I've not seen any video of Ukraine shelling Donetsk. I did see one video that mentioned the Russian claims and it then showed much of the city, none of it damaged. There have been periodic missile attacks on buildings used by Russian police, intelligence and other organizations. Plus, the oil facilities were attacked a few weeks ago.
There is a long history of russians shelling Donetsk. Few times by mistake. Few times to film a propaganda clip. Most of the time to simply blame Ukraine for "dumbing Bumbass".
Regarding this most recent shelling, locals in chats say that russians have shelled them (no evidence is provided) and as possible cause they cite mounting protests about water outages and electricity blackouts.
P.S. How locals in Donetsk know that russians shell them and not Ukrainians? By time between artillery firing and shells exploding. The time tells the relative distance. Time of few seconds = from russians positions. Time of 10+ seconds = from Ukrainians positions.
I dont see why ukraine would shell donetsk just to give russia ammunition in their propaganda but i dont see why russia would bomb donetsk too just for that, it might have been a defective shell that could have fallen short, but i dont know im not an expert or anything
Russian claims are more often fake news than not. But I would not take claims like that at face value anyway. Neither Russia or Ukraine are undisciplined enough to hit a random civilian target with no strategic value on purpose. It could be an Ukrainian miss on a valid target or a Russian misfire that hit their own city by error, or a successful Russian intercept of a an Ukrainian drone or rocket that was flying towards another target but was shot down in a random place. All of these seem more probable in general than the "intentional random shelling" or the "it's a setup" stories which people on both sides intuitively gravitate towards.
Given the Nork Ammo the RU is using misfires and short rounds are not out of the question. But the thing is you say Russia isn't undisciplined to hit a random civilian target. I would say the Russians are fully capable of doing it on purpose for either IO, or to make a point to the locals they had better shut up. The locals seem convinced the Russians did it on purpose, which means that the IO effect backfired badly on the RU. I can totally believe the RU doing it on purpose, but right now its hard to say if they did or not.
Interesting about TOWs. I had the impression that if there is anything that ZSU is not short of, that is anti-tanks weapons and ammo. Maybe it’s just the Javelins that are in short supply.
The bottom line is I don't know, except there have been individual statements to that effect and there have been plenty of videos in which it would make sense to use an ATGM and none were fired. For instance, firing 25 mm to blind the tank is a desperation move. Firing a TOW from some distance is the preferred method, but neither Bradley did that.
According to Ryan McBeth the vehicle needs to be standing perfectly still when firing the TOW or you risk the wires to break. And that is obviously a two edged sword in close combat.
Minimum engagement range is 65 m according to Wikipedia, that also might have been a reason.
Minimum engagement range is definitely not the issue. Both of the Bradleys were in the southwest corner of Stepove at one point and that is at least 250 meters away from where the T-90 was.
When I was serving, all the TOWs were wire-guided, which is what the "W" in TOW originally meant. Now, all the US-used TOWs are wireless. I don't know what version Ukraine received but countries have generally been giving away their older stores first.
You are way off. You said "US Media". We don't have a media, we have a circus run by insane clowns who are doing verbal backflips for clicks. You must be having an impact, they don't like you and that you should take as a complement.
Don, the reports of Ukrainians shelling a marketplace in Donetsk city concern me greatly. Are these reports accurate? If so, why did this happen?
Thanks for your writings, and best wishes.
I've not seen any video of Ukraine shelling Donetsk. I did see one video that mentioned the Russian claims and it then showed much of the city, none of it damaged. There have been periodic missile attacks on buildings used by Russian police, intelligence and other organizations. Plus, the oil facilities were attacked a few weeks ago.
There is a long history of russians shelling Donetsk. Few times by mistake. Few times to film a propaganda clip. Most of the time to simply blame Ukraine for "dumbing Bumbass".
Regarding this most recent shelling, locals in chats say that russians have shelled them (no evidence is provided) and as possible cause they cite mounting protests about water outages and electricity blackouts.
P.S. How locals in Donetsk know that russians shell them and not Ukrainians? By time between artillery firing and shells exploding. The time tells the relative distance. Time of few seconds = from russians positions. Time of 10+ seconds = from Ukrainians positions.
I dont see why ukraine would shell donetsk just to give russia ammunition in their propaganda but i dont see why russia would bomb donetsk too just for that, it might have been a defective shell that could have fallen short, but i dont know im not an expert or anything
Russian claims are more often fake news than not. But I would not take claims like that at face value anyway. Neither Russia or Ukraine are undisciplined enough to hit a random civilian target with no strategic value on purpose. It could be an Ukrainian miss on a valid target or a Russian misfire that hit their own city by error, or a successful Russian intercept of a an Ukrainian drone or rocket that was flying towards another target but was shot down in a random place. All of these seem more probable in general than the "intentional random shelling" or the "it's a setup" stories which people on both sides intuitively gravitate towards.
Given the Nork Ammo the RU is using misfires and short rounds are not out of the question. But the thing is you say Russia isn't undisciplined to hit a random civilian target. I would say the Russians are fully capable of doing it on purpose for either IO, or to make a point to the locals they had better shut up. The locals seem convinced the Russians did it on purpose, which means that the IO effect backfired badly on the RU. I can totally believe the RU doing it on purpose, but right now its hard to say if they did or not.
Thanks Don&Tom.
Interesting about TOWs. I had the impression that if there is anything that ZSU is not short of, that is anti-tanks weapons and ammo. Maybe it’s just the Javelins that are in short supply.
The bottom line is I don't know, except there have been individual statements to that effect and there have been plenty of videos in which it would make sense to use an ATGM and none were fired. For instance, firing 25 mm to blind the tank is a desperation move. Firing a TOW from some distance is the preferred method, but neither Bradley did that.
According to Ryan McBeth the vehicle needs to be standing perfectly still when firing the TOW or you risk the wires to break. And that is obviously a two edged sword in close combat.
Minimum engagement range is 65 m according to Wikipedia, that also might have been a reason.
Minimum engagement range is definitely not the issue. Both of the Bradleys were in the southwest corner of Stepove at one point and that is at least 250 meters away from where the T-90 was.
When I was serving, all the TOWs were wire-guided, which is what the "W" in TOW originally meant. Now, all the US-used TOWs are wireless. I don't know what version Ukraine received but countries have generally been giving away their older stores first.
A wireless anti-tank missile would be a nice improvement for the Bradleys in Ukraine
A TOW missile of any variety would be sufficient. It has a range of 3750 m and can impact in less than 15 seconds.
I am not sure that it would be a good idea to keep a M2 stationary even for fifteen seconds...
I feel that having some Hellfire missiles in the M2 would be a major improvement (and a 35mm autocannon, but that's another story).
Thans Don . .
You are way off. You said "US Media". We don't have a media, we have a circus run by insane clowns who are doing verbal backflips for clicks. You must be having an impact, they don't like you and that you should take as a complement.
Yup, a 'circus': a mix of incompetence and paid advertising.
TOM: I apologize to you on behalf on the saner side of America.
Dude!!!!! Again????? Would kinda be nice to "Sorta" know who is F%$#ing with you so we can IGNORE those publications. Just a thought.....
The list of 'who not' would be shorter...
OH RATT FART-BURGERS!!!!!!!!!!