I think that would be pretty easy to get through. Oh it would slow them down, but if the Russians can come up with some chain saws, or any saw… Or even some explosives that would only take out the foam.
I am by far not versed in this, but I think drone attacks on supply convoys is the way to go.
Drone effectiveness is falling off. Basically when Russia first invaded they a seem to have been unprepared for prolonged resistance and hadn’t properly prepared themselves for a modern war. This resulted in a “happy time” for Ukrainian drones as they hit undefended targets. Now that Russia has partially gotten their act together the drone operational environment has changed for the worse.
Bummer. I won’t question how they use them. I’m sure they know a lot more than I.
Nighttime infrared targeting was what I was thinking though.
It wouldn’t have to be a missile. It could have been a series of drones.
I haven’t uploaded one of these updates for a while but thought it might be of interest:
The relatively low number of UAVs is surprising. Either they are difficult to swat out of the air or the Russian army is not using them to the extent the US army – and NATO – would be in a similarly-sized war.
44k troops is insane. Put into perspective, that’s over 75% of what the US lost in Vietnam. It’s over six times what the US lost in the Middle East since 9/11.
I’m not 100% but I think the figure relates to casualties rather than fatalities.
The US had about 58,000 casualties in Vietnam.
They had 58,000 fatalities.
The 58,000 is dead. Casualties include dead and wounded.
From your cite: "In 1982 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C., inscribed with the names of 57,939 members of U.S. armed forces who had died or were missing as a result of the war. Over the following years, additions to the list have brought the total past 58,200.
Ukr is claiming 44k dead Russians, casualties should total near 100,000 based on experiences in other wars.
fiendish_astronaut with quicker fingers for the ninja.
Been trying to find out what “losses” means in this graphic. Wikipedia tries to clear it up in a footnote and it’s still not clear
There’s a useful table of estimated casualties and fatalities here although it’s only updated periodically:
Woops, the Google preview specifically said “casualties” so I just copied the link without finding the quote in the text body… Sorry about that!
190 cruise missiles? Is that an estimate of losses by HIMARS attacks on warehouses?
That would be a big score if true.
Actually, for Putin, 44000 is nothing to get concerned about.
For comparison…America loses 40000 fatalities every year (in traffic accidents), and we sure don’t get too upset about it.
And the comparison with America’s fatalities in Vietnam is also not relevant (for Putin).
America did not withdraw from Vietnam because of the number of dead soldiers----America withdrew because of the public’s protests over the number of deaths.
Democracy works that way…But of course Putin doesn’t give a damn
The Russian army still has a quarter million men in uniform, and a quarter million more recent veterans who can be called back into service. And probably a quarter million others who can be drafted (mostly, I assume, from the rural areas, because drafting residents of Moscow might lead to protests and draft-dodging, which would make Putin look bad.)
So Putin can afford to lose 40000 soldiers, this year, next year and for several more years.
How many soldiers has Ukraine lost, and how long can they continue to absorb huge numbers of casualties?
That may be, but I would hope if we had 40,000 KIA in 6 months in some tom-fool of a military adventure, the public would be upset.
Yes, you would hope so. And so would I.
But Putin would not.
Ukraine can only hope Russia eventually decides to end the war. Much like they did in Afghanistan.
I think Russia could bring in another half million soldiers by drafting men. Their economy could be redirected to a war time footing. A company making garage door openers could make military electronics.
Russia never fully mobilized for their wars in the 90’s and 00’s. I would only hope they won’t in Ukraine. But they do see the Ukrainian war as a proxy to fighting NATO.
Ukraine is already requiring all younger men to serve in the military. Women and children can escape to Poland or other countries.
Ukraine has a limited number of men and no reserves except the extremely old or young. Germany tried using men like that with tragic results.
I remember the US surge in 2007 or 2008? IIRC we had almost 350,000 in Iraq for a short period of time. General Petraeus made deals with tribal leaders and defeated elements of the insurgency.
I doubt Russia could do that without a compulsory draft.
Physics question: Do explosives always detonate when in the presence of an explosion? Questions specific to Russian ammo dumps getting blown up by Ukrainian HIMARS.
If Russia has stacked 10,000 artillery shells in a big warehouse and a HIMARS rocket hits it, does it inevitably chain-reaction things so that each shell detonates a millisecond after its neighbor shell? Trying to understand the physics.
The answer is “it varies”.
Some explosives are more shock sensitive than others, but most explosives are shock sensitive to some degree because many fusing systems use shock to trigger the main charge. And if an ammo dump is poorly laid out, you can easily get chain reactions between deposits of high-explosive ammo because they’re close enough together that the shock from earlier detonations are strong enough to exceed the shock insensitivity of the next.
(My understanding is entirely theoretical and reading-based. We have Dopers with real experience with explosives who will hopefully correct or amplify my meager posting.)