HELP!!!!!! My computer killed itself 27 May (yes, it did a Russian Air Force OWN GOAL) and I have ZERO IDEA what has happened for the past SEVEN WEEKS.
Could someone PLEASE give me a rundown, synopsis, basic idea WHAT THE HELL HAS HAPPENED IN UKRAINE.
I have about 60 Sracastosaurus updates to go through and that is going to take me DAYS........
I saw the missile barrage on Kyiv and the attack on the children's hospital on BBC news. I also saw the HEROIC efforts of the civilians in Kyiv who, by the hundreds, worked to clear rubble and rescue the wounded. SLAVA UKRAINI.....and Thank You
Aside of collossal Russian losses (and, sadly, quite some Ukrainian losses, too), not much. Essentially, the Russians are still grinding themselves forward in all the same areas where they used to grind themselves forward back in May. With between 'no and minimal success'. Actually, in northern Kharkiv, Ukrainians managed to force them back in several areas.
The sole exception is Toretsk: this is the actual aim of the Russian 'spring & summer offensive', but it seems that because they've realised they can't get much further in both Chasiv Yar and Avdiivka-Pokrovsk area, they're now trying to achieve something through direct assaults.
Total superiority in the air and in attack helicopters of Russia (just imagine, conservatively, each of 200 released each day UMPK bombs kills or wounds at least one poor UA soldier), ubiquitous Lancets, a propable (giving allowance to UA side) parity in howitzets, MLRS and FPVs...sigh...and colossal Russian losses. Tom, after you brave report about UA generals fooling own people and the whole world with inflated figures of RU missiles down. May be you dare for another research about RU losses in 2024?))))
P.S. The real joker of the last month (from mid June to mid July) was Iskander ballistic missile. Hitting UA airfields and destroying numerous aircraft, bumping several SAM sites, destroying three trains at railstations full of trucks and IFVs (went completely unnoticed), hitting Himars and M270 positions...Not a game changer yet...but a real beast.
Quick question regarding the soft recoil gun - what advantage does it offer over traditional recoilless weapons? Does the absence of a backward gas blast make it easier to operate? Or less conspicuous? Or does it have a better range?
It has the same backwards recoil, it's just that the forward movement an instant before firing greatly reduces the recoil energy by 60-80%. This means the recoil mechanism doesn't have to be as robust and the vehicle it rides on doesn't have to be robust.
It does have a much smaller profile and can move where a truck-mounted howitzer cannot. It can be operated by as few as 2 people. It has an 11.2 km range, the same was the South Korean howitzer. There is a 2300 kg towed 105 mm howitzer that has a 17.5 km range.
Thanks for the details, it does help understand the context (I'm not able to like for some reason).
My question was actually about the advantage over _recoilless_ guns, however. Those can also have have thinner barrel walls and be mounted on light vehicles - how is a soft-recoiler better than that?
Ok, well recoilless rifles are very light. A 106 (105) mm is 295 kg. It can be man-handled by infantry. There was even a light armored vehicle that carried six of the recoilless rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos
This was a direct fire weapon that used a single shot .50 cal to sight (same trajectory) before firing. It only had a 1400 meter effective range. Designed as an anti-tank weapon, it can also fire HE rounds and is still in use in some countries. In the US it was replaced by the TOW.
That six-recoilless design looks very cool, even if obsolete.
As for the soft-recoil solution, I would expect it to be safer than a fully recoilless gun in enclosed spaces, like under cover or dug in, no? It suffers in range compared to a traditional piece and should be more expensive than a recoilless one, but still provide a useful general-purpose weapon that is easy to both transport and conceal.
Other 105 mm guns have the same range, but the latest towed version used by the US has a longer range. Safety is about the same. They haven't posted a cost since it's still in development but it has fewer parts and is marketed to have cheaper operating costs with modular replacements that can be switched out in the field.
All 105 mm howitzers will cost more than the recoilless gun but they are different weapons used for different purposes. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
Thank you for these reports today, I always look forward to you reports. Its interesting about the glide bombs lets hope its hype for the most part. The soft recoil 105's have some advantages being able to mt on the Hummer I see it shortens the range a good bit
Algo que me deja dudas sobre las UMPK es que la FAB-3000 M54 tiene las aletas de cola más simplificados que el de 1500kg, hasta en las ilustraciones se aprecia ése detalle.
