Looked like quite a big bang, that one.
Would the explosion be mostly from the device the drone carried, or from the TOS-1A’s own munitions?
Would the explosion be mostly from the device the drone carried, or from the TOS-1A’s own munitions?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
BitJam
Active Member
Yes, the minefields were a key component but minefields alone are not a significant obstacle. The problem is minefields combined with drones and artillery. Minefields slow attackers down then drones spot them and artillery eliminates them. This is how the first Leopard tank was lost. Sufficient Ukrainian air power would have kept the Russia drones at bay and would have attrited the Russian artillery and crucially would have interdicted their supply of shells.
Without the threat of artillery, paths through these massive minefields could have been cleared in days or even hours with specialized mine clearing equipment. Instead it took Ukraine months to clear the first major minefield because they had to manually clear mines one by one at night to avoid detection.
The brave sappers who cleared those mines in the dark had the highest casualty rate in the Ukrainian army. I am still stunned by their achievement and by their sacrifice. They remind me of the RAF during the Battle of Britain but without the high flying glamour. Imagine going out there night after night knowing a lot of you would not be coming back alive. The high level of motivation displayed by these sappers is why I know Ukraine is going to win.
Heroiam slava!
(Glory to the heroes!)
No mines in Kharkhiv last fall.
Russia doesn't have many of those.
Pretty sure it was a rockets. The TOS-1A is a thermobarric rocket launcher.
The Ukrainians started attritting the Russian artillery starting in May. That has helped everything along.
Airpower would not counteract drones. FPV drones are aerial but operate in a different realm than aircraft. And Ukraine can't field enough aircraft to make a huge difference because they don't have enough trained pilots.
The Russians deployed tons of butterfly mines too.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
I really, really like a lot of what of you are writing. But this is just speculation. And you also don't have anything to back up all your claims about Russian "culture".
We discussed this pilot stuff not long ago in this thread – remember?...
And it turned out that a lot of UKR Air Force Pilots had allegedly resigned a few years ago due to crappy pay and various other 'sub par' conditions in the UKR air force. So if that source was anything to go after there were X amount of surplus UKR fighter jet pilots(!) Wonder what those ex. UKR Air Force Pilots are doing now...
But again. You have no sources on this subject. It's all just speculation on your part.
Last edited:
WordMavenMusings -
"Sappers" originated as those who sapped, or weakened, the strength of their enemies' positions by tunneling under their fortifications - up to and definitely including castle walls. Perilous indeed, as solidity of such tunnel - most particularly when reaching, e.g., that castle wall - was not a priority.
Now that it means, inter alia, one who explores for and deactivates land mines, it similarly designates one with a diminished life expectancy.
Thus the Musing: I wonder if that is where the slang term "a sap" comes from? My etymology sources are silent on this.
On edit, so as not to continue this offtopicnessmenthoodship with a separate post:
“sapper” is NOT a backformation of “sap”. Rather, it comes from the French sapeur, meaning to dig. I’ll still maintain my proposal that the synonym for “a sucker”: “a sap”, derives from those gullible, naive or dutybound enough to take on that suicidal task.
"Sappers" originated as those who sapped, or weakened, the strength of their enemies' positions by tunneling under their fortifications - up to and definitely including castle walls. Perilous indeed, as solidity of such tunnel - most particularly when reaching, e.g., that castle wall - was not a priority.
Now that it means, inter alia, one who explores for and deactivates land mines, it similarly designates one with a diminished life expectancy.
Thus the Musing: I wonder if that is where the slang term "a sap" comes from? My etymology sources are silent on this.
On edit, so as not to continue this offtopicnessmenthoodship with a separate post:
“sapper” is NOT a backformation of “sap”. Rather, it comes from the French sapeur, meaning to dig. I’ll still maintain my proposal that the synonym for “a sucker”: “a sap”, derives from those gullible, naive or dutybound enough to take on that suicidal task.
Last edited:
Tiger
Active Member
Surely off topic, but what the hell, here are the words from my chat G: The word "sap" as slang probably started in the early 1900s in the United States. It likely comes from "saphead," which means a person who is easily fooled. "Saphead" might have been inspired by the stickiness of sap, which can trap small creatures.
People often use "a sap" to describe someone who is easily tricked, innocent, or overly romantic. Here are some sentences using "a sap":
- "He's such a sap for believing her lies."
- "Don't be a sap and give her your money."
- "He's a real sap for romantic comedies."
- "He's a bit of a sap, but he's a good guy."
A bit of trivia- Forrest Gump has the distinction of being the world's most famous saphead sapper. Not to diminish his bravery or achievements in any way. Ok, it's fictional, but not a half bad film. Much better than Buster Keaton in 'The Saphead'.
I don't claim to be an expert on Russian culture personally, but I have read a number of people who are in the last year and a half. Among them Kamil Galeev, Timothy Snyder, Julia Ioffe, and a number of others whose names escape me at the moment.
I also opined at one point that even the US Army would struggle to get through the mine fields the Russians laid.
I did find that there were more ex-pilots in Ukraine than I thought. However even with more pilots and the planes to fly, Ukraine would be hard pressed to field enough aircraft to do what a NATO force could do in the same situation. NATO can field 3400 fighters and fighter bombers, 1400 combat helicopters, 1100 ground attack aircraft, 1000 reconnaissance aircraft, 600 aerial tankers, and around 8600 other aircraft. The US alone has three of the four largest air forces in the world. The Russian air force slides in as #3 ahead of the USN.
NATO trains constantly for the air superiority/air supremacy mission. Large air operations are a specialty they train for. The Ukrainian pilots were quitting in droves in part because the pay was bad, but also because they got very little flight time. The Ukrainians learned the old Soviet air doctrine which was to fly in penny packets on pre-planned attack missions. ie the pilots know what the target is when they take off.
The NATO doctrine is to first establish air superiority and eventually establish air supremacy. Air superiority means the enemy is still flying, but they are hunted animals and are not effective. Air supremacy is completely ruling the skies. That also involved degrading enemy air defense. In a good outcome, all long distance missile systems will be knocked out and most medium and short range systems are KO'd too.
Once air superiority is established, then the fighters switch to the fighter-bomber role where they support the troops on the ground in near real time. This started in WW II, the 9th AF in France and the USN/Marines got very good at it. Typically a number of fighter bombers are circling behind the line in what is called a cab rank and they are in contact with troops on the ground. When the troops on the ground think they need air support they call the cab rank and give the coordinates, then the next plane up goes in any take out the target.
If the US Army was trying to break through a nasty mine field like the Ukrainians faced, they would be using this cab rank support to take out anything that tries to impede the army in near real time. It can only be done when the attacking side has control of the air. With 5900 combat aircraft at their disposal, NATO could accomplish air superiority and set up the cab rank support within a few weeks of the start of operations. Even if Ukraine was able to field 300 fighter bombers, they would not be able to establish air superiority over an air force with 1100-1500 combat aircraft and the largest number of air defense systems in the world.
Additionally Ukrainian pilots never trained to fly large unit operations. They would need to learn all of this doctrine that NATO pilots have been constantly training on for decades.
Having western aircraft will help Ukraine, but even if they had had them back when this offensive began and had as many planes as they could find pilots, it would not have been enough to do what NATO can do in wartime. And even with air power, getting through the minefields would have taken time and effort.
The term "mine" also comes from ancient warfare when sappers were used to dig mine shafts under castle walls and weaken them. When gunpowder came into use, they would place kegs of gunpowder under the castle wall and set them off to collapse the mine shaft and undermine the wall.
So sappers were once used for mining, now they are used for demining.
Who said Ukraine would need to field a force the size of NATO to achieve air supremacy over their own territory? I bet they could do it with a couple dozen F-16, a dozen A-10, and some good air defense systems. Russia isn't going to sacrifice/deploy their entire air fleet over Ukraine.
That's a force smaller than the Ukrainians have now. F-16s are good fighters, but they aren't magic wands. Russia started the war with around 4000 S-300 and 450 S-400 AD systems. They also started the war with around 800 medium range AD systems.
NATO has no long range AD systems. They rely 100% on airpower for this role. Compared to Russia NATO has a lot fewer SAM systems.
In addition to the thick AD environment, the Russians also have the R-37 air to air missile. It has a range up to around 400 KM (247 miles). The Russians keep a CAP airborne pretty much 24/7 armed with these missiles. They are orbiting deep in Russia well out of range of all Ukrainian air defense. They have accounted for many of the Ukrainian air losses to date. An air force that is restrained to operating over Ukrainian or international territory only can't reach these Russian fighters carrying R-37s.
A NATO sized force would take losses, but would be able to overwhelm the Russian defenses and neutralize their systems. The US also has highly stealthy aircraft they can use to take out the best AD systems in night attacks. The US aren't giving Ukraine F-22s, F-35s, or B-2s.
A small force trying to play air superiority would be knocked out in the environment over Ukraine.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Haha, Forrest Gump was no sapper. He was 11Bravo, groundpounder MOS (Combat Infantry, Light Weapons).
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
The Russian Army seige of Avdiivka (Donetsk Oblast) reminds me of plain words spoken 40 yrs ago by a history professor I enjoyed, a retired British Army Major and Royal Marines Commando (Falklands war veteran, 1982):
Waste of an entire Army Corps just so the hot potato doesn't burn the hand that hides it. Darwin Award winners, that lot.
"Any fool can be a General; In fact, many are."
Waste of an entire Army Corps just so the hot potato doesn't burn the hand that hides it. Darwin Award winners, that lot.
I think you underestimate both the capabilities of modernized F-16 & weapons systems and Ukranian pilots. They would still retain their existing air fleet, of course. Air superiority wouldn't have to be maintained over the entire nation at all times, although that would be nice. Just in areas where and when offensives are being conducted. Maybe the Russian military is on the brink of collapse as we've been hearing for about a year now. Or maybe we'll get a chance to see the impact of the F-16s on the battlefield. Time will tell.
If a handful of F-16s could go toe to toe with most of the Russian air force and pretty much all of Russia's air defense and win, nobody would be buying F-35s. F-16s are available to give to Ukraine because it's considered obsolescent or getting close to obsolescent.
Ukrainian F-16s will help the cause, but they aren't going to be a magic game changer that turns the tide. The F-16 is an air superiority fighter, it's designed to fly high and control the skies. In every conflict it has been in, it has served that role. But it has never operated in the threat environment that exists in Ukraine. It's going to have to operate from air fields it is not designed to handle that will be under constant attack to keep the F-16s grounded, and they will have to hug the deck like the Russian jets the Ukrainians have now, only pulling up long enough to launch their payload and then go back to the deck.
I was thinking that the A-10 may have a role in this war, but not in its intended role. Remove the 30mm cannon and use it as a missile truck. The Ukrainians have no trouble taking out Russian armor with what they have, but they need more aircraft that can launch NATO weapons. The A-10 can operate from makeshift fields more easily than any other NATO combat aircraft (engines mounted high) and it can take lots of small arms damage and keep going, so it has lower risk of being taken down by someone spraying it with an auto cannon as it flies by.
The A-10 has never been used as a Wild Weasel, but if it has the electronics to communicate with them, or it can be upgraded easily, it could become a major air defense killer.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
What's your source for this?
From Wikipedia:
According to Ukrainian pilots, the R-37M isn't achieving a lot of "hard kills", the destruction of actual Ukrainian aircraft. However, their launch forces pilots to abandon their current missiles and take evasive action.[21] Ukrainian pilots believe that the only defence is for their allies to supply them with F-16 fighter jets and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. While it won't close the distance, Ukrainian pilots hope that it will push back the effective range of missiles like the R-37.[22] [My underline.]
So THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the picture you are painting(!)...
Of ALL that you have written about the UKR Air Force – and that's no small amount – I don't remember you mentioning even once that the old Soviet junk that UKR are flying no does not have fire and forget air-to-air missiles. Don't you realize what A MASSIVE handicap that is!?!...
The F-16s that UKR will be receiving also have radars that are equivalent to what the Russian Dictator's aircraft have. The Soviet junk UKR are flying now have what – a fifth of the radar range of the Russian Dictator's aircraft? That means that the Russian Dictator's pilots will risk getting shot down every time they try to launch their FAB-500 glide bombs once UKR have f-16s in the air. As it is now those bombs can be launched with impunity. And those bombs are currently a MASSIVE problem!
The Soviet junk UKR has today also can not be used to shoot down the Russian Dictator's incoming cruise missiles. The F-16 can! That will also be HUGE!
It's so obvious that the F-16 will make a difference. That's why I just do not understand why you keep trying to paint some other picture...
The F-16s with their more modern avionics, radar, and weapons systems will be light years better than the Soviet era fighter aircraft they currently have, even if the airframe itself isn't massively superior. I don't think that the AFU was begging for F-16s because they're poorly informed of their needs and/or the aircraft's capabilities.
What they need is one F14 piloted by Tom Cruise. He’ll swat all the Ruzzki bugs and clear the skies and he'll do it flying upside down.
Last edited:
Racist, bigoted NAZIs abandon pretense of not being racist, bigoted NAZIs.
Russia withdraws from Convention for Protection of National Minorities
Russia withdraws from Convention for Protection of National Minorities
Similar threads
