Blyatskrieg

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Mar 08, 2023 2:14 pm

Ukraine has appealed to the EU to send Kyiv 250,000 artillery shells a month to ease a critical shortage that it warns is limiting its progress on the battlefield.

In a letter to his counterparts in the 27 member states on Friday, obtained by the Financial Times, Ukraine’s defence minister Oleksiy Reznikov writes that his country’s forces are only firing a fifth of the rounds they could because of lack of supplies.

The request far exceeds the help the EU is discussing sending, underlining the size of the task facing Kyiv as its war with Russia enters a second year.

[...]

Reznikov writes that artillery plays a “crucial role in eliminating the enemy’s military power”. On average Ukraine was firing 110,000 155mm-calibre shells a month, he says — a quarter of the amount used by Russia.

“If we were not limited by the amount of available artillery shells, we could use the full ammunition set, which is 594,000 shells per month,” he said, referring to the capacity of the artillery systems available to Ukraine. “According to our estimates, for the successful execution of battlefield tasks, the minimum need is at least 60 per cent of the full ammunition set, or 356,400 shells per month.”

[...]

Reznikov, who also sent the letter to EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, says he supports a recent initiative to increase European ammunition production to support Ukraine. Estonia last month proposed that the EU should spend €4bn to buy 1mn shells for use by Kyiv.

Borrell has drawn up a less ambitious plan, for the EU to spend €1bn in the next few months to partly reimburse member countries for the cost of donated ammunition. Groups of the bloc’s states would then place fresh joint orders with arms manufacturers to boost supply and replenish their stocks.

All member states plus Norway are likely to agree with deliveries starting within weeks, officials say.

[...]

The €1bn would come from €2bn already pledged by governments to top up the European Peace Facility (EPF), which finances arms purchases. “We are rebranding what we have already given,” said one.

The third, longer-term part of Borrell’s plan is aimed at boosting the size of the EU arms industry.

[...]

Borrell is working with Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry commissioner, on a plan to use €500mn of EU money to expand arms production by financing factory expansion, eliminating supply bottlenecks and placing big orders to stimulate investment.

Breton is also pressing banks and other financial institutions, some of which boycott arms companies, to increase their lending.

He told the FT the EU had to shift to a wartime footing. “I believe it is time that the European defence industry moves to a wartime economy model to cater for our defence production needs.

[...]

Several member states remain sceptical of the plans, according to diplomats. “The biggest question mark is: ‘How are we going to pay for this?’” one said. “The only viable option, and the elephant in the room, is another increase in the ceiling of the EPF.”

EU leaders will probably be faced with that decision at a summit in Brussels on March 23-24.

https://www.ft.com/content/75ee9701-aa9 ... 51422280fd

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:04 pm

From the iontertube
niche capabilities and one-off weapons that cannot be supplied in large numbers are insignificant compared to steady streams of ammunition and replacement parts
https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/sta ... 67649?s=20

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:43 pm

Josep Borrell describes the EU moving to a war economy mode. Would have been better six months ago. But looks like a radical and long term change nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/statu ... 64994?s=20

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:27 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:04 pm
From the iontertube
niche capabilities and one-off weapons that cannot be supplied in large numbers are insignificant compared to steady streams of ammunition and replacement parts
https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/sta ... 67649?s=20
For the most part, this is true. There are, however, a few points to be made.

The first is that not everything is an either or. When it comes down to sending kit from stockpiles, the choice between, say, an APC and more 155mm ammunition is an artificial one imposed by policy, which may or may not be an issue depending on the nation (the poster you mention tends to be very big on talking about costs vs drawdown authority etc, which is a USA specific issue, though it has parallels in some other countries. The idea that sending, say, ATACMS means sending less 155mm is only true within the limits of America's presidential drawdown authority, which doesn't apply to stuff purchased new from the factory, but also doesn't apply to countries other than the USA in the same way). He's very big on the idea that sending F-16s means not sending more useful equipment, but frankly that assumes that their provision is done using existing instruments; big, emotive equipment like F-16s might end up getting their own funding from Congress.

