's that its use is downplayed compared to air-launched PGM usage. Compared to attack aircraft, artillery is very cheap, especially if we insist that all attack aircraft must be stealth fighters.
The other issue is one of escalation. In the Donbas war, Ukraine was able to use the very long range of the 203mm 2S7 Pion as a workaround for restrictions on heavy equipment near the frontline (the Russians, incidentally, just ignored those Minsk treaty restrictions). To rely on airpower means assuming that it will always be possible to conduct full scale SEAD/DEAD operations. Western forces also assume airpower will be available to deal with aerial threats. Re-introducting SPAAG/SHORADS allows smaller forces to be deployed without relying on full scale air cover, and using more artillery means being able to respond quicker, within the range of the guns, and more cheaply - even guided shells are a lot cheaper than aircraft+PGMs, and often guided shells won't be needed.
While we're on the subject of artillery, apparent accounts of the Battle of Bilohorivka
- where I massively underestimated Russian losses, which have now been counted as 73 pieces of heavy equipment -
- talk about the Ukrainian use of heavy artillery (I'm not if this refers to 152mm, 155mm or 203mm or heavy MLRS like the BM-27 and BM-30) and even Ukrainian airpower against the Russian bridging attempt. However they did it, the ability of the Ukrainians to identify where the Russians would cross and quickly bring overwhelming firepower to bear against the Russians at the point when they were most vulnerable was decisive.