Isos wrote: flamming_python wrote: Isos wrote:Russian smerch are being destroyed by Ukr. Nato will be able too. Meanwhile russia strughle with ukrainian himars and will struggle with US ones.
That's just blatant trolling on your part
What exactly makes this mythical HIMARS creature any harder to locate, detect or destroy than a Smerch?
It's just the same truck with an a rotating pod of launch tubes fixed to the bed
Smerches are typically used differently in Russian service, than the HIMARS are as almost guerilla-warfare instruments in Ukrainian service; that much is true. But that's a matter of doctrine. The Smerch equipped with guided rounds can do more or less same things in the same way if the Russians require such (they don't; they already have overwhelming precision weapon superiority from a large variety of platforms).
I have not noticed the Ukraine in fact destroying any Russian Smerch systems at all. No reports, and no photos. With what means would they even strike one, one would foremost ask?
Whereas Russia has reported on the destruction of a number of HIMARS systems. Being as they are however, situated typically up to 100km or even more behind enemy lines - you should not wait around for photographic proof. Simply either accept it as an article of faith or don't accept it; but regardless don't waste my time here with foundless accusations further, because the burden of proof can be demanded upon both ways..
Idk. I have seen lot of pictures of Smerch being destroyed, just yesterday I saw two side by side. But I never saw any himars.
Ukrainians seem to use them much better than russians.
Let's see those pictures. I'm genuinely interested
As for how they use them - it's not a big secret, I'll fill you in.
Russia uses them as typical divisional artillery. They move around as batteries and divisions, take part in fire missions according to the orders of the division, corps, army or whoever.
Ammo is supplied to them regularly and as needed.
Don't know what their policy on relocation and such is. But they'll be able to relocate at will without thinking about whether they will be detected by the enemy. Moving will always be preferable to hiding.
All this basically facilitates their use as a long-range MLRS system for use against enemy formations.
The Ukraine meanwhile uses them individually, splitting them up, hiding them, probably with a separate command for each one.
Most of the time they'll be spent in hiding, other than when called upon to destroy a target. Relocation will probably happen at night.
Ammo will be supplied when possible, could turn out to be a constraining factor as any resupply vehicles can themselves be detected and tracked. So likely they will be highly conservative with their ammo usage.
And basically this mode of operation will facilitate their use against point-targets and stationary ones. Airbases, ammo depots, cities, prisons full of Azov prisoners, whatever.
They will be more survivable this way.
However they won't be much good against an enemy advance or to use as conventional MLRS artillery.
Now as to why Russia doesn't use its Smerches as the Ukraine does its HIMARS -
well essentially because it has plenty of available launch platforms for hitting point, stationary targets already. Russia has Iskanders, Bastions, Kalibrs, Kh-32s, Kh-555s, Kh-101s, Kh-59s, Kh-29s, and a selection of other means to destroy those sorts of targets without actually having to play hide & seek with long-range MLRS systems. Safer too.
While on the other hand, the fact that the Ukraine uses the HIMARS in this manner - is the exact same reason why they use Tochka-Us the same way.
That is, they have no other tools for striking Russian targets at long range but these. Unless you count the planes that they sometimes send out and that often get shot down on their 1st sortie.
Last edited by flamming_python on Sun Oct 16, 2022 6:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
sepheronx
