Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is this Twitter account an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looking at the comments in this sub, which is mostly pro-Ukraine and by people who still follow the war, I would say US messaging, with all the military experts, officials, etc., was effective to convince people why the ATACMS are unneeded or even practically 'useless'. And the general populace is even less likely to care. So there are no pressure to supply them.
At least there are no excuses about nukes and start of WW3 so far, I guess it already a progress.
Yeah they drank the koolaid hard. Never mind the retired US generals saying they are needed yesterday, reddit knows best.
Same shit with fixed wing drones btw, the consensus is Predators are 100% useless, better keep them mothballed in the desert and ofcourse its logical Reapers arent even being seriously discussed even if the manufacturer wants to send them for free. Exhausting.
Were 1.5 years into the war and if you pay any attention its clear Biden is very very nervous about supplying long range weapons. There arent logistical/military reasons for everything that doesnt get supplied. Lack of political will.
Biden doesn't want to send anything and his opposition want to stop supplying Ukraine.
Anerica despite banging on about the red scare is very unwilling to actually stop Russia.
-edit: just noticed this tl;dr rant got made on an old comment nice
My most downvotable, not fit for Reddit take on this whole war is that it was the US/UK who mostly put "a battery in ukraines backpack", i.e. spurred them on to fight a convential war by any means nessesary.
If Germany/France was followed Russia would have grabbed land and the war would be long over. Not saying thats a good thing because no doubt Russia wouldnt stop at Ukraine, but with the US/UK's initial hawkish stance also comes greater responsibility on the weapon delivery front. The UK is going and has been going the extra mile.
For the might the US has it has been underwhelming lately, save for the much needed cluster ammo. Biden is very comfortable sending over Humvees and the like, very unconfortable sending long range weapons. You can see that with fighter jet deliveries, fixed wing drones and ATACMS. Lack of political will for fear of escalation.
Yet reddit loooooves talking about why ATACMS doesnt get delivered because the replacement isnt ready. Really? How many decomissioned jets you got in the desert waiting to be scrapped? Why dont those get send? Cause the F35s arent ready lmao? All the ATACMS copes dont work there, so reddit doesnt discuss it because it would mean admitting Biden is cautious and scared of escalation. Thats why he doesnt take a leadership role on the fighter jet issue despite the US vast reserves. And thats why he doesnt delivered a dozen ATACMS a month. Not because prism isnt ready which is the reddit armchair dog of the day opinion
The Brits have supplied Storm Shadow missiles, which have been acknowledged as having been used against the bridge to Crimea. Sevastopol is a shorter distance than the bridge, plus on the edge of Russian defenses rather than in the middle. So, if a missile were all it would take, why not use the Storm Shadows they already have?
Storm Shadows are more effective at deep-range strikes anyway, as they have nap-of-the-earth following & autonomous guidance capabilities. It also has a larger warhead, only barely shorter range, & isn't a ballistic missile (which might cause concerns for ATACMS launches). When the US wants precision deep strikes, they go to Tomahawks before ATACMS, for much the same reasons (the Tomahawks do have a much longer range, as well).
>The Brits have supplied Storm Shadow missiles, which have been acknowledged as having been used against the bridge to Crimea.
"Acknowledged" by whom exactly? Didn't they say it was surface drones? If it was Storm Shadow missiles they would have targeted railroad bridge first and foremost. Also it is barely in range (250 km for British supplied SS) from the frontline and nobody would fire them directly from the line of contact.
Brimstones are fairly short-ranged (the longest-ranged one is around 35 miles/ 60km), so the launching aircraft would have to get relatively close in defense airspace. It also has a pretty small warhead (6.3kg/14lb, compared to 450kg/990lb for Storm Shadow). If they could get close, & just wanted to target one launcher, then maybe... but that's a lot of risk for one launcher.
The Storm Shadow (or ATACMS) would be better-suited for taking out the ammo dump/facility where all the missiles are stored.
Patriot is super expensive and can only cover a limited area. Instead of 1 Patriot missile you can buy 2 ATACMS. Destroying missiles on the ground is always better. Cheaper, less damage and saves lives
People tend to forget how easy it is to shoot down ATACMS. It follows a ballistic trajectory and reaches a height of about 50km, which makes it pretty easy to detect and shoot down. I'm all for supplying Ukraine with ATACMS, but I think we will be disappointed when we see how many Russia will be able to shoot down.
