Blyatskrieg

[EACLucifer]

Are these anti-ship missiles launched from land or air?

I don't know. The UK isn't terribly well off for anti-ship missiles. British Harpoons are basically past their expiry date, and the government decided to can an interim replacement, meaning the capability won't be replaced for a decade or so - presumably we can politely ask people not to hassle us with ships in the meantime.

There's also Sea Spear, which is as Brimstone derivative, but that's more of an anti-boat missile than an anti-ship missile. Sea Spear would be extremely offensive against a Russian style amphibious landing with amphibious APCs, but it's not going to do much about ships like Moskva bombarding Ukraine from the Black Sea in the way that Harpoons or Exocets would.

ETA: Some people are saying it is Harpoon, but that will take quite a lot of jerry rigging to come up with a functional land-based launcher.

The Argentinians removed an Exocet missile launcher from a damaged warship during the the Falklands war, flew it to the Falklands and (after two failed launches) hit HMS Glamorgan. So not impossible.

If I've read the articles on Harpoon correctly - don't count on that, not an expert - it needs to be given a bearing and a range estimate before launch, which is achieved by a targetting radar. That's not insurmountable, but it might take time.

[EACLucifer]

Some of the Russian recon drones are quite basic. (The Ukranian is mocking the tech, but it is sort of impressive how cheap components can be used to build a useful UAV). I expect that the communications and thermal imaging would be the most expensive bits.

There's been reports of Russian UAV production being hit by sanctions, due to the reliance on commercial-off-the-shelf camera equipment.

And yes, it might be primitive, but it's still very dangerous if it can spot for artillery.

Assorted imbeciles on the internet have actually gone so far as to criticise the Ukrainians who shot this down for "wasting" a capable Starstreak missile on a drone, which is wrong for so many reasons.

Firstly, they used the missile they had to hand, there was no way they could in-situ trade it for something cheaper.

Secondly, a Stinger, Igla or Piorun may have needed a large heat source to lock onto, and may not have been able to target the drone, whereas a command-guided missile has no such concerns.

Thirdly, the drone presented a very significant risk to the Ukrainian troops that downed it, indeed none of their kit would have been usable if they'd all been killed by drone-directed artillery, and soldiers lives are more important than concerns about missile stocks in this situation.

And fourthly, they didn't even use a Starstreak, they used the related Martlet, which is designed for situations exactly like the one they used it in.

[EACLucifer]

Germany still seems reluctant to allow arms transfers to Ukraine. They shot down a deal involving Marders, which a German source I've now forgotten said were surplus to Bundeswehr requirements, and I've seen some discussion of them blocking the transfer of Gepards, too, which would be very useful against Russia's attack helicopters. The Kyiv Independent reports Rheinmetall is willing to sell Leopard 1 tanks, which are retired from German service.

Will Germany allow the transfers? They supply arms to non-democracies, so it's hardly moral concerns about the effect of the arms trade in general holding them back.

[Woodchopper]

Germany still seems reluctant to allow arms transfers to Ukraine. They shot down a deal involving Marders, which a German source I've now forgotten said were surplus to Bundeswehr requirements, and I've seen some discussion of them blocking the transfer of Gepards, too, which would be very useful against Russia's attack helicopters. The Kyiv Independent reports Rheinmetall is willing to sell Leopard 1 tanks, which are retired from German service.

Will Germany allow the transfers? They supply arms to non-democracies, so it's hardly moral concerns about the effect of the arms trade in general holding them back.

This doesn't appear to be an issue about morality. The German ministry of defence clams that all the equipment it has is needed to defend Germany and meet NATO commitments. It claims that it doesn't have any more surplus equipment. Link in German: https://www.waz.de/politik/krieg-bundes ... 45645.html

[Martin Y]

I had thought that the Marder deal was for Czech vehicles which Germany retained the right to withhold approval, but I don't understand the politics.

[EACLucifer]

I had thought that the Marder deal was for Czech vehicles which Germany retained the right to withhold approval, but I don't understand the politics.

There appear to be multiple Marder deals, including Ukraine attempts to buy new ones directly as well.

