"ATACMS shred Russian helicopters" Topic

Ukraine has used US-supplied long-range missiles for the first time, President Volodymyr Zelensky has said.

His comments follow reports the weapons, known as ATACMS, destroyed nine helicopters at Russian bases in the east of the country. Ukraine has not confirmed the missiles were used…

BBC: link

There are helicopters which are obviously knocked out in satellite images, but others which look OK but probably have shrapnel damage.

The ATACMS have the range to deny helicopters safe bases in range of the front lines; the cluster munitions are excellent against aircraft stored on the tarmac.

I find it odd, based on my youth in the 80s, that in a major war in 2023 a loss of 9 helicopters is considered significant. When I was a kid, then a Marine, we expected losses like that every hour.

In the 1980s?

Might think of it in replacement cost in rubles, which may be harder to come by; or ease of replacement if production lines have been shut down. In any case a positive result.

There's a photo going around of one of the supposedly operational Ka-52s (i.e., not burned up on the airfield), and it has dozens of shrapnel hits. And confirms that the cockpit glass is not bulletproof, at least not from the sides.

There are supposedly 196 Ka-52s produced, and 49 confirmed killed.

I do not think many units can sustain losing 9 helis regularly. It would gut a unit very very fast.

The intel says Russia lost altogether 21 helis in the two airfields. That is quite alot. But more importantly Russia cannot/should not use those airfields any longer. If they do they will get hit again, and again and again.

They need to based further away, and that means longer flight times to reach the combat zone (and shorter time there) limiting their effectiveness. Also the response time becomes longer.

I graduated high school in '86, and joined the Marines in '88. If things went hot we expected major combat with major losses.

Dn Jackson- that definitely was prevailing view at the time, both West and East.
I don't think that view was wrong exactly, but it was somewhat exaggerated because the models used (especially by the Soviets) assumed that the logistics fairy would somehow ensure that everyone was constantly able to perform combat actions at maximum intensity.
The West did used to fret that its combat supply inventory wasn't big enough (it probably wasn't), but actually the biggest problem for both both sides in 'General War' would have been getting the inventory to the troops.
Generally speaking the Sovs and WP had bigger inventory but struggled to leverage that because of incompetent logistics, wasteful fireplans etc. NATO forces had smaller inventory but were more careful and efficient using it.
But almost certainly, both sides would have hit regular logistic speedbumps that would prevent combat being maintained at its theoretical maximum intensity- as they are finding in Ukraine.
That's my tuppence worth anyway.

link

"as confirmed by the (Russian) Ministry of Defense" (The same source that told us, and doubtless Ned believed that they had destroyed more MBTs than the Ukrainians ever had).

Ah so it must be true, we're doomed, the Russians tell us and Ned Ludd believes everything that they tell him!

Tally Ho!

Forbes does say Ukraine lost seven aircraft…..

total for 2023 link

The Eurasian Times is quoting the Russian MOD report.

link

Oryx lists total confirmed losses since the start of the war for planes, helicopters, and drones

link

Williamb, oh yes this year! A report put up by Ned in reply to the destruction of 21 helicopters in one day.

Tally Ho!

Dn Jackson, we expected rapid losses like that, but on the other hand, we expected the war to last a week or two.

After every war, we assume the next one will be just like the last. Late Cold War assumptions were taken from the 73 war between Israel and the Arabs.

Ukraine is different. Neither side can get air superiority. But drone coverage gives such an edge to artillery that massing for an attack is suicidal. If an attack succeeds, neither side has logistics or follow on forces to sustain momentum. So it's a slow war of limited moves.