War in Ukraine

Yes, an indirect fire system, from a traditional artillery system methodology perspective (my father was a gun captain on M108 105mm howitzer in Korea during Vietnam, which was used for indirect and direct fire missions), but when you have a drone observing the target, which is what typically occurs, you are really not indirect fire anymore, especially with guided projectiles. It's like calling a cruise missile an indirect fire munition.

The Circular Error Probable (CEP) of a HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) is typically considered to be less than 5 meters when using its primary munition, the M30 GMLRS, which utilizes GPS guidance for high accuracy under optimal conditions; meaning that 50% of the rockets fired will land within a circle with a radius of less than 5 meters from the target point.

 

There is a several year history of Putin saying he is ready to start talks but always comes back later with some preconditions. I'm sure Putin thinks "no-conditions" means that Crimea is not a condition since it is already part of Russia.

The BLUF is that any attempt to say the AFU could retake Crimea by force is so preposterous that anyone suggesting it is not being serious. If Ukraine and Russia are going to sit at a negotiating table, they both need to have realistic expectations about what is achievable.

Also, I'm not sure why people are not aware of this but was Zelenskyy already was willing to talk peace with Russia back in '22 without including Crimea.

 

You do realize that you are not helping your argument by quoting random things about HIMARS munitions, right? Do you think the CEP of a HIMARS munition has a direct effect on whether they are considered indirect fire assets?

Oh, and how do those PGM munitions function in a contested electromagnetic environment?

 

Sorry, I accidentally posted before I completed the post:

Yes, an indirect fire system, from a traditional artillery system methodology perspective (my father was a gun captain on M108 105mm howitzer in Korea during Vietnam, which was used for indirect and direct fire missions), but when you have a drone observing the target, which is what typically occurs, you are really not indirect fire anymore, especially with guided projectiles. It's like calling a cruise missile an indirect fire munition.

The Circular Error Probable (CEP) of a HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) is typically considered to be less than 5 meters when using its primary munition, the M30 GMLRS, which utilizes GPS guidance for high accuracy under optimal conditions; meaning that 50% of the rockets fired will land within a circle with a radius of less than 5 meters from the target point.

 

With careful planning, as always.

Intelligence, patience and the element of surprise.

 

Oh, dude …

That was exactly like you wanting to have a complex discussion about Albania and then letting it slip that you think an Albanian is someone who is all white with pink eyes.

 

No, “indirect fire” is not whatever you say it is. It’s as simple as this: does the shooter see the target with a direct line of sight or not. Not through a sensor. Not through a third-party observer. If not, it’s indirect fire. But this is dumb. HIMARS and ATACMS were and are absolutely useful. And, yes, they should have been given to Ukraine earlier along with every other weapon system unnecessarily delayed. But none of it has been, will be, or would have been decisive. The only thing that would have been decisive in 2022 would have been NATO airpower.

 

No, it is increasingly a meaningless distinction held over from the days you could either see the target from the gun and could directly fire at it over the iron sights (direct) or couldn't and had to fire based on calculations to hit the target (indirect).

Example: A battleship firing over the horizon at a target 35,200 yards (20 miles) from the gunner's standpoint near the water should be considered indirect fire because the gunner doesn't have a direct line of sight to the target, but the spotter in the mast 100ft above has a direct line of sight and passes the firing solution down to the fire control computer, so it is considered direct fire, and can be adjusted directly by the spotter, because the entirety of the battleship's fire control is part of the gun system.

Now what if it is a radar antenna with a direct LOS instead of a spotter?

How about drone hovering 100 ft above the battleship instead of a radar antenna?

How is THAT different than the drone hovering 5 miles from the target instead of 20 miles?

You have in all cases, a LOS to the target, so how is it in a battleship considered direct fire and yet an artillery system it is considered indirect fire?

Tradition (and trajectory)!

