Go to ground.news/covertcabal to understand how different perspectives shape our worldview. Save 40% on the Ground News unlimited access Vantage plan with my link
Still milking the fantasy that open-air storages is the totality of storages. Ukraine’s Syrsky reports RU now has more artillery, tanks and MRLS than ever all while this channel makes those ridiculous videos on how RU is running out of everything. Year after year. And it never comes.
@@twplayer1999 tge Issue it never happens because RU is not really running out of anything. Production has drastically increased, RU added 700K workers to the medal on industry, which now totals 3.7M
I still can't believe some random guy with a bit of cash can simply order satellite images from basically every place imaginable and can do the job of a NRO-analyst with image-quality that would have most cold warriors drool with envy.
I'm an old dude and am a bit future shocked by the rapid advance of tech, especially in the last 5 years. AI, drones, precision weapons. Oh, and advances in medicine.
What I cant believe m, is that Russia, knowing very well about the capabilities of satellites these days, still stores it's critically important ordnance just straight in a bare field, just exposed to the wide world to see... Like at least build a shed above the equipment?! 👀 Or just put A MOTOFUKIN TARP OVER THE STUFF!!! This is just ridiculous bro 😖😂😂
@@Lock484 yeah, fields of tarp tents would be absolutely not suspicious 😅 Russia hides high priority equipment from satellites and that's TELs for ICBMs and SAMs and planes. If they would hide everything, the amount of effort to hide would outrun any benefit of enemy not knowing about the equipment.
"The TOS-1 is actually a flamethrower" - lol. Yea, the name mean "Heavy Flamethrower System" and officially russians call it that way... but it does not change a fact that it IS MLRS. It fire rocket (multiple at at the time) with thermobaric warhead, not a jet of flames like flamethrower.
But TOS-1 is not a MLRS artillery due to its incredibly short effective range. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to include them on the calculations anyway since all the other's are actual MLRS artillery systems.
Tremendous work by the open-source community. Would be interesting to get a sense for how many taken from storage are due to creation of new MLRS units, how many due to attrition and how many due to wear-and-tear. In principle, MLRS trucks and tubes seem like they would be relatively inexpensive to manufacture.
they are pretty easy to build especially when your country prepared for WW3 for decades, they are just restarting new factories, modernizing them and building more modern stuff in there
You can get an idea of how many where lost by looking at independent sources that collect data on this. For the rest it is mostly guess work where they are going. One thing this does show, where ever they where going, the supply is at the end now and they will have to mostly do with what they have and what is lost can no longer be replaced.
@@AgentK-im8ke If Russia prepared for decades they didn't do a good job, their new factories are similar to old soviet factories or worse being of poor quality and low inefficient production, that's if they can get the manpower to run them!?!
@@AgentK-im8ke except they are not nothing really point to them modernizing anything but sending it directly to the frontline, and they are not making any modern stuff
@@AgentK-im8ke: Russia/USSR never demobilized after the cold war was over. They just put everything in storage. 9000 tanks alone including T-54/55s. Russia/USSR is and always has been an aggressive country with their eyes always fixed on conquest.
Isn't the problem with Soviet/Russian rocket artillery that the individual rockets are packed in wooden crates. Before they can fire them each rocket has to be removed from its crate then individually loaded into a launch tube. Western systems have the rockets, however many the launch vehicle fires, fired directly from their storage container. So instead of loading 40, or however many, rockets into tubes the west just has a magazine of rockets loaded onto the launcher and fires it.
The Czech RM-70 was one of the only Warsaw Pact MLRS to try to speed up reloading. It was a BM-21 style 40 tube 122mm launcher, but had 40 rounds of reloads in a rack in the middle of the truck. The launcher could be aligned with the rack, allowing the rockets to be easily fed into it. While not palletized like the M270/M142, it did substantially speed up at least the first reload.
It's not a problem if you have millions of rockets in crates against a hundred thousand in pods. So both sides fire millions of rockets from ex-soviet platforms because both launchers and rockets are cheap and available and there's so much less pod-based systems from both sides.
@@Daoklit is a massive problem. Someone has to stack those crates at armouries. More people have to hand load them onto transport. More people have to unload them to be distributed. More people have to load them up and then they need to be unloaded at the final point. Then each crate has to be opened and the rocket hand loaded. Literally hundreds of man hours that a forklift and modern logistics could do 100 times quicker with 10x fewer people.