La única forma de confirmarlo es que una de esas supuestas UMPKs caigan sin explotar (otra forma sería que algún ruso sea tan amable de sacarle fotos detalladamente).
"Unsurprisingly considering their effects, the story about ‘UMPKs on FAB-3000M-54s’ is meanwhile bought even by the majority of the Ukrainian media."
It is in Ukrainian interest to do so as it puts pressure on the West to answer appropriately with weapons deliveries. As fast as the West answered so far, by the time Russians are able to deploy those, Western weapons may be there.
Your final image of the free flying, deployed, FAB1500/3000 shows it's rear clearly, & the fins. There's a difference in the fins of 3000 & 1500: the fins on 3000 are all same length. The 1500 has 2 different lengths: a wider fin that is shorter than a longer narrow fin. I can see 2 different lengths of fin on the final (free flying) bomb image, & I think I can also see it on the shot of the underslung bomb with the green jack.
The roll out after release to place the UMPK's wings on top can't do anything good for accuracy, what little accuracy an unguided bomb will have 70 km from the target.
Thanks Don. Can hydrogen fuel cell powered drones (i suppose with AI-enabled targeting and navigation) play a role? Range seems to be up to 60km for a one-way trip (not sure you'd want it to be one-way with a fuel-cell powered drone).
Thanks for the update. I guess there are no 3000 bombs used yet. Russia brage about it as propaganda. But the 1500 are bad enough as far as I can see.
Even 500 kg bombs are bad news.
Yes, UMPKs on FAB-1500M-54s are bad enough.
HELP!!!!!! My computer killed itself 27 May (yes, it did a Russian Air Force OWN GOAL) and I have ZERO IDEA what has happened for the past SEVEN WEEKS.
Could someone PLEASE give me a rundown, synopsis, basic idea WHAT THE HELL HAS HAPPENED IN UKRAINE.
I have about 60 Sracastosaurus updates to go through and that is going to take me DAYS........
Any help is much appreciated.
Be well all
Martin 'The Turtle'
Slow grind, insane casualties, no breakthrough, but a heavy missile barrage on Kyiv blew up a children's hospital.
... And, on a high level, that's pretty much it.
I saw the missile barrage on Kyiv and the attack on the children's hospital on BBC news. I also saw the HEROIC efforts of the civilians in Kyiv who, by the hundreds, worked to clear rubble and rescue the wounded. SLAVA UKRAINI.....and Thank You
Aside of collossal Russian losses (and, sadly, quite some Ukrainian losses, too), not much. Essentially, the Russians are still grinding themselves forward in all the same areas where they used to grind themselves forward back in May. With between 'no and minimal success'. Actually, in northern Kharkiv, Ukrainians managed to force them back in several areas.
The sole exception is Toretsk: this is the actual aim of the Russian 'spring & summer offensive', but it seems that because they've realised they can't get much further in both Chasiv Yar and Avdiivka-Pokrovsk area, they're now trying to achieve something through direct assaults.
Tom: THANK YOU....I have missed your insights so damned much
:o)
Total superiority in the air and in attack helicopters of Russia (just imagine, conservatively, each of 200 released each day UMPK bombs kills or wounds at least one poor UA soldier), ubiquitous Lancets, a propable (giving allowance to UA side) parity in howitzets, MLRS and FPVs...sigh...and colossal Russian losses. Tom, after you brave report about UA generals fooling own people and the whole world with inflated figures of RU missiles down. May be you dare for another research about RU losses in 2024?))))
P.S. The real joker of the last month (from mid June to mid July) was Iskander ballistic missile. Hitting UA airfields and destroying numerous aircraft, bumping several SAM sites, destroying three trains at railstations full of trucks and IFVs (went completely unnoticed), hitting Himars and M270 positions...Not a game changer yet...but a real beast.
I noticed and posted the attack on the train.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1812207249416212850
Agree, my bad. But there were three of them within last 30 days. The third in Kharkov, and the first two in Zaporozhie region.
https://t.me/The_Wrong_Side/16841
https://t.me/boris_rozhin/128475
Thanks for all the reports, again!
Quick question regarding the soft recoil gun - what advantage does it offer over traditional recoilless weapons? Does the absence of a backward gas blast make it easier to operate? Or less conspicuous? Or does it have a better range?
It has the same backwards recoil, it's just that the forward movement an instant before firing greatly reduces the recoil energy by 60-80%. This means the recoil mechanism doesn't have to be as robust and the vehicle it rides on doesn't have to be robust.
This makes it the lightest 105 mm gun in the world. The M7 of WW2 weighed 23 metric tons. South Korea has a 105 mm gun on a truck that has 19 tons. https://en.namu.wiki/w/K105A1%20%EC%9E%90%EC%A3%BC%ED%8F%AC
The Hawkeye (on a HUMMWV) weighs 1200 kgs.
It does have a much smaller profile and can move where a truck-mounted howitzer cannot. It can be operated by as few as 2 people. It has an 11.2 km range, the same was the South Korean howitzer. There is a 2300 kg towed 105 mm howitzer that has a 17.5 km range.
Thanks for the details, it does help understand the context (I'm not able to like for some reason).
My question was actually about the advantage over _recoilless_ guns, however. Those can also have have thinner barrel walls and be mounted on light vehicles - how is a soft-recoiler better than that?
Ok, well recoilless rifles are very light. A 106 (105) mm is 295 kg. It can be man-handled by infantry. There was even a light armored vehicle that carried six of the recoilless rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos
This was a direct fire weapon that used a single shot .50 cal to sight (same trajectory) before firing. It only had a 1400 meter effective range. Designed as an anti-tank weapon, it can also fire HE rounds and is still in use in some countries. In the US it was replaced by the TOW.
That six-recoilless design looks very cool, even if obsolete.
As for the soft-recoil solution, I would expect it to be safer than a fully recoilless gun in enclosed spaces, like under cover or dug in, no? It suffers in range compared to a traditional piece and should be more expensive than a recoilless one, but still provide a useful general-purpose weapon that is easy to both transport and conceal.
Other 105 mm guns have the same range, but the latest towed version used by the US has a longer range. Safety is about the same. They haven't posted a cost since it's still in development but it has fewer parts and is marketed to have cheaper operating costs with modular replacements that can be switched out in the field.
All 105 mm howitzers will cost more than the recoilless gun but they are different weapons used for different purposes. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
Thank you for these reports today, I always look forward to you reports. Its interesting about the glide bombs lets hope its hype for the most part. The soft recoil 105's have some advantages being able to mt on the Hummer I see it shortens the range a good bit
It's range is on par for most 105 mm guns. It's shorter than the UK-designed, US-modified M119.
Algo que me deja dudas sobre las UMPK es que la FAB-3000 M54 tiene las aletas de cola más simplificados que el de 1500kg, hasta en las ilustraciones se aprecia ése detalle.
La única forma de confirmarlo es que una de esas supuestas UMPKs caigan sin explotar (otra forma sería que algún ruso sea tan amable de sacarle fotos detalladamente).
"Unsurprisingly considering their effects, the story about ‘UMPKs on FAB-3000M-54s’ is meanwhile bought even by the majority of the Ukrainian media."
It is in Ukrainian interest to do so as it puts pressure on the West to answer appropriately with weapons deliveries. As fast as the West answered so far, by the time Russians are able to deploy those, Western weapons may be there.
Your final image of the free flying, deployed, FAB1500/3000 shows it's rear clearly, & the fins. There's a difference in the fins of 3000 & 1500: the fins on 3000 are all same length. The 1500 has 2 different lengths: a wider fin that is shorter than a longer narrow fin. I can see 2 different lengths of fin on the final (free flying) bomb image, & I think I can also see it on the shot of the underslung bomb with the green jack.
So it's a FAB1500, not 3000
The roll out after release to place the UMPK's wings on top can't do anything good for accuracy, what little accuracy an unguided bomb will have 70 km from the target.
Mind, latest JDAM versions are all installed and released in the same fashion. I.e. they have to 'turn turtle' once released, too.
Yes, but they are guided. It's not the rolling, per se, it's the rolling of an unguided projectile.
Thanks.
Very insightful as always.
thank you, Don. It was interesting to learn about soft recoil technology in addition to all other info.
Thanks Don. Can hydrogen fuel cell powered drones (i suppose with AI-enabled targeting and navigation) play a role? Range seems to be up to 60km for a one-way trip (not sure you'd want it to be one-way with a fuel-cell powered drone).