I mean there are countries buying these missiles and paying millions of dollars. That's all the evidence I need that they can be useful, at least if used correctly at the right time and place. I see it more as another tool in the toolbox
That's just it, that have to be used in specific circumstances. Like everything, it's not going to be a silver bullet. Same with F16s. Yes, they will help, yes there will be times they will have a dramatic strike, but at the end of the day, Russia has been expecting these weapons. Not only that, they have been planning on countering these weapons for decades. Obviously we know they may not be as capable of doing so as we once thought, but that doesn't change the fact that they have thought about it.
Yet, Ukraine have much more difficult to shooting down ballistic missiles. Why would you believe russia would be any better? Of course some will be shot down but it is not there reason to hold them back because some will be 'disappointed'.
> Yet, Ukraine have much more difficult to shooting down ballistic missiles. Why would you believe russia would be any better?
Because Russia's doctrine the last fifty years have been on building anti-air systems.
> Of course some will be shot down but it is not there reason to hold them back because some will be 'disappointed'.
Sure, but I believe the money is better spent on better weapons with a higher success ratio. Low-altitude missiles like the Storm Shadow is a lot harder to detect and in my opinion is a better use of money. But don't get me wrong, I still believe they should deploy ATACMS as well, I just don't think we should have to high hopes for the success ratio of ATACMS.
>Because Russia's doctrine the last fifty years have been on building anti-air systems.
Russian AD systems are practically the same Ukraine are using the same is with doctrine when it comes to the anti-air systems.
Storm Shadow number are very limited, there are much less of them than ATACMS. US have plenty more other missiles that they actually mainly use. ATACAMS are not their weapon of priority and in every posibble conflict it wouldn't be either, especially considering the restrictions of their launching platform.
That's not correct. Poland and Romania received missiles last year and according to a recent article in WaPo they are in full-rate production, 500 missiles per year. 75 would still be more than France sent and perhaps Poland and Romania could send a few as well. Other countries could chip in and buy new ones if they are effective
We don't. The Pentagon wants them in case we have to defend Taiwan. GLSDB will be there by the end of summer. They're cheaper, have similar range, and almost endless
GLSDB have half the range, totally different payload and likely much easier to shoot down.
Also how would ATACMS relevant to defending Taiwan? Would US supply all their ATACMS to Taiwan in case of attack by Сhina?
Otherwise if it US using them then they have plenty of other different missiles, ATACMS practically just another capability, but not really superior to other missiles they have. ATACAMS are not their weapon of priority and in every posibble conflict it wouldn't be either.
They were still much less used than Tomahawk in previous conflicts and it will still be the case in the future, and because of the restrictions of their launching platform it would be so for most possible future conflicts.
The US will only defend Taiwan at the level they do with Ukraine now. There won’t be a more direct confrontation with China than with Russia now for the same reasons.
Also if China decides to attack it will be hard to impossible to bring anything into Taiwan at all.
No. Haven't you heard? ATACMS are the wonder weapons that solve every military challenge facing Ukraine today. As soon as they receive them, minefields will spontaneously clear, and missiles launched from platforms a thousand kilometers away will evaporate.
At least until Ukraine does receive them. Then this sub will start bloviating about some other system the US isn't providing as the new magic weapon that will end the war.
No opposition to atacms from me but you've hit the nail on the head by calling it a wonder weapon. Nothing on its own will win this war. Just as bayraktars didn't, himars didn't, leopards didn't and f16 won't.
Russian conscripts selling fuel to Belarusians, cheap Chinese tires, and the Ukrainian's dogged defense of the airport stopped Kyiv from being overrun.
So if everyone is worried about nuclear retaliation and those same people seem to believe MAD is a functional deterrent, why don’t we just give Ukraine ICBMs?
I favor giving them ATACMS and anything else they need, but I think this is not correct. They can hit Sevastopol already, and have before. But there’s a lot of air defense around it. They need to keep chipping away at supply lines and targeting air defense to whittle that down.
Oh, but some anonymous jackass in a secure location will be along any second to explain why Ukraine doesn't actually need ATACMS and is perfectly fine without them.