 

Stop digging. You were clearly confusing direct vs. indirect with ballistic vs. precision-guided. The point remains the same: even if Biden/Sullivan had provided these weapons from the start (and the tanks, and the fighters …), Ukraine would still not have liberated Crimea in 2022. That’s a ridiculous supposition. You won’t find a single credible military source who will make that claim. And at any rate it doesn’t change where we are right now. Let the Trump Administration make whatever platitudes it needs to for the purpose of getting Russia to the table. The negotiations are going to fail no matter what, and it will be Russia’s fault. At that point, we can start discussing what more we can do to put pressure on Russia and relieve it from Ukraine.

 

Coming from a naval background, indirect fire to me has always meant no eyes directly on the target and firing based on calculations and adjusting fire based on forward observers. HIMARS might be considered an indirect fire weapon from a historical firing methodology standpoint, but has the accuracy one would expect with direct fire munitions given the distance in question, not requiring hundreds of rounds to destroy targets, which is why I do not naturally think of it as indirect fire.

Which is why the distinction is becoming essentially meaningless. It was terminology based on eyeballs at a fixed elevation either seeing a target, which is increasingly not the way modern artillery is targeted, or having to fire based on calculations, which most is.

All of it is essentially indirect now and the historical connotation does not match the modern one.

 

Seen on internet …

What’s fascinating is that the US and Russia will be negotiating without Ukraine, and without a ceasefire.

Which means Russia will control the negotiations by controlling the battlefield.

I think this is deliberate on the part of Trump.

It will compel Ukraine to beg for peace.

Using the US as the conduit.

Me: I’m not holding my breath, but I find breathtaking the larger view Trump appears to be taking, wanting to restore relations with Russia and re-integrating it into the Western sphere.

Chickenhawks raging, of course.

 

Don't get your hopes up, Putin doesn't have much time left on this mortal coil, and if his McDonald's and Adderall addictions continue unabated - neither does Trump or his bulging diapers.

J.D. Vance and his eyeliner don't really scare anyone, if he isn't an intelligence operative run by the Deep State, which MAGA must suspect. Even we don't believe a stout anti-Trumper can flip that quickly or convincingly.

My guess is that Putin wants the whole enchilada as he has nearly spent his wad and there won't be a second act on Ukraine in his lifetime.

Must be frustrating for an ex-KGB agent for an ex-Soviet state to so humiliatingly smash up your Cold War junk military and economy.

Sunk cost fallacies and all that will keep him in for the win.

 

So if a HIMARS is used to prosecute a target with a GPS coordinate provide by a FO, is that still direct fire?

The BLUF is your original assertion is still not supported by any one with a military background with even the slightest knowledge of the Ukrainian conflict. HIMARS munitions would not have made a difference in terms of providing fire support to a ground operations to retake the peninsula. The AFU have never had a realistic chance at retaking Crimea after Russia had 8 years to occupy and fortify it. The time to do that was back in 2014 but there was no appetite for it back then.

 

Hegseth is out their saying we need almost a decade to match the capabilities of the Russian Navy? Tom Clancy is rolling in his grave. Looks like we need to swell the defense budget even more ... shocking no one.

 

Seven types of cancer a heart attack and stroke, but Putin’s obviously in the driver’s seat.

 

I understand the pessimism, my friend, especially after the football season you had .

But I have to repeat a caveat: Ukraine had no such realistic chance in 2022, and they have no such realistic chance today. But that situation could change dramatically over the course of the next year, depending on domestic turmoil in Russia, which continues to rise at a rate much faster than its armed forces are able to advance in Ukraine. I would point out that in November 1916 Imperial Germany had no realistic chance of taking Riga by land or by sea. A year later, they walked into it, and the entire road to Moscow was wide open.

 

Request a link. On its face, that seems like a silly thing to say. The Russian navy, what's still above the waterline, is a joke. Now if he was referring to China, there is some merit to such an argument in certain areas.

 

Social media and its one person's interpretation, so take it with a grain of salt I guess, in the press conference he's talking about this around the 22 minute mark.



WATCH LIVE: Hegseth holds news conference at NATO defense ministerial meeting in Brussels