War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[Roman Alymov]

Interesting video of M777 detonating when trying to fire

https://t.me/infomil_live/5130

Edited March 24 by Roman Alymov

[Markus Becker]

We are seeing a lot of posts and articles on X about Ukraine's OWA drone strategic bombing campaign against Russian refineries .

People, including Jake Sullivan over at the Biden Adm. NSC think this is about AFU cutting off Russian oil.

They're wrong. It's about explosives.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1771643483847062000.html

 

[sunday]

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

We are seeing a lot of posts and articles on X about Ukraine's OWA drone strategic bombing campaign against Russian refineries .

People, including Jake Sullivan over at the Biden Adm. NSC think this is about AFU cutting off Russian oil.

They're wrong. It's about explosives.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1771643483847062000.html

 

Bojan would have something to say here, but to me it looks like Mr. Telenko, in his search for the limelight, received another visit by the Good Idea Fairy.

Edited March 24 by sunday

[bojan]

IDK how production of certain chemicals is distributed over refineries, but they have plenty of refineries outside of area that Ukrainians can reach. Also, no attack so far resulted in refinery total shotdown for even single day, as all attacks were limited in damage (of those I remember seeing one hit flare, damage as irrelevant as can be with refinery, one hit pretty small processing column, one hit heat exchanger for another pretty small processing column), and refineries have a lot of backups for all systems (as a safety measure, because you can not stop processes immediately, it has to be done gradually except in most extreme emergencies). So overall reduction in capacity is going to be relatively small, and even in worst case scenario for Russia can be compensated by lessened exports (look how much ammonia and other chemicals Russia exports...)

IMO, Ukrainian attacks on refineries are, just as with their random firing of MRLS at Belgorod/Donetsk etc about trying to remove as much Russian AD as possible from frontline, in order to allow at least some breathing space before potential introduction of F-16.

Also they look impressive as hell, even if it was just random junk being hit and a lot of people think that propaganda war is as important as military one.

Edited March 24 by bojan

[crazyinsane105]

It takes a hell of a lot of munitions to take out a refinery for a long time. Something that can be put in use towards another military objective IMO

[crazyinsane105]

On 3/21/2024 at 6:14 AM, Markus Becker said:

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/03/20/might-russia-run-out-of-big-guns

 

"In February Russia had just under 5,000 artillery pieces in the field, according to the Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank in London. It produces about 50 artillery-gun barrels a year, according to Pavel Luzin of the Center for European Policy Analysis, a think-tank. Ramping up production would be difficult: gun barrels are made with specialist machinery using high-grade steel. At the outbreak of war only two Russian factories were equipped to make them."

50 per ... that sounds too good to be true. 

Don’t mean to raise this up again, but…

A facility that has the capability to make oil and natural gas pipelines can also make artillery barrels. When Saddam went on his quest to build his supergun, the Canadian engineer who was designing had the barrel constructed by a UK firm which specialized in various engineering projects including oil and gas. Of course the UK firm figured out the end product wasn’t going to be used to transport oil, but they still made it anyways.

More or less, any firm in Russia that specializes in metallurgical component production can make an artillery barrel. Given that Russia has tens of thousands of kms of pipelines and what not…I don’t think they’ll have a shortage of barrels anytime soon 

 

Edited March 24 by crazyinsane105

[Stefan Kotsch]

40 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

A facility that has the capability to make oil and natural gas pipelines can also make artillery barrels.

I seriously doubt that. And the Baghdad gun is in no way a weapon like a PzH2000 or MSTA-S.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

A facility that has the capability to make oil and natural gas pipelines can also make artillery barrels.

Not really.

1 - Basic metal ingot - can be made by most foundries. Chief issue is size, but even 155/52 barrel is reasonably small compared to some of the stuff they do. This one is first cast, then forget in the certain sized rod.

2 - Basic barrel blank - above rod is drilled, then additionally forged to get it to a desired specifications. Some of the factories that are making high pressure hydraulic cylinders/large oil drilling equipment etc can make those.

3 - Making it into barrel - needs pretty specific machinery, additional forging to a specific size etc. Additional complications if barrel is rifled. This is most critical part of the production, I have no doubt that Russians have plenty of factories capable of first two steps, but no idea how many are capable of the last one.

[crazyinsane105]

47 minutes ago, bojan said:

Not really.

1 - Basic metal ingot - can be made by most foundries. Chief issue is size, but even 155/52 barrel is reasonably small compared to some of the stuff they do. This one is first cast, then forget in the certain sized rod.

2 - Basic barrel blank - above rod is drilled, then additionally forged to get it to a desired specifications. Some of the factories that are making high pressure hydraulic cylinders/large oil drilling equipment etc can make those.

3 - Making it into barrel - needs pretty specific machinery, additional forging to a specific size etc. Additional complications if barrel is rifled. This is most critical part of the production, I have no doubt that Russians have plenty of factories capable of first two steps, but no idea how many are capable of the last one.

