Comments by "SkyRiver" (@SkyRiver1) on "CRUX"
channel.
-
IMHO the most significant weapons in the war: On the Russian side the Krasnopol and Krasnopol M guided artillery shells with a max range of about 16 miles and a hit rate on specific targets of about 80%. The Russian also have a rocket propelled guided artillery round thought to be the equal or better in range of the American rocket propelled guided Excalibur shell, but I kinda doubt it, according to Wikipedia it's range is 18 miles.
The American Excalibur is devastatingly accurate and can be used by existing M109A7 Paladin self-propelled howitzers which can send Excalibur rounds to 39.3 kilometers (24.4 miles), which ERCA an extended barrel length howitzer can now lob to 43 miles. Their is a German/South African gun that reportedly can do a little better. The Canadians recently supplied Ukraine with both the Excalibur rounds and the Dutch gave a small number of self-propelled howitzers that can use it and now the Germans have too. It can also be used by the towed guns recently supplied by the USA and Canada, but they pale in comparison to the capabilities of the German Panzerhaubitzen 2000 that the Dutch and Germans are supplying (unfortunately in extremely limited numbers). See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DS6UvZXPo&t=148s
The use and efficiency of these shells in an anti-artillery role by the competing Russian and recently supplied American radar controlled systems that can target and fire on artillery units within seconds of their use may be the knife edge upon which the entire war is determined, -- baring the deployment of western air power, in Ukraine.
To me the most exciting development in this field is that Norway's Nammo has unveiled a potentially revolutionary concept for an air-breathing, ramjet-powered, pseudo-missile that any standard 155mm howitzer can fire at targets more than 60 miles away. This would be a truly great time for Norway, and Nammo to supply the 155s with a shell that can reach out and touch Russian artillery with little or no exposure other than to air to ground or guide missile fire. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vIPNElDkns&t=38s
Estimates by Rand and other think tanks estimate that Russia has already used more than 70% of their advanced guided missiles in Ukraine and they will not be able to replace them in a timely fashion.
To have Russia exchange expensive guided missiles for common towed artillery with uncommon munitions, is not such a bad exchange in a scenario in which missile production is dependent upon tech they may no longer have access to.
In any event, even if Russia should win in Ukraine, and realistically there is very good chance of this, Russia is totally screwed in the long term. See here to find out why Peter Zeihan finds this to be the case in one of his many videos on the Geopop YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwPMtmuuVNw&t=176s
As he said, "A hypersonic missile without a nuclear warhead is just a very expensive way to blow up a building." Let's hope they keep up the stupidity they have been exhibiting in this area, with their "terror weapons".
6
-
5
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smacksman1 Kind of strange how hard it is to find specific info on usage in battle. To me personally, I expect it will be kind of hard to mask whether or not it is as effective as the statistics indicate when used in Ukraine. I expect it will be.
It's apparently been around in an ever evolving form since the late nineties. According to Wikipedia the program started in 92 and the first big batch was delivered in 97.
I'm glad you asked this question, because I knew it had been deployed but no real details. Someone told me they had seen a lot of early Excaliburs fail to explode but it could have just been bull, or a Russian bot-brain.
What we do seem sure of is that their have been loads of development and variation. When DARPA really get behind a tech, nobody does it better.
So we know that 690 Ex shells have been fired in theater. In Afghanistan. I had thought Iraq and possibly elsewhere, but I was probably wrong about Iraq, and if it was use in battle elsewhere I can't find it.
It was first used in battle in Afghanistan in 2008. Apparently mostly used to kill Taliban that attacked isolated outposts.
Apparently it works so well that commanders frequently called in fire with only a fifty meter distance between themselves and the enemy, with devastating effect. We are talking one shell to end an attack by fifty or so bad guys.
That is quite a different scenario since the Taliban, didn't really have artillery of effect. But it seems to me that this anti-artillery roll is more or less what the Ex was made for. I mean, it can hit moving targets on the first try. And the USA and allied countries have loads of them. They are not going to run out, by just destroying all the Russian artillery and tanks, they probably have enough to do that several time.
Of course, like some have pointed out, the problem is not going to be Russian artillery, but air to ground and high tech guided missiles. I have already made my comments on that, being a losing propositioning for the Russians, who are estimated to have already used the bulk of their missiles blowing up apartment buildings and theaters and hospitals. I guess we will see how good the German medium range anti-aircraft armor is, and eventually how good the Israeli Iron Dome system is.
I would not want to be near Russian Artillery when the German and Dutch donated German self-propelled howitzers show up, and the American and Canadian towed guns can network and do exactly the same things, less parts, less to go wrong.
It the Russians don't have some form of total air superiority by then they are basically screwed.
I would love to see a first use of the Norwegian ram-jet shell during this conflict. What an awesome ordinance for the free world, and Norway may be one of the best of the west, even though it is kind of east.
1