MGM-140 ATACMS as an antiship missile

>An image has emerged reportedly showing a ATACMS tactical ballistic missile slamming into the Russian Karakurt-class corvette Tsiklon in Sevastopol,May 19th.

>The Tsiklon was likely sunk in the attack

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought they only had submunitions

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there are unitary warhead versions

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't this one confirmed? It's two weeks by now

      there are unitary warhead versions

      Just out of curiosity, what does it take for a ship to be 'totaled', as in repairs would be more expensive than just building a new one. A ship being hit with submunitions would probably destroy all surface equipment, and because modern ships are practically unarmored the shaped charges would poke holes through the structure at some places meaning plumbing and electrical cables are severed all around, nevermind the hull damage making the thing leak. Obviously it wouldn't sink, but how much damage is required to make it not worth repairing?
      >Thinking of that Tico that got hit by a target drone leading to 30M$ repairs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >building a new one
        >implying Russians have the capability
        Most of their fleet is already totaled by any modern standards. If it floats it boats. The condition for repairability is ability to return to port.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Karakurt-class corvette
          >building a new one
          They do unironically have the capability. They just can't afford to build them in a timely manner. The first of the Project 22800s is only 6 years old, and this particular ship was commissioned into service only on July 12th of last year. Now, it did take them 3 years to commission this one after launching the hull, which is abysmal for a fricking Corvette, which gives you a rough idea of how fast they could replace it if the ship was merely wrecked and not sunk, but since they have 9 more hulls that have been laid but not yet commissioned, if this one's fricked, it's probably best to scrap it and focus on getting her sisters into service as fast as possible.

          After Pearl Harbor the US refloated all of the destroyed battleships except for USS Arizona and USS Utah (an obsolete battleship that was used as a gunnery target during exercises). The most damaged of the battleships that was successfully returned to service, USS West Virginia took until 1944 to be made good again, and USS Oklahoma was so damaged they refloated her only for salvage. In the time it took West Virginia to be returned to service, the US had commissioned 8 other new build battleships, 5 of which hadn't yet been launched at the time of West Virginia's sinking. Obviously, Russia isn't an industrial power on the level of 1940s America, but my point is that it's not unusual for a damaged ship to be more hassle to repair than it's worth, because the work done on the damaged ship will consume labor hours and resources that could be used to make new ships instead. If you have a surplus of such things, all well and good, but especially if you have hulls already launched that your yards can work on instead, do that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Russia isn't an industrial power on the level of 1940s America
            Neither is current year America.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              We're a LOT closer than you think, but yes.

              That's hardly a fair comparison, the ships at pearl had to be refloated because they filled every inch of the harbour and made it useless while they were blocking berths and drydocks
              Reactivating the ones that had been floating in more than a few metres of water was as much for the propaganda value as anything else

              Yeah, and if it wasn't for the fact that they needed to clear the harbor, they would have just salvaged the guns and the engines from Oklahoma instead of refloating her, but the other 4, including West Virginia, had value beyond propaganda, because the bottleneck for ships of that size in US production was drydock slips at shipyards, not berthings for fitting out and commissioning work, and while Battleships didn't form the heart of the navy any longer, they were still very important for shore bombardment and as anti-aircraft escorts (if our opponents had fitted their battleships as effectively for anti-air as we had, the carrier admirals would have a lot less wind in their sails in the immediate postwar, even if the carrier-centric navy was the right choice anyways) and as nice fat armored targets for Kamikazes to waste their lives barely scratching instead of doing useful damage to softer skinned targets in the fleet groups.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's hardly a fair comparison, the ships at pearl had to be refloated because they filled every inch of the harbour and made it useless while they were blocking berths and drydocks
            Reactivating the ones that had been floating in more than a few metres of water was as much for the propaganda value as anything else

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Just out of curiosity, what does it take for a ship to be 'totaled', as in repairs would be more expensive than just building a new one.
        so, there are 4 big expensive things about warships
        hull
        powerplant
        sensors
        weapons
        destroying the hull and having the ship sink will likely critically damage all of those components, destroying just one of them will require drydock repairs. I figure if you destroy two of those, you'll have so dreadfully damaged the ship that you are essentially starting from the beginning, and you have to tear the guts out of the hull and start again. an ATACMS warhead landing on the deck and penetrating to the inside will likely pop weld seams, cause a fire and destroy electronics and the fitment/alignment of heavy machinery which will require ship/millwrights to come in and unfrick everything, even after cutting out all the damage and rebuilding the destroyed departments.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sometimes I wonder way nobody uses Airburst missile/shells/Rockets/other nasty stuff near the bridge of a warship, since basically most if the important sensors are there.
          If you are lucky, you might just bag the command crew.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            please understand that there is a lot of the radar that is inside the superstructure. If you get an ASM into the superstructure you are going to cause so much structural and shock damage to signal processors, signal generation and waveguides that any additional damage to emitters and exterior fittings is redundant. if you got the missile all the way there, it's better to go for the hull and maybe kill other shit too like engines or weapons. With data link, even if you score a good hit on one side of the ship CIC may still be able to launch weapons effectively.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            While doable it’s just easier to use conventional HE/Shaped Charge warheads on ASHM’s.
            Although talking about air burst munitions against ships I recall seeing a image from the 1920’s where they detonated a White Phosphorus munition over a warship in a test, I don’t know what the aftermath was but it looked like the entire vessel was going to get covered in WP.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MORE ATACMS

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought Russia's EW had countered all western precision ammunition.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the ship is the EW, so they are telling the truth

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Turns out msm is full of shit /disinfo as usual

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wargame RD wasn't lying

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >first storm shadow takes a ship and a submarinne
    >now this
    why do russians even bother keeping their ships around when western missiles can easily turn them into scrap?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why do russians even bother keeping their ships around when western missiles can easily turn them into scrap?

      Arrogance + FAS

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone got an updated fleet list?

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A missle is a missle.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not true

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is so fricking cool.
    I bet the engineers behind these systems think so too and wish to see the BDA.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And the engineers grew up at a time when Russians were the big bad instead of a failed state

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why are there no destroyers in the black sea fleet?
      No wonder they've been getting fricked by what are basically torpedo boats

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