If we are talking about conventional shells, accuracy isn't so important because it's compensated by the blast radius of indirect fire.
A 155mm or 152mm shell has a kill radius of 50m/850m2 + 100m/1900m2 of injury radius.
2/5 Most of the chelling deaths are caused by Blast Brain Injury or other injuries in abdomen and other areas, known as the Blast shock. But depending of the shell, these deaths and injuries are caused by Shrapnel. (fragmentation)
3/5 A Conventional 152/155mm shell produce a crater of 1.2-1.8m due to shell explosion.
In some cases the ammo is old and didn't explode. See the holes on the green field. The ones without light around are failed shells. Russia has maybe 35-55% failing rate. It's really dangerous
4/5 Bellow are two pictures of indirect fire from 30m. One has fragmentation shell and the other just the blast shock. See as the Blast shock destroyed the tank.
That's why shells don't need to be exactly accurate.
A Conventional shell from 20km-40km can have a CEP of 350m.
5/5 Ukr still has 70% of its 152mm and some have modern Fire control systems, what improve the accuracy around 10-20% depending of weather.
Others 400 are 155mm, a bit more accurate, but it doesn't change too much because the improvement keep inside the blast radius.
Note:
The Ukrainian question isn't the accuracy, but how can the allies produce enough ammo. Actually the allies can't produce enough ammo for 300 arties firing daily 15k rounds.
This is why Ukraine need guided ammo and more missiles.
See the advantages of guided ammo.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Russians pay half the amount for a 152mm shell compared to what the Germans pay for a 30mm ammo.
A while back, I wrote a post about Rheinmetall selling their Caracal 4x4 to the German government for over $600,000. Recently, I've been looking into the variations in ammunition costs among Western companies.
Rheinmetall is asking for over $600 for a Gepaed 35mm round, which is the same price the Russians are paying for a 152mm artillery round. But it doesn't stop there. Rheinmetall also sold 600,000 30mm rounds to be used in the PUMA IFV for $1,000 each.
In all three of these overpriced sales, the client was the German government. To put it in perspective, the US ordered and paid $108 for each round back in 2017. Obviously, costs vary depending on the type of ammo, but $1,000 for a single 30mm round? This puts a burden on the German taxpayers.
There's a concern that Europe wouldn't be able to sustain a war with these prices. They could bankrupt any country before troops are even prepared for combat. The focus here is not on the quality, but rather the sustainable cost during a real war.
A single medium Cal cannon can fire 5,000 rounds in less than one minute. How can pay that bill?
Just s personal feeling.
Countries with a smaller industry, mainly light armored vehicles, like the Baltics, had no chance to sell anything. The big sharks just eat the EU budget with high costs, collaborating to a higher concentrated market.
Omsktransmash has finished the modernization of a batch of T-80BVM tanks, which are now on their way to Ukraine.
This marks the second batch of tanks in less than 30 days. The previous batch consisted of T90M tanks.
The frequency and size of these batches confirm my previous… https://t.co/xJsMfYHqvHtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The mass production of SOSNA-U devices has indeed put an end to the previous bottleneck in Russia's tank production.
Some months ago, I had discussed the projected waiting time of 2-5 months for these devices. Regrettably, it appears that the allies have missed this window of… https://t.co/spOEBt16jOtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Actually, the lack of equipment for Ukraine resulted from serious mistakes. It's a political will, but we need to look a bit earlier.
The Ukrainian Malyshev tank factory was indeed a reputable facility with the capacity to produce hundreds of tanks yearly.
🧵1/11
Patriot still has the same failures as 30y ago.
This thread is specially about the American tax payer, who deserve to spend their money on something that works and a transparent company. These systems cost billions.
Well, to understand this, we must come back to 1991.
2/11
During the 1991 Gulf War, the public was led to believe the that the Patriot had near-perfect performance, intercepting 45 of 47 Scud missiles.
The truth was a system w failures and only 9% of successful interceptions.
The company blamed a software
1/3 Apparently the US want to test some aspects of IBCS in Ukraine.
The Pentagon sent an
Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD), Battle Command System (IBCS) and an Engagement Operations Center (EOC) for Ukraine.
If it works, would mean huge advance.
2/3 The IBCS will integrate multiple sensors and weapon systems into a single network, enabling faster decision-making and more efficient engagement of targets in multi-domain battle operations.
A completely independent Fire Control system operating on a powerful radar network.
3/3 What change?
Processing speed and capacity. The integration on Gallium Nitride (GaN) radars and GaN processing networks, should give few more seconds against hypersonic missiles and better use of other systems to hit targets.
It raises the interception chances significantly.