Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[Captain X]

 

[Tiamat]

View attachment 1685

Well, technically they're no longer communist...

 

[paulobrito]

If you believe that Patriot can intercept Kinzhal or Iskander, I have that proverbial bridge over that proverbial sand place to sell you.

 

[Marduk]

If you believe that Patriot can intercept Kinzhal or Iskander, I have that proverbial bridge over that proverbial sand place to sell you.

What makes Kinzhal or Iskander immune to interception by Patriot other than spiffy advertising? They are just SRBMs... Patriot has intercepted plenty of SBRMs of various models over its history, why not these?

 

[paulobrito]

For starters, they are agile, very fast, and maneuverable SRBMs. And Patriot has a not-stellar career at shooting down even much more primitive ones like Scuds...

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

The pattern of damage on the weapon is consistent with patriot missiles (at least the newer ones)
Big hole in the nosecone could be from the tungsten fragments the missile fires before directly impacting the target.

 

[Marduk]

For starters, they are agile, very fast, and maneuverable SRBMs.

All SRBMs are "very fast". None are particularly agile.

And Patriot has a not-stellar career at shooting down even much more primitive ones like Scuds...

Even fucking Saudis could do it with those, that's somethings.

 

[paulobrito]

Iskander is about 20% faster, (Kinzhal even more), the warheads have some degree of maneuverability, and are equipped with pen-aids (ECM and/or decoys).
Way, way more difficult to intercept.

 

[LordsFire]

Iskander is about 20% faster, (Kinzhal even more), the warheads have some degree of maneuverability, and are equipped with pen-aids (ECM and/or decoys).
Way, way more difficult to intercept.

Yeah, that's what Russia advertises.

How's their history of heavily-hyped advanced weapons generally actually panned out?

 

[paulobrito]

Same as other nations.

 

[Marduk]

Iskander is about 20% faster, (Kinzhal even more), the warheads have some degree of maneuverability, and are equipped with pen-aids (ECM and/or decoys).
Way, way more difficult to intercept.

And how many modernizations did Patriot go through since Gulf War 1?

Patriot PAC-3 Developmental Testing

www.globalsecurity.org

• DT-5, conducted Feb. 5, 2000, was the third successful intercept of a tactical ballistic missile target. Common sense would predict the next test after the success of DT-3 would be DT-4 but there was a little shuffle in the mix and DT-5 was done first back in February. With each test, the mission became a little more complicated. By DT-5, the objective was to demonstrate ground system and missile capability to detect, track and engage a helical-maneuvering full-body TBM target in a remote launch Fire Unit configuration.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/army/2017patriot.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113850-600

Watch This Patriot Missile Down a Simulated Warhead

Dramatic test at White Sands Missile Range reminds us why we love missile intercept videos.

www.popularmechanics.com

Patriot was tested with both maneuvering reentry vehicles and with MRBMs, possibly even ICBM simulators that naturally reenter at higher speeds than SRBMs, and that's the public, not classified bleeding edge performance.

 

[paulobrito]

Translation..:
An unusual event took place here.
Khokhols refuted crests in the news that for the first time in the history of mankind, crests shot down our hypersonic "Dagger".
In general, the "Dagger" can really be shot down if it flies to the maximum range and is clear red, at the end of its long journey it runs out of gas, the speed drops and then the grandmother can knock her down with a jar of cucumbers.
Estessno in theory.
I will omit such moments that yesterday "Daggers" were not used at all, and the moment that the photo of the "downed Dagger" shows a leaky cast iron, which seems to be similar to the head of the "Dagger". But the trick is that the part I circled in the photo on the head of the "Dagger" is radio-transparent ceramics, which is more glass than cast iron, and it would not survive such a collision.
But the question remains open.
What kind of epic, cast-iron, phallic symbol is in the photo of crests?

 

[Buba]

Translation..:
SNIP

I am amused by the untranslated Khokhols (slur for Ukrainians), estenno and the lethal Grandma's Jar.
And baffled by the "crests".

 

[LordsFire]

Same as other nations.

No, it really, really isn't.

Allow me to explain this to you in meme form:


Russian military technology is notable in that it could compete at all with American/NATO hardware. It very much is not at the same level, especially since the end of the Cold War.

 

[Zachowon]

Funnily enough, patriot operators definitely don't seem surprised

 

[Husky_Khan]

Poor Prigozhin. I don't see how things can get much worse for this Russian Patriot and his Wagner PMC.



Oh dear...



Oh no...



That's just racist.



What a difference three days makes...

 

[paulobrito]

No, it really, really isn't.

Allow me to explain this to you in meme form:


Russian military technology is notable in that it could compete at all with American/NATO hardware. It very much is not at the same level, especially since the end of the Cold War.

Since the Cold War, in all of these 'very near peer' wars, you can have swapped the hardware and the results are mostly the same.
You know, if we apply your logic, M1 Abrams is a shitty tank because insurgents in bicycles defeated them.
The training, support, and professionalism of an army count a lot more than the hardware.

 

[Marduk]

Since the Cold War, in all of these 'very near peer' wars, you can have swapped the hardware and the results are mostly the same.
You know, if we apply your logic, M1 Abrams is a shitty tank because insurgents in bicycles defeated them.
The training, support, and professionalism of an army count a lot more than the hardware.

Meh. Some technological capabilities absolutely are gamechangers. Like modern NVGs. No amount of training can substitute for the capabilities they give.

 

[strunkenwhite]

The training, support, and professionalism of an army count a lot more than the hardware.

So, going back to your original point, perhaps the Russians used their missiles stupidly and thus made them more vulnerable to interception?

 

[Zachowon]

Since the Cold War, in all of these 'very near peer' wars, you can have swapped the hardware and the results are mostly the same.
You know, if we apply your logic, M1 Abrams is a shitty tank because insurgents in bicycles defeated them.
The training, support, and professionalism of an army count a lot more than the hardware.

Not true.
The Soviets and Russians have always been behind since the late 70s