icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 15,532
Harpoon's require infrastructure and highly technical support, none of which the Ukrainians have. It also appears that the Ukrainians are doing quite well with the drones etc. forcing the Russians to keep their ships at stand-off distance. The Russians already have a well established beach head (and always did) via the Crimean peninsula. Because of that presence I've discounted anti-naval operations as being terribly significant.
Had they been deployed as shore batteries back in october of last year I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians could overcome the technical aspect with a little training. If they can handle 300s and 400s they can handle the older versions of harpoons. Having them in place could have stopped all that equipment from making land in the first place. Like any complex piece of equipment where you you deploy it and how you deploy it requires a strategic evaluation of its combat relevancy and can it be a force multiplier. Just the threat of its existence would cause Russian ships to park outside the missile's operational range. Lot's of combat vehicles would have been denied access to black sea ports. I'm not sure what drones you speak of but the last update I saw those Russian ships are lobbing rounds
The Ukrainians being able to sink that supply ship is much more significant than launching Harpoons against warships. The Russians have to bring those supply ships to docks in order to supply their troops. The Ukrainians are, quite successfully, attacking the Russian logistic trains. All the strategy in the world is worthless if your troops don't have beans and bullets.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03...ato-could-send-anti-ship-missiles-to-ukraine/
Had they been deployed as shore batteries back in october of last year I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians could overcome the technical aspect with a little training. If they can handle 300s and 400s they can handle the older versions of harpoons. Having them in place could have stopped all that equipment from making land in the first place. Like any complex piece of equipment where you you deploy it and how you deploy it requires a strategic evaluation of its combat relevancy and can it be a force multiplier. Just the threat of its existence would cause Russian ships to park outside the missile's operational range. Lot's of combat vehicles would have been denied access to black sea ports.
Ukrainian military sinking that Russian transport ship at the dock in the port of Berdyansk is on the sea of Azov. Quite a blow to Russian invasion plans in a Russian controlled area, certainly puts a damper on Russian plans to continue its use. My point is putting land based Harpoons on the shore of the Black sea stopping Russian naval guns from bombarding coastal cities, keeping Russian ships out of range, is currently being considered. Should have done it back in October.The Ukrainians being able to sink that supply ship is much more significant than launching Harpoons against warships. The Russians have to bring those supply ships to docks in order to supply their troops. The Ukrainians are, quite successfully, attacking the Russian logistic trains. All the strategy in the world is worthless if your troops don't have beans and bullets.
They are doing a good job at attacking Russian supply line and keeping their lines open.
Last edited: