A reader comment on “Further to ‘Divine Intervention” that merits wide exposure
One of the most gratifying aspects of publishing on a couple of internet platforms is the feedback I receive from readers, some of whom are clearly experts in fields germane to the topics about which I am writing. There are no universal geniuses. The reader comment that I quote extensively below is clearly by someone with an in-depth knowledge of war materiel, tactics and strategy, all of which I do not possess. My own contribution is in another domain: reporting on what the Russians are presenting to their nation on state television, on major news tickers, and putting it into a decades-long context of my own knowledge of Russia, both book learned and experiential as a frequent visitor and past long-time resident working in Russia.
In that capacity, I add to what is quoted below the observation that the use of heavy bombs which I said was coming in a new stage of the Russian way of war in Ukraine has now been evidenced by images in latest news both on Russian and Western television. The introduction of heavy bombs has not been called out as such, but the video images of the latest destruction of a town in Kharkov province near Kupiansk and other scenes from the front taken yesterday show that the 1.5 ton bombs are already at work, with both the positive and negative aspects of such warfare. The negative is greater civilian casualties.
Reader comment:
|
The FAB-1500 you mention is a standard aerial multipurpose bomb that has now been converted to a correctional (though not precision guided afaik) glide bomb, FAB-1500M-54. This was no small engineering feat. It had been initially designed with fins to counter rotation so it descends on nearly as vertical a line as possible. Modifications to glide it and also control it to a target makes it fearsome. This turns a rather cheap to produce item into a state of art weapon; an alternative to existing Russian (and American) specially designed analogues which are not cheap. The problem with offensive action is that nowadays movement can be quickly detected, more so if an amassed force, and very quickly in real time, precision fire directed, and destroyed. Innovations such as glide bombs provide a reasonably safe launch from outside of the known enemy air defense perimeter, then the glide path of the thing is controlled to hit an intended target. These are reasonably precise, not fully. The smaller 500 and 250’s are better at that. Used more as well. All of these are “multi purpose” bombs. Used to combine destructive radius, penetration and fragmentation, thus the multipurpose designation. These are used as anti personnel, on buildings, and armored equipment. Since the effective kill radius is about 200feet, and double that for its likely maiming potential, and a typical 20 ft deep cratering, it’s a battlefield weapon unless used specifically on a building target in an urban area. It’s going to create civilian carnage if used in any sort of multiples in the same zone. The really big bombs you referenced up to 9000kg (there’s a 5000 too) are again battlefield weapons, and also not precision guided. If used other scenario-wise, it’s a definite step away from the professed goal of limiting civilian casualties. I do not envision these being used. I’m not even sure they’ve been used since wwII. The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to destroy any particular bldg in kyiv, including Bankova tomorrow, it could. The game of warfare has changed, and since much of new innovations in weaponry and delivery systems are new, learning in the fly is happening. What we see of Russian strategy reflects well developed military strategy theories, but implementation of theory to effective “operational art” still a work in progress. However, with its experience in Syria coupled now to Ukraine, Russian theory, well known skill in forecasting future war motifs, and practical experience with modern systems, it makes Russia the most up to date and increasingly effective instrument of political will. It’s balance of strategy of destruction vs attrition (the blurring together of offensive and defensive activities) is what’s being witnessed everyday. The ability to strike anywhere beyond the line of contact to the farthest reaches of its enemies infrastructure and industry and command hq’s, is not indicative of mere attrition, and it’s well designed defensive echelons and fire zones allow it to destroy the enemy as it moves in the near rear of its lines. Together, it’s the most economical application of force, and safest. Preserving Russian personnel, equipment and biding time as it all the while revamps its force structure, it’s MIC capacity, and personnel under arms. I’d say this is a pretty interesting, if not amazing, accomplishment. All the western jive about a weak, corrupt or ill equipped military is nonsense. Western military analysts (not the popular media rent a generals) know what’s up, and it’s cause for concern, but managing the narrative is part of the modern game, so we still can read in The Sun about how Russia is nearly exhausted. To address the point about an impending Russian offensive misses the numerous such in the guise of “active defense”, as well as, the incredible offensive havoc conducted daily over the Ukrainian country. I wonder why put your personnel at risk, or your equipment, if what’s being done is working well. I’d say not until what fight Ukraine retains is clearly exhausted. Time is on Russia's side, and it shows no inclination to buy on western provocations to escalate. |