Ahh interesting, thanks for the info. I guess the documentation I read regarding Saddam's super gun glossed over these specific steps, as I was under the impression that much of the barrel was made by the UK firm that specialized in oil and natural gas lines.

[mkenny]

13 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

So far no confirmation. 

StratCom of the Armed Forces of 🇺🇦Ukraine reports that as a result of yesterday's strike on the temporarily occupied Crimea, two Russian Large Landing Ships "Azov" and "Yamal" were damaged/destroyed, as well as a communication center and several infrastructure facilities of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the temporarily occupied Sevastopol

 

Satellite photos show both ships still at their moorings . It appears the missiles hit a pier beside one ship and a floating dock(?) beside the other. The floating dock does not seem to have suffered any major damage 

https://vk.com/milinfolive?z=photo-123538639_457720247%2Falbum-123538639_00%2Frev

 

Edited March 24 by mkenny

[Yama]

5 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

It takes a hell of a lot of munitions to take out a refinery for a long time. Something that can be put in use towards another military objective IMO

Given that it took months of intense attacks by heavy bombers during WW2 to seriously damage a refinery, there is some truth in that. On the other hand, damaged refineries are still an expense for the Russians, and any systems they deploy to protect them, are not available somewhere else.

[crazyinsane105]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Given that it took months of intense attacks by heavy bombers during WW2 to seriously damage a refinery, there is some truth in that. On the other hand, damaged refineries are still an expense for the Russians, and any systems they deploy to protect them, are not available somewhere else.

Will the Russians even bother though to protect refineries if they can get them back up and running in a few hours or days at most? 
 

It doesn’t really hurt the Russians. It simply spikes the price of energy even further, and the Russians can make more by selling less. In my opinion, it seems to be more for PR and trying to get Russian AD away from front lines 

Edited March 25 by crazyinsane105

[Roman Alymov]

Pro-Ukrainians have reinvented Imperial Japan practices: Balloons with explosive charges. On new cycle of technology, GPS and simple computer are added to drop the "bomb" when flying over city or other important object.

https://t.me/UAVDEV/6080

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Will the Russians even bother though to protect refineries if they can get them back up and running in a few hours or days at most? 
 

It doesn’t really hurt the Russians. It simply spikes the price of energy even further, and the Russians can make more by selling less. In my opinion, it seems to be more for PR and trying to get Russian AD away from front lines 

But they cant really sell more, because Europe doesnt want to buy from them anyway. Whats left? India Turkey and China. That doesnt really compensate for what they lost from Europe and Western Europe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/58888451

I dont buy the idea they are easy to reactivate. Even if you accept that idea, you still need spare parts, some of which you can only get from the west. And there is also the problem of skilled personnel. How many people can you get to replace the guys that are potentially killed, and how many are going to want to work there anyway? There is is the logjam of production that has to be overcome.

Besides, Russia has just slapped a 6 month ban on exporting petrolium, which tells you that these are really not nuisance attacks.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/27/russia-to-ban-gasoline-exports-for-six-months

[Stuart Galbraith]

51 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Pro-Ukrainians have reinvented Imperial Japan practices: Balloons with explosive charges. On new cycle of technology, GPS and simple computer are added to drop the "bomb" when flying over city or other important object.

https://t.me/UAVDEV/6080

At last, the M-55 has a mission!

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=1140#:~:text=The Myasishchev M-55 (NATO codename of "Mystic") was,34" aircraft of which only one was built.

[ink]

24 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont buy the idea they are easy to reactivate. Even if you accept that idea, you still need spare parts, some of which you can only get from the west. And there is also the problem of skilled personnel. How many people can you get to replace the guys that are potentially killed, and how many are going to want to work there anyway? There is is the logjam of production that has to be overcome.

Not sure how many oil industry workers you'll find on the front lines in Ukraine. Or how strict those sanctions are, given how much Russia still trades with the US and Europe in certain sectors.

I just dobt see how Ukrainian nuisance attacks are going to bring down Russian petroleum production.

[Ssnake]

I don't think that they event attempt to "bring down Russian oil production".

Either they hope forcing Russia to divert air defense assets. Or they just want to jack up prices at the pump for Iosef Sixpacktovich to increase domestic dissatisfaction.

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 minutes ago, ink said:

Not sure how many oil industry workers you'll find on the front lines in Ukraine. Or how strict those sanctions are, given how much Russia still trades with the US and Europe in certain sectors.

I just dobt see how Ukrainian nuisance attacks are going to bring down Russian petroleum production.

No, but they dont need to. If its stopping Russia exporting petrolium, thats making it harder to support the war. If you are making life harder for the kremlin firing easy to produce weapons, then why not do it? Its not going to do any harm other than annoy the Biden Government, and its not like they are pulling their weight right now anyway. The Kremlin already wants to kill them, cant really go down from there.

And if the Russian consumer starts feeling the actual cost of the war, you know what, they really should. Its done in their name. If they find they arent getting results that favour themselves, they only have themselves to blame, because they are the ones letting it happen.

