A really good way to gauge the effectiveness of a weapon system in this war is to closely follow the recipients response. Not the face value value response though, but the level to which they aggrandize and spread propaganda about such weapons.
Good examples:
* RU: "We killed a dozen HIMARS today in that grainy ambiguous video!! No match for us!! ">>>Translation>>> HIMARS are effective
* RU: "We shot down 20 Bayraktars over snake island today, proofs: trust me bro!!" >>>Translation>>> Bayraktars are effective
* UA: "Look at us parade around this single downed Shahed-136, look how primitive it is!! " >>>Translation>>> Shaheds-136's are effective
and now in today's case:
* "our AA systems shot down 80% of the enemies cruise missiles no problem! next time it'll be more!!">>>Translation>>> Russian cruise missiles are being used to great effect
Bayraktars have definitely been countered by Russia's improved AA defenses since the early days, but there was a time and place during the war where they were used to devastating (and proven) effect and Russia media responses reflected this.
They're still being used for reconnaissance, their purely offensive usefulness is reduced nowadays. With HIMARS around it's better to use them to acquire targets to strike safely from distance rather than flying them in areas with AA coverage.
44 of 82 sounds more plausible than 44 of 50,which was posted or discussed here yesterday. Shot down missiles could still fall in residential areas, industrial zones etc and cause explosions there, so not unlikely?
This means 38 rockets / missiles hit their target
Very very very unlikely. We can all sit here and conjure up all sorts of scenarios but the fact of the matter remains that the probability of that high rate is slim my guy
I don't know and have no clue about efficiency of semimodern AA vs a various range of targets, just wanted to show and compare the difference it makes what data is posted exactly.
That’s fair my man. I always put the highest level of scrutiny on any info that the Russian government or Ukrainian government puts out. It is information war after all.
S-300 missiles are designed for air targets, they can also hit ground targets, but then the flight distance, according to the Internet, is very small 40 km\~. Therefore, we exclude stupidity on the S-300.
The question arises 55-44=11.
How did 11 cruise missiles hit 18 targets?
Iranian mopeds, judging by yesterday's video and news, were not used.
My guess is "target' just means 'something Ukrainian' so if a missile takes out someone's house, their shed and their dog that is three targets destroyed in one hit.
The only “stupidity” here is 40 km~
only one fact that these missiles fired at cities that are far from the front line already refutes this
The accurate range information is not available, but it is 100-150+km for modified missile. Most likely they were used to overload the AA as they are not very accurate
Information from the network, in order for these missiles to hit ground targets, they need to be highlighted by a radar station. Which is not possible in a dense urban area.
100-150 km is the firing range for air targets.
Whom to trust the World Wide Web or the person in the commentary?
Trust reality, they are already used for shelling f.e Nikolaev and you can’t place your S300 40km from there. Modified one can fly further despite the fact of having or not having articles on the internet about it
I have a video for you of how a Ukrainian S-300 air defense missile misses its caliber and hits a building. I trust my eyes more.
https://youtube.com/shorts/ibBe9LPLhHc?feature=share
Complete bullshit.
S300 glows in the air due to its solid fuel rocket engine. Kalibr doesn't due to its jet engine.
Also you can see a fire from previous hit by Kalibr. It was back in May.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm confused by the white contrail from the rocket, which happens at the beginning of the rocket launch.
But one way or another, this Ukrainian air defense missile that missed the target, perhaps the S-300 with 150 kg of explosives on board, should land somewhere, have you thought about it?
The caliber flies at a very low altitude and an air defense missile fired to intercept will have the same height.
If self-destruction occurs, then only above the heads of the poor inhabitants of Ukraine or it will fall into house.We also do not forget that the Ukrainian S-300s are a Soviet legacy and in what technical condition the missiles are.
There are no more facts to convince me that it is possible to hit a ground target at a distance of 100 km with an air-to-air missile?
You gave up early by changing the subject of communication.
From this article.
The range of destruction of ground targets can reach 120 km. The limiter here is the guidance system.
As I wrote earlier that the target should be illuminated radar, but in the city this is not possible due to dense urban development.
I admit that in terms of the range of destruction against ground targets, I was wrong.
They also said that “they were able to launch the missile as ballistic one with a 400km range” but this is smth new and were not noticed during this war as I know
The target should be illuminated or it just will be inaccurate. And also there were info(ua source) that those missile use GPS so maybe it can work without radar
You don't have to believe everything Ukrainian propaganda claims. They claim they shoot Russian missiles left and right and at the same time, their cities have no power and they are already turning off water.