Secondly a breadth of systems reduces the demand on individual systems. Sending 105mm artillery reduces the demand on 155mm, likewise heavy mortars and 105mm artillery do similar jobs, so providing both gives two stockpiles of ammunition to draw from rather than one. That, incidentally, might be the reason for the really clunky over-under 25mm cannon mounts on MT-LBs the Russians are sending. Normally one would expect the twin 23mm to be used, and it works well on MT-LBs, but perhaps using the old naval 25mms opens up new ammunition stockpiles? To put it simply, if the only weapons that can destroy tanks are Javelins, there will be massive demand for Javelins. If other weapons are also used - MILANs, N-LAWs, TOWs, Stugna-Ps etc, the demand on each system is lower. In addition, when those weapons are coming out of existing stockpiles, then there really isn't a tradeoff. Martlets+Stingers+Pioruns allows different countries to contribute in a way that just sending Stingers doesn't, but Britain providing Martlets and Poland providing Pioruns doesn't reduce availability of Stingers, it reduces demand for them.

Thirdly, some of the systems discussed can have sufficient advantages that they are potentially more useful. People made the argument the OP was making about HIMARS, too, yet that initial campaign against Russian ammo depots, and the subsequent inability of the Russians to move their ammo forward in quantity, has significantly reduced the amount of 155mm needed to counter their artillery. So when people argue for ATACMS or Storm Shadow or whatever, which true, cannot be supplied in large quantities, it is because they have the potential to hit the Russian logistics system very hard, be it in Luhansk, Crimea or the Kerch Bridge. They don't need to be supplied in large quantities to reduce the pressure on the frontline by harming Russian logistics and create a deterrent effect forcing assets like attack helicopters and Su-25s to move further back, which in turn makes them less effective and reduces pressure on air defence.

And fourthly, even when weapons don't have such a radical shaping effect, they can still be useful in small numbers. Things like Brimstone might not be available in enormous quantities, but they are still useful in smaller quantities, and the idea that it's Brimstone or 155mm is a false dichotomy.

I like the person you quoted. His frustration at the sort of people that demand this that or the other be sent without thinking about how it would fit into the way Ukraine is fighting is understandable, but he is a bit prone to overcorrecting. He's mostly right; supply of the basics, especially ammunition for 155mm and 152mm artillery, is right at the top of the list of what is needed. But that doesn't mean that's the only way people can help. He's often made the point that we shouldn't assume that the western way of doing things is the only way, or the best way in any particular situation, yet when it comes to his opposition to sending fighter jets, he's guilty of it, as he's assuming that they won't cope without extensive SEAD/DEAD and ignoring the ways Ukraine is using its aviation assets in the current environment. Ultimately, Ukraine is asking for jets, and I suspect their armed forces know what they need better than any western observer.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:28 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:43 pm
Josep Borrell describes the EU moving to a war economy mode. Would have been better six months ago. But looks like a radical and long term change nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/statu ... 64994?s=20
These kind of arrangements for supply should have been put in place the moment it became clear that the war wasn't going to be over quickly, but getting them in place late is better than not getting them in place at all.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:03 am

Numbers published by Ukraine on overnight's attack.

81 launches in total:

28 Kh-101/Kh-555
20 Kalibr
6 Kh-22
6 Kh-47 Kinzhal
2 Kh-31P
6 X-59
13 S-300
8 Shahed-136/131

34 out of 48 Kh-101/555/Kalibr cruise missiles (71%) and 4/8 Shahed-drones (50%) were shot down. Due to countermeasures all 8 Kh-31P/X-59 did not reach their targets.
I'm wondering whether some of those represent something like 1-2 months production by Russia. Obviously not the old stuff like the S-300s or Kh-22s, or the Shahed's. But I can imagine them producing, say, 10 - 20 Kalibrs per month.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:46 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:03 am
Numbers published by Ukraine on overnight's attack.

