What is it about this particular weapons system or it's usage that makes it particularly vulnerable?
Source:Oryx
What is it about this particular weapons system or it's usage that makes it particularly vulnerable? Source:Oryx
What is it about this particular weapons system or it's usage that makes it particularly vulnerable?
Source:Oryx
is that all?
It’s a towed howitzer in an artillery war.
This. It's one of the shortest-range artillery systems given to Ukraine, lacks the mobility of an SPG, and has been handed out by the truckload because it's cheap and readily available.
it's a towed howitzer. it has less protection than a civilian vehicle, aka zero. why do you expect it to be survivable?
>52
>almost half listed under damaged
You lost another town huh
What is it about this particular weapons system or it's usage that makes it particularly vulnerable?
Source:Oryx
What is the most killed vehicle on oryx's list?
BMPs I believe.
Jesus.... Russia is never recovering from this, are they?
Putin has squandered the reserve materiel inherited from the USSR. That's not coming back.
They might be able to refurbish a couple thousand T-55s and T-62s if they get a few decades of peacetime to cannibalize literally all of the vehicles they have in storage, but they'll never be able to get them up to modern standards. This war was such a phenomenally stupid move I cannot believe it was allowed to happen, and it has caused irreparable damage to the global perception of Russia's power.
By the most generous of estimates, Russia had about 30,000 non-tank armored vehicles between active service and storage. Just throwing together numbers on Oryx myself, we can already account for more than 6000 of them just from the photos. That's 20% of Russia's everything gone in less than 18 months, and that's without factoring in the horrific conditions in Russian deep storage. It would take them decades to recover from this, IF they restarted production of the BMP-2 and replaced each model as-is. But they're not going to do that, they want to replace it all with BMP-3s and their array of T-14 derrivates, like they've been saying they were going to do for the last 10 years, and that's where I move over the line to confidently declare that Russia will NEVER come back from this.
If they want it badly enough they can turn this around in a generation. Putin will have to go. But I get the feeling they will just memoryhole this war and learn nothing, and pretend they're still in the game in terms of being a great power, because that's what they did after the collapse of the USSR.
>If they want it badly enough they can turn this around in a generation.
If they were going to get their act together they would have done so before their demographics literally fell out from under them.
>turn this around in a generation
That ship's already sailed. IF the russian federation doesn't outright Balkanize or get partially/mostly consumed in civil war, the best they can hope for is three generations ... assuming they can attract enough immigrants to boost their birth rate. they aren't even going to be able to feed themselves by 2025.
I don't think the vehicle losses are that bad in the long term - though they definitely are in the next 10-15 years - considering that maintaining vehicles (to the extent the Russians do that, anyway) is often a bigger component of life-cycle costs than the initial production itself. I think the more ominous sign for Russia's military/defense sector are the international arms market implications of this war. The Russian model really doesn't work without foreign sales subsidizing industry. It gives the scale necessary to fund development and capital expenditures, and the giant mark-up allows the Russian government to buy at a price that is probably pretty close to being at cost
>the international arms market implications of this war
China is moving to eat Russia's lunch, the major Euro players are looking to re-cement themselves as the top-quality alternate to US arms, SK and Poland are looking to break into the mid-tier market, and Ukraine is planning on investing in its defense industry and partnering with foreign companies to grab the "upgrades and new toys for legacy Soviet and Russian systems" market. The Russian arms industry is turbofricked.
Let’s also not forget but as always Oryx numbers are only what we have pictures of. Anything lost within Russian controlled or highly disputed territory is probably not photographed
Ukraine's claims are usually about double the recorded amount, which potentially puts us as high as 40%, plus storage losses again. I'd be more inclined to split the difference and call it somewhere around 30, but even then...
BMP-2 with 836 losses, closely followed by 767 KamAZ 6x6 losses and 682 Ural-4320 losses in a deserved 3rd place.
836 BMP-2(K)
Second place is BTR-82A at 441, then I think MT-LB at 405. MT-LB is probably ahead of the BTR if you count all the different variants as one.
I hope you have 20/20 vision
Oh, come on, that's not even the worst hit of the tanks, the non-modernized one has an extra hundred. Actually, on that point, so many Russian tank models are in the 2-300 loss range that it would be hard to pick any of them out as "particularly vulnerable" in relation to each other.
>it would be hard to pick any of them out as "particularly vulnerable" in relation to each other
Well that one's easy, ignore the numbers, the most vulnerable is the T-62 Obr 1967 because of what it is. Only one lost so far, but objectively the weakest tank confirmed fielded and lost by either side. No T-55 losses yet, sadly.
Relatively short range compared to the other western arty they have, can't just up and drive away to a new firing location like an SPG, has to be set up in the open meaning it's easier for drones to spot.
First, it's the system given to Ukraine in the largest numbers and from the very start, so naturally it will be subject to more losses. The other element is that it's a towed artillery piece. It's a good weapon system and it makes sense in US doctrine but at the end of the day towed artillery is at significantly more risk. Moving from a firing position and setting it up in the first place takes much longer, and you don't have the benefit of having the crew in an armored box for the times you don't move away in time. Oh, and I should add that its range isn't all that impressive, so it's naturally more exposed than something like the Panzerhaubitze 2000 or most MLRS systems
despite all those disadvantages, there clearly seems to be a favorable ratio of losses between Ukrainian and Russian artillery, and M777s in particular as well. 52 destroyed or damaged sounds like a lot but then you look at the Russian list and see they've lost 630 towed and self-propelled artillery pieces
I should clarify, it's the western artillery given to Ukraine in the largest numbers. There are plenty of equipment in other categories they've received more of, obviously
Thanks for the detailed answer anon, I appreciate the effort.
>50 towed artillery pieces knocked out in 18 months of intense conventional warfare across a 600-mile frontline
...this is the power... of the 2nd Army of the World...
Bolt rest of them on top of MTLB.
Now you have SPA
>What is it about this particular weapons system or it's usage that makes it particularly vulnerable?
on an unrelated note, what about Russian artillery makes it so particularly insufficient?
Shit ammo + barrel wear + shit coordination, that being said there is a ton of it it and it still enough kill dozens of ukie soldiers a day.
British design
armatard, we dont care
War needs its 'agile development' back. ASAT.
Its the lightest artillery piece the US has worth a frick and most of its service life in the US has been shooting rounds at people without artillery of any kind.
Is making such a vulnerable item so expensive and ubiquitous worth it? Shouldn't this be reserved for special forces, marines, and such, and a cheaper heavier variant used for static warfare?
1. Towed Howitzer have a large drop in survival rates vs mobile systems.
2. There is a relatively large number of these in Ukraine
3. They also don't have real range advantage over Russian guns when firing ordinary shells.
Anyway it's another proof of EVROPEAN superiority over USA towed shits when Ceasar is still happily putting shrapnel into Russian balls. To be fair they probably work better with total aerial supremacy.
Well that fricking back-fired spectacularly, didn't it Ramesh ? No rupees for you.
>police don't have guns
>people being beaten aren't cuffed
>massively outnumber the police, armed only with cricket bats, in a room full of furniture
>just accept the beating
the weak must fear the strong
By Vishnu they will wear that stick of beating out with cunning use of passively resisting head
You would accept it too anon. Stop acting like a protagonist or you will find out how real life works and it won't be pleasant when you try to retaliate while in prison in a 3rd world country.
They're not outside they're in a prison. If they fight back they get even greater beatings. No matter what they cannot escape.
I tell you sirs, sirs the putin is the most ass, no do not be doing the hanging up. It is I pooranjeet of the calcutta internet research agency. What I am saying is do not redeem the military assistance to the Ukraine and also consider the Russian has also a nuclear. Sir? Sir Do not be hanging up for I shall just do the autodial! I am indeed not Russian or Indian but meekly a concerned citizen of the world that fears the consequence if the bear is being and doing the leaving of the cave! My hand is not brown! By Vishnu I am whiter than the love child of an extremely high caste with a European like a British.
Russia has had more artillery pieces than this DESTROYED every 48 hours for the last month. OP whether larping as a moronic zigger for (you)s or actually one is a lying smelly c**t homosexual of infinite brownness with an ass in his ass
Ukraine received their first M777s during (or sliiiiightly after) the Severodonetsk/Lysychansk battle.
It's taken Russia approximately one entire year to destroy ~25 and damage ~25 more
lmao
>damaged
Oryx is great, but I wish he'd sort recoverable/unrecoverable separately.
That's what damaged/destroyed means.