Is building aircraft hangers out of earth a good way to protect against rocket attacks?

Is building aircraft hangers out of earth a good way to protect against rocket attacks?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Earth is cheap and good

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why build hangers when you shoot down 100% of missiles?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    of course, cold war soviet shelters used little bit of concrete and a lot of earth, pretty effective against anything but a direct hit from a penetrating warhead

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >fight an offensive war against an enemy with 1/10th the air force at best
    >2yrs later
    >why didn't we put all of our aircraft and kogistical assets in underground bunkers?
    If the latter question is even a consideration, your strategic assumptions are already out the window.

    This is some absolutely pants on head nonsense. You cannot simultaneously need to dig in this hard and realistically expect to expand that strategy deep into enemy territory.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is what an anti-personnel bomblet does to a hard surface. You don't exactly need to build a Fuhrerbunker to protect an aircraft from an M39 ATACMS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's even less effective against concrete

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah that's fine, I don't care, no part of my point was that earthenworks are not a defence. It was that Russia setting up such defences across the entire logistical chain in order to compensate Russia's inability to deal with threats either on the ground or in the air is infeasible.

        When GMLRS fricked up their logistics chain, they didn't dig in, they distributed to limit the catastrophe.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They could at least build hardened aircraft shelters for their $30 million fighters and $500 million air defense systems. You know, the virtually irreplaceable shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            AD can't do its job from beneath dirt and corrugated iron. The OP post also talked about supplies and anmo etc., that I find particularly infeasible for what Russia is trying to do and the personnel they're trying to do it with.

            Hangars for the planes, sure. Russian airbases have had such poor defences the entire war, down to not even having guards against partisans, I am just assuming nothing but the bare minimum personnel are assigned to maintain those or any other backline positions.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >AD can't do its job from beneath dirt and corrugated iron.
              The telegram post mentioned gabions. You may not be able to use AD from beneath dirt, but you can use it surrounded by dirt.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It was that Russia setting up such defences across the entire logistical chain in order to compensate Russia's inability to deal with threats either on the ground or in the air is infeasible.
          The first problem to begin with would be that Russia even has to deal with these threats.
          If it was NATO, it would have been impossible for its opponent to even fire artillery rounds after 6 months, let alone air strikes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what would bagration do

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So what's the attack plan for ukraine when doing this strikes?
    >wait for US intel about crew rotation?
    >wait for bad weather?
    >launch decoys?
    >wait for maintenance of s400?
    >sabotage SAMs with fpv drones right before strike?
    >bait all the missiles with planes?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm putting my money on the first
      If the five eyes are good enough to know when russian AA creews rotate then that would go a long way toward explaining the almost total lack of a response by Russian AA during these attacks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >maintenance
      If you haven't noticed yet, russian doctrine appears to be that any disbursement of AA assets is a waste of time and parking everything right next to each other is best

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Did the person writing this not understand that you can't put a fricking net over an air defense system if you want it to work as an air defense system?
    Bro is literally saying we should put tarps on top of S-300 missile batteries because the tarp would be better at air defense than the fricking S-300 lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they will be bagged
      Ok a bag can have zippers and draw strings

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can at least cut down on the damage caused by near misses.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      hear me out
      >captcha WHY22

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"fix" Russian air defense by throwing it back 50 years

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is to cut down on any secondary damage, which for sensitive systems is significant. Shrapnel hitting radar components and electrical systems in the right place pretty much can be just as damaging as getting hit directly by a TBM, either way the system is essentially done for. Secondary explosions and fires from open storage takes out the entire airfield. Spreading out the components for ADA batteries and digging them in prevents the entire system from being taken out from one hit. In the end practices like this are literally force multipliers by minimizing battle damage. But this is beyond the Orks.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This Zigger is just as moronic as the rest but has the luxury of grandstanding with the power of hindsight. I dont think the Ziggers anticipated Ukraine getting any more aid from the US let alone a frickton of ATACMS. They also got complacent thinking they were more or less out of reach, and with resources spread thin as it is, they said frick it.