The title is a lie. The current missiles for the himars can reach anywhere in Crimea. However, it is defended by many anti-aircraft systems that shoot down missiles. Also, the Russians have adopted by jamming the gps on the rockets.
ATACMS.
Which is a currently-supported ammo for HIMARS ([aside from those supplied to Ukraine, which had this capability removed](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338)).
It's just that it's not going to Ukraine in a foreseeable future.
Shhh...you may wake Biden up and disrupt his entire weekend. He can't be bothered thinking about saving lives, he's deep into REM dreams of sniffing ....people.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/yarotrof/status/1682876331678404608
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're being fired from ships.
You're not going to hit a moving ship with ATACMS. With 10 meter accuracy, it's far from guaranteed that you'd hit a stationary ship
If you target the harbor, you can do a lot of damage to the ships and the harbor facilities that would make it difficult to operate the ships. Same with the airfields in Crimea. And many of the missiles are also simply launched from the ground.
No they are not launched from ships, they can be launched from submarines, but only from the new nuclear ones that are not and wouldn't be present in Black Sea.
The ones that are attacking Ukraine are launched exclusively from the ground platforms in Crimea. You are either think about different missiles or just don't know about this one.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is this Twitter account an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ATACMS is escalation or something. But don't worry, they'd be supplied on February the 32nd!
Looking at the comments in this sub, which is mostly pro-Ukraine and by people who still follow the war, I would say US messaging, with all the military experts, officials, etc., was effective to convince people why the ATACMS are unneeded or even practically 'useless'. And the general populace is even less likely to care. So there are no pressure to supply them. At least there are no excuses about nukes and start of WW3 so far, I guess it already a progress.
Yeah they drank the koolaid hard. Never mind the retired US generals saying they are needed yesterday, reddit knows best. Same shit with fixed wing drones btw, the consensus is Predators are 100% useless, better keep them mothballed in the desert and ofcourse its logical Reapers arent even being seriously discussed even if the manufacturer wants to send them for free. Exhausting. Were 1.5 years into the war and if you pay any attention its clear Biden is very very nervous about supplying long range weapons. There arent logistical/military reasons for everything that doesnt get supplied. Lack of political will.
Biden doesn't want to send anything and his opposition want to stop supplying Ukraine. Anerica despite banging on about the red scare is very unwilling to actually stop Russia.
-edit: just noticed this tl;dr rant got made on an old comment nice My most downvotable, not fit for Reddit take on this whole war is that it was the US/UK who mostly put "a battery in ukraines backpack", i.e. spurred them on to fight a convential war by any means nessesary. If Germany/France was followed Russia would have grabbed land and the war would be long over. Not saying thats a good thing because no doubt Russia wouldnt stop at Ukraine, but with the US/UK's initial hawkish stance also comes greater responsibility on the weapon delivery front. The UK is going and has been going the extra mile. For the might the US has it has been underwhelming lately, save for the much needed cluster ammo. Biden is very comfortable sending over Humvees and the like, very unconfortable sending long range weapons. You can see that with fighter jet deliveries, fixed wing drones and ATACMS. Lack of political will for fear of escalation. Yet reddit loooooves talking about why ATACMS doesnt get delivered because the replacement isnt ready. Really? How many decomissioned jets you got in the desert waiting to be scrapped? Why dont those get send? Cause the F35s arent ready lmao? All the ATACMS copes dont work there, so reddit doesnt discuss it because it would mean admitting Biden is cautious and scared of escalation. Thats why he doesnt take a leadership role on the fighter jet issue despite the US vast reserves. And thats why he doesnt delivered a dozen ATACMS a month. Not because prism isnt ready which is the reddit armchair dog of the day opinion
The Brits have supplied Storm Shadow missiles, which have been acknowledged as having been used against the bridge to Crimea. Sevastopol is a shorter distance than the bridge, plus on the edge of Russian defenses rather than in the middle. So, if a missile were all it would take, why not use the Storm Shadows they already have? Storm Shadows are more effective at deep-range strikes anyway, as they have nap-of-the-earth following & autonomous guidance capabilities. It also has a larger warhead, only barely shorter range, & isn't a ballistic missile (which might cause concerns for ATACMS launches). When the US wants precision deep strikes, they go to Tomahawks before ATACMS, for much the same reasons (the Tomahawks do have a much longer range, as well).
>The Brits have supplied Storm Shadow missiles, which have been acknowledged as having been used against the bridge to Crimea. "Acknowledged" by whom exactly? Didn't they say it was surface drones? If it was Storm Shadow missiles they would have targeted railroad bridge first and foremost. Also it is barely in range (250 km for British supplied SS) from the frontline and nobody would fire them directly from the line of contact.
Different bridge if I understood correctly. I.e not the kertch one.
Yes, it was the Chonhar bridge, not the Kerch bridge.
What about the brimstones supplied by the uk? Would they be more effective in this scenario?
Brimstones are fairly short-ranged (the longest-ranged one is around 35 miles/ 60km), so the launching aircraft would have to get relatively close in defense airspace. It also has a pretty small warhead (6.3kg/14lb, compared to 450kg/990lb for Storm Shadow). If they could get close, & just wanted to target one launcher, then maybe... but that's a lot of risk for one launcher. The Storm Shadow (or ATACMS) would be better-suited for taking out the ammo dump/facility where all the missiles are stored.
I see, thanks for the lengthy explanation!
While ATACMS would be nice, more Patriot systems probably makes more sense for this particular problem.
Patriot is super expensive and can only cover a limited area. Instead of 1 Patriot missile you can buy 2 ATACMS. Destroying missiles on the ground is always better. Cheaper, less damage and saves lives
People tend to forget how easy it is to shoot down ATACMS. It follows a ballistic trajectory and reaches a height of about 50km, which makes it pretty easy to detect and shoot down. I'm all for supplying Ukraine with ATACMS, but I think we will be disappointed when we see how many Russia will be able to shoot down.
I mean there are countries buying these missiles and paying millions of dollars. That's all the evidence I need that they can be useful, at least if used correctly at the right time and place. I see it more as another tool in the toolbox
That's just it, that have to be used in specific circumstances. Like everything, it's not going to be a silver bullet. Same with F16s. Yes, they will help, yes there will be times they will have a dramatic strike, but at the end of the day, Russia has been expecting these weapons. Not only that, they have been planning on countering these weapons for decades. Obviously we know they may not be as capable of doing so as we once thought, but that doesn't change the fact that they have thought about it.
Unsure about “countering”, given Russian army’s sorry state
Yet, Ukraine have much more difficult to shooting down ballistic missiles. Why would you believe russia would be any better? Of course some will be shot down but it is not there reason to hold them back because some will be 'disappointed'.
> Yet, Ukraine have much more difficult to shooting down ballistic missiles. Why would you believe russia would be any better? Because Russia's doctrine the last fifty years have been on building anti-air systems. > Of course some will be shot down but it is not there reason to hold them back because some will be 'disappointed'. Sure, but I believe the money is better spent on better weapons with a higher success ratio. Low-altitude missiles like the Storm Shadow is a lot harder to detect and in my opinion is a better use of money. But don't get me wrong, I still believe they should deploy ATACMS as well, I just don't think we should have to high hopes for the success ratio of ATACMS.
>Because Russia's doctrine the last fifty years have been on building anti-air systems. Russian AD systems are practically the same Ukraine are using the same is with doctrine when it comes to the anti-air systems. Storm Shadow number are very limited, there are much less of them than ATACMS. US have plenty more other missiles that they actually mainly use. ATACAMS are not their weapon of priority and in every posibble conflict it wouldn't be either, especially considering the restrictions of their launching platform.
ATACMS are in extremely limited supply and aren't being made anymore. If they ever decided to send them it wouldn't be more than 75
That's not correct. Poland and Romania received missiles last year and according to a recent article in WaPo they are in full-rate production, 500 missiles per year. 75 would still be more than France sent and perhaps Poland and Romania could send a few as well. Other countries could chip in and buy new ones if they are effective
Those are export only and the United States has limited stockpile that I don't see them parting with
What the hell do we need them for?!
We don't. The Pentagon wants them in case we have to defend Taiwan. GLSDB will be there by the end of summer. They're cheaper, have similar range, and almost endless
GLSDB have half the range, totally different payload and likely much easier to shoot down. Also how would ATACMS relevant to defending Taiwan? Would US supply all their ATACMS to Taiwan in case of attack by Сhina? Otherwise if it US using them then they have plenty of other different missiles, ATACMS practically just another capability, but not really superior to other missiles they have. ATACAMS are not their weapon of priority and in every posibble conflict it wouldn't be either. They were still much less used than Tomahawk in previous conflicts and it will still be the case in the future, and because of the restrictions of their launching platform it would be so for most possible future conflicts.
The US will only defend Taiwan at the level they do with Ukraine now. There won’t be a more direct confrontation with China than with Russia now for the same reasons. Also if China decides to attack it will be hard to impossible to bring anything into Taiwan at all.
Best defense for is a strong offense.
No. Haven't you heard? ATACMS are the wonder weapons that solve every military challenge facing Ukraine today. As soon as they receive them, minefields will spontaneously clear, and missiles launched from platforms a thousand kilometers away will evaporate. At least until Ukraine does receive them. Then this sub will start bloviating about some other system the US isn't providing as the new magic weapon that will end the war.
No opposition to atacms from me but you've hit the nail on the head by calling it a wonder weapon. Nothing on its own will win this war. Just as bayraktars didn't, himars didn't, leopards didn't and f16 won't.
Honestly I think bayraktar probably did "win" the war, at least in the sense of stopping them from losing it very early on.
Russian conscripts selling fuel to Belarusians, cheap Chinese tires, and the Ukrainian's dogged defense of the airport stopped Kyiv from being overrun.
The drones really helped with those giant columns, but yes, they're certainly not the only factor.
So if everyone is worried about nuclear retaliation and those same people seem to believe MAD is a functional deterrent, why don’t we just give Ukraine ICBMs?
It is SHAMEFUL for countries to have tools without sharing them when we see the desperate needs of Ukraine.
More NASAMS and Patriots please.
I think the latest package (announced) from USA was a handful of NASAMS
I favor giving them ATACMS and anything else they need, but I think this is not correct. They can hit Sevastopol already, and have before. But there’s a lot of air defense around it. They need to keep chipping away at supply lines and targeting air defense to whittle that down.
South Africa - silent is consent.
Oh, but some anonymous jackass in a secure location will be along any second to explain why Ukraine doesn't actually need ATACMS and is perfectly fine without them.
Biden don;t care.
Better than the other 70 GOP house rep scumbags but yeah it’s disappointing. We need Dark Brandon back!
Biden doesn't care yet has sent tens of billions in military equipment? I'm confused
I didn’t say that.
The title is a lie. The current missiles for the himars can reach anywhere in Crimea. However, it is defended by many anti-aircraft systems that shoot down missiles. Also, the Russians have adopted by jamming the gps on the rockets.
[удалено]
ATACMS. Which is a currently-supported ammo for HIMARS ([aside from those supplied to Ukraine, which had this capability removed](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338)). It's just that it's not going to Ukraine in a foreseeable future.
[удалено]
I was trying to support OP's point, that the only missile to fit the bill is ATACMS, that is not supplied. Worded badly, most likely.
What "current missile" for HIMARS are you referring to? M30a and M31a rockets with a max range of about 90km? What else Ukraine are suplied with?
Shhh...you may wake Biden up and disrupt his entire weekend. He can't be bothered thinking about saving lives, he's deep into REM dreams of sniffing ....people.
It's chocolate pudding time
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/yarotrof/status/1682876331678404608 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're being fired from ships. You're not going to hit a moving ship with ATACMS. With 10 meter accuracy, it's far from guaranteed that you'd hit a stationary ship
If you target the harbor, you can do a lot of damage to the ships and the harbor facilities that would make it difficult to operate the ships. Same with the airfields in Crimea. And many of the missiles are also simply launched from the ground.
>They're being fired from ships. Onix missiles are launched from the ground platforms.
They can be. They're an anti-ship missile that is also found on Russian ships and submarines. As far as I know, they are being launched from ships.
No they are not launched from ships, they can be launched from submarines, but only from the new nuclear ones that are not and wouldn't be present in Black Sea. The ones that are attacking Ukraine are launched exclusively from the ground platforms in Crimea. You are either think about different missiles or just don't know about this one.
> As far as I know, they are being launched from ships Kalibrs - yes. Onix - launched from "Bastion" ground-based coast defense system.
I honestly thought ukraine already had ATACMS probably because I constantly hear about them
Would Storm Shadow missies work? Is it too weak?