have any of these been destroyed by russians yet?

have any of these been destroyed by russians yet?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yep, all six gorrillion of them.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All 36 out of 12.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      36? Why would you even need 50 HIMARS? What are you doing with the 74 destroyed launchers?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We don't know for sure but is Russia had any footage of such an accomplishment it would be spammed everywhere.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There hasn't been a single verifiable proof yet

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe, maybe not, like anything unless you can prove it with some actual credibility they may as well not have even scratched a single one. Strange how they haven't even bothered to make a propaganda mock up of one being blown up.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If they did, then even they don't know. And the Ukrainians won't confirm it because then the Russian's might gain some confidence and try to knock out another, even if it's a pyrrhic kill.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >have any of these been destroyed by russians yet?
    Doesn't seem like it.

    They claimed to have destroyed like 30 of them when Ukraine only had about 6 but allegedly Ukraine created a bunch of decoys, Operation Fortitude style, to sucker out cruise missiles and shit.
    If true, this would mean that Russia wasn't really bullshitting us as usual, they just fell for Ukrainian bullshit and honestly thought they'd destroyed dozens of HIMARS.

    The number of operational HIMARS in Ukraine is so low that I'm sure they're under strict orders to never be exposed for more than it takes to launch some bad news at the Russians and then get into cover again.

    It's inevitable that some of them will be destroyed, you can't put tech on a battlefield without losing some of it. We might not hear about it for a while when it does happen though.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The number of operational HIMARS in Ukraine is so low that I'm sure they're under strict orders to never be exposed for more than it takes to launch some bad news at the Russians and then get into cover again.
      i dont get how himars can build up a battlefield reputation when this is the reality of it. seems more like propaganda on wheels vs what its actually accomplished there.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because in a non-third world conflict, airpower would locate and destroy them immediately. They can operate because Russian airpower is neutralised and combined with Five Eyes watching everything the Russians do, they have a disproportionate effect because of the situation.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Russia still has satellites, their military planners will sometimes know where a HIMARS is but they may not have the administrative capabilities to provide that information to the unit level in time to use it, we know unit level comms are being jammed at points that are under attack and they're out-ranged anyway so they can't actually hit it with anything other than cruise missiles or something which won't get there in time before the HIMARS has fired and moved.

          And cruise missiles wouldn't be able to use GLONASS (Russian GPS) either because that will be jammed, especially around HIMARS, so they're relying on inertial guidance and won't be super accurate.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe Russian Satellites don't work. Who knows?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't you think the current situation would be quite different if Russia had functioning satellites in any capacity?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Don't you think the current situation would be quite different if Russia had functioning satellites in any capacity?
              No, having the intel in your HQ doesn't mean shit if you can't communicate it in real-time to your artillery battery and if you can't get artillery close enough to target the enemy because they have more satellites, better communications infrastructure and longer-range artillery.

              NATO has perfected the kill-chain, Russia is requesting air-strikes by Telegram and getting ignored. Russian satellites are probably a generation older but they'd be up to the job, it takes effective rear echelon admin though and they don't have that. Their officer corp has been purged repeatedly and they have no experience managing a battle space the way that NATO combined arms do.

              Put it another way, I think the satellites are functional, I don't think the analysts, mission planners, forward air/artillery controllers, approvals processes and comms between all of these are functional.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Russia still has satellites
            Fewer than people think (EOL without replacing) and not remotely close to even to civilian remote sensing standards. Apparently they have one radar satellite and the general consensus is that it probably stopped functioning a while ago (so they can't see through clouds). We're so used to keyhole satellites it possibly escaped our notice Russia never had anything like them.

            The NATO advantage here is several generations of technology and utterly overwhelming.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          is any nation other than the US even capable of having any type of conflict above third world level? i honestly never expected to see russia struggle like this in the first place.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            France, Britain, Poland, Sweden, Finland, late 1990's Germany. Maybe China, but that is assuming they have fully reformed since the Sino-Vietnamese wars, and that their performance in recent Indian border skirmishes is not at all indicative.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >i dont get how himars can build up a battlefield reputation when this is the reality of it. seems more like propaganda on wheels vs what its actually accomplished there.
        Effect is effect. If you can demoralise and control the enemy without firing a shot, that is greatest weapon you could possibly have. Collapsing enemy lines for the price of a few tanks of diesel is a level of efficacy far beyond any non-nuclear kinetic weapon.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the closest thing ever to destroyed himars I saw was destroyed m1083 with retarded vatnigs claiming its himars

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can we see the back?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah there's a guy sitting there under the canopy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Ah man its the catbus! horay

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The catbus grew up and enlisted.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wouldnt be surprised but none have been confirmed

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nope. No 270s yet either.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All of them, 6 times at least already.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Russians:
    >Get drones from Iran under the pretense of hunting HIMARS
    >Use them on commieblocks in Odesa
    I wish I was joking, but this is literally what happened.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You wouldn't get it

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well in fact the very real Russia count is 44 destroyed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      doesn't lying about these things just cause confusion for the military?
      Unless they're telling their soldiers straight up they're lying which can't be good for morale.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This isn't for their military. The soldiers on the ground aren't supposed to be able to see any of this. This is all for domestic consumption through the propaganda machine.

        It's actually ingenious. Claim you've already blown up more than actually exist then, when footage starts coming out of 'more' HIMARS blowing your shit up, you just spin it to say that the West is just an evil warmachine churning out launchers by the dozens. Lucky the brave Russian soldiers blew up another five or six last night right?

        People tend to forget the ludicrous bullshit you can get away with in a dictatorship.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >doesn't lying about these things just cause confusion for the military?
        They don't tell the rank & file anything at all. That's not how authoritarian militaries work.

        Any western vets want to chime in on how well informed you were of overall campaign progress during the middle of it?
        Would you expect to know that specific enemy divisions or units had been destroyed?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i think we've passed the station where morale is important.
        the only thing that keeps the officer's family from getting KGB'd is reporting the destruction of 11 HIMARS, 4 battlegroups, 18 tanks and 5 aircraft per week

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    none, and they keep getting more! https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-mobile-rocket-launchers-ukraine-625-mln-aid-package-officials-2022-10-03/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      More
      More
      More!!!

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does Russia even have the capabilities to find, pinpoint, and launch precision strikes in less than an hour on mobile targets?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Does Russia even have the capabilities to find, pinpoint, and launch precision strikes in less than an hour on mobile targets?
      I'm

      >Don't you think the current situation would be quite different if Russia had functioning satellites in any capacity?
      No, having the intel in your HQ doesn't mean shit if you can't communicate it in real-time to your artillery battery and if you can't get artillery close enough to target the enemy because they have more satellites, better communications infrastructure and longer-range artillery.

      NATO has perfected the kill-chain, Russia is requesting air-strikes by Telegram and getting ignored. Russian satellites are probably a generation older but they'd be up to the job, it takes effective rear echelon admin though and they don't have that. Their officer corp has been purged repeatedly and they have no experience managing a battle space the way that NATO combined arms do.

      Put it another way, I think the satellites are functional, I don't think the analysts, mission planners, forward air/artillery controllers, approvals processes and comms between all of these are functional.

      and I'm arguing that no, they don't have any such ability.
      The USSR probably did but that was decades of purges ago and Putin has accomplished almost exactly what Stalin did in the 30s and destroyed the military traditions, the institutional memory, study of doctrine and fucking everything that makes a general corp worth having.

      It's ahh, not an ideal example but the shooting down of KA007 is an example of an intercept authorised from their equivalent of the chairman of joint chiefs in quite short order.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

      And the cherry on top is that the tight timeframe of the KA007 intercept was because low level officers had lied about repairing an early warning radar that would have picked it up much earlier. So some things were always like this.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The only way NASA was able to reach their space station the last two decades after their space shuttle blew up killing the US crew was by paying Russia to use their rockets (which unironically were safer).

        Ofc the Russian's still have the capability to launch shit into space. That's why early war their cruise missiles managed to actually hit shit. They have decent eyes in the sky.

        They're struggling now not because no satellites, but because they've used up their entire cruise missile stockpile.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I agree they have satellites, though

          >Russia still has satellites
          Fewer than people think (EOL without replacing) and not remotely close to even to civilian remote sensing standards. Apparently they have one radar satellite and the general consensus is that it probably stopped functioning a while ago (so they can't see through clouds). We're so used to keyhole satellites it possibly escaped our notice Russia never had anything like them.

          The NATO advantage here is several generations of technology and utterly overwhelming.

          argues that this is overestimated.

          I think they don't have the analysts, command & control protocols, the administrative competence or the actual communications lines to front-line units to achieve fire missions in any useful time-frame.

          NATO runs entire analysis-to-kill loops from a desk in an AWACS, Russia wouldn't be able to manage anything so efficient.
          And since we've seen lots of AWACS loitering around the black sea, NATO are probably still actually managing kill-chains and directing fire-missions from AWACS and just playing a "we're not touching you" game with Russia. Maybe a Ukrainian officer is sitting next to the analyst in the AWACS providing some sort of legal authority and voicing the actual orders to the Ukrainian HIMARS team.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    none verifiable
    in all likelyhood at least one is destroyed from malfunction/misfire

    or an extremely rare chance russian barrage managed to catch one that was so saturated that russians couldnt tell they hit one

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably not, but some of them might break down due to extensive use.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Several, actually. Iranian drones are way more effective than what Western media would lead you to believe

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *