Jump to content

KV7

Members
  • Posts

    3,262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KV7

  1. Another option is to modernise T-72 lineage tanks with a better gearbox.
  2. Hang on if they are British they should be the L118 light gun which uses different ammunition. M1 is the US/NATO standard 105mm HE.
  3. The status quo is (or at least should be, for reasons you outline) acceptable to them. What they fear is a change in the status quo towards independence.
  4. There is one account (sorry I have no link) that mentions MLRS firing from near the location before the explosion.
  5. I think you mean PFM-1 sometimes termed 'butterfly'. Given it has only 37 g of filler and uses a plastic case and no preformed fragments, there isn't much risk from a moderate distance away. But eye protection or a face mask of some sort would be advisable.
  6. The issue of UAV development is a bit of a mystery. Compared to other projects, the technological demands would seem quite slight, so it is hard to explain why particular nations and producers seem to have a sizable lead. If would seem that anyone who can make gen 4+ fighters would be able to almost effortlessness get to the frontier of e.g. non stealth medium weight UAV. And cost should then dependent to a large extent of labour costs and the general industrial base. If anything this sort of analysis should make China the predicted market leader, and there is also no reason to expect Turkey to lead Russia. I suppose part of the explanation is some high tech inputs like sensors that are non-trivial, and restricted by sanctions to some but not others, and the other is that some nations just took their development sufficiently seriously, and others did not.
  7. Can they even get in ? The straight at Ochakiv is too narrow to pass safely without coming under fire. With prevalent ATGM they would seem too vulnerable in comparison to their utility to directly support troops to the north of Kherson.
  8. I agree with this analysis to some extent, the Russian advance was shambolic in many respects, as a I noted at the time here. But even in the best case extremely rapid advance, this is clearly not going to provide some sort of defense against artillery or drones via maintaining high speed, i.e. stop tanks from being 'big slow targets'. in the OP. Just trivially tankers need to eat, sleep, reload etc. so there will always be stationary targets available. And tanks moving at any speed are not really a difficulty to engage by anything but the most simple (i.e. grenade dropping) drones. A rapid advance obviously however restricts the time required for any operation and then the attrition losses from sustained attacks. The solution to drones cannot be some sort of doctrinal insistence of madly rushing, not only because it won't work but because one cannot rely on war going so neatly to plan.
  9. Note I said ten kilometers per hour, not day and under contest. With an enemy position having a depth of around 5 km that implies going through it in about half an hour. An advance at this pace is extremely rapid, but simple mathematics shows that the armour doing it will not be constantly moving rapidly.
  10. As above, in a textbook combined arms assault it will not involve some headlong rush of all units. For a start at the tactical level other elements take time to do their thing. Dismounted infantry advancing with armor support implies stationary of slowly moving armor, or they will blast past the infantry and you are no longer going combined arms. Formations also will need to wait for delayed units on their flanks to take their objectives, or risk running ahead unsupported and exposed. Frontal elements will tie down units to allow for other units to flank etc. At the operations level there are flanks to defend etc. And the most rapid advances will involve very rapid road marches through lightly defended territory to set up ambushes or blockades, while waiting for reinforcing elements. Realistically a rapid but contested advance is going extremely well if it is moving more than 10 km/h.
  11. Chinese growth far exceeded Deng's long term plans. https://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2011/06/a-comparison-of-chinas-long-and-short-term-economic-performance-with-its-own-projections.html
  12. The west didn't do anything more than relax the frustration efforts and permit somewhat free trade in return initially for an anti-USSR alliance of sorts.
  13. That seems like a huge call. Most of the time it will be sitting in reserve somewhere, or perhaps on some road march, and most of the other time it is deployed it will be hidden and waiting to ambush or attack. Even in some assault it is unlikely to involve some constant maneuver.
  14. Correct, but as above it is an issue of risk mitigation, not removal, as any sort of transport is vulnerable to interdiction, though there is the additional vulnerability associated with having to do the unloading. Obviously avoiding as far as possible any sort of identifiable routine is called for. In fact multiple piers would probably be called for.
  15. That is the Inhulets but it does not extend towards Kiev. Perhaps you mean the Irpin.
  16. A ferry should be harder to attack, because the watercraft are mobile targets. An armed drone would work or observation with drone could be used to hit a pier where unloading or loading is observed to be happening. However if the situation is so bad that drones can routinely hit watercraft, then they can presumably also hit trucks.
  17. As I noted above, even if this is not possible setting up a ferry using e.g. landing craft or barges should be possible. They just need to construct simple piers.
  18. Regarding exports to China via pipeline, China was to be connected to the main Russian grid by the extension of the 'Power of Siberia-2' line into far western China, via Dzungaria. This will involve 1,420 mm pipe and a capacity of 50-80 billion cubic meters per annum. But for some reason China preferred for the route to go through Mongolia instead and that version of the project project appears to be progressing, as discussed here https://intellinews.com/gazprom-starts-designing-20bn-gas-pipeline-to-china-183569/
  19. I was referring to pipeline construction and ancillary technology like compressors, the latter of which the USSR had some difficulty with. Several large LNG projects are underway or completed but here there is considerable use of EU produced inputs, and sanctions are expected to lead to delays. LNG is favoured for very remote regions, for example the far north where constructing pipelines across the tundra would obviously be uneconomical. For example there are plans for a colossal project to produce LNG on the Taymyr Peninsula, with capacity of up to 50 million tons per annum, using natural gas from the Vostok oilfield. It also used compressors from CNOOC. Curiously Yamal LNG is one of the few projects with substantial Chinese ownership, via the Silk Road Fund. Many of these projects are (somewhat ironically) becoming feasible because the arctic is increasingly more easily navigable to LNG tankers, due to reduced sea ice.
  20. If the bridge is periodically under fire, it would be unwise to try to put 30 trucks down it at once though, so some loss of function might not be a bottleneck.
  21. A medium term solution for excess gas is to build liquification plants, which would permit export to wherever has the suitable port infrastructure. But it is less energetically efficient than pipelines, as the compression takes a substantial amount of energy, and expansion of the pipeline network going east should not be especially difficult, unless sanctions severely restrict the available inputs. This is an area where Russia really should have the technical expertise, given the large energy sector and the large heavy industry sector of the USSR. If it does not, then this would be a major failure of industry policy.
  22. Possibly sometime is scraping the barrel and so old stuff is getting a check over, detecting old faults. Perhaps even it was classed as defective and stockpiled and someone is working out if it some items are salvageable.
  23. In far eastern Russia Chinese FDI would very much be welcomed, because there are projects to develop regions with mineral resources but without much infrastructure that require more investment.
  24. If they do get pushed back substantially artillery fire from the eastern bank is feasible. Already heavy MLRS can do it. So that is one sort of negative feedback process. But also conventional artillery fire onto the bridges from Ukraine also becomes possible. I cannot see there being a shortage of e.g food or small arms and light crew served weapons ammunition, because these are not so bulky and whatever the Ukrainians can do are unlikely to almost totally sever the supply routes. In a worst case scenario supplies can presumably be moved across the river by barge or light boat or landing craft etc. which would be hard to disrupt because they need not follow some set route or sit idle at some particular location. The best that can be done is to hit the makeshift piers and hope, or use drones against the craft.
  25. Surely it would in the worst case scenario be not so hard to set up a ferry, which would be quite hard to disrupt.
×
×
  • Create New...