Germany was very hostile to the idea of arming Ukraine and opposing Russia, even claiming at one point that they couldn't go against Russia because of historical debt due to WWII - which is a grotesque line of reasoning given that they inflicted even more harm on Ukraine than on Russia in that war. Their continued reluctance to supply arms could be inertia, it could be a desire to hold things back for the currently under-equipped Bundeswehr, or it could be timidity in the face of Russian threats. f.ck knows, but Germany is a major arms manufacturer and exporter, Ukraine would be in a much better position if they were given, or permitted to purchase, Leopard 1s or 2s, Gepard Flakpanzers, Marder IFVs and PzH2000 SPGs.

[Woodchopper]

I had thought that the Marder deal was for Czech vehicles which Germany retained the right to withhold approval, but I don't understand the politics.

There appear to be multiple Marder deals, including Ukraine attempts to buy new ones directly as well.

Germany was very hostile to the idea of arming Ukraine and opposing Russia, even claiming at one point that they couldn't go against Russia because of historical debt due to WWII - which is a grotesque line of reasoning given that they inflicted even more harm on Ukraine than on Russia in that war. Their continued reluctance to supply arms could be inertia, it could be a desire to hold things back for the currently under-equipped Bundeswehr, or it could be timidity in the face of Russian threats. f.ck knows, but Germany is a major arms manufacturer and exporter, Ukraine would be in a much better position if they were given, or permitted to purchase, Leopard 1s or 2s, Gepard Flakpanzers, Marder IFVs and PzH2000 SPGs.

The above article mentions donating 100 surplus Marders and a deal by which the German armed forces would donate 100 self propelled howitzers which would be replaced by new models produced by KMW. However, the Marders would need to be repaired, which would take a year, and all the howitzers wouldn't be delivered for two and a half years, which was apparently too long a gap for the German armed forces.

Procurement taking a long time isn't particular to Germany. For example the UK is spending £800 million upgrading 148 of its existing tanks. The deal had been in preparation for years, was announced in 2021 and won't be completed until 2030.

Sorry to keep at this point, but the general state of European armed forces is that they are short of equipment and industry doesn't have the capacity to manufacture modern equipment in high volumes.

[WFJ]

There appear to be multiple Marder deals, including Ukraine attempts to buy new ones directly as well.

Germany was very hostile to the idea of arming Ukraine and opposing Russia

That's not really the case. Germany has a general policy of not exporting to countries currently engaged in conflict, which it has broken in order to send weapons to Ukraine following the invasion. That is a pretty strong statement of support for Ukraine and opposition to Russia.

even claiming at one point that they couldn't go against Russia because of historical debt due to WWII - which is a grotesque line of reasoning given that they inflicted even more harm on Ukraine than on Russia in that war.

That is also a misunderstanding of this argument. There was unease at sending arms into eastern Europe generally because of WW2. This had nothing to do with a debt to Russia specifically, but guilt (for want of a better word) for the violence across central and eastern Europe and a desire to stay out of any conflicts there. Although again this has now been broken.

Their continued reluctance to supply arms could be inertia, it could be a desire to hold things back for the currently under-equipped Bundeswehr, or it could be timidity in the face of Russian threats. f.ck knows, but Germany is a major arms manufacturer and exporter, Ukraine would be in a much better position if they were given, or permitted to purchase, Leopard 1s or 2s, Gepard Flakpanzers, Marder IFVs and PzH2000 SPGs.

I'm not sure there is resistance. As I understand it the issue with the Marders is making sure whatever gets sent is in good order and that the Ukrainians are in a position to use it. Also don't overestimate the speed of Germany bureaucracy.

[lpm]

I had thought that the Marder deal was for Czech vehicles which Germany retained the right to withhold approval, but I don't understand the politics.

There appear to be multiple Marder deals, including Ukraine attempts to buy new ones directly as well.

