• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon.

    The issue is with the volumes of these systems. 12 missile launchers aren’t going to make a significant difference in the war. Russia has hundreds of comparable systems with satellite/drone targeting. Furthermore, HIMARS are meant to be used as part of a combined arms force. US and Russia integrate these systems with things like air support, artillery and so on. This is what allows them to be effective. If you just roll it out on the battlefield all on its own, then it’s not going to last long. There are already reports that Russia destroyed anywhere from 2-4 of the HIMARS shipped to Ukraine.

    As you point out, Russian air defence is also able to intercept these. Ukraine demonstrated that they can get some through by doing saturation fire, but that depletes their stocks of ammunition very quickly.

    In my opinion, HIMARS are just cover for the fact that the west is unable to supply Ukraine with enough heavy weapons and ammunition. They’re being sold as a game changer the same way M777s were, but in practice it’s just a distraction. This is primarily an artillery war, and Russia has massive superiority in their artillery capability.

    • basiliscos@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      I completely agree with you, that HIMARS in the current amounts cannot play game changing role.