this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
148 points (99.3% liked)

Ukraine

8235 readers
747 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fucking finally. This is the exact type of thing Ukraine needs. Make sure any large ammo dump or command post within 300km of the front line ceases to exist.

Hopefully they allow Ukraine to use them against military targets in Russia as well, but, that's probably too hopeful.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Even if they don't, every one of these used more locally frees up usage of what limited stock they do have of things that can reach further.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's embarrassing it took this long. These could have taken out the KA-52s that have been a key part of stopping Ukraine's offensive.

[–] ours@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How so? These ground attack missiles.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Ya, hit them on the pad.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Please tell me that's pronounced "Attack-ems"

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah it is

us weapon system names always seem to be jokes

e.g., the AT-4 launcher is called AT-4 because the projectile it fires is an 84mm rocket, and AT-4 sounds like 84

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

us weapon system names always seem to be jokes

e.g., the AT-4 launcher

AT-4 isn't a US weapon. Its Swedish.

[–] DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It 100% is.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was actually a backronym

[–] VanRijn29@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

It always was

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They should've been sent last year

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They need to wait until after ammo depots within 200km of the line and the Crimean bridge disappears, then announce it as "Oh yeah, we sent ATACMS last week"...

[–] Chup@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

The ATACMS should have the same problem with bridges as M270/HIMARS and SCALP/Storm Shadow. They hit the road surface, punch a hole and the explosions happens below in the open.

It might be the best if Ukraine continues their efforts with their own developments e.g. via water, as they can easily damage the pillars and foundation of the bridge. Or even lift and destroy a whole bridge segment between two pillars, as we have seen in the past.

The ATACMS will certainly be of big use for storages and hubs far behind the front lines. But as the article writes: "It could be months before Ukraine receives the missiles, according to the official."

Besides ATACMS delivery, the USA will also have to maintain their HIMARS launcher, as they were altered before delivery to be unable to launch ATACMS (source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-altered-himars-rocket-launchers-to-keep-ukraine-from-firing-missiles-into-russia-11670214338). But maybe a simple software update can be installed? There were no details mentioned how the launchers were modified.

[–] totallynotarobot@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Excellent news, though the thumbnail makes it look like they're going to be "sent" by launching them.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gotten my hopes up too many times. Just fucking send them already.