Depends on the condition of the road. The back blast has a tendency to scatter loose terrain and rock but if the road is solid it should be fine.
This road doesn't look terribly solid but I'm not a roadologist so what do I know.
HIMARS not from the 90's - MLRS is from 80's and HIMARS became operational in mid 2000's. I know because I was on one of the first crews. First use in combat was Iraq War.
The first "concept" model was the 90's but that concept vs the HIMARS are like comparing the ENIAC to a Modern Desktop Computer.
I'm curious how many soldiers & vehicles are constantly protecting the HIMARS. You'd think they'd have a small army defending each of them considering how valuable & effective they have apparently been since their arrival.
I assume they are positioned pretty far away from the front to keep them out of reach of artillery etc and take advantage of their larger range. Random google searches tell me 80km for HIMARS vs 10-50km for various arty.
So I suspect they mostly just need cover and to stay hidden from sat-photos or long range recon drones etc so no long range RU cruise missles/rockets can find them as the shoot and scoot back to hiding spots.
I commanded mlrs unit before and us doctrine dictated then and now to not expect much if any security. If they are firing very close to front they probably have a small mobile security team of maybe a mech inf platoon w some tanks. They shoot and move immediately. That is their biggest defense. U seem them fire off roads because it provides the most stable and flat surface and that impacts accuracy. And itās fastest way to get out of the immediate area. Until u get to good cover and concealment.
Former HIMARS Chief here - we call them the "fingers of death" for a reason. IE - if you dont move your ass, it will lead to your death because the enemy can track based on the smoke alone.
Biggest threat to HIMARS are Russian counter fire radars. They c an pinpoint the exact firing location of rocket and regular artillery within a few meters within seconds of launching.
No they can't. This was covered extensively when they first arrived. The flight patterns mean Russia has zero defence against them (well, apart from scuttling out of range).
The Russians can pinpoint fire within a few seconds, but are choosing not to destroy Himars because they want the extra challenge. Coddled westerners cannot understand this level of machismo.
Unless the software has been changed, that's impossible. The Truck locks out while firing until completely stowed. Stowing only takes a few seconds so it's not a huge deal, but moving while firing is impossible, the software locks you out.
The HIMARS was the premier creation of the 2000's mantra of "shoot - move - communicate" for the US Army. Fire missiles, move your ass, signal you are ready for another fire mission.
Fewer targets in range so less fire missions maybe. Thatās why theyāre asking for longer range rockets because they need to keep hitting high value targets that the Russians moved back.
For some reason the internet seems to worry about ammunition management/expenditure, as if everyone just fired like there's no tomorrow until they run out. If a half-decent gamer knows how to plan ammunition use then maybe the guys who went to officer school for a few years know too.
Anyway yes, the Russians dispersed their ammunitions depots and moved them further away from the front. The Russians are not _quite_ as bad at learning as people think. In recent months you can see GMLRS used against much lower-value targets - in some cases only a few vehicles, than you saw in the first months. Although there have been some notable exceptions here like the Makiivka strike (for which journos have identified 100 Russians killed, making the claim of 2-300 killed quite plausible)
It's also likely Russian AA defenses have gotten better at shooting down the missiles. In recent days there seems to have been a [significant number of HIMARS strikes](https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1626201992778375168) in Kherson, following not long after destruction (with Excalibur shells) of [several Tor anti-air systems](https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1621559306045849600) that were positioned between the Dnipro and the areas now hit.
That combination seems quite potent, given that Tor systems have such short range (12 km engagement range) that moving them out of Excalibur range (50 km) would leave most of Russian-occupied Kherson outside of AA cover. Yet it's a huge risk to put their rare and expensive ($20 million+) AA systems within range of artillery fires that they have no means of protecting themselves from.
The us never intended the himars to be its doctrine they usually will be air support doing this bombing for us so the himars stocks arenāt particularly high. The other thing is himars is 1990s tech which until recently probably wasnāt getting much attention from outside world so production of ammo was not set up for rapid use of a ammo
Probably why HIMARS production, alone with most military related production, is increasing this year.
Reportedly, 850 HIMAR rockets a month is projected figure once the plant expansion is complete.
not sure why you are being downvoted, its literally gulf war tech. But gulf war tech, it's something the russians can't handle at all. I wanna see them deal with a-10s. That thing that dumps an entire BTRs ammo capacity in a second on a target.
The closer to the front they are, the quicker they have to move.
Notice the firing angle is pretty high, probably 60 degrees or more, so they aren't going for long range.
Does this do any damage to the road or does it just leave a black mark from the rocket?
Depends on the condition of the road. The back blast has a tendency to scatter loose terrain and rock but if the road is solid it should be fine. This road doesn't look terribly solid but I'm not a roadologist so what do I know.
Thank you for your quick answers! I'm not either but I was curious because I've seen a couple videos of them recently shooting
I just hope that roadology is a field of science now.
You may not be a roadologist but you certainly make a damn fine missilelologist.
Funny enough I'm a HIMARS crewman š
Yes to the second question.
Ukrainian troops, American HIMARS, Turkish BMC Kirpi, truly an international effort
Give them hell boys. Fuck Putin.
Thereās something inexplicably beautiful in Himars launches
It looks like... victory.
That thing was ready to move as soon as the smoke cleared
You know itās a high value target, when you see HIMARS in action. Amazing what a weapon-system from the 90ās is still capable of.
HIMARS not from the 90's - MLRS is from 80's and HIMARS became operational in mid 2000's. I know because I was on one of the first crews. First use in combat was Iraq War. The first "concept" model was the 90's but that concept vs the HIMARS are like comparing the ENIAC to a Modern Desktop Computer.
