Why would a country buy this?

It just seems like a terror weapon. Has it even been decisive in a battle?

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

    >Buy
    Marshal Malinovsky handed them down for free.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so he could sell rockets before their propellant expired

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Go seethe somewhere else, Warriortard.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why would a country buy this?
    Poor and want to level towns.
    >It just seems like a terror weapon
    It's for area targets, it'll do a decent job of producing casualties if there isn't hard cover.
    >Has it even been decisive in a battle?
    It's predecessor played a major role in Stalingrad but seeing it is slightly modernized WW2 tech it hasn't effected major battles since.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’d probably be effective against turdie rebel groups

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It had its place in WWII

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    one BM-21 can do the work of an entire artillery battery. they can fire an extremely high volume of ammunition with little preparation and then leave at high speed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >with unguided projectiles
      only if massed in quantity

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The whole point is to quickly saturate an area for an armored thrust or stymie a concentrated enemy attack. This is how they were used in WWII

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody uses it like that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nobody uses it like that.

            They should, that was the original idea.

            morons target a point target, use only a few launchers, inadequately "saturate" the area while expecting the end result similar to either massive rocket barrage or artillery strike before attacking (later than they should) and getting killed in return.

            What SHOULD be done is using as many as you can while targeting an area full of enemies, then immediately push in. The MLRS removes the time constraint that artillery has and if the capability to put lots of HE out there at once is not used, then there's no point to use it over artillery.

            Overall, artillery is far better in mostly everything except the capability to deliver X kg of HE to target area as fast as possible.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Considering that with well organized artillery command systems you can direct all barrels in range to hit a target at the same time resulting in a massive barrage I think that unguided MLRS's are a bit dumb. Artillery is much more efficient for delivering explosions logistically and cost wise.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Ukes have been breaking them down to like three tubes in the back of a Ute, firing the three tubes in co-ordination with their uber targeting software then GTFO to avoid counter battery, and apparently that's more effective use of the rockets.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To be fair, they also shoot much closer, so their hit area is tighter. Russians have been firing individual grads at max range, in which case they managed to miss everything of value.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          thats nowhere near the work of an artillery battery if firing using WW2-era rockets due to inaccuracy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >due to inaccuracy
            Let alone who was watching where their land or trying to figure out where the target was. It was only slightly better than playing Battle Ship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say it was still any good, just that it did decent work in WWII

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        thats nowhere near the work of an artillery battery if firing using WW2-era rockets due to inaccuracy

        Accuracy is a non-factor if you don't know anything about your enemy's position other than their general whereabouts.
        If your company of BM-21s is being used to attack large area targets in coordination with other action, they provide excellent power for their size and cost.

        They were never designed to compete with guided weapons in any way.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They were never designed to compete with guided weapons in any way.
          they are literally worse in accuracy than unguided artillery

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, everything comes at a cost. Soviet planners in the 1960s thought it was worth it and half the world agreed. what the frick do you want from me?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >what the frick do you want from me?
              >one BM-21 can do the work of an entire artillery battery.
              above is a total lie, it takes several rocket artillery pieces to match a single gun in effect due to lack of accuracy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Accuracy is a non-factor if you don't know anything about your enemy's position other than their general whereabouts.
                >The whole point is to quickly saturate an area for an armored thrust or stymie a concentrated enemy attack.
                read you dumb Black person. these are the answers to your thread. this has all been carefully explained for you. good bye

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what the frick do you want from me?
          >one BM-21 can do the work of an entire artillery battery.
          above is a total lie, it takes several rocket artillery pieces to match a single gun in effect due to lack of accuracy

          Bro, you can have both conventional artillery and MLRS at the same time, MLRS was not meant to replace conventional artillery.
          The MLRS doctrine is simple, you saturate a large area of known enemy territory and then get the frick out of dodge to go resupply.
          Imagine you're trying to advance past an open field into a city. You know there's guns pointed at you in the city, but you don't know where.
          Since you're Russian, you give absolutely zero fricks about civilian casualties or actually being able to use the city afterwards, so you GRAD the frick out of it.
          Then, as your troops advance you use the conventional artillery pieces as fire support against individual targets.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        Accuracy is a non-factor if you don't know anything about your enemy's position other than their general whereabouts.
        If your company of BM-21s is being used to attack large area targets in coordination with other action, they provide excellent power for their size and cost.