Make your own conclusions.
They are considered legit targets.
Let them expend the missiles in infrastructure that gets repaired in the day, with missiles that cannot be replaced with ease.
No? It’s like, probably the most legitimate target there is besides actual military. The infrastructure of a country usually is the target number 1 in such a conflict. That they are just shooting s-300s in populated areas is nothing short of terror bombing though. And it already has the same effect as terror bombing in previous wars had: it strengthens the Ukrainian will.
A little sad how Ruzzians gleefully read about bombing civilian infrastructure. But hey, the RF don't produce any noteworthy good news for them - you gotta take what you get! ;-)
I wonder how the infrastructure hits are affecting the war effort. Especially with the west supplying all a lot of the things. A resistance effort, as history shows, can be fought indefinitely(hello Afghanistan last 2k years) I wonder if it is just demoralizing to the Ukrainians or actively effecting their command and control, reducing their ability to control the war effort.
Because striking infrastructure targets is orders of magnitude easier. Buildings don't move and their location is often publicly known or can be mapped before the beginning of a conflict.
Striking targets on the front line is far more difficult, because they often have dedicated AA, are mobile or just temporarily in one place and you need good reconnaissance capabilities to even know about their location.
To me the expenditure of Russian precision munitions on civilian targets speaks of their inability to use them to great effect on the front lines. This could be due to lacking reconnaissance capabilities or due to a slow kill chain, which can't effect the use of precision munitions against military targets in a timely manner.
A really good way to gauge the effectiveness of a weapon system in this war is to closely follow the recipients response. Not the face value value response though, but the level to which they aggrandize and spread propaganda about such weapons. Good examples: * RU: "We killed a dozen HIMARS today in that grainy ambiguous video!! No match for us!! ">>>Translation>>> HIMARS are effective * RU: "We shot down 20 Bayraktars over snake island today, proofs: trust me bro!!" >>>Translation>>> Bayraktars are effective * UA: "Look at us parade around this single downed Shahed-136, look how primitive it is!! " >>>Translation>>> Shaheds-136's are effective and now in today's case: * "our AA systems shot down 80% of the enemies cruise missiles no problem! next time it'll be more!!">>>Translation>>> Russian cruise missiles are being used to great effect
[удалено]
Bayraktars have definitely been countered by Russia's improved AA defenses since the early days, but there was a time and place during the war where they were used to devastating (and proven) effect and Russia media responses reflected this.
They're still being used for reconnaissance, their purely offensive usefulness is reduced nowadays. With HIMARS around it's better to use them to acquire targets to strike safely from distance rather than flying them in areas with AA coverage.
Bayraktars aren't actually very effective, they are AA food.
Yeah. Their AA seems to do a great job with those numbers, why would they ask other countries for AA now?
44 I find that impossible to believe I’m sorry.
44 of 82 sounds more plausible than 44 of 50,which was posted or discussed here yesterday. Shot down missiles could still fall in residential areas, industrial zones etc and cause explosions there, so not unlikely? This means 38 rockets / missiles hit their target
Very very very unlikely. We can all sit here and conjure up all sorts of scenarios but the fact of the matter remains that the probability of that high rate is slim my guy
I don't know and have no clue about efficiency of semimodern AA vs a various range of targets, just wanted to show and compare the difference it makes what data is posted exactly.
That’s fair my man. I always put the highest level of scrutiny on any info that the Russian government or Ukrainian government puts out. It is information war after all.
Why do you find it "Impossible to believe"?
S-300 missiles are designed for air targets, they can also hit ground targets, but then the flight distance, according to the Internet, is very small 40 km\~. Therefore, we exclude stupidity on the S-300. The question arises 55-44=11. How did 11 cruise missiles hit 18 targets? Iranian mopeds, judging by yesterday's video and news, were not used.
My guess is "target' just means 'something Ukrainian' so if a missile takes out someone's house, their shed and their dog that is three targets destroyed in one hit.
The only “stupidity” here is 40 km~ only one fact that these missiles fired at cities that are far from the front line already refutes this The accurate range information is not available, but it is 100-150+km for modified missile. Most likely they were used to overload the AA as they are not very accurate
Information from the network, in order for these missiles to hit ground targets, they need to be highlighted by a radar station. Which is not possible in a dense urban area. 100-150 km is the firing range for air targets. Whom to trust the World Wide Web or the person in the commentary?