81 launches in total:

28 Kh-101/Kh-555
20 Kalibr
6 Kh-22
6 Kh-47 Kinzhal
2 Kh-31P
6 X-59
13 S-300
8 Shahed-136/131

34 out of 48 Kh-101/555/Kalibr cruise missiles (71%) and 4/8 Shahed-drones (50%) were shot down. Due to countermeasures all 8 Kh-31P/X-59 did not reach their targets.
I'm wondering whether some of those represent something like 1-2 months production by Russia. Obviously not the old stuff like the S-300s or Kh-22s, or the Shahed's. But I can imagine them producing, say, 10 - 20 Kalibrs per month.
That would fit with the timing - it's been a while since there's been a major attack, potentially because they had to save up enough missiles.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:50 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:46 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:03 am
Numbers published by Ukraine on overnight's attack.

81 launches in total:

28 Kh-101/Kh-555
20 Kalibr
6 Kh-22
6 Kh-47 Kinzhal
2 Kh-31P
6 X-59
13 S-300
8 Shahed-136/131

34 out of 48 Kh-101/555/Kalibr cruise missiles (71%) and 4/8 Shahed-drones (50%) were shot down. Due to countermeasures all 8 Kh-31P/X-59 did not reach their targets.
I'm wondering whether some of those represent something like 1-2 months production by Russia. Obviously not the old stuff like the S-300s or Kh-22s, or the Shahed's. But I can imagine them producing, say, 10 - 20 Kalibrs per month.
That would fit with the timing - it's been a while since there's been a major attack, potentially because they had to save up enough missiles.
Yes, that's what I was wondering. They will very likely have a reserve but they'll probably use new production to stop new attacks depleting the reserve below a certain level.

Then the Ukranians shoot most of them down.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:08 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:50 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:46 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:03 am


I'm wondering whether some of those represent something like 1-2 months production by Russia. Obviously not the old stuff like the S-300s or Kh-22s, or the Shahed's. But I can imagine them producing, say, 10 - 20 Kalibrs per month.
That would fit with the timing - it's been a while since there's been a major attack, potentially because they had to save up enough missiles.
Yes, that's what I was wondering. They will very likely have a reserve but they'll probably use new production to stop new attacks depleting the reserve below a certain level.

Then the Ukranians shoot most of them down.
I've seen claims that the attack last night used missiles costing hundreds of millions of dollars. All to shut off the power for a few hours and to murder a few civilians. And while it did nothing to improve their tactical/operational situation, they will have further hardened Ukrainian resolve and encouraged more Western military aid.

User avatar
Martin Y
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3069
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin Y » Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:58 pm

Why now, I wonder. Did they wait for an especially cold spell to attack the power grid, or does taking more of it offline at once make it harder to bring it up again? Maybe it's just Putin's dog's birthday.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5243
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:04 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:58 pm
Why now, I wonder. Did they wait for an especially cold spell to attack the power grid, or does taking more of it offline at once make it harder to bring it up again? Maybe it's just Putin's dog's birthday.
It's not that cold in Ukraine at the moment, my look at ventusky.com for Kyiv shows 12⁰ to 1⁰ today and dropping down to -2⁰ for Tuesday

It was colder a couple of weeks ago
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Imrael
Snowbonk
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Imrael » Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:18 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:58 pm
Why now, I wonder. Did they wait for an especially cold spell to attack the power grid, or does taking more of it offline at once make it harder to bring it up again? Maybe it's just Putin's dog's birthday.
Theres an argument that these attacks prevent redployment of air defences closer to front line. Even if we discount Russian aircraft from tactical support, maybe there are useful anti-drone systems "pinned" in rear areas to deal with Shaheed.

OTOH maybe its just they have built up a strikes-worth of munitions.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:33 pm

One example of training pilots to switch from Soviet to NATO aircraft I can find is from the early 90s when Finalnd switched from flying Soviet MiGs to US made F-18s. There's an interview here from the 1990s with one of the pilots, which includes:
Bubba: When the Finnish pilots came to the United States, what were your thoughts on the F/A-18 training that your country was receiving?