    Also, everyone on the airbase is probably slamming vodka on the daily

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    inb4 a large amount of the laotian airforce is crushed by the weight of earth piled on top of corrugated metal

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why
    >Why
    >Why
    >Why
    Why worry when you're winning?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Damn, I want this post but in meme pic format.

      Like a depiction of a zigger vatnik crying whywhywhy on one side and then that Russian happy memebear saying "Why worry when you're winning?"

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I know you're a disingenuous homosexual trying to muddy the waters but let's assume you asked this question in good faith, the "wall of text" as you call it came from a fairly well known zigger propagandist.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Dude is so buck broken he's calling it Kyiv.
      It's ogre

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    According to "people" like you, Strelkov was secretly Ukrainian and Murz a CIPSO propagandist, and now the one is in jail and the other "suicided" for telling the truth once too often for monke's liking.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    not OP, but what are you actually talking about? "Believe" what? There's no new information here, just a zigger asking questions and a thread about those questions.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even the simplest hardened shelter would protect against ATACMS bomblets, but there's nothing you can really do to help the air defense. The S-400 seems almost powerless against it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's what JDAMs are for, moron-kun.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, anon, but that's not a factor for these guys. Storm Shadows would be, but those are a more proven against target and come with a lot of warning.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >t. man whose brain is smoother than a baby's ass

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Have you ever expected anything else from Russian fanboys? They are all either stupid or crazy, I just haven't met others.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Their time will come when ziggerstan is taken care of. I wholeheartedly believe there's going to be a purge of the loudest mouths if nothing else.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    moron, you've been bloviating for a half dozen posts and said nothing. The zigger in the OP is just a statement of fact (ATACMs is blowing up everything in Crimea) and a bunch of questions about why certain things weren't done (the answer is that the questions are naive and Russia wouldn't have started the war if it knew it would end up like this). There are no assertions that are in any way new or controversial, you are either moronic or deliberately muddying the waters in order to avoid a rational discussion of how badly wrong this SMO is going.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The third option is that he believes Russian propaganda without question. So for him the idea that Russia should defend itself from Ukraine is a heresy.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shouldn't that guy be A.drunk, B. nodding on krok, or C. being sodomized with a metal pole?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >C.
        Also known as mobik foreplay

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    unknown technology blyat

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The question is sadly one that will not be answered because the entire situation is a clusterfrick. Let me explain.

    So Russia invades Ukraine, expects it all to be over quickly, so there is no need to do any of this preparation. So they don't. The war doesn't go over quickly and Ukraine is attacking 'our' stuff. You're now left with two options. You either go 'We are at risk and our air defences are not good' and start to build bunkers et al and basically admit that you are at war, you're not as strong as you say you are and you're actively trying to mitigate losses because you at actually at risk of 'losing'.... Or you do nothing, say that you shot down everything and that the attack was ineffective anyway and arrest/kill anybody who proves otherwise. That way you don't admit you're at risk, you don't admit that you're at war, you don't admit that you're losing valuable equipment to a smaller, poorer and weaker nation on your border you expected to have beaten in a month and tortured and culled resistance three months after.

    So, to build hangers is to admit that you're at risk and that you're not as strong as you claim to be. It is admitting weakness. Which Russia never does. People talk about the losses Russia has suffered during this war but you really need to go and look up the losses Russia (or USSR) lost during the opening year of WW2. Millions of soldiers, hundreds (if not thousands) of aircraft, thousands upon thousands of tanks and their entire nation only didn't collapse because the Bongs started another war to supply them through Iran and gave them hundreds of aircraft and tanks to hold off Germany until they killed their population moving their factories further into Russia and churned out T-34's.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    IIRC the concrete shelters didn't do shit against tomahawk strike, so I doubt a gabion would help against an ATACMS.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >concrete shelters didn't do shit against tomahawk strike
      >therefore gabion would help against an ATACMS
      the frick is this logic? Tomahawk is unitary warhead, ATACMS is cluster