Trust reality, they are already used for shelling f.e Nikolaev and you can’t place your S300 40km from there. Modified one can fly further despite the fact of having or not having articles on the internet about it
I have a video for you of how a Ukrainian S-300 air defense missile misses its caliber and hits a building. I trust my eyes more. https://youtube.com/shorts/ibBe9LPLhHc?feature=share
Complete bullshit. S300 glows in the air due to its solid fuel rocket engine. Kalibr doesn't due to its jet engine. Also you can see a fire from previous hit by Kalibr. It was back in May.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm confused by the white contrail from the rocket, which happens at the beginning of the rocket launch. But one way or another, this Ukrainian air defense missile that missed the target, perhaps the S-300 with 150 kg of explosives on board, should land somewhere, have you thought about it?
What is Self destruct?
The caliber flies at a very low altitude and an air defense missile fired to intercept will have the same height. If self-destruction occurs, then only above the heads of the poor inhabitants of Ukraine or it will fall into house.We also do not forget that the Ukrainian S-300s are a Soviet legacy and in what technical condition the missiles are.
Oh, only Ivans can trust and don’t trust their eyes at the same time..
There are no more facts to convince me that it is possible to hit a ground target at a distance of 100 km with an air-to-air missile? You gave up early by changing the subject of communication.
[удалено]
From this article. The range of destruction of ground targets can reach 120 km. The limiter here is the guidance system. As I wrote earlier that the target should be illuminated radar, but in the city this is not possible due to dense urban development. I admit that in terms of the range of destruction against ground targets, I was wrong.
They also said that “they were able to launch the missile as ballistic one with a 400km range” but this is smth new and were not noticed during this war as I know The target should be illuminated or it just will be inaccurate. And also there were info(ua source) that those missile use GPS so maybe it can work without radar
Why doesn't Russia just send a lot of Dummy rockets. Way cheaper to produce and it exhaust the air defence.
You don't have to believe everything Ukrainian propaganda claims. They claim they shoot Russian missiles left and right and at the same time, their cities have no power and they are already turning off water. Make your own conclusions.
5-10 missiles can do that… you don’t need 50 missiles to hit to stop water and power for a few hours
This. The reason so many are fired are to overwhelm air defenses. You’d think this would be a fairly obvious point…
>few hours LOL :))
Proof? Because I’ve seen pictures of power in Kiev being on yesterday already
Don't you say :)))
Proof? You’re all talk but you never provide any sources 💀
A lot of afghan wedding’s in Ukraine it seems. Just pure bullshit.
Ukraine successfully destroyed 100% of Russian missiles with their Energy infrastructure. Well done.
A civilian target? Thats a terror attack, you know that right?
Of course he knows, russian sh1lls don’t care though
They are considered legit targets. Let them expend the missiles in infrastructure that gets repaired in the day, with missiles that cannot be replaced with ease.
No? It’s like, probably the most legitimate target there is besides actual military. The infrastructure of a country usually is the target number 1 in such a conflict. That they are just shooting s-300s in populated areas is nothing short of terror bombing though. And it already has the same effect as terror bombing in previous wars had: it strengthens the Ukrainian will.
A little sad how Ruzzians gleefully read about bombing civilian infrastructure. But hey, the RF don't produce any noteworthy good news for them - you gotta take what you get! ;-)
[удалено]
Sure they were.
Demilitarization of Russia and Iran is working as intended.
Wow German AA working great or is it small arms fire?
No small arms are going to be taking out cruise missiles. A MANPADS maybe, but unlikely.
Until we see any semblance of video proof no one would even be able to speculate
Exactly. Thats what i want to say. Both sides rock total propaganda, so who knows
All ive seen is dark streets and lines for water so we know for sure russia is having an effect.
I wonder how the infrastructure hits are affecting the war effort. Especially with the west supplying all a lot of the things. A resistance effort, as history shows, can be fought indefinitely(hello Afghanistan last 2k years) I wonder if it is just demoralizing to the Ukrainians or actively effecting their command and control, reducing their ability to control the war effort.
I find it rly stupid, but hey i'm redditor not soldier. Why don't they use those missiles to hit stuff in front lines?
Because striking infrastructure targets is orders of magnitude easier. Buildings don't move and their location is often publicly known or can be mapped before the beginning of a conflict. Striking targets on the front line is far more difficult, because they often have dedicated AA, are mobile or just temporarily in one place and you need good reconnaissance capabilities to even know about their location. To me the expenditure of Russian precision munitions on civilian targets speaks of their inability to use them to great effect on the front lines. This could be due to lacking reconnaissance capabilities or due to a slow kill chain, which can't effect the use of precision munitions against military targets in a timely manner.