Germany was very hostile to the idea of arming Ukraine and opposing Russia, even claiming at one point that they couldn't go against Russia because of historical debt due to WWII - which is a grotesque line of reasoning given that they inflicted even more harm on Ukraine than on Russia in that war. Their continued reluctance to supply arms could be inertia, it could be a desire to hold things back for the currently under-equipped Bundeswehr, or it could be timidity in the face of Russian threats. f.ck knows, but Germany is a major arms manufacturer and exporter, Ukraine would be in a much better position if they were given, or permitted to purchase, Leopard 1s or 2s, Gepard Flakpanzers, Marder IFVs and PzH2000 SPGs.

The above article mentions donating 100 surplus Marders and a deal by which the German armed forces would donate 100 self propelled howitzers which would be replaced by new models produced by KMW. However, the Marders would need to be repaired, which would take a year, and all the howitzers wouldn't be delivered for two and a half years, which was apparently too long a gap for the German armed forces.

Procurement taking a long time isn't particular to Germany. For example the UK is spending £800 million upgrading 148 of its existing tanks. The deal had been in preparation for years, was announced in 2021 and won't be completed until 2030.

Sorry to keep at this point, but the general state of European armed forces is that they are short of equipment and industry doesn't have the capacity to manufacture modern equipment in high volumes.

But there are now zero land based threats in Europe. We have a window of as much as two decades until our alliance can be invaded.

We have no need of tanks for years, except for a handful in case we want to invade Mali or something. Ukraine has a very urgent need.

[jimbob]

There appear to be multiple Marder deals, including Ukraine attempts to buy new ones directly as well.

Germany was very hostile to the idea of arming Ukraine and opposing Russia, even claiming at one point that they couldn't go against Russia because of historical debt due to WWII - which is a grotesque line of reasoning given that they inflicted even more harm on Ukraine than on Russia in that war. Their continued reluctance to supply arms could be inertia, it could be a desire to hold things back for the currently under-equipped Bundeswehr, or it could be timidity in the face of Russian threats. f.ck knows, but Germany is a major arms manufacturer and exporter, Ukraine would be in a much better position if they were given, or permitted to purchase, Leopard 1s or 2s, Gepard Flakpanzers, Marder IFVs and PzH2000 SPGs.

The above article mentions donating 100 surplus Marders and a deal by which the German armed forces would donate 100 self propelled howitzers which would be replaced by new models produced by KMW. However, the Marders would need to be repaired, which would take a year, and all the howitzers wouldn't be delivered for two and a half years, which was apparently too long a gap for the German armed forces.

Procurement taking a long time isn't particular to Germany. For example the UK is spending £800 million upgrading 148 of its existing tanks. The deal had been in preparation for years, was announced in 2021 and won't be completed until 2030.

Sorry to keep at this point, but the general state of European armed forces is that they are short of equipment and industry doesn't have the capacity to manufacture modern equipment in high volumes.

But there are now zero land based threats in Europe. We have a window of as much as two decades until our alliance can be invaded.

We have no need of tanks for years, except for a handful in case we want to invade Mali or something. Ukraine has a very urgent need.

Exactly

Germany's safety is best preserved by actually allowing such weapons to be put to use against our common enemy. And replacing them.

[EACLucifer]

The above article mentions donating 100 surplus Marders and a deal by which the German armed forces would donate 100 self propelled howitzers which would be replaced by new models produced by KMW. However, the Marders would need to be repaired, which would take a year, and all the howitzers wouldn't be delivered for two and a half years, which was apparently too long a gap for the German armed forces.

Procurement taking a long time isn't particular to Germany. For example the UK is spending £800 million upgrading 148 of its existing tanks. The deal had been in preparation for years, was announced in 2021 and won't be completed until 2030.

Sorry to keep at this point, but the general state of European armed forces is that they are short of equipment and industry doesn't have the capacity to manufacture modern equipment in high volumes.

But there are now zero land based threats in Europe. We have a window of as much as two decades until our alliance can be invaded.

We have no need of tanks for years, except for a handful in case we want to invade Mali or something. Ukraine has a very urgent need.

Exactly

Germany's safety is best preserved by actually allowing such weapons to be put to use against our common enemy. And replacing them.

This. It's not just stuff the Bundeswehr might need that's the issue, and even when it is, Germany will gain more benefit from them in Ukrainian hands.

Germany is continuing to go along with policies that increase its demand for Russian gas. They've sent over a billion euros to Russia after the atrocities in Bucha were uncovered. They are a major arms exporter, which is why it is so harmful when they drag their heels. They are better placed to provide arms than most countries in Europe, but have sent less than Estonia.

And WFH, I'm not criticising them because I don't know what their policies are. I'm criticising them because their policies are immoral. They are happy to export arms to oppressive regimes, but not those who are defending themselves against them. Germany's policy of not supplying arms to countries at war lead to them initially only offering helmets, before Putin's full scale invasion, as it seemed they did recognise that Ukraine was at war, but somehow this didn't result in cancellation of Nord Stream 2 until after the full scale invasion, or a policy of not sending billions for gas to a nation that is engaged in aggressive war and, at this point, genocide.

This is not a criticism of the German people, of course, but of German government policies of appeasement, and a failure to move swiftly enough away from those policies - the opinion polls I've seen suggest the German public also think their government is not doing enough.

[EACLucifer]

A railway bridge in Russia's Belgorod oblast has had a little bit of an accident...

[Grumble]

A railway bridge in Russia's Belgorod oblast has had a little bit of an accident...

Whoops a daisy.

Presumably a highly skilled saboteur team did that. I wonder how they got there, helicopter?

[TopBadger]

Makes sense to target logistics infrastructure inside Russia, wonder if they're getting any external help in terms of identifying targets.

Also possibly helps bring home to Russians in the region the lie that this isnt a war.

[Woodchopper]

Makes sense to target logistics infrastructure inside Russia, wonder if they're getting any external help in terms of identifying targets.

Also possibly helps bring home to Russians in the region the lie that this isnt a war.

Yes, and Russia should then redeploy troops to protect home infrastructure.

[EACLucifer]

Biden admin authorising transfer of another eight hundred million dollars of weaponry to Ukraine

This new package of assistance will contain many of the highly effective weapons systems we have already provided and new capabilities tailored to the wider assault we expect Russia to launch in eastern Ukraine. These new capabilities include artillery systems, artillery rounds, and armored personnel carriers. I have also approved the transfer of additional helicopters.

Artillery rounds could potentially refer to guided rounds; Ukraine had its own domestically produced 152mm guided round, but if they are going to be using some NATO gun-howitzers, they'll need 155mm rounds. All the discussion I've seen re: helicopters relates to the Mi-17, effectively an upgraded Mi-8 (NATO name: Hip), which is more of a transport than an attack helicopter, but it can be armed in a pinch.

[jimbob]

Video

Tanks are Obsolete - apparently since 1919

https://youtu.be/QPth_xqBXGY

Lots of sources and discussion

[EACLucifer]

There's a lot of rumours doing the rounds saying that the Slava class cruiser Moskva was hit - possibly sunk - by an anti-shipping missile.

This isn't the first time similar rumours have come out about sinking a Russian ship at sea, previously they have not proven true.

Moskva is the flagship in the Black Sea Fleet and is consequently a very well observed ship. Moskva has been operating off Odesa, likely as part of Russia's air defences.

If Moskva has been damaged or sunk, evidence will emerge, either directly, or the ship will be conspicuously absent. For now, the claims are unverified, and cannot be relied upon.

[EACLucifer]

There's a lot of rumours doing the rounds saying that the Slava class cruiser Moskva was hit - possibly sunk - by an anti-shipping missile.

This isn't the first time similar rumours have come out about sinking a Russian ship at sea, previously they have not proven true.

Moskva is the flagship in the Black Sea Fleet and is consequently a very well observed ship. Moskva has been operating off Odesa, likely as part of Russia's air defences.

If Moskva has been damaged or sunk, evidence will emerge, either directly, or the ship will be conspicuously absent. For now, the claims are unverified, and cannot be relied upon.

Holy sh.t, Russian state media reporting the loss of the ship.

As a result of a fire on the Moskva missile cruiser, ammunition detonated, the crew was completely evacuated, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

I think this is the first sinking of a cruiser since the Belgrano.

[monkey]

They missed the bit about the missiles though.

