Rocket based systems do not scale with the amount of dispatching units like regular guns or artillery. They scale with the amount of rockets sent and used.
I'm half willing to bet you could ghetto shoot those rockets from ramps made out of dirt if you were desperate, now does that mean that a pile of dirt becomes "se great wunderwaffe"?
No, it's good rockets doing what they're designed to do.
>I thought HIMARS are old tech, why is Russia reporting it like a wunderwaffe?
It is old tech, but just like you can hang whatever the frick you want off a B-52 that's even older, the munitions haven't stopped improving.
HIMARS (the vehicle) is still really fricking solid, even after all these years. I realy wouldn't know what to improve spec-wise, but maybe someone that actually crewed one could elaborate.
The missiles are where it's at. Even the relatively "weak" M31 is a credible threat, given its accuracy. If Prsm is anywhere close to what the papers say, that thing is genuinely scary.
Mind you, M31s entered production in 2004 I believe, so those missiles really aren't that old yet.
HIMARS is just a truck, the magic sauce is in the missiles. The newest American missile for HIMARS is PrSM, with a 500km(!) range. You could hit Moscow from Sumy with PrSM.
It's entirely possible that a lot of "HIMARS" strikes have actually been M270. They both use the same ammo and most of the public footage is from the receiving end.
I do remember one of the Antonovsky bridge strike videos had eight separate explosions, so that was either two M142s or an m270. As for the other 4 rockets, they probably hit Chornobaivka or something, just for old-time's sake.
It is, but Russia hasn’t produced a modern weapon that wasn’t just a modernization plan that the Soviets made for some of their old kit since the 1980s. Since the Russian mind is hardwired for projection, they therefore believe that nobody else has created and mass produced modern weapons since the 1980s either.
It doesn’t hurt that its accuracy is measured in single meters whereas comparable Russian rocket artillery has its accuracy measured in dozens of meters.
Because you could shoot a good rocket from a wooden horse carriage which is 500 years old and still get good results.
Literally 16 of those trucks fricked Russia up so bad lmfao.
Rocket based systems do not scale with the amount of dispatching units like regular guns or artillery. They scale with the amount of rockets sent and used.
I'm half willing to bet you could ghetto shoot those rockets from ramps made out of dirt if you were desperate, now does that mean that a pile of dirt becomes "se great wunderwaffe"?
No, it's good rockets doing what they're designed to do.
>I thought HIMARS are old tech, why is Russia reporting it like a wunderwaffe?
It is old tech, but just like you can hang whatever the frick you want off a B-52 that's even older, the munitions haven't stopped improving.
Russia lost to a a few dozens of 1990's western tech rocket launchers. Let that sink in.
If HIMARS are old tech, just how strong is the current HIMARS equivalent that USA uses?
HIMARS (the vehicle) is still really fricking solid, even after all these years. I realy wouldn't know what to improve spec-wise, but maybe someone that actually crewed one could elaborate.
The missiles are where it's at. Even the relatively "weak" M31 is a credible threat, given its accuracy. If Prsm is anywhere close to what the papers say, that thing is genuinely scary.
Mind you, M31s entered production in 2004 I believe, so those missiles really aren't that old yet.
HIMARS is just a truck, the magic sauce is in the missiles. The newest American missile for HIMARS is PrSM, with a 500km(!) range. You could hit Moscow from Sumy with PrSM.
Why don't we get to see some M270 kino though, HIMARS taking all the limelight.
It's entirely possible that a lot of "HIMARS" strikes have actually been M270. They both use the same ammo and most of the public footage is from the receiving end.
I do remember one of the Antonovsky bridge strike videos had eight separate explosions, so that was either two M142s or an m270. As for the other 4 rockets, they probably hit Chornobaivka or something, just for old-time's sake.
HIMARS rolls quickly, and M270 patiently waits by the river.
Some have been spotted in the wild. OPSEC is even more tight on those then it is on the trucks
They need to hide m270 better becauae they're harder to move than a HIMARS.
Turns out that tires are much better when you are fighting someplace with a lot of infrastructure built for tires. Treads are for dirt.
It's the rockets + NATO intel. They are nowhere safe
Because you can accurately hit a russian conscripts butthole which is considered a rarity when it comes to russian officers back at the barracks.
It is, but Russia hasn’t produced a modern weapon that wasn’t just a modernization plan that the Soviets made for some of their old kit since the 1980s. Since the Russian mind is hardwired for projection, they therefore believe that nobody else has created and mass produced modern weapons since the 1980s either.
It doesn’t hurt that its accuracy is measured in single meters whereas comparable Russian rocket artillery has its accuracy measured in dozens of meters.
Again this thread. /k/ is dead.
piggies can only remember one thread format because the rest of their brain is occupied by Russia
god you frickers are pathertic, just go back to your fricking echo chamber and cry already
lol
lmao
u mad
Are there any good translations of Russian state media somewhere? I'd like to see how they're coping.