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So would it?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          slightly yes, realistically no

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ATACMS has both unitary and cluster variants. The one video I've seen claiming to be of the strike on Belbek air base did not show cluster weapons. Speaking of, are there any satellite photos of the aftermath yet?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I haven't heard about unitary variants being sent to Ukraine

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is publicly reported and what's actually true are two different realities. There is no particular reason to assume that the claimed numbers and types of weapons supplied are the full extent of what has actually been sent.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Mia!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's what all the homosexual journalists and politicians mean when they say the U.S. is now delivering "long-range ATACMS" - the cluster ones have the shortest range since they're fricking heavy from all the metal-cased bomblets. The unitary ones are lighter and have a longer range, and they were actually specified in the aid bill to be delivered to Ukraine "forthwith".

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There's a long-range version of the cluster munition ATACMS which trades payload (300 M74 bomblets vs. 900) for range (300km vs. 165). The unitary warhead ATACMS has the same range.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ATACMS works by 'spin to win'. The missile goes over the target, spins loads of 'bomblets' and then they land in a large area. So yes, they will. The warhead impact is spread out over a large area. It isn't enough to puncture heavy defences. It is used to shred vehicles and other delicate equipment. You won't see things EXPLODE but it will be damaged beyond use and needs to be repaired. So, it would help. For those particular weapons. M74 bomblets are... well, bomblets. They are HE frags. If concrete shelters and gabion protects from grenades, it will protect from ATACAMS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        well, guess 'thank god they're so stupid' again

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    NTA but agreed, but where was he wrong in that post? I'm just too stupid to know, please tell me

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The claim is that equipment still isn't properly protected. The assumption is that the smoking accidents will continue. Cope.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Unknown technology

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >2 years in and the Russians haven't implemented 'corrugated sheet metal covered in dirt' defenses.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If only all the corrugated sheets weren't used for improvised vehicle armor.
      (but more likely the usual authoritarian disease that values loyalty in lieu of personal initiative and capability)

      Shouldn't that guy be A.drunk, B. nodding on krok, or C. being sodomized with a metal pole?

      A, B, and C.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is building aircraft hangers out of earth a good way to protect against rocket attacks?
    always has been

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    RU MoD told me all 10 attackums were intercepted so it doesn't seem like they're needed for Russia. However in a world where that was untrue, yes earth is a very effective defense against blast waves and fragmentation from rocket strikes.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You dont get it, that is b***h work and would get any who participated in it raped more so than normal

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >we lost so much aircraft on the ground from airborne weapons that its cost was many times higher than the cost of capital reinforced concrete shelters for aircraft in the entire European part of Russia.
    This is where this guy is wrong. Those planes were already existing, and it doesn't matter how many of them Russia loses because they never intended to replace them in case of loss anyways, so the cost of losing them is literally zero *~~

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The main issue is the lack of air defense (Air Defense cuckoldry). If your S-400 and other SAM sites can't defend themselves or even hide themselves and keep getting hit then you are in large part completely fricked and it doesn't matter how many revetments you have.

    Even 5 ATACMS for 1 S-400 complex in Crimea would be a worthwhile exchange in opening up Crimea for broader air attack

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Come to think of it, I wonder just how many bits of Puccian air "defense" still remain intact on Crimea.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There were already drone followups after the last attack and there was nothing to meet them but ground fire.
        It's all gone or inoperable.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        At this point they're even losing S400s to Neptune Anti-Ship missiles.
        Storm Shadows seem to be flying without problems as well. They're at the point where regular drones are getting through too.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Building hangars now would be unfair to the planes that have already been lost.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is building aircraft hangers out of earth a good way to protect against rocket attacks?
    actually, yes

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >naval base inoperable
    >airfields inoperable
    Is Crimea effectively demilitarized now? Should we include Sevastopil in a buffer zone?

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >hangars out of earth
    A weird way to say "graves"

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