• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 9

I can't tell if this is good news or bad news:

Either way, it seems Moscow is pursuing its own "vivaldi" operation to take the town of Orikhiv in the south. And RFU seems to have decided that the best response is to call it out and insinuate it's all a clever trap by the Ukrainians.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Asking the putin fanboys this question will get you my all-time favourite russian cope: That they are deliberately losing in Ukraine and would beat the country in a day if they decided to.
Click to expand...

Fanboys? That's pretty much what the same Petrushev said in the same interview as that they could take Poland in 3 days. (Because, yes, more accurately he didn't say Warsaw, he said wipe the whole Poland off the map.) Literally he said they're not using their full strength in Ukraine.

Basically the anime line:
This_Isn't_Even_My_Final_Form_Image.webp
 
Also, Russia's answer to Ukraine's using EW against the Kinzhal was to rip the control module out of S-400 AA missiles and lob them purely ballistically at big cities, and not care where they hit. The accuracy of those really is the size of Kyiv, and the payload is just about on par with a Shahed. For a comparison, that's barely above a third of a Tomahak's payload, less than a fifth of what a HAMMR can carry and just about a sixth of what Ukraine's own FP-5 can carry. And those are guided. But I guess that's enough to ruin the lives of a couple of families in an apartment block in Kyiv.

They actually reduced the production of the actual AA variant and moved launchers away from anything that isn't Moscow to where they can lob unguided ballistic missiles at Kyiv on a purely parabolic trajectory. Which made life a lot easier for cruise missiles and the like launched by Ukraine.

But, eh, since when did Putin care about anything other than his own head, tucked safely inside his own rear end.
 
Last edited:
SpuriusMaximus said:
Also, Russia's answer to Ukraine's using EW against the Kinzhal was to rip the control module out of S-400 AA missiles and lob them purely ballistically at big cities, and not care where they hit. The accuracy of those really is the size of Kyiv, and the payload is just about on par with a Shahed. For a comparison, that's barely above a third of a Tomahak's payload, less than a fifth of what a HAMMR can carry and just about a sixth of what Ukraine's own FP-5 can carry. And those are guided. But I guess that's enough to ruin the lives of a couple of families in an apartment block in Kyiv.

They actually reduced the production of the actual AA variant and moved launchers away from anything that isn't Moscow to where they can lob unguided ballistic missiles at Kyiv on a purely parabolic trajectory. Which made life a lot easier for cruise missiles and the like launched by Ukraine.

But, eh, since when did Putin care about anything other than his own head, tucked safely inside his own rear end.
Click to expand...
They have invented very expensive V-1 flying bombs.
 
Andy_Ross said:
They have invented very expensive V-1 flying bombs.
Click to expand...
Not really, IMHO. If nothing else, the V1 was a proto-cruise missile, while this one is ballistic and it has less than a quarter of the payload of a V1.

What they invented is how to turn an expensive AA missile into a mini-V2 with less than a fifth of the V2's payload. And yeah, as you say, even more expensive. And probably less accurate, since the V2 was at least gyro-stabilized, while this one is pretty much just the equivalent of the crude rockets the Palestinians managed to build in basements and shoot at Israel. If God wills it, it might actually hit something.

Or as a more modern comparison, they managed to invent a much more expensive Scud with much less payload, and less guidance at that, and only needed to strip down their own air defences for it.
 
Last edited:
<nostalgia> Remember when we were all watching Russia's immense supply of Soviet era tanks being hurriedly recommissioned, and just as quickly brewed up in Ukraine, and everyone was waiting to see what happened when the well ran dry some time in 2024 or 2025? Of course the war shifted away from waves of tanks dashing themselves against Ukraine's defences so we didn't get to find out.

But Putin has certainly squandered that vast legacy resource, from basically limitless tanks to something more like well who needs tanks anyway?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
at this point, Poland has probably more operational MBTs than Russia.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't underestimate Russia. Ukraine is top drone force at the moment. Russia is close second. Russia doesn't have MBTs because they proved ineffective. So I would ask how many drones does Poland have. How many jammers. What is their drone production, how many they can burn per day. Poland is open minded compared to some other European armies, but I don't think they have nearly enough.
 
Dr.Sid said:
I wouldn't underestimate Russia. Ukraine is top drone force at the moment. Russia is close second. Russia doesn't have MBTs because they proved ineffective. So I would ask how many drones does Poland have. How many jammers. What is their drone production, how many they can burn per day. Poland is open minded compared to some other European armies, but I don't think they have nearly enough.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much my thinking.
 
Dr.Sid said:
I wouldn't underestimate Russia. Ukraine is top drone force at the moment. Russia is close second. Russia doesn't have MBTs because they proved ineffective. So I would ask how many drones does Poland have. How many jammers. What is their drone production, how many they can burn per day. Poland is open minded compared to some other European armies, but I don't think they have nearly enough.
Click to expand...
That's the wrong question. Poland is a NATO member. So it's not how many Poland has, but how many the whole Europe has, even if Trump somehow managed to stay out of it. (NATO is an international alliance. It can only be abandoned by congress, not by executive order.) PLUS how many Ukraine has, if the war with Ukraine is still going. They're not gonna just sit down and go, "eh, let Poland deal with it alone."

Oh, and Turkey, Norway, Finland and the Baltic states are also in NATO and have a land border with Russia. And Turkey is a major global exporter of drones. And the Baykar Bayraktar TB3 has a range of 5700 km. Those things can reach Irkutsk in Siberia. In fact, launch them from a bit further east (I'm sure any Baltic state would cooperate) and they can reach Yakutsk where the gas pipeline to China starts. And I mention that as important because Russia doesn't have plants to liquefy that gas; it only goes out by pipeline.

Plus, it's not just drones. Russia has proven utterly unable to stop cruise missiles. And now they'd be dealing with the domestic versions not the hamstrung export versions. The domestic SCALP / Storm Shadow has almost twice the range of the ones they gave Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Plus NATO countries are fielding and developing effective anti drone systems, some are already in use in Ukraine and others are being field tested.

What had Russia developed or fielded?

I still maintain that while still being an important factor on the battlefield and integrated in to tactics, drones will not dominate as they do at the moment.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Plus NATO countries are fielding and developing effective anti drone systems, some are already in use in Ukraine and others are being field tested.

What had Russia developed or fielded?

I still maintain that while still being an important factor on the battlefield and integrated in to tactics, drones will not dominate as they do at the moment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, data analysis from Ukraine suggests that it takes more than a dozen drone hits to actually disable a tank. The clips you see online are only the killing blow. Pack a few Skyranger or Serval vehicles with a tank division, instead of sending the tanks grouped in small groups without any defence, and yeah, you might lose a few tanks, but the rest will just roll over the unprotected Russian infantry.
 
Andy_Ross said:
What had Russia developed or fielded?
Click to expand...

Well, AFAIK it was Russia who came up with fibre optic drones. And the West* thought their improvised extra drone protection around armoured vehicles was hilarious until it became obvious we should copy it.

* I'm assuming there were also serious people who did not care about how stupid it looked, but about learning how effective it would turn out to be.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, AFAIK it was Russia who came up with fibre optic drones. And the West* thought their improvised extra drone protection around armoured vehicles was hilarious until it became obvious we should copy it.

* I'm assuming there were also serious people who did not care about how stupid it looked, but about learning how effective it would turn out to be.
Click to expand...
I mean in the anti drone field!

Plus wire guidance has existed for decades.

What improvised protection has been copied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom