You poised the question and I pointed out that they existed (Made in the USA) and like the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless gun, the US once thought they were great ideas!
Hahahahaha... yes, I remember the Davy Crocket... before you fired it you had to dig a slit trench because after you fired it you had a few seconds to find serious cover because the max launch range of the rocket was less than the blast radius of the warhead so if you didn't jump into the trench when you launched the rocket you could get injured by the blast of the missile you just fired...
They knew the Soviets had lots of tanks and this was one of their solutions...
The geographical objectives of the special operation have changed, now it is not only the DPR and LPR, but also a number of other territories
Lavrov
They said the longer Kiev resists and the more it costs Russia the more they will demand and the more they will take to end this.
I don't understand, why Russia is not pushing harder towards Odessa already.
All this time waiting for the Russians to attack them... not knowing when or if it is going to happen creates real strain on people, and many people will crack before they are attacked and with either run away when attacked or surrender because they have had time to think about what they are doing and why and for whom...
... and this too:
Why would you attack Odesa? Take the easy territory above and starve it out. If they can take all the approaches it will be so much easier.
Work smarter and not harder.
The longer the range of the weapon the further the Russians have to move forward to protect themselves from it. Looks like the western borders it is then.
In Georgia 2008 they entered Georgian territory to defeat artillery and recover weapons left by retreating forces. Can't leave that sort of stuff lying around for anyone to pick up and use.
I will repost this in ground forces under sprut, but can someone explain why this is a good vehicle for Ukraine? Wouldn't BMP 3 do this job? The armor is light , and the gun is bigger, but why send sprut against MBT?
The Sprut is fully amphibious and can cross rivers without worrying about bridges, but its 125mm gun can hit heavy armoured targets like tanks out to normal battlefield ranges (5km), while it can also fire HE frag rounds out to about 9km or so and its ability to destroy anything on the battlefield is useful.
Its modern thermals and fire control systems help it engage targets at night and in bad weather conditions and it is fast and highly mobile and can operate on soft ground where normal armour would get bogged down.
In terms of mobile firepower it is excellent.
Its armour is not amazing but there are not many things on the battlefield that are protected from everything anyway.
Is this strictly for VDV? To give them heavier firepower on airdrops?
Naval infantry was reportedly interested in them too... they currently have moved from T-55AMs to more modern tanks... during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s they were testing Drozd APS systems on their tanks... which of course had the BDD up armour packages too.
But why is it going into production now? What usefulness does it have for VDV that BMD 4 didn't have
APFSDS rounds are very effective against enemy armoured vehicles. The BMD-4 only has 100mm calibre missiles for anti armour use.
In a war with near peer opponent, there's almost zero chance they'll do airdrop behind enemy lines. Operating all VDV units with full attachment of these vehicles is very expensive.
That is exactly what happened in this conflict... VDV used to capture and secure an airfield near enemy capital and held it till ground forces arrived to relieve them.
Actually, that was what VDV's operandi was - dropping behind enemy lines and making attacks and holding positions. Light tanks are necessary in order to have heavier hitting power against troops who will attack with armor.
The VDV contrasts with western airborne forces in being fully mechanised... this creates the enormous benefit of being able to land 100km away from their actual objective and then be able to form up and drive to the target... 100km out in the middle of nowhere is not going to be defended so they wont get shot down, but with armoured vehicles including Sprut tanks they can then drive to the target... airfields or ports are common targets well behind enemy lines but it could be an ICBM base or an enemy HQ or major Comms centre where their BMDs and Spruts are massively better armed than the forces found on site at the target which might at best have air defence equipment to repel an air attack. The BMDs and Spruts would clean up a western AD battery pretty convincingly and quickly capture the location ready to repel enemy counter attacks made up of local forces that may include one or two MBTs but likely not a large force of them.
Reinforcements can be landed at the airport itself including heavier armour if needed.
Around Kiev ( not talking about Gostomel) they were fighting against Ukrainian mechanized units with heavy tanks and infantry that was oversaturated with ATGM systems. All these vehicles stand no chance against such opponents in frontal attacks.
The Orcs are about as peer as anyone else they could be facing.... the number of Javelin and Stingers the Orcs were supposed to have all Russian armour should have been defeated and their Su-25s and Helicopters should have been wiped out... yet it seems to not be the case.
Russian Airborne forces rely more on fire power and speed than armour protection which is good enough for use against machine gun fire and artillery that does not achieve direct hits...
Buggies, quads, ATMGs, self loading mortars on light vehicles, light aa systems, helicopter support - that’s what the boys need.
But that is the point... Sprut is a light vehicle but protects its crew from snipers and fragments unlike a quad bike or dune buggie... and its fire power is fully stabilised and can be used on the move out to very decent distances...
These things are natively amphibious. You can launch combined arms attacks using Sprut and BMDs across Ukraine's many rivers without lengthy preparations and establish safe bridgeheads for heavier units.
Current armour is limited to bridges and fords, while BMDs and Spruts can cross most places assuming the banks are not too steep... this gives them much better flexibility as to where they can cross and how long it takes. With a bridge there is a bottleneck where all your heavy vehicles have to go across that bridge... for the enemy that means you can target not just the bridge but the area before the bridge where enemy armour will be queuing up to cross, whereas amphibvious vehicles can cross on a broad front and are much less of a target.
If the reason for this expansion is to put Himars beyond range then the Americans and co , will simply provide longer range Rockets .
The longer the rocket range the further into Ukrainian territory the Russians will have to push HATO and their lackies.
The longer this goes on the further west Russia will push.
But quickly and with full force capturing , what is important .
Why do you think it needs to be urgent?
There is no rush... HATO was in Afghanistan for 20 years to save it and still failed, Russian has barely started...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Ukraine has almost run out of ammunition and is completely dependent on Western supplies — Liberation
PapaDragon
