[TrumpCard]

We’ve supplied some Soviet era choppers. Any reason NATO could not supply some Apaches?

[TrumpCard]

We’ve supplied some Soviet era choppers. Any reason NATO could not supply some Apaches?

[Goose]

We’ve supplied some Soviet era choppers. Any reason NATO could not supply some Apaches?

Yes, the fact Ukrainians can't fly them and can't maintain them. They probably also would have trouble with the fuel, although these days NATO standard is pretty available world wide. In the past Russian fuels and NATO fuels were completely different.

Learning to fly an Apache is a lot more difficult than learning to aim an M777. It takes lots more time and training. That said, taking the time to do so may make sense. Normally, that training for somebody who is already in the Army takes about a year. If you are transitioning from one type of helicopter to another it takes between 3 to 6 months. That is for a pilot already trained on "Western" helicopters. I don't know if you saw the piece by the F-16 instructor pilot who said NATO (Polish, German, etc.) pilots who were trained on Soviet aircraft were totally hopeless on the F-16. Their instincts and muscle memory are all wrong. The never mastered the jet and finished out their careers on MIGs. Not sure he is correct, but learning to fly an Apache is going to take an absolute minimum of six months, best case, even if he is not. Is that OK? Depends on the plan. Maintenance is yet another issue.

[Goose]

We’ve supplied some Soviet era choppers. Any reason NATO could not supply some Apaches?

Yes, the fact Ukrainians can't fly them and can't maintain them. They probably also would have trouble with the fuel, although these days NATO standard is pretty available world wide. In the past Russian fuels and NATO fuels were completely different.

Learning to fly an Apache is a lot more difficult than learning to aim an M777. It takes lots more time and training. That said, taking the time to do so may make sense. Normally, that training for somebody who is already in the Army takes about a year. If you are transitioning from one type of helicopter to another it takes between 3 to 6 months. That is for a pilot already trained on "Western" helicopters. I don't know if you saw the piece by the F-16 instructor pilot who said NATO (Polish, German, etc.) pilots who were trained on Soviet aircraft were totally hopeless on the F-16. Their instincts and muscle memory are all wrong. The never mastered the jet and finished out their careers on MIGs. Not sure he is correct, but learning to fly an Apache is going to take an absolute minimum of six months, best case, even if he is not. Is that OK? Depends on the plan. Maintenance is yet another issue.

[BostonCard]

Posting a few interesting perspectives, which I think highlight the uncertainty of the situation, even four months in…

First a UK assessment of Russian casualties:

[tweet] https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status...lcQC0DIswg[/tweet]

I assume that the Russians aren’t grinding their own soldiers as much.  Still, it is an astonishing number.

Second a bearish assessment of what each side is playing for.

[tweet] https://twitter.com/dalperovitch/status/...lcQC0DIswg[/tweet]

Russia basically happy to sit on its gains and blackmailing the west into lifting sanctions. Sadly, I could see the Europeans capitulating at the threat of the gas lines being cutoff. With regards to the blockade, I do kind of wonder why we don’t convoy ships with grain out of there under US Navy protection. The risks of a confrontation are not trivial, but It would be a public relations win for the US and Ukraine to bring out grain exports to Egypt and other ambivalent countries, and a public relations nightmare for Russia were it to attack.

Lastly, a more upbeat assessment.

[tweet] https://twitter.com/markhertling/status/...lcQC0DIswg[/tweet]

Basically Russian failure to break through is telling, and the trajectory probably favors the Ukrainian side in the mid term.

RU manpower will continue to deplete. UA resources will continue to grow.

Hope he’s right.

BC

[BostonCard]

Posting a few interesting perspectives, which I think highlight the uncertainty of the situation, even four months in…

First a UK assessment of Russian casualties:

[tweet] https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status...lcQC0DIswg[/tweet]

I assume that the Russians aren’t grinding their own soldiers as much.  Still, it is an astonishing number.

Second a bearish assessment of what each side is playing for.

[tweet] https://twitter.com/dalperovitch/status/...lcQC0DIswg[/tweet]

Russia basically happy to sit on its gains and blackmailing the west into lifting sanctions. Sadly, I could see the Europeans capitulating at the threat of the gas lines being cutoff. With regards to the blockade, I do kind of wonder why we don’t convoy ships with grain out of there under US Navy protection. The risks of a confrontation are not trivial, but It would be a public relations win for the US and Ukraine to bring out grain exports to Egypt and other ambivalent countries, and a public relations nightmare for Russia were it to attack.

Lastly, a more upbeat assessment.