Jarmo: We got a nine week Specialized Aviation English course in the Defense Language Institute at Lackland AFB, TX. After that we transferred to NAS Lemoore, CA for the seven month F/A-18 CATII (category II for experienced pilots) training. During the first month of the Hornet training we went through the ground school academics and got a real 'fire hose effect' of information and simulator flying.

After that we proceeded via fam, nav etc. flights all the way to strike and fighter weapons training. The VFA-125 "Rough Raiders" F/A-18 class 5-95 that I took part of also got the Hornet IUT (Instructor Upgrade Training). All the way through the training the attitude towards us was great. Our IPs thought that we were hard-working and they prepared themselves very well for the briefings and flights. The conduct was very professional.
Its not the most prestigious source, but the pilot checks out.

That's two months and a week advanced English, seven months F/A-18 CATII (category II for experienced pilots) training, plus extra time which he doesn't specify.

Some pilots from former Warsaw Pact states will probably have gone through the same process.

On one hand they might be able to skip parts to speed up the programme. On the other, maybe Ukrainian pilots flying into an active war zone would need more training than Finnish pilots in the mid-1990s.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:40 pm

Some of that may depend on if the training crosses generations of aircraft technology. I can imagine that going from ~1980 Soviet fighters to ~1990 US fighters is a big step wrt to electronics etc. But going from ~2000 Russian fighters to ~2000 US fighters might not be such a big step.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5243
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:22 pm

The Tank Museum at Bovinton on the war in Ukraine.

https://youtu.be/oEmWE83P2LA

On the subject of artillery, the director says that Russia has fired about 10M shells, and probably has an annual production capacity of 3M and remaining stocks of 7M
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
TimW
Catbabel
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:27 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TimW » Mon Mar 13, 2023 7:02 am

jimbob wrote:
Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:22 pm
The Tank Museum at Bovinton on the war in Ukraine.
So that's where the Russians are getting their tanks from.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:14 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:33 pm
One example of training pilots to switch from Soviet to NATO aircraft I can find is from the early 90s when Finalnd switched from flying Soviet MiGs to US made F-18s. There's an interview here from the 1990s with one of the pilots, which includes:
Bubba: When the Finnish pilots came to the United States, what were your thoughts on the F/A-18 training that your country was receiving?

Jarmo: We got a nine week Specialized Aviation English course in the Defense Language Institute at Lackland AFB, TX. After that we transferred to NAS Lemoore, CA for the seven month F/A-18 CATII (category II for experienced pilots) training. During the first month of the Hornet training we went through the ground school academics and got a real 'fire hose effect' of information and simulator flying.

After that we proceeded via fam, nav etc. flights all the way to strike and fighter weapons training. The VFA-125 "Rough Raiders" F/A-18 class 5-95 that I took part of also got the Hornet IUT (Instructor Upgrade Training). All the way through the training the attitude towards us was great. Our IPs thought that we were hard-working and they prepared themselves very well for the briefings and flights. The conduct was very professional.
Its not the most prestigious source, but the pilot checks out.

That's two months and a week advanced English, seven months F/A-18 CATII (category II for experienced pilots) training, plus extra time which he doesn't specify.

Some pilots from former Warsaw Pact states will probably have gone through the same process.

On one hand they might be able to skip parts to speed up the programme. On the other, maybe Ukrainian pilots flying into an active war zone would need more training than Finnish pilots in the mid-1990s.
Further estimates in this article here. One claim is six months, while sixty nine days is also mentioned - that specifically refers to just conversion training of an existing experienced pilot, however, the article also notes Ukraine has a number of those sufficiently fluent in English to start right away - a fair bit of the time taken in the article you linked was work on English language skills.

No credible estimate is long enough that they wouldn't been in service already if training had started when it became clear that Ukraine would be able to prevent a quick Russian win.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:32 am

Situation in Bakhmut appears complicated and difficult. Information frequently conflicting, so some of this will be if-x-then-y type stuff, which should not be read as "x is as it is stated in this post". Contrary to what I previously mentioned, Ukrainian forces did not fully retreat from Bakhmut, but just pulled back across the river, leaving eastern Bakhmut but fighting for the west. What is clear is that Bakhmut is surrounded on three sides, but also the Russian advances seem to have slowed considerably over the last few days. There are some reports that they are near culmination if they do not reinforce the attack, but they can still choose to reinforce the attack. Journalists have been removed from the city. This could indicate a desire to withdraw, but it could also be a desire to operate without risk that a journalist will expose some key concealed movement.

Contrary to what I previously mentioned, Ukrainian forces did not fully retreat from Bakhmut, but just pulled back across the river.

There's reasons to stay. These are as follows.

The attrition rate has strongly favoured Ukraine for most of the battle - Ukrainian sources talk about seven to one, a NATO observer mentioned five to one. So long as the Russians are desperate to attack - or Wagner group is desperate to attack - that attrition rate will mostly favour Ukraine.

If Ukrainian forces leave, the Russians won't suddenly stop in their tracks. They'll shift their efforts somewhere else, or continue to advance towards Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, and possibly flank Ukrainian positions on the Seversky Donets either side of the river near Bilohorivka.

One cited by the Ukrainian government that I'm sceptical of: that the ground will need to be retaken. While that's true, it doesn't need to be retaken head on, but can instead be won back as Izium and Balakliya and Kherson were.

Ukraine's support from the west is contingent on the idea that Ukraine can win. While a strategic Ukrainian retreat from Bakhmut would be an extremely pyhrric victory for Russia - a defeat in terms of attritional warfare, which is the relevant part unless they somehow breakout, a very unlikely proposition - the press lack the military knowledge and responsibility not to put out masses of headlines re: Ukrainian defeat, which would embolden appeasers and undermine military aid.

Russian sources are worried that their forces are thinly stretched in the area. While Prigozhin especially cannot be taken at face value, the Russian forces have created two salients north and south of the city. It is possible that those salients could be successfully attacked. It is the traditional manoeuvre warfare counter to attempted pincer movements - most famously at the Battle of Kursk.

There's also reasons to leave. These are as follows.

There is a risk of encirclement. This would be a very bad thing indeed. Even having to leave heavy equipment would be a big problem. at the moment, the Russians seem to be stalled near Ivanivske and Khromove, but they are threatening the last paved roads into the city. This was cited as meaning that Ukraine couldn't get heavy armoured vehicles out as the other roads are less good, but this isn't actually true, though heavy, tanks and IFVs are the best vehicles at handling the mud. While bridges are important for resupply, if it came to a withdrawal, a bridging vehicle (a number have been supplied) would be sufficient to create an emergency bridge for long enough to get vehicles out.

The risk of encirclement is low, but there is a related risk, and that is the risk that, in order to avoid encirclement, forces will be committed to break an encirclement that would more usefully be used elsewhere.

Some reports indicate that the attritition ratio no longer favours Ukraine, and has not done so since Soledar fell. This is difficult to assess. I'll note here that I'm mostly looking at different analysts, not primary sources. Primary sources are very difficult, and it takes skill to use them. Different people report radically different takes on the same events. A unit might hold off a significantly more powerful force with light casualties, and one person will report they are doing well, while another will report everything is terrible as one of the casualties they did take was his best friend. In general, being partly encircled is not great for the defending side, but that isn't necessarily as much the case in urban warfare.

Russian forces put enormous effort and took enormous casualties to place Ukrainian forces in a partialy encircled salient. Ukraine could deny them that by retreating a few miles to Chasiv Yar, shortening and straightening the front line while retaining the key high ground between the Russians and Kramatorsk and Sloviansk.


I don't know what's best to do here. I don't know entirely what's going on. I'm worried, and I'm hoping that Ukrainian commanders make the right decisions - and Russian ones the wrong ones.

