this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
276 points (96.3% liked)

World News

38554 readers
2675 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Ukrainian forces took out more than 100 Russian soldiers with an ATACMS missile, per OSINT analysts.
  • Four ATACMS were used to target the group, one analyst said.
  • The soldiers would have been out of reach of Ukraine's shorter-range ATACMS missiles.

A Ukrainian ATACMS long-range missile strike killed more than 100 Russian soldiers in an occupied region 50 miles from the front line, according to OSINT and military analysts.

Ukrainian forces targeted a Russian military training area some 50 miles behind the front line in the occupied Luhansk Oblast in eastern Ukraine, per an assessment by The Institute for the Study of War.

According to two aerial geolocated videos posted on Wednesday by X user Osinttechnical, an account affiliated with the Centre for Naval Analyses, Ukraine appeared to strike the training area with three US-supplied M39 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I really hope we’re giving them Block 1A or later, because those have a max range of 170-186 miles, which is juuuuuust enough to reach the Kerch bridge from behind the front of battle.

[–] Lewo@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Trying to demolish a capital structure like a bridge with rockets would be incredibly wasteful, they're better spent for precision strikes on ammo depots, airports, vehicle storage, etc. The payload of the long-range ATACMS is only 214kg, somewhat on par with the FAB-500 bomb, which carries around 200kg with stated TNT equivalent of about 300kg. The truck explosion on that bridge last year was estimated at around 10 tons TNT equivalent, it barely shifted a couple slabs, and was fixed within weeks.

Using sea drones to take out supports might be a better idea, they're at least considerably cheaper.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Has anyone built a sea drone that can fire thomahawks yet? There’s a different variant for every conceivable purpose, they could do a LOT of damage that way and then aim the drone at a nearby ship or port to self destruct

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 4 months ago

Having barely gotten a whiff of what DARPA does, absolutely yes

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What’s the significance e of the Kerch bridge

[–] CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Kerch bridge

only land bridge from actual Russia to Crimea - isolates Crimea from support/reinforcements & supplies

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It’s less critical now, but Kerch is still a very valuable supply artery that doesn’t have to go through the Donbas and the higher risk of Ukrainian strikes.

It’s one of Russia’s main supply arteries into Ukraine. They built it after they invaded Crimea back in 2014.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You want to move the most expensive western missiles into range of the cheapest Russian artillery?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh, you’re right. Wouldn’t want to use any of that nice military hardware - OPFOR might scratch it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ideally, you use the very expensive long range artillery at long range.

You don't run it right up to the front line so the opposition can hit it with a big rock fired out of a catapult that costs a fraction as much.

I mean, yeah, ideally, but war is anything and everything but ideal. Even moreso when your logistics are as constrained and inconsistent as what Ukraine’s been dealing with for the last 6-8 months due to political fuckery.