How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

4 hours ago, Grigb said:

He is not RU fighter or even POW. The guy was living in Ukraine and as I understood tried to help with humanitarian help. Rumors had it that he simply rejected the offer to come to RU. That adds further insult to nationalists' injury because they guy not only did not fight for RU it rejected RU like damned liberal traitor.

Who would expect a twist like this?

Thanks mate. Story is brilliant, the best part is that young guy actually don't want to leave Ukraine.

This is not the first time nationalists take a slap in the face from Russian ruling elite. They are accustomed, I am afraid, so we shouldn't expect any breakthoughts. But they will probably get even more bitter now.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Beleg85

[JonS]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Was there any truck-mounted artillery in WW2? If no, why not?

The British tried truck-mounted portee anti tank guns for a while. It was a terrible idea. About the same time there were a few ad hoc lashups of indirect artillery on truck chassis', generally one-offs for the likes of the LRDG.

In WWII trucks were pretty fragile, and recoil systems pretty basic. That doesn't makes for a reliable or good system - the recoil rapidly destroys the truck it's on. And that - along with limited traverse - is /still/ a major problem with truck mounted artillery.

Also, in a WWII context, CB response time was measured in hours and days, and fully predicted (ie, unobserved) indirect fire wasn't especially accurate - good enough to suppress batterys, but not really good enough to reliably destroy individual pieces of equipment. So there wasn't the same tactical need to shoot and scoot. Towed was usually plenty fast enough, in a tactical sense, to respond to respond to any CB threat.

Plus, for the US and UK they only had to deal with the Germans, who were artillery chumps anyway. The Germans, who could've used truck-mounted artillery more since they faced a competent artllery enemy in the US and UK, were still using horses to haul most of their guns. They /really/ couldn't afford to be wasting trucks like that.

Lack of tactical need + lack of technical reliability + lack of industrial means = why bother?

Edited June 22, 2022 by JonS

[Huba]

That change in rhetoric is really great to hear:

 

[dan/california]

8 minutes ago, Huba said:

That change in rhetoric is really great to hear:

 

Holy bleep, did Scholz just pick a side?!?!

[FancyCat]

That must be galling, for a Nazi to be traded back (except not even be traded back?) for a son of a high ranking elite. Wait, so did the exchange actually occur? Is this son of the official actually in Russian hands? A bit strange the son would actually agree to go to his father if he was pro-Ukrainian. Or even worse, there was no exchange? Or maybe Russia got something it wants to keep secret? I could see that being true.

[Cederic]

2 hours ago, dan/california said:

I would rather have more wheel based systems rather than less tracked ones if the total system cost difference is significant

 

There are two conversations here. One is the extent to which wheeled self-propelled artillery has been a historic choice. WWI was a horse-drawn affair, so let's ignore that. Even in WW2 the German army was primarily horse-drawn, and the limited vehicle production geared towards front line equipment - Artillery supports the front line but (if things go well) shouldn't be _on_ the front line.

But the equation works out at: Lose artillery through mechanical failure of its locomotive capabilities, or design it to be towed by whatever's working. It's an easy choice when mechanical failure is commonplace, so historically artillery has been towed.

Even where you do choose self-propulsion, artillery tends to be quite heavy - those barrels are a lot of metal - and even heavier if you need to protect it against near-misses from counter-battery fire, aircraft and small arms (as you're being overrun). The traditional approach has been to put tracks on heavy equipment, not just for off-road capability but also to spread the load even on tarmac.

Then there's the firing stability element too. Smooth driving over rough terrain (and roads are rough terrain on a battlefield) needs good suspension, and good suspension plays havoc with your recoil. I don't know, this is purely guesswork, but having lots of individual suspensions (and particularly a lot of intrinsic weight) makes it easier to handle the implications of suspension on accuracy - both the individual shots, and also the retention of where you're aimed.

So a lot of factors support towed artillery (which explains why it's still very clearly a thing) and when not towing, sticking tracks onto the vehicle it's built into.

Cost? Almost an afterthought. 20 guns that all miss or are just missing aren't going to add as much value as the one that's in the right place, and that hits the target.

[Huba]

6 minutes ago, Cederic said:

 

There are two conversations here. One is the extent to which wheeled self-propelled artillery has been a historic choice. WWI was a horse-drawn affair, so let's ignore that. Even in WW2 the German army was primarily horse-drawn, and the limited vehicle production geared towards front line equipment - Artillery supports the front line but (if things go well) shouldn't be _on_ the front line.