I dont think any one thing, sinking warships, strategic attack, wearing them down on the frontline, is likely to achieve victory, anymore than one battlefield success in WW2 did. Its the cumulative effect over time. if there is to be any success, that is where it will come from. There is unlikely to be any knockout punches in this war. We found that out fairly early when Russia, much to its surprise, was unable to take Kyiv.

[Roman Alymov]

39 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

At last, the M-55 has a mission!

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=1140#:~:text=The Myasishchev M-55 (NATO codename of "Mystic") was,34" aircraft of which only one was built.

First, that is relatively low-flying balloons, no need for M55 to shot them down. Actually, there is hardly any need to shoot them down as it is more like random terror weapon designed to cause disproportional (and costly) responce. Much better answer is to share this technology, for example, online. All components of it are commercially available (except explosives) so, for ecample, enthusiastic student in Cairo or Maxico could make them out of AliExpress components and send by the wind over "the Garden" wall with best wishes from "the jungle".....

Second, it is not a secret M-55 is back in action and actively flying.

[ink]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, but they dont need to. If its stopping Russia exporting petrolium, thats making it harder to support the war. If you are making life harder for the kremlin firing easy to produce weapons, then why not do it? Its not going to do any harm other than annoy the Biden Government, and its not like they are pulling their weight right now anyway. The Kremlin already wants to kill them, cant really go down from there.

And if the Russian consumer starts feeling the actual cost of the war, you know what, they really should. Its done in their name. If they find they arent getting results that favour themselves, they only have themselves to blame, because they are the ones letting it happen.

I dont think any one thing, sinking warships, strategic attack, wearing them down on the frontline, is likely to achieve victory, anymore than one battlefield success in WW2 did. Its the cumulative effect over time. if there is to be any success, that is where it will come from. There is unlikely to be any knockout punches in this war. We found that out fairly early when Russia, much to its surprise, was unable to take Kyiv.

Yes, I suppose it does contribute to an overall attrition.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if that's the right course of action.

I definitely would have wished, back in 1999, that Serbia was able to strike NATO targets the way Ukraine is going after Russian ones.

[Roman Alymov]

Just now, ink said:

I definitely would have wished, back in 1999, that Serbia was able to strike NATO targets the way Ukraine is going after Russian ones.

It is not "Ukraine is going after Russian ones", it is West do (as Ukraine is only tool and source of cannon fodder).  Serbia was alone.....

From another side, I do remember back in that time pro-Russian military forums (that was before social network and Telegram, but forums were allready active) were surprised why Serbia was not striking back. But taking into account Strelkov's opinion about Miloshevich and his team, may be it was logical. By the way Strelkov is often refering to Putin as "our Miloshevich".

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, ink said:

Yes, I suppose it does contribute to an overall attrition.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if that's the right course of action.

I definitely would have wished, back in 1999, that Serbia was able to strike NATO targets the way Ukraine is going after Russian ones.

Cruise missiles hadnt become as 'Democratized' as they are now. Ironically that is perhaps at least in part due to the Iranian and Chinese desire to make it so. If Serbia had left it another 10 years before facing NATO, yes, it might have been different. Even iraq in 2003 had a nascent cruise missile programe going. The problem for Serbia, there are unlikely to be any really worthwhile strategic targets within reach. Through an accident of history, so many refineries and strategic bases are facing onto Ukraine and Belarus in Russia, making them all relatively easy to get at.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, Roman Alymov said:

It is not "Ukraine is going after Russian ones", it is West do (as Ukraine is only tool and source of cannon fodder).  Serbia was alone.....

From another side, I do remember back in that time pro-Russian military forums (that was before social network and Telegram, but forums were allready active) were surprised why Serbia was not striking back. But taking into account Strelkov's opinion about Miloshevich and his team, may be it was logical. By the way Strelkov is often refering to Putin as "our Miloshevich".

Ah, so Milosevich was also 'party of the west'! It all makes sense now.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

First, that is relatively low-flying balloons, no need for M55 to shot them down. Actually, there is hardly any need to shoot them down as it is more like random terror weapon designed to cause disproportional (and costly) responce. Much better answer is to share this technology, for example, online. All components of it are commercially available (except explosives) so, for ecample, enthusiastic student in Cairo or Maxico could make them out of AliExpress components and send by the wind over "the Garden" wall with best wishes from "the jungle".....

Second, it is not a secret M-55 is back in action and actively flying.

If they can do low altitude balloons, there is no reason to believe they will stop there. Particularly if they want to go after long range targets.

Stop and consider what this means. When Japan did it in WW2, they had no hope of burning down America's forests. Today, we see how tinder try California is with global warming. If Japan did it now, would they not in fact have far greater success than they did then?

Wait till midsummer, your forests are bone dry, and Ukraine launches balloons to try and burn down your larger forests.Will they do that? No idea. Im just saying I wouldnt be so quick as to reject these weapons as causing no problems for Russia. Lets leave it till the end of the year before we come to such conclusions.

[Perun]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ah, so Milosevich was also 'party of the west'! It all makes sense now.

 

He had some "agreements" with US