        They were never designed to compete with guided weapons in any way.

        >They were never designed to compete with guided weapons in any way.
        they are literally worse in accuracy than unguided artillery

        Complaining about accuracy and saying it's only meant to be fired at "general whereabouts" is nonsensical.
        Just like a machine gun in indirect fire has a "beaten zone" you can use rocket volleys similarly, even if accuracy is poor.
        You can fire at a known exact position and just aim in a way that you can effectively cover the enemy grouping. And with multiple vehicles you can lay out the statistical beaten zones to get the best coverage. Even though you have poor accuracy with each individual rocket, the effect is similar to machine guns used in reverse slope defense - you're gonna piss your pants if bullets start plunging in your position even if each bullet fired is statistically unlikely to hit.
        >pic rel, scales are obviously fudged to make a point

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You could put two railway guns side by side and they wouldn't be as big as those red boxes you have in your image.
          Maybe just the part used to depict the cannon.
          Each rocket fired would have an effective area about as big as a dot.
          Face it, the soviet doctrine never adopted to accuracy as a paradigm.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah just ignore how I specifically pointed out the scale is messed up because I didn't plan on opening photoshop or an art friendly alternative just for a sketch.
            >Each rocket fired would have an effective area about as big as a dot
            And the staging area would be filled with people, fuel, ammo, etc so a rocket volley would frick up anything around the armor itself.
            And if the rockets have cluster warheads, you got yourself a party.
            >Face it, the soviet doctrine never adopted to accuracy as a paradigm.
            Muh soviets
            Meanwhile before GMLRS existed, even the US adopted a MLRS with unguided rockets.

            a machine gun is easy to supply
            rocket artillery is not
            this is where your comparison fails

            >a machine gun is easy to supply
            >rocket artillery is not
            It's also not easy to supply fighter jets, I guess they're useless.
            HIMARS uses reloading pods as has its own crane to lift the pod which eases supply. The MLRS isn't the problem, it's how you set it up.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The MLRS isn't the problem, it's how you set it up.
              Yes, rocket artillery on a truck is a good idea, who'd have thought. But to compare a HIMARS system with a Grad is obviously stupid as they fill very different roles, which means the concerns regarding their supply are very different. You basically took the goalposts and carried them off into an entirely different game that doesn't even use them.

              >It's also not easy to supply fighter jets, I guess they're useless.
              fighter jets do a lot for the logistical burden they present

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          a machine gun is easy to supply
          rocket artillery is not
          this is where your comparison fails

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >little preparation

      Oh my sweet summer child

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >uh muh gerd I have to open the box

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, for every single individual grad rocket. How long do you think that takes?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I dunno but I bet they need a forklift for a connex full of shit they don't use and can't lift with two men but still need to inventory.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No idea what this anon is trying to say. It's like he's an ESL but at the same time not, like he is too autistic to convey what he is thinking. Interesting.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon the entire Russian army is NOT forklift certified, they probably don't even comprehend the concept of forklifts. They load every ammunation and supplies by hand, have you seen the disturbing lack of pallets in their ammo dumps and stockpiles?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                smoker's paradise

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Smartest thing I saw the mobiks do was fill up those boxes with sand and build forts out of them.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That is not a Conex, that is a standard height intermodal shipping container. Making that error is pathetic on a military board. The way to move items within a shipping container too heavy for two person lift is by pallet jack or adding more humans. Only the smallest forklifts fit inside and those are not rough terrain.

              This is a Conex:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conex_box

              Popular stupidity misidentifies 20, 40 and larger intermodal containers by that name.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > conex ≠ intermodal

                Huh, didn’t know that. You didn’t have to be a rude little homosexual about it though.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The term "CONEX" remains in common use in the US military to refer to the similar but larger ISO-standard shipping containers.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Some shipping container sides open, so you can have that bad boy sitting on the back of a lorry and use a forklift to load stuff in from the sides. Very cool.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You know what he meant

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seems like an even more pointless Hwacha.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      range and accuracy THOUGH

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    weapon is by definition is a tool of terror

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Where did you hear that?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Almost all artillery casualties occur in the first minute or so of an attack. After that troops are in cover. So the BM-21 that can dump a shitload of ordnance in a minute is dangerous in that regard.
    >They're innacurate
    Yeah, that's why they have 40 tubes each and you fire off like 12 BM-21s at a time

    The biggest problem with them is the logistical footprint. Effectively each salvo is two trucks worth of supplies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The biggest problem with them is the logistical footprint. Effectively each salvo is two trucks worth of supplies.
      and that means it's a completely worthless system

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://odysee.com/@airbornewolf:8/LPR-artillery-forces-Ukrainians-to-abandon-their-positions

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This you?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No but I like that song.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When used as part of Soviet doctrine, it's a mass saturation weapon. You have dozens of these that ensure that everything within the target is completely neutralized. It is a good tactic for the 1940's and 1950's, but outdated by today. Russia also can't mass saturate like their doctrine says.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The following link is a case study on the power of modern rocket artillery against targets in the open

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelenopillia_rocket_attack

    The QRD is that in 2014 Russian forces used a modernized version of the Grad to launch a barrage on Ukrainian forces camped out in the open. The Ukrainians were spotted by drones, which was novel for these armies at the time, and were not dug in. Consequently the Ukrainians took lots of casualties in the attack. There is a formal article on this somewhere but I can't find it right now

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >modern

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The sound of rockets firing is unfortunately not as soothing as it was with Katyusha.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    each rocket is in a its own wooden box that has to be loaded manually
    no pallets
    russian logistics

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    With GPS guidance those 122mm rockets can achieve 25-30m CEP which is pretty good for a mass salvo artillery, albeit only the chinese and turks make those:
    https://www.army-technology.com/projects/trg-122-guided-artillery-missile/
    https://armyrecognition.com/china_artillery_vehicles_and_weapon_systems_uk/sr5_sr-5_guided_multiple_launch_rocket_system_gmlrs_mlrs_122mm_220_mm_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_11601162.html

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >With GPS guidance
      No country using grads produces any guided shells.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    high volume of fire and so-so range and accuracy
    it can suppress and stop advancing infantry - but reload times are really long so basically its fire all tubes once a day weapon

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Useless by itself but when massed it's brutal

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we really aren't allowed to talk about anything anymore are we

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We can, it's just newbies just can't resist taking the bait. It used to be that (you)'s were jealously guarded.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By the Grad's expression, it saw OPs post.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Saturating a wide area with shrapnel on a budget is a good capability to have
    Imagine if the USA had these during the Korean war

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They're decent "frick that guy and the general area around him" weapon and (or similar systems) got used a lot by both sides in 8 years of Ukraine prior to 2022. Seemed to be usually used 3-5 in a group at a time to saturate an area rather quickly.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a poor man's MLRS. With proper spotting it can be like, 75% as good as the real thing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a poor man's MLRS
      Thats the 107mm Type 63 shitbox and its derivates. A favourite of insurgents and thirdies all over the world. Its rockets don't actually even need a launching device. Its a favourite of mine.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    to shoot the enemy with it in a war

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You don't use them as individual weapons in the original design concept. They're grouped in minimums of 18, so 720 rockets per battalion volley.
    Often a number of battalions will be used together.

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