[tweet] https://twitter.com/markhertling/status/...lcQC0DIswg[/tweet]

Basically Russian failure to break through is telling, and the trajectory probably favors the Ukrainian side in the mid term.

RU manpower will continue to deplete. UA resources will continue to grow.

Hope he’s right.

BC

[Goose]

With regards to the blockade, I do kind of wonder why we don’t convoy ships with grain out of there under US Navy protection. The risks of a confrontation are not trivial, but It would be a public relations win for the US and Ukraine to bring out grain exports to Egypt and other ambivalent countries, and a public relations nightmare for Russia were it to attack.



BC

There are many problems with doing this. First, to let the US or anyone else bring escort ships into the Black Sea would require Turkey to lift their closure of the entrance to warships not returning to their home ports as specified in the Montreux Convention. There is no provision for exceptions in that document and I am very sure the US lobbied long and hard with Turkey to get them to enforce it. It is at Turkey's option. They MAY close off the Black Sea in the event of war, but they don't have to do so. If they lift it at all, Russia could very legitimately say the convention is all or nothing and is now lifted. They could then bring warships (and war material) in and out as they wish. Turkey probably would either agree because they really want no part of this war anyway or because they fear Russia. It is a minor miracle they are enforcing the convention. We really, really want them to continue doing so.

Second, the Ukrainians have mined their own ports to prevent invasion. Lifting that mine barrier at a minimum creates swept channels Russia can use for landings. Ukraine doesn't have an infinite supply of sea mines or a large number of MCM craft to sweep them. They aren't going to do this without enforceable guarantees that Russia will not use those swept channels. Who can and will provide (and enforce) those guarantees for the rest of this war?

Third, it is pretty easy for Russia to torpedo a grain carrier even if it is escorted. If the Kilo is detected, does the escort attempt to sink it? What insurance company is going to write the policy for the grain carrier? Russia can always claim it hit a floating mine, not a Russian torpedo. In point of fact, such "rogue" mines are another danger to both the grain carries and the escort.

Fourth, the US is never, ever, going to insert warships into the Black Sea without adequate air cover, and probably not even then. Russian Naval air in the Caspian Sea area is functioning quite well right now and those missiles they are shooting at Odesa work much, much better on things that are haze gray. Who and what is supplying the MIGCAP and BARCAP? Russia is simply going to say that if you directly help Ukraine, we can't guarantee you won't be "collateral damage". Do we chance they don't mean it?

[Goose]

With regards to the blockade, I do kind of wonder why we don’t convoy ships with grain out of there under US Navy protection. The risks of a confrontation are not trivial, but It would be a public relations win for the US and Ukraine to bring out grain exports to Egypt and other ambivalent countries, and a public relations nightmare for Russia were it to attack.



BC

There are many problems with doing this. First, to let the US or anyone else bring escort ships into the Black Sea would require Turkey to lift their closure of the entrance to warships not returning to their home ports as specified in the Montreux Convention. There is no provision for exceptions in that document and I am very sure the US lobbied long and hard with Turkey to get them to enforce it. It is at Turkey's option. They MAY close off the Black Sea in the event of war, but they don't have to do so. If they lift it at all, Russia could very legitimately say the convention is all or nothing and is now lifted. They could then bring warships (and war material) in and out as they wish. Turkey probably would either agree because they really want no part of this war anyway or because they fear Russia. It is a minor miracle they are enforcing the convention. We really, really want them to continue doing so.

Second, the Ukrainians have mined their own ports to prevent invasion. Lifting that mine barrier at a minimum creates swept channels Russia can use for landings. Ukraine doesn't have an infinite supply of sea mines or a large number of MCM craft to sweep them. They aren't going to do this without enforceable guarantees that Russia will not use those swept channels. Who can and will provide (and enforce) those guarantees for the rest of this war?

Third, it is pretty easy for Russia to torpedo a grain carrier even if it is escorted. If the Kilo is detected, does the escort attempt to sink it? What insurance company is going to write the policy for the grain carrier? Russia can always claim it hit a floating mine, not a Russian torpedo. In point of fact, such "rogue" mines are another danger to both the grain carries and the escort.

Fourth, the US is never, ever, going to insert warships into the Black Sea without adequate air cover, and probably not even then. Russian Naval air in the Caspian Sea area is functioning quite well right now and those missiles they are shooting at Odesa work much, much better on things that are haze gray. Who and what is supplying the MIGCAP and BARCAP? Russia is simply going to say that if you directly help Ukraine, we can't guarantee you won't be "collateral damage". Do we chance they don't mean it?

[Treefence]

Having Ukraine as a highly motivated and competent proxy is the best possible way for the West to combat Russian aggression. The West made a severe mistake by failing to build up Ukraine’s defenses more than it did during the period from 2014 to Feb 2022. But the West can still recover from that error by committing basically “whatever it takes” in terms of somewhat low tech weaponry that isn’t too likely to be used against Russian territory.

Unfortunately, (IMHO anyway), that won't work because we don't have have the weapons (type or quantity) for Ukraine to fight a "low tech" war against Russia. We can not, and never intended to do that ourselves. For that reason we are aren't prepared to help Ukraine do that, whatever our willingness may or may not be. Ukraine is going to have to fight more "like us" or we can't help them much. At one point, and maybe still, they seemed to desire exactly that. Recently, they have asked for 1000 howitzers and 300 MLRS. It seems in that scenario they want to match the Russians gun for gun. We can't do that. We don't have the weapons. A feasible plan is needed, but it is unclear anybody on our side has/will generate one. Hopefully it exists and will surprise us (and the Russians) when it is unleashed, but I am not holding my breath.

Edit: SAM systems even including Patriot are probably “high tech” but more defensive than offensive, so I’d give those too. I’m less sure about fighter jets.

Odesa could use a Patriot battery. Maybe a few other places. If Ukraine is attacking someplace and needs cover for a division sized advance, maybe there too. However, Patriot is not designed to provide a wide area IAD. We don't do that, and Patriot can't. We use our Air Force for large-scale air defense. Not a good situation unfortunately.

I think another issue with providing them with a patriot missile system battery is that a single battery costs about a billion dollars, and each missile costs 3 million dollars.  Given how much each draw down package has been, and how long this war might last, I worry it's out of the cards.  From what I'm seeing Greece and Bulgaria both have S-300 systems, so maybe the United states could sell Patriot batteries to them, to get them up to NATO standard and have those donated, but that's a brobdingnagian ask, and both those countries have a lot of politics to deal with when it comes to supporting Ukraine.

[Treefence]

Having Ukraine as a highly motivated and competent proxy is the best possible way for the West to combat Russian aggression. The West made a severe mistake by failing to build up Ukraine’s defenses more than it did during the period from 2014 to Feb 2022. But the West can still recover from that error by committing basically “whatever it takes” in terms of somewhat low tech weaponry that isn’t too likely to be used against Russian territory.

Unfortunately, (IMHO anyway), that won't work because we don't have have the weapons (type or quantity) for Ukraine to fight a "low tech" war against Russia. We can not, and never intended to do that ourselves. For that reason we are aren't prepared to help Ukraine do that, whatever our willingness may or may not be. Ukraine is going to have to fight more "like us" or we can't help them much. At one point, and maybe still, they seemed to desire exactly that. Recently, they have asked for 1000 howitzers and 300 MLRS. It seems in that scenario they want to match the Russians gun for gun. We can't do that. We don't have the weapons. A feasible plan is needed, but it is unclear anybody on our side has/will generate one. Hopefully it exists and will surprise us (and the Russians) when it is unleashed, but I am not holding my breath.

Edit: SAM systems even including Patriot are probably “high tech” but more defensive than offensive, so I’d give those too. I’m less sure about fighter jets.

Odesa could use a Patriot battery. Maybe a few other places. If Ukraine is attacking someplace and needs cover for a division sized advance, maybe there too. However, Patriot is not designed to provide a wide area IAD. We don't do that, and Patriot can't. We use our Air Force for large-scale air defense. Not a good situation unfortunately.

I think another issue with providing them with a patriot missile system battery is that a single battery costs about a billion dollars, and each missile costs 3 million dollars.  Given how much each draw down package has been, and how long this war might last, I worry it's out of the cards.  From what I'm seeing Greece and Bulgaria both have S-300 systems, so maybe the United states could sell Patriot batteries to them, to get them up to NATO standard and have those donated, but that's a brobdingnagian ask, and both those countries have a lot of politics to deal with when it comes to supporting Ukraine.

[Softball Fan]

I agree expensive missile systems like the Patriot are probably not the best "bang for your buck" in Ukraine except in a few special circumstances. 

My company developed a number of electronic components for Raytheon Missile System's Block III version of the Griffin missile.  It was developed by Raytheon primarily at their own expense to provide a relatively inexpensive, precision-guided missile.  A battery of missiles can be transported on a truck.   Each missile is self-contained in a launch tube and delivers a small-fragmentation warhead to reduce collateral damage.   IMO it would be a good candidate for fighting in Ukraine population areas.