ETA: A comment on the general strategic situation. Ukraine are waiting for drier weather to attack. Bezhdorizhzhia - the infamous mud season - is in full force right now. Ukraine are training large new volunteer formations, called the "Offensive Guard", which contain a mix of new and veteran troops and are currently in training. They are also receiving significant supplies of western MBTs, IFVs, APCs, artillery and other AFVs. Until then, they want the Russians to suffer as much attrition as possible, and also to suffer as little attrition as possible themselves. Russian tactics at Vuhledar are helpful here, as are Russia's so far failed attempts to dislodge Ukrainians from the woods just north of the Seversky Donets east of Lyman. Whatever decision is taken regarding Bakhmut needs to be taken in light of this strategic situation.
Last edited by EACLucifer on Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:38 am

A fascinating thread by Partizan Oleg, regarding Russian tank reserves.

This person is the same one who used known loss figures for the Fourth Guards Tank Division "Kantemirovskaya" and compared them with the Oryx blog's observed losses to calculate that Oryx was picking up somewhere a little under eighty percent of tank losses last spring.

The thread discusses how many tanks were made, and how many were exported and so on, and concludes that Russian T-72 reserves may be smaller than expected. A separate thread looks at the fate of T-80Us. It doesn't seem so many of those are available. There's footage of un-upgraded T-80Bs on the move, which doesn't bode well for stocks of the more advanced variants.

It is difficult to explain why Russia would put so much effort into putting T-62 reserves into service if they had sufficient T-72s. The T-62s they are overhauling are receiving thermal sights - though not the more advanced Sosna-U sight - so they won't be totally useless, but they will always be less effective than a T-72 given the same treatment.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:16 pm

Remarkable footage of a Ukrainian drone striking what is reported as Dzhankoi, in occupied Crimea

Dzhankoi is the site of a Russian military base and also a key rail and road logistics route. If you look in the right place (pausing a few times helps), you can actually see the drone.

Image

User avatar
headshot
Dorkwood
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by headshot » Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:50 am

I think you can hear the engine on it in the video. Sounds a lot like a V1 flying bomb!

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:56 am

headshot wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:50 am
I think you can hear the engine on it in the video. Sounds a lot like a V1 flying bomb!
You can. It's probably a little two stroke petrol engine, similar to the ones used on the Iranian "Shahed" drones, which has lead to them being nicknamed "Shaitanmopeds" or just "Mopeds". The V1 of course used a pulse jet, the similarity in sound to a motorcycle engine of the time being coincidental.

And now part of me is wondering if pulse jets, given just how ludicrously simple and cheap they are, would be a viable option for this sort of single use, one way drone.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by dyqik » Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:26 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:56 am
headshot wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:50 am
I think you can hear the engine on it in the video. Sounds a lot like a V1 flying bomb!
You can. It's probably a little two stroke petrol engine, similar to the ones used on the Iranian "Shahed" drones, which has lead to them being nicknamed "Shaitanmopeds" or just "Mopeds". The V1 of course used a pulse jet, the similarity in sound to a motorcycle engine of the time being coincidental.

And now part of me is wondering if pulse jets, given just how ludicrously simple and cheap they are, would be a viable option for this sort of single use, one way drone.
Probably they are viable, but a little two stroke engine from something like a weed whacker/strimmer is mass produced for about $130 retail in the US, and a 1 liter four stroke engine for pushing something like an airboat can be bought off the shelf for $2k. I doubt you could make a pulse jet work for that money, and both of those IC engines will run on ordinary gasoline, at a much higher fuel efficiency.

Imrael
Snowbonk
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Imrael » Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:27 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:56 am

And now part of me is wondering if pulse jets, given just how ludicrously simple and cheap they are, would be a viable option for this sort of single use, one way drone.
Some of the more extreme fringe of the RC model aircraft community have used them in the past. Suspect they would be too small in terms of payload and range, although RC models can be quite big.

And someone built one on scrap heap challenge once - possibly those Somerset farmers?

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by monkey » Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:49 pm

Imrael wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:27 am
And someone built one on scrap heap challenge once - possibly those Somerset farmers?
That was my first thought, found this episode description: clicky, but I'm pretty sure they did jests more than once, or maybe I'm getting mixed up with the US version.

They should talk to that expert:
Bruce is currently researching pulsejets for clients in the aerospace and defence industries with the aim of producing a new generation of low-cost, high-speed pulsejet-powered UAVs (unmanned air vehicles).

Post Reply