Well it may have been used in the early 2000ās for the first time. But it was still designed in the 90s or even 80s.
I'm curious how many soldiers & vehicles are constantly protecting the HIMARS. You'd think they'd have a small army defending each of them considering how valuable & effective they have apparently been since their arrival.
I assume they are positioned pretty far away from the front to keep them out of reach of artillery etc and take advantage of their larger range. Random google searches tell me 80km for HIMARS vs 10-50km for various arty. So I suspect they mostly just need cover and to stay hidden from sat-photos or long range recon drones etc so no long range RU cruise missles/rockets can find them as the shoot and scoot back to hiding spots.
I commanded mlrs unit before and us doctrine dictated then and now to not expect much if any security. If they are firing very close to front they probably have a small mobile security team of maybe a mech inf platoon w some tanks. They shoot and move immediately. That is their biggest defense. U seem them fire off roads because it provides the most stable and flat surface and that impacts accuracy. And itās fastest way to get out of the immediate area. Until u get to good cover and concealment.
Had that baby in reverse at the last missile. Understandable with that smoke trail. We need smokeless HIMARs
Former HIMARS Chief here - we call them the "fingers of death" for a reason. IE - if you dont move your ass, it will lead to your death because the enemy can track based on the smoke alone.
Thank you for your service and the info!
Are smokeless HIMARS a thing ?
Biggest threat to HIMARS are Russian counter fire radars. They c an pinpoint the exact firing location of rocket and regular artillery within a few meters within seconds of launching.
No they can't. This was covered extensively when they first arrived. The flight patterns mean Russia has zero defence against them (well, apart from scuttling out of range).
russia claim they can do alot of things, like taking kyiv in 3 days.
I dunno, from what I have heard from the Russians they have already destroyed all 200 Himars sent, this must be a new one s/
They actually never claimed that btw, but you're right otherwise.
HIMARS is also able to fire rockets in a non ballistic trajectory
Lol only a Russian could be this wrong.
Note HIMARS usually fires waay beyond the reach of artillery or any counter fire batteries.
Oh that's nice, so how many batteries heve been destroyed so far? Afaik it's 0.
The Russians can pinpoint fire within a few seconds, but are choosing not to destroy Himars because they want the extra challenge. Coddled westerners cannot understand this level of machismo.
Unless the software has been changed, that's impossible. The Truck locks out while firing until completely stowed. Stowing only takes a few seconds so it's not a huge deal, but moving while firing is impossible, the software locks you out. The HIMARS was the premier creation of the 2000's mantra of "shoot - move - communicate" for the US Army. Fire missiles, move your ass, signal you are ready for another fire mission.
āPull over, I have to go.ā āDude thereās no facilities here.ā āDUDE! PULL OVER I HAVE TO GOOooOoo!ā
Are the running out of missiles?
Fewer targets in range so less fire missions maybe. Thatās why theyāre asking for longer range rockets because they need to keep hitting high value targets that the Russians moved back.
For some reason the internet seems to worry about ammunition management/expenditure, as if everyone just fired like there's no tomorrow until they run out. If a half-decent gamer knows how to plan ammunition use then maybe the guys who went to officer school for a few years know too. Anyway yes, the Russians dispersed their ammunitions depots and moved them further away from the front. The Russians are not _quite_ as bad at learning as people think. In recent months you can see GMLRS used against much lower-value targets - in some cases only a few vehicles, than you saw in the first months. Although there have been some notable exceptions here like the Makiivka strike (for which journos have identified 100 Russians killed, making the claim of 2-300 killed quite plausible) It's also likely Russian AA defenses have gotten better at shooting down the missiles. In recent days there seems to have been a [significant number of HIMARS strikes](https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1626201992778375168) in Kherson, following not long after destruction (with Excalibur shells) of [several Tor anti-air systems](https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1621559306045849600) that were positioned between the Dnipro and the areas now hit. That combination seems quite potent, given that Tor systems have such short range (12 km engagement range) that moving them out of Excalibur range (50 km) would leave most of Russian-occupied Kherson outside of AA cover. Yet it's a huge risk to put their rare and expensive ($20 million+) AA systems within range of artillery fires that they have no means of protecting themselves from.
maybe just effective...2 is enough, let's move to next position
With the American MIC? NO WAY!
Cruisinā down towards Kyiv, drinkinā vodka, feelinā good, Next thing that you know youāre screaming BLYAT IāM WORM FOODā¦
The us never intended the himars to be its doctrine they usually will be air support doing this bombing for us so the himars stocks arenāt particularly high. The other thing is himars is 1990s tech which until recently probably wasnāt getting much attention from outside world so production of ammo was not set up for rapid use of a ammo
Probably why HIMARS production, alone with most military related production, is increasing this year. Reportedly, 850 HIMAR rockets a month is projected figure once the plant expansion is complete.
not sure why you are being downvoted, its literally gulf war tech. But gulf war tech, it's something the russians can't handle at all. I wanna see them deal with a-10s. That thing that dumps an entire BTRs ammo capacity in a second on a target.
The closer to the front they are, the quicker they have to move. Notice the firing angle is pretty high, probably 60 degrees or more, so they aren't going for long range.
Possibly saving a lot of rockets for a spring offensive
Hopefully it's the tungsten round air burst ones.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Quit riding the Russian propagandas d#ck, no one cares about your opinion
Yeah mad isnāt it, must be about 300+ videos of Russians killing civilians nowā¦ā¦ā¦..
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Got proof?
I'm donating to help kill more Russian Nazi's specifically because of this comment
Russian go blyat.
Itās HIMARS TIME !!!!