But the equation works out at: Lose artillery through mechanical failure of its locomotive capabilities, or design it to be towed by whatever's working. It's an easy choice when mechanical failure is commonplace, so historically artillery has been towed.

Even where you do choose self-propulsion, artillery tends to be quite heavy - those barrels are a lot of metal - and even heavier if you need to protect it against near-misses from counter-battery fire, aircraft and small arms (as you're being overrun). The traditional approach has been to put tracks on heavy equipment, not just for off-road capability but also to spread the load even on tarmac.

Then there's the firing stability element too. Smooth driving over rough terrain (and roads are rough terrain on a battlefield) needs good suspension, and good suspension plays havoc with your recoil. I don't know, this is purely guesswork, but having lots of individual suspensions (and particularly a lot of intrinsic weight) makes it easier to handle the implications of suspension on accuracy - both the individual shots, and also the retention of where you're aimed.

So a lot of factors support towed artillery (which explains why it's still very clearly a thing) and when not towing, sticking tracks onto the vehicle it's built into.

Cost? Almost an afterthought. 20 guns that all miss or are just missing aren't going to add as much value as the one that's in the right place, and that hits the target.

You got to factor in the mission though. For Ukraine type scenario tracked is the way to go, but  if you need to drive 1000 km through the desert every week, something like CAESAR is probably the best solution. 

[FancyCat]

Admittedly, German and French rhetoric has been sorta two-sided, on one hand long has been declared for Ukraine, but also tempered with overtures to Russia. I think it was worth worrying about it regardless but obviously the visit to Ukraine paid some dividends. Both France and Germany have issued stronger statements of support.

Something to emphasize is that Scholz continues to be pressured by the German public and his coalition partners to be firmer and concrete for Ukraine. I think recent election results are showing both lesser support for AfD who is divided on the conflict, and less support of the SPD, with Greens taking advantage, who are quite more bold in supporting Ukraine (in contrast to assumptions of Green-like positions, they are surprising me). I wonder how much Russia worked to gain influence in CDU and SPD and ignored the lesser Greens is reflecting in Greens taking stronger Ukraine positions.

So one hand Ukraine has been upping rhetoric to emphasize the need for more support or face Ukrainian rout, I was skeptical of that being useful vs Ukraine emphasizing it can win with western support but clearly it is pulling the levers needed.

Russia has shown itself unable to change course to reflect willingness to seek off ramps. As someone else has stated, once cut off of gas occurs, it cannot be turned on without major loss of face for the party who concedes, and must concede a lot.

The fact Russia has shown no willingness to stop the offensives, while needed to look good domestically, makes it a poor look for western partners to ask Ukraine to seek peace talks while Russian forces keep grinding forward. Had Putin stopped, it would have made overtures to the west to pressure Ukraine more viable.

The pressure points in the Baltics also come at a good time, the enforcement of sanctions by Lithuania placed by the EU, makes statements allowing concessions to Russia also directly contradict the EU wide sanctions and Baltic state actions and therefore unity of the Union and so even France and Germany must stand against EU division at the expensive of Russian relations.

[Cederic]

11 minutes ago, Huba said:

You got to factor in the mission though. For Ukraine type scenario tracked is the way to go, but  if you need to drive 1000 km through the desert every week, something like CAESAR is probably the best solution. 

I firmly disagree. In that situation triple Vickers and a Browning .50 cal was, is and always will be the best solution.

https://photos.stua.rts.co.tt/Holiday-pics/War-Tour/i-XW9jTGL/A

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Interesting idea.

[Huba]

40 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Admittedly, German and French rhetoric has been sorta two-sided, on one hand long has been declared for Ukraine, but also tempered with overtures to Russia. I think it was worth worrying about it regardless but obviously the visit to Ukraine paid some dividends. Both France and Germany have issued stronger statements of support.

Something to emphasize is that Scholz continues to be pressured by the German public and his coalition partners to be firmer and concrete for Ukraine. I think recent election results are showing both lesser support for AfD who is divided on the conflict, and less support of the SPD, with Greens taking advantage, who are quite more bold in supporting Ukraine (in contrast to assumptions of Green-like positions, they are surprising me). I wonder how much Russia worked to gain influence in CDU and SPD and ignored the lesser Greens is reflecting in Greens taking stronger Ukraine positions.

So one hand Ukraine has been upping rhetoric to emphasize the need for more support or face Ukrainian rout, I was skeptical of that being useful vs Ukraine emphasizing it can win with western support but clearly it is pulling the levers needed.

Russia has shown itself unable to change course to reflect willingness to seek off ramps. As someone else has stated, once cut off of gas occurs, it cannot be turned on without major loss of face for the party who concedes, and must concede a lot.

The fact Russia has shown no willingness to stop the offensives, while needed to look good domestically, makes it a poor look for western partners to ask Ukraine to seek peace talks while Russian forces keep grinding forward. Had Putin stopped, it would have made overtures to the west to pressure Ukraine more viable.

The pressure points in the Baltics also come at a good time, the enforcement of sanctions by Lithuania placed by the EU, makes statements allowing concessions to Russia also directly contradict the EU wide sanctions and Baltic state actions and therefore unity of the Union and so even France and Germany must stand against EU division at the expensive of Russian relations.

That's a nice analysis! One more factor might be that France is finally done with the elections, so Macron (and to some degree probably Scholz) have his hands untied, and it shows - after RU helicopter strayed into Estonian airspace yesterday, France conducted unannounced airborne exercises in Estonia today (link in Polish). 

23 minutes ago, Cederic said:

I firmly disagree. In that situation triple Vickers and a Browning .50 cal was, is and always will be the best solution.

https://photos.stua.rts.co.tt/Holiday-pics/War-Tour/i-XW9jTGL/A

 

LOL, to be precise I should've added that if you want to do that AND haul a 155m gun with you, THEN CAESAR sounds like a great solution. South Africans with their G6 might beg to differ though...

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Huba

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Cederic said:

 

There are two conversations here. One is the extent to which wheeled self-propelled artillery has been a historic choice. WWI was a horse-drawn affair, so let's ignore that. Even in WW2 the German army was primarily horse-drawn, and the limited vehicle production geared towards front line equipment - Artillery supports the front line but (if things go well) shouldn't be _on_ the front line.

But the equation works out at: Lose artillery through mechanical failure of its locomotive capabilities, or design it to be towed by whatever's working. It's an easy choice when mechanical failure is commonplace, so historically artillery has been towed.

Even where you do choose self-propulsion, artillery tends to be quite heavy - those barrels are a lot of metal - and even heavier if you need to protect it against near-misses from counter-battery fire, aircraft and small arms (as you're being overrun). The traditional approach has been to put tracks on heavy equipment, not just for off-road capability but also to spread the load even on tarmac.

Then there's the firing stability element too. Smooth driving over rough terrain (and roads are rough terrain on a battlefield) needs good suspension, and good suspension plays havoc with your recoil. I don't know, this is purely guesswork, but having lots of individual suspensions (and particularly a lot of intrinsic weight) makes it easier to handle the implications of suspension on accuracy - both the individual shots, and also the retention of where you're aimed.

So a lot of factors support towed artillery (which explains why it's still very clearly a thing) and when not towing, sticking tracks onto the vehicle it's built into.

Cost? Almost an afterthought. 20 guns that all miss or are just missing aren't going to add as much value as the one that's in the right place, and that hits the target.

I think that accuracy is a solved problem at this point. The Caesar system Drops that base plate, and ALL reports are that it hits the first time and every time pretty much. As to the relative durability of tracked vs wheeled, we have this unfortunate test under way. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by dan/california

[JonS]

27 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Interesting idea

DeSantis isn't going to like it

Edited June 22, 2022 by JonS

[Huba]

Several sources now claim that. 

 

[Artkin]

No words are needed:

[JonS]

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

relative durability of tracked vs wheeled,

It's not just tracks vs. wheels. All designs are trade offs.

When NZ first went to Vietnam they took L5 pack howitzers. Lovely little guns that are easy to move by road or air, easy to dig in, and it can even be broken down and stowed inside an M113. It was obviously the correct choice for a nice little bush war in a jungle country with limited infrastructure.

Within a year they'd been replaced by M101A1s. The L5s were literally falling apart because they just weren't designed to cope with heavy rates of fire day after day after day. The far less moveable M101, on the other hand, was basically bulletproof and just kept on going, like the energizer bunny.

[Huba]

This also is reported by several sources already. Deep strikes inside RU controlled areas are really getting ubiquitous lately. This port is around 85km behind the line of contact.

 

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, JonS said:

It's not just tracks vs. wheels. All designs are trade offs.

When NZ first went to Vietnam they took L5 pack howitzers. Lovely little guns that are easy to move by road or air, easy to dig in, and it can even be broken down and stowed inside an M113. It was obviously the correct choice for a nice little bush war in a jungle country with limited infrastructure.

Within a year they'd been replaced by M101A1s. The L5s were literally falling apart because they just weren't designed to cope with heavy rates of fire day after day after day. The far less moveable M101, on the other hand, was basically bulletproof and just kept on going, like the energizer bunny.

Some of the artillery people on the forum expressed concern that the 777 might have some of the same issues. It is a very well designed piece of equipment, but perhaps it actually needs to weigh another ton or two. Of course in a war as hot as this one if you can keep the gun and crew alive long enough to wear it out you have done rather well.

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, Huba said:

This also is reported by several sources already. Deep strikes inside RU controlled areas are really getting ubiquitous lately. This port is around 85km behind the line of contact.

 

If someone sent longer range rockets, like tochka (sp?), I suspect that country(s) might want quiet.  But UKR is suddenly hitting deeper targets much more often it seems.

[Huba]

6 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Some of the artillery people on the forum expressed concern that the 777 might have some of the same issues. It is a very well designed piece of equipment, but perhaps it actually needs to weigh another ton or two. Of course in a war as hot as this one if you can keep the gun and crew alive long enough to wear it out you have done rather well.

I still think that M777s were deployed due to immediate availability, and in the long run M198s from the desert are the way to go. At current rate, Europe will be emptied of guns quite soon anyway. 

[Suleyman]

Good to hear that they retreated but i don’t know if they didn’t take casualties doing so. The Russians had direct fire control. I hope they didn’t. Those soldiers that withdrew are gonna bolster the defense and give Russians more problems

[hcrof]

8 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

If someone sent longer range rockets, like tochka (sp?), I suspect that country(s) might want quiet.  But UKR is suddenly hitting deeper targets much more often it seems.

Is is possible to make tochka-u missiles artisanally? They are pretty crude tech and it might be possible to use a 3d printer and a couple of raspberry pi computers to make an Ersatz Version?

Edited June 22, 2022 by hcrof
Spelling

[Huba]

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

If someone sent longer range rockets, like tochka (sp?), I suspect that country(s) might want quiet.  But UKR is suddenly hitting deeper targets much more often it seems.

Or they are just firing off last stocks of the Vilkha BM-30 variants, cause soon the new toys are about to arrive anyway. Or it might actually be a GMLRS strike? Advertised range of those is 80 km, but nobody would probably be surprised if actual was a bit longer. In other post about that strike some local allegedly said that 2 rockets landed there. If it was indeed a Iskander base, that sounds like a nice trade.

[poesel]

1 hour ago, Cederic said:

Then there's the firing stability element too. Smooth driving over rough terrain (and roads are rough terrain on a battlefield) needs good suspension, and good suspension plays havoc with your recoil.

When the gun is lowered on the CEASAR, its center of gravity is behind the carriage, and it mostly leans on the baseplate. So most of the force goes directly into the ground. The suspension is not the problem. Additionally, I guess that the suspension has at least two setting. A soft one for road travel and 'sport' for firing.

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Something to emphasize is that Scholz continues to be pressured by the German public and his coalition partners to be firmer and concrete for Ukraine.

Add to that, pressure from the biggest opposition party (CDU) which has historically been the most pro-military party. Scholz has to cater to the peace activist part of his party.
Quite  a turnaround for Germany. It's like if Biden would declare that the US is going metric from next Monday on.

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

(in contrast to assumptions of Green-like positions, they are surprising me).

And everyone else, including the Greens themselves.

[Haiduk]

7 hours ago, Grigb said:

His name Murad Saidov. He is Deputy Representative of the Head of Chechnya in Crimea and Sevastopol

 

His son Adam Saidov aka Gritsenko is a citizen of Ukraine.

He is not RU fighter or even POW. The guy was living in Ukraine and as I understood tried to help with humanitarian help. Rumors had it that he simply rejected the offer to come to RU. That adds further insult to nationalists' injury because they guy not only did not fight for RU it rejected RU like damned liberal traitor.

Who would expect a twist like this?

Murad Saidov was criminal boss, who up to 2012 lived in Zaporizhzhia (thoug he was Russian citizen) and controled Melitoipol as representatives of Chechen criminal group. After series of showdowns with other criminal groups Saidov was detained by UKR police and deported back to Russia. But despite this he continued to influence on criminal world of Zaporizhzhia oblast.