[Woodchopper]

There's a lot of rumours doing the rounds saying that the Slava class cruiser Moskva was hit - possibly sunk - by an anti-shipping missile.

This isn't the first time similar rumours have come out about sinking a Russian ship at sea, previously they have not proven true.

Moskva is the flagship in the Black Sea Fleet and is consequently a very well observed ship. Moskva has been operating off Odesa, likely as part of Russia's air defences.

If Moskva has been damaged or sunk, evidence will emerge, either directly, or the ship will be conspicuously absent. For now, the claims are unverified, and cannot be relied upon.

Holy sh.t, Russian state media reporting the loss of the ship.

As a result of a fire on the Moskva missile cruiser, ammunition detonated, the crew was completely evacuated, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

I think this is the first sinking of a cruiser since the Belgrano.

I’ve posted links to sources in the other thread.

I think you’re right about the history. Moskva seems to have a slightly larger displacement.

There would seem to be very little chance of an amphibious attack on Odesa.

[jimbob]

And if this is true, it says quite a bit about the anti air and anti-missile capabilities of their flagship.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/4 ... t-flagship

According to a supposed Russian intercept (consider information unconfirmed), Ukraine flew a TB2 Bayraktar around Mykolaiv, grabbing the Moskva’s attention, which has apparently been providing anti-air radar and missile services during the war. A translation by a random Twitter user translated the gist of the intercept (full of military slang that stymied a lot of people):

A "trojan horse" aircraft was flying between Voznesensk and Mykolaiv, around Kryviy Rih. Moskva was providing long range air defense for them and got distracted long enough, with the target AND poor weather as well, to have two Neptunes stick their tridents through the hull.

Thus, focused on the drone on the Ukrainian mainland, the Neptunes flew in under cover of distraction and stormy seas to hit the ship. Another Russian report, posted multiple times by several credible OSINT people, reported a similar sequence of events (running it through Google Translate):

[Woodchopper]

And if this is true, it says quite a bit about the anti air and anti-missile capabilities of their flagship.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/4 ... t-flagship

According to a supposed Russian intercept (consider information unconfirmed), Ukraine flew a TB2 Bayraktar around Mykolaiv, grabbing the Moskva’s attention, which has apparently been providing anti-air radar and missile services during the war. A translation by a random Twitter user translated the gist of the intercept (full of military slang that stymied a lot of people):

A "trojan horse" aircraft was flying between Voznesensk and Mykolaiv, around Kryviy Rih. Moskva was providing long range air defense for them and got distracted long enough, with the target AND poor weather as well, to have two Neptunes stick their tridents through the hull.

Thus, focused on the drone on the Ukrainian mainland, the Neptunes flew in under cover of distraction and stormy seas to hit the ship. Another Russian report, posted multiple times by several credible OSINT people, reported a similar sequence of events (running it through Google Translate):

The Russian ministry of defence also posted video of another ship in the area trying to shoot down a TB2.
https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1514 ... hs8gzqGRhQ

[lpm]

Incompetence must play a part. Poorly trained crew not using the ship's defences properly? Plus it has been wandering around for weeks in predictable ways.

[lpm]

I expect that more Javelins have already been ordered to replenish.

If this is to be believed, https://militarycognizance.com/2022/04/ ... sian-tank/ production is limited to 6,500 per year.

And if this is accurate: https://armourersbench.com/2022/03/13/j ... n-ukraine/ the kill rate is 280 vehicles for 300 fired.

280/300 is extraordinary isn’t it?

Shifting over to this thread as it's thigh rubbing weapons stuff.

No way is 280 out of 300 going to be true. 93% in proper language. That's either fantasy or Ukraine propaganda.

More likely something like 10%? It's obviously highly effective and a lot of tanks have been destroyed by it. But war is hard. There will be a lot of misses that don't make it onto those Ukrainian videos with added patriotic music on twitter.

Plus loads of Javelins will be destroyed/damaged by Russian attacks, or hastily abandoned when a squad comes under fire.

I'd say we'd need to supply Ukraine with >1,000 javelins if we want to destroy 100 Russian tanks. That sort of ratio?