Raytheon is producing a ton of these missiles. To my knowledge it hasn't been used in Ukraine.  Don't know why but I'm sure the military has good reason.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ray...les-07182/

"The AGM-176B Block III adds an improved semi-active laser seeker, enhanced electronics and signal processing, and a new Multi-Effects Warhead System that works against a number of different target types."

In regard to the macro version of the war and Russia's ability to continue on indefinitely:  The ruble is at a seven year high.  China, India, and other countries will take up the demand slack for Russian oil to finance the war.   There may eventually be a deterioration of commitment from Europe to supply Ukraine with weapons.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/russias-...tions.html

[Softball Fan]

I agree expensive missile systems like the Patriot are probably not the best "bang for your buck" in Ukraine except in a few special circumstances. 

My company developed a number of electronic components for Raytheon Missile System's Block III version of the Griffin missile.  It was developed by Raytheon primarily at their own expense to provide a relatively inexpensive, precision-guided missile.  A battery of missiles can be transported on a truck.   Each missile is self-contained in a launch tube and delivers a small-fragmentation warhead to reduce collateral damage.   IMO it would be a good candidate for fighting in Ukraine population areas.

Raytheon is producing a ton of these missiles. To my knowledge it hasn't been used in Ukraine.  Don't know why but I'm sure the military has good reason.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ray...les-07182/

"The AGM-176B Block III adds an improved semi-active laser seeker, enhanced electronics and signal processing, and a new Multi-Effects Warhead System that works against a number of different target types."

In regard to the macro version of the war and Russia's ability to continue on indefinitely:  The ruble is at a seven year high.  China, India, and other countries will take up the demand slack for Russian oil to finance the war.   There may eventually be a deterioration of commitment from Europe to supply Ukraine with weapons.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/russias-...tions.html

[Goose]

I think another issue with providing them with a patriot missile system battery is that a single battery costs about a billion dollars, and each missile costs 3 million dollars.  Given how much each draw down package has been, and how long this war might last, I worry it's out of the cards.  From what I'm seeing Greece and Bulgaria both have S-300 systems, so maybe the United states could sell Patriot batteries to them, to get them up to NATO standard and have those donated, but that's a of immense proportions ask, and both those countries have a lot of politics to deal with when it comes to supporting Ukraine.

All true. Another "dirty little secret" that has become obvious from this war is that the S-300 isn't very good at shooting down low-flying cruise missiles. Not surprising. Such missiles are significantly "stealth" because of their small size (low RCS) and the fact they are close to the horizon. Lots of ground clutter there. You don't have lots of time to detect, acquire, and destroy. Depending on the geometry, it may be impossible for a given launcher to do the job. Many improvements were made to the S-400 to address exactly these problems. However, experience in Syria has been at best mixed on how well those improvements worked.

To be fair, the S-300 was designed to operate as part of a system, not by itself. Target detection was to be performed by radars specifically designed to do that. In the Ukraine it is unclear to me how much of that system is operational, or even present. I know they lost a lot of S-300s when Russia took Crimea in 2014, and historically Crimea is where most of the air defense was concentrated. Probably lots of the detection was lost too. I am sure they have compensated as best they can, but it isn't a simple problem. I can't imagine Russia would let a Tombstone/Big Bird just sit there radiating. Ukraine would need to protect that asset like mad and eventually something would get through.

[Goose]

I think another issue with providing them with a patriot missile system battery is that a single battery costs about a billion dollars, and each missile costs 3 million dollars.  Given how much each draw down package has been, and how long this war might last, I worry it's out of the cards.  From what I'm seeing Greece and Bulgaria both have S-300 systems, so maybe the United states could sell Patriot batteries to them, to get them up to NATO standard and have those donated, but that's a of immense proportions ask, and both those countries have a lot of politics to deal with when it comes to supporting Ukraine.

All true. Another "dirty little secret" that has become obvious from this war is that the S-300 isn't very good at shooting down low-flying cruise missiles. Not surprising. Such missiles are significantly "stealth" because of their small size (low RCS) and the fact they are close to the horizon. Lots of ground clutter there. You don't have lots of time to detect, acquire, and destroy. Depending on the geometry, it may be impossible for a given launcher to do the job. Many improvements were made to the S-400 to address exactly these problems. However, experience in Syria has been at best mixed on how well those improvements worked.

To be fair, the S-300 was designed to operate as part of a system, not by itself. Target detection was to be performed by radars specifically designed to do that. In the Ukraine it is unclear to me how much of that system is operational, or even present. I know they lost a lot of S-300s when Russia took Crimea in 2014, and historically Crimea is where most of the air defense was concentrated. Probably lots of the detection was lost too. I am sure they have compensated as best they can, but it isn't a simple problem. I can't imagine Russia would let a Tombstone/Big Bird just sit there radiating. Ukraine would need to protect that asset like mad and eventually something would get through.

[Treefence]

It sounds like another aid package from the US is set to be announced soon.  Possibly 450 million to 500 million, likely to include "some more" HIMARS and artillery ammo.  Doesn't sound like it's going to be a brobdingnagian amount, maybe 4 or 8 more HIMARS, and who knows how much artillery ammo.  I'm assuming that could be M777 and/or HIMARS rounds.  We are really seeing a slow down in aid packages and amounts per package, I think the US is trying to make sure they are able to continue to support Ukraine without running out soon.  I wonder if congress will have the appetite for another large bill, especially after the midterms when the GOP likely takes congress.

---

It looks like 4 more HIMARS in the new package.

[Treefence]

It sounds like another aid package from the US is set to be announced soon.  Possibly 450 million to 500 million, likely to include "some more" HIMARS and artillery ammo.  Doesn't sound like it's going to be a brobdingnagian amount, maybe 4 or 8 more HIMARS, and who knows how much artillery ammo.  I'm assuming that could be M777 and/or HIMARS rounds.  We are really seeing a slow down in aid packages and amounts per package, I think the US is trying to make sure they are able to continue to support Ukraine without running out soon.  I wonder if congress will have the appetite for another large bill, especially after the midterms when the GOP likely takes congress.

---

It looks like 4 more HIMARS in the new package.

[Goose]

It sounds like another aid package from the US is set to be announced soon.  Possibly 450 million to 500 million, likely to include "some more" HIMARS and artillery ammo.  Doesn't sound like it's going to be a of immense proportions amount, maybe 4 or 8 more HIMARS, and who knows how much artillery ammo.  I'm assuming that could be M777 and/or HIMARS rounds.  We are really seeing a slow down in aid packages and amounts per package, I think the US is trying to make sure they are able to continue to support Ukraine without running out soon.  I wonder if congress will have the appetite for another large bill, especially after the midterms when the GOP likely takes congress.

---

It looks like 4 more HIMARS in the new package.

It would be OK to slow down if it was because Ukraine couldn't absorb more HIMARS right now. If we are worried that losing 8 or 12 HIMARS to Ukraine would adversely impact our national security, how would that differ from losses due to enemy action? We have enough to do much better than that. However, this whole experience should lead our congress to examine what the military really needs in light of what we now have seen in Ukraine and what it needs to cost to make meeting those needs possible. The current system is horrible and has been for years.

That said, sending 4 or 8 more HIMARS makes no sense unless their is a plan for the way forward. If Ukraine actually needs 300 HIMARS to win this war, can we supply them? I suspect not. Only 540 were built. We do have lots more M270 MLRS however. Lots of the rockets for these systems were DPICM. These rockets were "upgraded" for precision strike. Whether that was a good idea is IMHO very questionable. When you have an area target, like an artillery position, DPICM is probably much more useful and effective. How much ammunition we currently have for these systems I don't know, but probably not enough for a conventional war against Russia. We haven't been planning for such an event since the late 80s. No point in spending money we don't need to.

[Goose]

It sounds like another aid package from the US is set to be announced soon.  Possibly 450 million to 500 million, likely to include "some more" HIMARS and artillery ammo.  Doesn't sound like it's going to be a of immense proportions amount, maybe 4 or 8 more HIMARS, and who knows how much artillery ammo.  I'm assuming that could be M777 and/or HIMARS rounds.  We are really seeing a slow down in aid packages and amounts per package, I think the US is trying to make sure they are able to continue to support Ukraine without running out soon.  I wonder if congress will have the appetite for another large bill, especially after the midterms when the GOP likely takes congress.

---

It looks like 4 more HIMARS in the new package.

It would be OK to slow down if it was because Ukraine couldn't absorb more HIMARS right now. If we are worried that losing 8 or 12 HIMARS to Ukraine would adversely impact our national security, how would that differ from losses due to enemy action? We have enough to do much better than that. However, this whole experience should lead our congress to examine what the military really needs in light of what we now have seen in Ukraine and what it needs to cost to make meeting those needs possible. The current system is horrible and has been for years.

That said, sending 4 or 8 more HIMARS makes no sense unless their is a plan for the way forward. If Ukraine actually needs 300 HIMARS to win this war, can we supply them? I suspect not. Only 540 were built. We do have lots more M270 MLRS however. Lots of the rockets for these systems were DPICM. These rockets were "upgraded" for precision strike. Whether that was a good idea is IMHO very questionable. When you have an area target, like an artillery position, DPICM is probably much more useful and effective. How much ammunition we currently have for these systems I don't know, but probably not enough for a conventional war against Russia. We haven't been planning for such an event since the late 80s. No point in spending money we don't need to.

[TrumpCard]

I would think that the money the US is spending in Russia is the very best bang-for-buck trade off we can get to improve US national security. We’re using proxies and avoiding loss of American lives while torching the second biggest threat to US security in the world.

[TrumpCard]

I would think that the money the US is spending in Russia is the very best bang-for-buck trade off we can get to improve US national security. We’re using proxies and avoiding loss of American lives while torching the second biggest threat to US security in the world.

[dabigv13]

This an interesting video- first time we've seen Ukraine launching these. Salvo of three Tochka missiles. Almost 4 months in, Ukraine still has this capability.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1540050098264080386?s=20&t=eA4bq2F2c6GUGCHKjklH9Q[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

This an interesting video- first time we've seen Ukraine launching these. Salvo of three Tochka missiles. Almost 4 months in, Ukraine still has this capability.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1540050098264080386?s=20&t=eA4bq2F2c6GUGCHKjklH9Q[/tweet]

[Treefence]

Interesting, in the newest aid package the US has listed 18 coastal and riverine patrol boats.  Are these Mark VI patrol boats, or do we have raptors to give?  That seems like a large amount, I wonder if this, and the attacks on snake island recently are at all related?  Maybe trying to create a corridor for shipping grain?  I just don't know how you deal with the subs though...

[Treefence]

Interesting, in the newest aid package the US has listed 18 coastal and riverine patrol boats.  Are these Mark VI patrol boats, or do we have raptors to give?  That seems like a large amount, I wonder if this, and the attacks on snake island recently are at all related?  Maybe trying to create a corridor for shipping grain?  I just don't know how you deal with the subs though...

[Treefence]

I thought it was a typo, but the 105mm ammo being supplied by the US is correct.  It sounds like M119A3 105mm howitzers will now enter the battlefield for Ukraine thank to the Brits.  Goose, do you have any insight on these, I'm assuming much smaller rounds, but maybe faster shoot and scoot capabilities?  Also can the 105mm rounds be used in tanks as well?

[Treefence]

I thought it was a typo, but the 105mm ammo being supplied by the US is correct.  It sounds like M119A3 105mm howitzers will now enter the battlefield for Ukraine thank to the Brits.  Goose, do you have any insight on these, I'm assuming much smaller rounds, but maybe faster shoot and scoot capabilities?  Also can the 105mm rounds be used in tanks as well?

[Goose]

I thought it was a typo, but the 105mm ammo being supplied by the US is correct.  It sounds like M119A3 105mm howitzers will now enter the battlefield for Ukraine thank to the Brits.  Goose, do you have any insight on these, I'm assuming much smaller rounds, but maybe faster shoot and scoot capabilities?  Also can the 105mm rounds be used in tanks as well?

For many years the 105mm howitzer was the ubiquitous US artillery piece. The rounds are smaller and have much less hitting power. They are also towed pieces with split tails. We still use them, particularly in light infantry (airborne) divisions. Many National Guard units also still have them. The 105mm howitzer is not technically "obsolete", but it is much less common than it once was in NATO usage. They are easier to move around, being quite a bit lighter. In general, split tail pieces are slower to emplace and displace than the M777, but it is the type Ukraine is most familiar with. So they probably don't shoot and scoot any faster. Obviously self-propelled guns are the best in this regard. The 105s are easier to tow because they are lighter, and they are easier to load because the ammunition is lighter. You also have to fire more rounds to do the same damage, but sometimes volume of fire is more important than explosive power. I am not sure why this is happening. It may be Ukraine needs something to replace their 122mm Soviet era weapons, or it may be that lots of 105mm ammunition is available.

There are still a few NATO tanks that fire 105 mm ammunition. The British apparently have some Centurion tanks that fire it, although many (most?) have been upgraded. The "original" Abrams tanks did, but all have been subsequently modified/replaced with 120mm smooth bore guns. I am pretty sure this is not an intended use of the ammunition being provided.

[Goose]

I thought it was a typo, but the 105mm ammo being supplied by the US is correct.  It sounds like M119A3 105mm howitzers will now enter the battlefield for Ukraine thank to the Brits.  Goose, do you have any insight on these, I'm assuming much smaller rounds, but maybe faster shoot and scoot capabilities?  Also can the 105mm rounds be used in tanks as well?

For many years the 105mm howitzer was the ubiquitous US artillery piece. The rounds are smaller and have much less hitting power. They are also towed pieces with split tails. We still use them, particularly in light infantry (airborne) divisions. Many National Guard units also still have them. The 105mm howitzer is not technically "obsolete", but it is much less common than it once was in NATO usage. They are easier to move around, being quite a bit lighter. In general, split tail pieces are slower to emplace and displace than the M777, but it is the type Ukraine is most familiar with. So they probably don't shoot and scoot any faster. Obviously self-propelled guns are the best in this regard. The 105s are easier to tow because they are lighter, and they are easier to load because the ammunition is lighter. You also have to fire more rounds to do the same damage, but sometimes volume of fire is more important than explosive power. I am not sure why this is happening. It may be Ukraine needs something to replace their 122mm Soviet era weapons, or it may be that lots of 105mm ammunition is available.

There are still a few NATO tanks that fire 105 mm ammunition. The British apparently have some Centurion tanks that fire it, although many (most?) have been upgraded. The "original" Abrams tanks did, but all have been subsequently modified/replaced with 120mm smooth bore guns. I am pretty sure this is not an intended use of the ammunition being provided.

[TrumpCard]

Here’s the report folks here are discussing (and I wonder whether spare parts is code for something good). 

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1540072547257131010[/tweet]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...7257131010

[TrumpCard]

Here’s the report folks here are discussing (and I wonder whether spare parts is code for something good). 

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1540072547257131010[/tweet]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...7257131010

[Goose]

Here’s the report folks here are discussing (and I wonder whether spare parts is code for something good). 



https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...7257131010

Probably not. Spare parts are important to keep what has been supplied working. The patrol boats are interesting. I assume Ukraine wanted them for a particular reason. Russia may find out the hard way what that reason was. Hopefully the US already knows.

[Goose]

Here’s the report folks here are discussing (and I wonder whether spare parts is code for something good). 



https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...7257131010

Probably not. Spare parts are important to keep what has been supplied working. The patrol boats are interesting. I assume Ukraine wanted them for a particular reason. Russia may find out the hard way what that reason was. Hopefully the US already knows.

[Treefence]

I thought it was a typo, but the 105mm ammo being supplied by the US is correct.  It sounds like M119A3 105mm howitzers will now enter the battlefield for Ukraine thank to the Brits.  Goose, do you have any insight on these, I'm assuming much smaller rounds, but maybe faster shoot and scoot capabilities?  Also can the 105mm rounds be used in tanks as well?

For many years the 105mm howitzer was the ubiquitous US artillery piece. The rounds are smaller and have much less hitting power. They are also towed pieces with split tails. We still use them, particularly in light infantry (airborne) divisions. Many National Guard units also still have them. The 105mm howitzer is not technically "obsolete", but it is much less common than it once was in NATO usage. They are easier to move around, being quite a bit lighter. In general, split tail pieces are slower to emplace and displace than the M777, but it is the type Ukraine is most familiar with. So they probably don't shoot and scoot any faster. Obviously self-propelled guns are the best in this regard. The 105s are easier to tow because they are lighter, and they are easier to load because the ammunition is lighter. You also have to fire more rounds to do the same damage, but sometimes volume of fire is more important than explosive power. I am not sure why this is happening. It may be Ukraine needs something to replace their 122mm Soviet era weapons, or it may be that lots of 105mm ammunition is available.

There are still a few NATO tanks that fire 105 mm ammunition. The British apparently have some Centurion tanks that fire it, although many (most?) have been upgraded. The "original" Abrams tanks did, but all have been subsequently modified/replaced with 120mm smooth bore guns. I am pretty sure this is not an intended use of the ammunition being provided.

Gotcha so if I'm reading between the lines, they will be somewhat useful but not the M777, and not near the self propelled artillery that's been coming.  I wonder if it's somewhat a gift of convenience, it being a system that seems to be slowly in the process of being phased out for most militaries.  From what I heard the M777's were not able to be transported via helicopter, but is it possible these M119's are, or is that also wishful thinking?

I'm really perplexed by these patrol boats.  I'm also really curious to know what the full damage is with the recent strikes on snake island, and why Russia seems hell bent at keeping their position there.

[Treefence]

I thought it was a typo, but the 105mm ammo being supplied by the US is correct.  It sounds like M119A3 105mm howitzers will now enter the battlefield for Ukraine thank to the Brits.  Goose, do you have any insight on these, I'm assuming much smaller rounds, but maybe faster shoot and scoot capabilities?  Also can the 105mm rounds be used in tanks as well?

For many years the 105mm howitzer was the ubiquitous US artillery piece. The rounds are smaller and have much less hitting power. They are also towed pieces with split tails. We still use them, particularly in light infantry (airborne) divisions. Many National Guard units also still have them. The 105mm howitzer is not technically "obsolete", but it is much less common than it once was in NATO usage. They are easier to move around, being quite a bit lighter. In general, split tail pieces are slower to emplace and displace than the M777, but it is the type Ukraine is most familiar with. So they probably don't shoot and scoot any faster. Obviously self-propelled guns are the best in this regard. The 105s are easier to tow because they are lighter, and they are easier to load because the ammunition is lighter. You also have to fire more rounds to do the same damage, but sometimes volume of fire is more important than explosive power. I am not sure why this is happening. It may be Ukraine needs something to replace their 122mm Soviet era weapons, or it may be that lots of 105mm ammunition is available.

There are still a few NATO tanks that fire 105 mm ammunition. The British apparently have some Centurion tanks that fire it, although many (most?) have been upgraded. The "original" Abrams tanks did, but all have been subsequently modified/replaced with 120mm smooth bore guns. I am pretty sure this is not an intended use of the ammunition being provided.

Gotcha so if I'm reading between the lines, they will be somewhat useful but not the M777, and not near the self propelled artillery that's been coming.  I wonder if it's somewhat a gift of convenience, it being a system that seems to be slowly in the process of being phased out for most militaries.  From what I heard the M777's were not able to be transported via helicopter, but is it possible these M119's are, or is that also wishful thinking?

I'm really perplexed by these patrol boats.  I'm also really curious to know what the full damage is with the recent strikes on snake island, and why Russia seems hell bent at keeping their position there.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/mgerrydoyle/status/1540131478495199232?s=20&t=5S9kSPbsSv6aXwR1mRq8mQ[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/mgerrydoyle/status/1540131478495199232?s=20&t=5S9kSPbsSv6aXwR1mRq8mQ[/tweet]

[Goose]

Gotcha so if I'm reading between the lines, they will be somewhat useful but not the M777, and not near the self propelled artillery that's been coming.  I wonder if it's somewhat a gift of convenience, it being a system that seems to be slowly in the process of being phased out for most militaries.  From what I heard the M777's were not able to be transported via helicopter, but is it possible these M119's are, or is that also wishful thinking?


I'm really perplexed by these patrol boats.  I'm also really curious to know what the full damage is with the recent strikes on snake island, and why Russia seems hell bent at keeping their position there.

You can for sure sling load an M119. You can also sling-load and M777. In both cases the US uses CH-47 Chinooks to do it. The Ukrainian's don't have CH-47s, so what they could/would use is TBD. I wouldn't want to be the man in charge of that lift. 105mm howitzers do have advantages. They are easy to move and transport. You can two them with a Humvee. You don't ned a special fixture like an M777 does. The ammunition is much lighter to carry, although you need more of it. Still useful, and there may be particular reasons Ukraine wants them, like replacing the 122mm guns as I said before.

Snake Island to me is a puzzle. Why Russia wants it is a total mystery. It just seems to get Russians killed. It is almost like it is on a list somewhere and nobody dares question the list.

[Goose]

Gotcha so if I'm reading between the lines, they will be somewhat useful but not the M777, and not near the self propelled artillery that's been coming.  I wonder if it's somewhat a gift of convenience, it being a system that seems to be slowly in the process of being phased out for most militaries.  From what I heard the M777's were not able to be transported via helicopter, but is it possible these M119's are, or is that also wishful thinking?


I'm really perplexed by these patrol boats.  I'm also really curious to know what the full damage is with the recent strikes on snake island, and why Russia seems hell bent at keeping their position there.

You can for sure sling load an M119. You can also sling-load and M777. In both cases the US uses CH-47 Chinooks to do it. The Ukrainian's don't have CH-47s, so what they could/would use is TBD. I wouldn't want to be the man in charge of that lift. 105mm howitzers do have advantages. They are easy to move and transport. You can two them with a Humvee. You don't ned a special fixture like an M777 does. The ammunition is much lighter to carry, although you need more of it. Still useful, and there may be particular reasons Ukraine wants them, like replacing the 122mm guns as I said before.

Snake Island to me is a puzzle. Why Russia wants it is a total mystery. It just seems to get Russians killed. It is almost like it is on a list somewhere and nobody dares question the list.

[TrumpCard]

Even ISW now says that Ukraine is preparing to withdraw from Lysychansk. Major losses in the Donbas over the past few days.

[TrumpCard]

Even ISW now says that Ukraine is preparing to withdraw from Lysychansk. Major losses in the Donbas over the past few days.