I also think the math's not quite that simple. Is the cost of a Javelin greater than a light armored vehicle plus the value of any Ukrainian lives saved plus the cost to Russia to replace any crew or passengers lost? It's not just the hardware cost that needs to be evaluated, but the wetware cost as well.

That's a good point and, you're right, I wasn't thinking about it in those terms. That said, it still seems a bit wasteful when a less modern, capable, and expensive anti-armor weapon system could achieve the same ends v. light AFVs and soft-skins. My concern was that, if Javelins are expended on the afore-mentioned types of vehicles, they might not be available to tackle the Russians' better-protected, heavier AFVs (like MBTs). Apparently, though, my worry was ill-founded, given Russias' staggering MBT losses to date.

-

There is a small, nagging part of my mind that's saying that the Russians may be retreating so they can deploy a nuke. Hopefully its just the paranoia part of my illness trying to get out.

Nuking somewhere around Kherson would make life in Crimea difficult and may very well drop fallout on all the dachas on the eastern coast of the Black Sea including Putin's mansion. Nuking around Kharkiv is similarly problematic.

In fact pretty much anywhere they nukes in Ukraine would end up dropping fallout on Russia.

Same here with regard to seeing such an expensive weapon wasted on a truck. But as you say, if it's scoring kills then it's scoring kills. I suppose the good news is that they'll at least have options with the T-62.

As an aside, this whole endeavor tells us a great deal about how fast ATGM stocks would be depleted in the Twilight War. Soldiers clearly won't save the expensive gear for the expensive targets, and will instead target whatever they can.

Hitler and his generals knew better than to use weapons of mass destruction (the ones they had at the time), so hopefully Putin and his generals know better as well.

I guess whether a truck is a worthwhile ATGM target depends on what is in the truck.

Kursk Bridge Bombed
 

Here's a report from DW news about the bombing of the Kursk Bridge to Crimea.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=MajtcfaAaZk&feature=

Swag

I think part of the issue with the use of NLAWs and Javelins was they were the only decent long range firepower some Ukrainian units had at that point in the war. A lot of units were defending with few artillery assets so they couldn't call in a fire mission nor did they have CAS or really any air support.

Even if a Javelin is overkill on a truck, Russia's lack of sane logistics actually means a truck is fairly high value compared to other militaries simply because there's so few available. Hitting Russian logistics was high value because it meant their front couldn't expand much past the Russian border. It also limits opportunities for break throughs since there's not enough fuel for the advance.

Truck Bomb?
 

I'm still wondering about the truck bomb angle. There are control points at each end of the bridge that scan for HAZMAT and explosives (we do that here in the US too). So how did the truck skirt these checks?

The explosion has a large volume of fire (more than ANFO/C4 produces) which looks like a napalm or fuel-air type of explosive. So why did the chemical sniffers at the checkpoint not detect those?

How were the box rails on that bridge section cut by that blast so cleanly (the section dropped intact)?

I do have some demo training, but I'm neither a combat engineer nor EOD. But that explosion looks like a burning charge combined with some type of cutting charge. A combination of differing explosives from different blast points/locations maybe?

The report on War Zone indicates that train cars on the bridge are burning, so perhaps whatever generated the explosion managed to detonate whatever the train cars were carrying (fuel, most likely)?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ding-to-crimea

-

Everything's on the table but I was watching this video by Denis and now I have even more questions!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zhe0xpk_qTw&feature=

Some questions I now have...

How did the fallen road deck survive the blast without even being blackened or the paint being burned off?

Why did the road deck drop intact with even the guardrails intact if a truck detonated right next to those guardrails?

Why does the blast look "directional" from the sea instead of "up" from the road deck?

How did the driver's *body survive the blast and follow-on inferno if he was at "ground zero" for the blast? *Russia claims they recovered the driver and two other motorists from the water.

Guys, it's no mystery. Just like the Saky airbase in Crimea and all those exploding ammo depots: it's just careless soldiers flicking cigarettes. I mean bridges blow up all the time! It was bound to happen. I think in one of the videos you can see the cigarette butt land right before the explosion.

Perun on Ukraine's Response To Russia
 

My weekly guilt pleasure, PERUN has posted his weekly PowerPoint featuring retired General Ben Hodges. I'm torn between who has the better sarcastic humor, Perun or Drach. I think Drach still beats Perun by a hair...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RWq-ngg7JC8&features=

Swag

LoL!:rolleyes:

I guess there are knuckleheads on both sides of the fight though...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AUUZ6pcu-Ig?feature=share

The Russians just need someone like AC to keep them focused:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3DxgkUBo44M&feature=s

This would also depend on how the ATGMs were issued. The AT4 and SMAW would likely see wider issue than Javelin in "typical" Twilight War timelines (or Dragon for the earlier timeline, since Javelin wasn't introduced until 1996 and Dragon remained in service until 2001). An alternate for AT4/SMAW would be the Viper rocket that was canceled in 1983 in the real-world timeline but might have been introduced if GD had any cost-control talent.

For Dragon, it had been 1 launcher per infantry squad in the 80s, but in the 90s that got shuffled. Mechanized infantry had 2 launchers per squad, while light infantry had 6 launchers per company and Rangers had 3 per company. Marines had a dedicated platoon of 32 launchers per battalion, divided into 4 sections of 4 squads of 2 teams each. The ideal when Viper was under development was that everyone who didn't have a Dragon would have a Viper.

Sub Brief Video
 

Sub Brief has posted a video on the Kursk Bridge attack. I think I agree with him based on the totality of the evidence.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9tQ1jYbhxNc&feature=

Swag

A Discussion About Air Defense & Drones
 

Here's Perun's weekly upload. This week he discusses the air defense issues in Ukraine.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xCEzEVwOwS4&feature

Swag

Kings & Generals Six Month Overview
 

Here's a 6-month overview of the war by the King & Generals channel.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4mJT452uDDc&feature=

Swag

The Kings and Generals channel has put out a new video.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=S7usqwT-ty4&feature=

Swag

Perun's Take On The Moskva Sinking
 

Perun discusses the sinking of Moskva.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=YrgCPsock6w&feature=

Swag

Dirty Pool
 

So now Russia's claiming that Ukraine is preparing to employ a dirty bomb. :rolleyes:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...hly-concerning

What's Putin playing at now? Is Russia preparing to launch a false flag operation? If so, to what ends?

This may a worst-case scenario, but if Russia is planning on employing tac-nukes in Ukraine, this "report" could be a cover story to explain increasing its troops' NBC threat readiness.

-

NATO-trained ex-Afghan army SOF are apparently being sent, by Iran, to fight for Russia in Ukraine.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ghan-army-boss

Would said Afghani troops be considered mercenaries?

-

Foreign fighters fighting on behalf of a different country. Are they being paid? If so, I'd say yes to mercenaries.

If the soldiers are there representing Iran, still being paid, then i'd say not mercenary.

Different argument now. I always thought of mercenaries as individuals being paid to fight. Not really in large groups, or sent by a country. Being sent by a country makes them "legit" fighters in my view rather than mercenary.

Hawk gets dusted off for Ukraine.
https://eurasiantimes.com/designed-t...aine-hawk/?amp

Interviews with recent Russian "mobilisation" conscripts suggest they're being issued rusty AKMs that have been poorly stored and in many cases won't fire, but that's a moot point anyway as apparently many of them aren't being issued 7.62 x 39 ammunition. What a total sh*tshow.

Given I have always been under the impression you could bury an AKM in mud and still fire it, this is world class neglect.

Neglect of untrained soldiers being sent into battle with no bullets? Or of the AKM?

Apologies for the poor taste in joke. Nobody here is laughing.

Russia adds former US allies to the mix.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...gn-in-ukraine/