Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Dominant Weapon In Ukraine
SYSOP    2/24/2015 6:27:13 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Dangle    L.P.R Airforce   2/24/2015 5:04:15 PM
I thought that they have a working Su-25 which they have used in combat and they have some trainer Jets that can be armed?
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    yes   2/25/2015 1:18:33 AM
i'm sure they'd have a wonderful time bombing russian forces while dodging Europes most comprehensive SAM covered airspace.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko    Helping out   2/26/2015 4:03:20 PM
There has been some talk here about how west could help Ukraine; what kind of weapons should be delivered to them if there was political will to do so. 
 
Came to mind that there is probably one or more former Warsaw Pact countries that have developed different kinds of guided/boosted/cluster/AT munitions for Soviet artillery calibres (122/130/152). They could boost capabilities while being reasonably covert: even if you had a dud falling through the hood of a separatist Ural-truck it would take a bold little propagandist to go study where the shell was made.
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       2/26/2015 5:15:49 PM
I'm not sure how the Ukraine is set up with in regards to deal out counter battery fire..  I'd think I'd prioritize those radars and systems..  If they can take out the "rebel" artillery, I'd see that as a higher priority than dropping precision rounds on pockets of  "rebels".
 
 NATO countries could probably get away with transferring the counter battery systems as "defensive".. while precision ammunition would likely be a harder sell politically..
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Screw the politics    2/26/2015 7:05:13 PM
Uphold your treaty obligations damn it.
 
When Britain declared war on Germany over the Polish invasion, the German ambassador to England asked the then Prime Minister what on earth he was doing that for. We have a treaty was the reply. Then tear it up as the worthless piece of paper it is. was the Germans reply.
Lucky for us the British has the moral courage when it counted. Else we may all be speaking Deutch today. Well, you lot may. I wouldn't be around.
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       2/26/2015 8:30:06 PM
>Lucky for us the British has the moral courage when it counted.

And then we all promptly looked the other way when the Soviets invaded from the other side.. and were just as brutal if not more so than the Germans.
 
I don't have the quote down, but I believe Churchill said something like "If Hitler invaded Hell, he'd find something nice to say about the Devil."
 
Politics.. as much as I typically despise them.. are almost always at play.
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Correct   2/27/2015 5:50:47 AM
That's where politics came into it.
Also, Churchill desperately wanted to intervene when russia invaded Finland, and again, due to political expedience didn't.
Russia paid for it by losing a 1/3rd of its army but still and all.
Politics.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko    Nate   2/27/2015 7:47:01 AM
Tried to invade Finland. And lost considerably more troops than they officially acknowledge, but less than the most legendary figures suggest.
 
Sure could've used a hand back then.
 
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       4/2/2015 11:39:33 PM
Artillery was and is the traditional Russian strength, the rest of their army was usually fairly indifferent, but not their artillery which was always large and competent with basically effective procedures (better than some NATO armies not as good as others).
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics