05-22-2024, 07:39 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-com...48451.html
IMO this article is somewhat poorly written, perhaps even "bogus". However, it still has a point to make. If Ukrainian infantry has a Russian formation massing to attack in visual range, an ATACMS almost certainly is NOT the weapon of choice. Artillery is much better for dispersed targets, like troop concentrations. Failing that, "regular" HIMARS M26xM30x/M31x missiles work well too. In all cases DPICM is what one wants, not unitary explosive warheads. ATACMS is a good weapon against fixed high-value targets, like buildings, radar installations, ordinance storage points. It is not an area weapon. Its unitary warhead is ill-suited to such targets. Yes, it will kill a few Russians, but then it is "over". No "finger of God" effect.
That aside, the US ROEs forbid Ukraine from employing any of these weapons inside Russian territory. While I fully understand that the US doesn't want to "provoke" Russia, it is simply illogical to say Ukraine should defend itself but only on its own soil. If the US had some great can't miss plan that would lead to a Ukrainian victory without Ukraine using US supplied weapons against Russians in Russia, such ROEs might make sense. Since we don't have such a plan, if we are going to help Ukraine at all we need to allow them to act rationally without any additional constraints. Ukraine has the great misfortune of having large population centers very close to the Russian border. This is a tactical nightmare. Ukraine politically simply can't retreat. They have no tactical depth available to them. Ukraine can lose the war due to defeats in this area much faster than anywhere else in the country. The US ignores that fact at our peril. These ROEs must be modified to allow Ukraine the possibility of creating some tactical depth.
IMO this article is somewhat poorly written, perhaps even "bogus". However, it still has a point to make. If Ukrainian infantry has a Russian formation massing to attack in visual range, an ATACMS almost certainly is NOT the weapon of choice. Artillery is much better for dispersed targets, like troop concentrations. Failing that, "regular" HIMARS M26xM30x/M31x missiles work well too. In all cases DPICM is what one wants, not unitary explosive warheads. ATACMS is a good weapon against fixed high-value targets, like buildings, radar installations, ordinance storage points. It is not an area weapon. Its unitary warhead is ill-suited to such targets. Yes, it will kill a few Russians, but then it is "over". No "finger of God" effect.
That aside, the US ROEs forbid Ukraine from employing any of these weapons inside Russian territory. While I fully understand that the US doesn't want to "provoke" Russia, it is simply illogical to say Ukraine should defend itself but only on its own soil. If the US had some great can't miss plan that would lead to a Ukrainian victory without Ukraine using US supplied weapons against Russians in Russia, such ROEs might make sense. Since we don't have such a plan, if we are going to help Ukraine at all we need to allow them to act rationally without any additional constraints. Ukraine has the great misfortune of having large population centers very close to the Russian border. This is a tactical nightmare. Ukraine politically simply can't retreat. They have no tactical depth available to them. Ukraine can lose the war due to defeats in this area much faster than anywhere else in the country. The US ignores that fact at our peril. These ROEs must be modified to allow Ukraine the possibility of creating some tactical depth.