@@Daoklthere is a massive difference between handloading a dozen 220mm rockets with several hundred kilos weight each from individual crates per launcher and having the launcher vehicle extend a loading crane, drop off the emptied launch tube container and loading a fresh one. The difference is like handloading an ak47 magazine after you fired your 30 rounds to switching to a Read and full magazine. M270 and m142 take less than 1/10 the time to reload and can be reloaded by a single person. Prepared pods are easier to transport and are easier to logistics, meaning you lessen the burdon on your logistics train from the depot to the front.
@@cathulhu-q7y everything has a special loading vehicle, so you can handload them, but generally (from 220 and up) don't have to. You can lose some loading vehicles, but one can handle a few mlrs, since they don't fire near ammo depots so while they travel you reset loading vehicle. Sure pod is faster, but you have to have special crane in each vehicle, so they cost more, like a lot. Same with pods, they have more volume per missile, much more expensive and have to be loaded/unloaded by special equipment at each leg. You think one missile is heavy, try to move a pod from a truck to a van by hand (since your loader is smoking pile of rubble). So in one depot or train you'd have a lot more individual rockets and all you need to move them is some idle hands. So you can shot your 5 preloaded magazines faster, but in this case your opponent would have more rifles and much more ammo. So either you will fire less to conserve it or fire everything fast and then sit and take their fire. This is why only guided munitions are made for himars and Ukraine only been given 50 or so launchers, not 500. And what you have in pod is what you have to launch - there's a lot more variety in rockets for soviet mlrs - flame, thermo, mines, auto-targeting submunitions, etc - whatever fits, even uav's. But most recent russian mlrs does use pods (one they adopted a few decades ago didn't stick), one before that has loading crane on it, so maybe they finally seen the light.
It’s a manpower intensive job. Russian logistics in general are not great. It’s a bit who needs forklifts when we have men. I suppose one positive is they won’t run out of fire wood
It is the exact opposite. They are very easy to hide as opposed to large pods. All you really have to do is find some wood or a barn or even just a large enough garage to hide in, and you can load at leisure.
@@viandengalacticspaceyards5135 It is what they call the containers in which the rockets and missiles are loaded in. Essentially, instead of loading every tube with munitions, some systems directly install new ones, usually with a crane.
@@Warren_Peace you can use a drops pallet to unload a M270 rocket pod from a truck in under a minute. The rocket launcher then uses its in built crane to unload and load the complete pod. It can be done by 1 truck driver and the 3 crew of the M270 Versus hand moving everything 1 at a time. Opening all the crates individually. Every forces that has used both systems prefers the ease of the M270
According to Juzzie There are 1223 MLRS systems destroyed since early 2022. Assuming "pre war" Russia had 1000 such systems in the lining-up for the war (including new builds and repairs that were started already) and assuming the 1474 listed here as pre was storage are not included in that number, Russia would have had a total number of 2474 MLRS systems pre war and would have some 1251 units left in total including the ones in storage. This said the number in usage would have shrunk from more than 1000 in early 2024 to some 912 units. Representing a loss rate of 10% in 6 Months or 20 % in a year. This would suggest the reduction on storage since pre war is merely representing the backfills of losses. In other words, one could expect the storage be more or less fully depleted in 1 year from now.
That there are already vids of Russian improvised MLRS presumably means it's already having a tough time finding a sufficient number. You don't improvise unless there's a problem getting the standard stuff.
@@cv990a4 However you have to be careful what conclusions are drawn here. By that I mean that if they can't find enough systems to fit all new formations, it's not the same as trying to sustain existing ones. Basically they'll start fielding improvised systems before they reach the peak in total active systems, before they even start declining.
@@cv990a4not necessarily this is Russia we are talking about their logistics are terrible, improvising might mean they can't get the available systems to the front not necessarily they don't exist. (Though if I was betting they don't exist) However a similar problem happened for Russia with food in WW1 people in Petrograd were starving to death while boats full of grain for export in the black sea sat there so long the grain spoiled.
🤔 I'm not following your math... If the numbers in storage have gone down faster than the number destroyed, then the numbers in use should have gone up.
77% taken out of storage in 32 months means it'll be less than 10 months before anything usable is taken out of storage, after which they'll face more problems, that means August 2025. So MLRS is another type of weapon/vehicle you put on the increasingly long list that Russia will have a severe shortage of before the end of 2025.
Probably slightly earlier as some systems are beyond reasonable repair. Some may have been raised for spare parts to repair the others also. The real question is how many are now in service. Ukraine has destroyed a lot but it's possible the number in service has also been increasing. Less an issue with MLRS which dont wear out their barrels than with standard artilary where the barrel is only good for a certain number of shots before it wears.
TOS is not a "flamethrower", but a heavy MLRS with thermobaric warheads. The confusion comes from the fact that thermobaric weapons are reffered as "flamethrowers" by Russia, but they really aren't.
We're still talking a short-range (a mere 4 km), specialized weapon that does not really fit the role of MLRS proper. So leaving it out of this count makes good sense.
TOS is a very specialized tool. Yes it shoots rockets but if this is the logic then ships are MLRS and Helicopters can be MLRS too. The army that produced the system decided that it can't fit the same role of other things they classify as MLRS so it was never part of any artillery group/force. Some tanks can do indirect fire - but they are not classified as an artillery, some plains drop bombs but are not bombers. If you want to think of it as an MLRS - you are free to do so.
Most militaries would classify these kinds of systems alongside flamethrowers and they're generally operated by engineering units. This isn't really unique to Russia as flame weapons are just generally considered a unique type of weapon meant for specialized tasks.
If we classify this thing as an MLRS system then anyone who has launched multiple bottle rockets has used a multiple launch rocket system. So I don't know if I'd go down that road personally. Also, it has a range of 10 km which is basically nothing when we're talking about a modern battlefield
@cubefreak123 True that. We tend to notice systems being destroyed because it's spectacular but it's amazing how much stuff and people a military will burn though just *operating*.
@cubefreak123Yea I remember that one clip going around of them trying to hammer a missle into the launcher using an ammo crate. Between the operators and barrel wear I'd bet that's why the few systems they saw missing the rocket pods were like that.
Russian production of armored vehicles is heavily weighted towards reconditioning old stock. Stock that is running low. Their war production is expected to peak in 2025 then will drop precipitously until it stops at the level of new unit production, which is much lower than losses. Many analysts believe the summer of 2024 will be known as the high point of russian power in this war.
They regenerated a lot of new forces the last 2 years. But now have reached a point where what they have is what they have. Less and less replacements for stuff that is gone now.
Something else to consider is that the unemployment rate in Russia is now extremely low which is not actually a good thing. And as Russia continues to conscript or persuade people to fight in Ukraine, the less people Russia will have working in the factories. There is already an issue where Factories are having to pay higher and higher wages to people to try and keep them from joining the military.
It will be interesting to see what new wartime stuff we will see after they run out the old stuff...but if I had to guess they'll likely get access to chinas's scarp
That looks like prevision if nothing else is done. Like new plants, increased turnout etc... I guess the russians have those numbers too, know it and will act on it, no? Planning for your ennemy to do nothing/act stupid isn t a smart plan. (The ennemy can be stupid, but expecting him to be is a recipe for disaster)
@@etienne8110 Thank you for adding that. I laugh at the ppl that count the minutes with anticipation when Russia will finish stock of this or that. The factories that now refurbish are being prepared for production of new material when the old is gone. Soo the production of new things will jump rapidly. Also a lot of equipment is being repaired close to frontlines - so it can return to the front multiple times. I have no clue why ppl think war is something static and sides are not constantly adapting. Every time we see something old on the front - "this should be the end, they are tapped out". Reality is a very very different beast. The war will continue until the sides will want to continue and decide enough is enough. Probably Russia will not go to massive production of Tanks or artilleries - but from the current increase of drones it is likely they shift massively in to that. Some souses say that for 2024 more than 1.7 million drones where delivered to the army so far. If 2025 means less tanks but again 3-4 times increase in delivered drones, this can be the adaptation required.
Nice report. Of course, low pressure tubes mounted on trucks would be easier to produce than the rockets needed to feed them. I found it interesting that even with the war revealing a severe starting shortage of tactical supply trucks and losing so many, there were still trucks in storage!? I expect they are mostly parts trucks.
Imagine the work required to get a used 30 year old truck that’s been parked in Russian weather for 20+ years running reliably and then keep it running for the duration of the war. Wow
There's likely also a bottleneck in refurbishment capabilities and most new production is probably being dedicated to weapons rather than the less sexy supply vehicles.
Quite right. Since they haven't pulled these out of the bases despite a shortage severe enough to resort to Chinese golf carts, the initial decision to keep them was dubious. The decision to keep them another year became blatantly stupid unless it was for a non-practical reason, like propaganda or graft.(If you get paid well to maintain each truck, you keep as many as you can, especially those you don't do anything for.)
Your work continues to be unsurpassed !!! When we first started playing with pixels back in the 1980s, one central question was whether satellite imagery would merely depict and illustrate the news, or whether imagery would discover and make news. Your work is clearly in the later category - you are telling us things that are important and not otherwise knowable.
Russian MLRS vehicles are high value targets to Ukranian drone operators. As soon as they spot one, they'd try to attack it. Those MLRS have no virtually no armor against this type of attacks, making them very easy targets to destroy.
Like look at 4:35 We see that there were over 7000 storage bases different sizes from small bases with little garages with capacity 10 or less up to a humongous arsenals storing over 1000s pieces of different military vehicles ALL packed back in Soviet days
@@wishingb5859 its not like no new stuff is being manufactored, all these sattelites see is old stuff thats rotting away out in the open, but the war-industrial machinery hasn't ceased production of new, perhaps more effective systems. Russians have been running out of missiles for 2 straight years.
@@wishingb5859 And dont trust this channel too i forgot its name but it starts with something like A. It provides both false info and propaganda from both russia and ukraine and mixes it up
@@braxxian The US built the factories that made this stuff. It's top of the line stuff for WWII but that was 80 years ago. Almost everything that the Russians use has no place on a modern day battlefield.
@@Woozi1 Ukraine isn't claiming to be the #2 military in the world though. They're fighting a war of survival. They get a pass for having no other choice but to use this stuff. What's Russia's excuse?
Given that I've been reading articles from very serious publications about how the Russians are out of Bombs, Shells, Planes, Men, Tanks, Trucks, Artillery pieces, Missiles, Ships, and diet coke since March 2022, I guess it will be true one of these years.
Your video and the Russian version of Radio Free Europe got into my recommendations at the exact same time, one under the other 🙂. Good job in both counting and reaching people.
To make a new tank takes an enormous amount of precision heavy engineering. To make a new artillery tube takes weeks of precision casting and boring. To make a new MLRS .... surely that is a vastly easier and cheaper task than making a tank, a towed 152mm, or even a BMP? Or am I missing something?
If you're referring to himars vs russian mlrs,then you should compare himars to iskander,iskander has longer range and higher payload vs himars lower payload and higher number of missiles for similar effect.
@@leachimy24 what difference does it make what flight path they take,himars uses guided missiles so does iskander,you're a misguided about the classification.
@@ibrahimcehajic Yes, but when you consider that HIMARS can also fire ATACMS, it is basically the same thing, so iskander should not be compared to HIMARS, as HIMARS can play two roles, while the iskander cannot. Besides, the iskander is not mlrs, so it can't be compared in the first place.
@@65k25 I think you're confused,russian mlrs are used for saturation attack close to the front lines of enemy soldiers and equipment, no accuracy desired or needed because they move quickly,himars with a range of 300 miles and to achthosw distances requires ballistic trajectory, same as iskander,number of launch tubes is irrelevant,who ever is trying to compare himars to unguided short range mlrs is severely misguided.
So according to these counts, they took approx 1100 MLRS from storage, and Ukranian daily losses show 1230 destroyed MLRS, makes me think those daily losses stats are pretty accurate.
There has been days where it's actually lower than the confirmed losses. And that was me counting the losses and I knew what days the footage was taken from. When you watch a recon strike unit destroy 8 howitzers in a day in just one part of the front it makes you realise that destroying or damaging such a high amount of equipment across a massive front isn't actually unrealistic. The unit in talking about is Magyars birds, they destroy masses of artillery every day it's unreal.
It's been said again and again, they don't just take systems out of storage exclusively to compensate for losses. If they're building new formations, they will also take systems out of storage. They might've replaced 400 MLRS losses and equipped new troops with an additional 700 MLRS, for example. However, visual confirmation of artillery losses is particularly difficult because counter-battery fire often doesn't provide any images. It's not like a tank that generally sits right on the frontline where someone will eventually fly a drone. Oryx currently puts Russian MLRS losses at 425 give or take, which is likely to be an underestimation. It still means that Russia has lost a significant amount of systems and will have issues replacing them in the future.
@@ivanlagrossemoule If they can replace the truck - they can replace the system. MLRS systems are actually cheep and quick to replace. Tubes are simple, mechanism is nothing special. You need a truck to mount it. Especially when it comes to the unguided variants - production/ stock/ delivery of ammo is much more important. Also training ppl to use them is not a difficult task. Russians refurbish old only because it is cheaper not because it is much faster or they can't surge new production. For those that use guided missiles - it might be significantly more expensive to build new or to adapt trucks but the trucks that carry the ammo are actually the same type and are made to be replacement beads.
@@MrRatlud Unless you're arguing that Russia is deliberately recycling old systems because it's better for the environment or something, the reality is that it refurbishes old soviet stuff because that's faster. So the rate of depletion of the old soviet stuff is close to the total rate of production, and when the soviet stuff runs out, the production rate will be much lower. To claim otherwise is to say that the Russian government doesn't know even the most basic stuff when it comes to arming its troops, and that it has not learned after years of war and switching to a wartime economy.
@@southseasflying Unlike Russia in Ukraine, the US is not looking down the barrel of demographic disaster by continuing to fight in Syria. At this rate, the cost is ridiculously high, even by Russian standards.
@@adamhall5298 The birth rate in Russia is 1.49 children per woman. Birth rate in the US is 1.66 children per woman. Source for both is the World Bank 2021 national birth rate statistics. Additionally Americans die to drug overdoses more than Russians die to Ukrainians (151,042 deaths in 2023 according to the US CDC - the lowest in 10 years), while according to Radio Free Europe (July 29, 2021) Russian overdose deaths are 5% that of the US at 7812 in 2021 (last statistic I could find easily). Figured I'd hit the "they're dying just as fast of alcohol poisoning" argument now - the alcohol problems in Russia don't directly kill but rather contributes to the dramatically lower life expectancy. The minimum birth rate to sustain a population is 2.1 children per woman. Other NATO countries are worse off than the US on birthrates (UK is 1.56, Germany is 1.58, and Italy is 1.25), and US Asian allies make Russia look like a font of fertility (South Korea is 0.81 and Japan is 1.33-1.16). So the argument of "they're failing faster than us" isn't that great. If you think I'm in error, come to me with numbers (and sources) and I'd be happy to discuss them. American superiority over Russia in economy, industry, technology, and population is obvious on its face - I'm not sure why people have to come here making bad faith arguments. Or is this just about excuse US actions while trying to paint US enemies as bad for doing the same thing? EDIT: Sorry, I thought this reply was to my figures showing life expectancy and average age of soldiers in the field for Russia, Ukraine and UK as a control.
@@southseasflying The US isn't fighting in Syria (which has no resources to speak of anyway). No NATO country has fought a real war like Russia is doing now, since it was created.
I will take a guess at the Answers without looking first. 1) the storage has went down as they are all modernised and sitting somewhere else now nobody can see. 2) it doesn’t mean they are destroyed there are loads more in service now. 3) oryx is not accurate at all.
@@kameronjones7139 while i do agree that oryx isnt accurate I dont think we would agree on the reason Oryx simply due to the need of photos wont be accurate Not every vehicles is photoed or well has anything left to photo Oryx is the bottom the numbers can not be lower
Personally I consider the TOS rocket launcher as the worst one the Russians have because they have a very short range , they are very slow , not much accurate and generally very expensive .
maybe you should volunteer on the ukrainian side and get out there and go up against these and then come back to tell us how slow and how terrible and how overpriced they are. also.. inaccurate? it's thermobaric rockets that mix fuel with air to create massive shockwaves and that smoke every living creature within a certain range. what are you talking about with your accuracy? next you're going to say that sniper rounds or laser-guided hellfire missiles or SDBs are terrible because they don't have enough firepower..
@@issadraco532 I didn't say it's totally useless , just the worst out of them in my personal opinion. The fact that it has short range forces the Russians to bring it closer to the front line which makes it easier for the Ukrainians to spot it and destroy it and the fact that it's slow and expensive makes things worse. Also how is this smoke wave effective when the troop's are hiding in a banker in the City? Unless they hit the building directly or very closely it doesn't have much of an effect. For example Russians have been constantly using TOS for one straight year in Ugledar upon buildings with not much of an effect.
@@Moneo_Artaid Thermo weapons are a great idea, Russia makes many great thermobaric weapons like RPO-A and Thermo grenades, but I don't know why they made it a short range rocket mounted on a vehicle, no artillery vehicle should be slow and bulky and short range on the modern battlefield.
I feel tracking MLRS systems isn't the best indicator of dwindling Russian stockpiles because of what these systems are and what they represent. Let me explain. Rocket artillery is quite a bit different in terms of production requirements vs. traditional artillery. Traditional artillery requires higher quality steel for the barrel, lots of very precise machining and higher quality ammunition that is made to a higher standard to work reliably and accurately. This effect only gets greater with more advanced and longer range artillery systems. Rocket artillery is far simpler because its in essence a tube and a rough aiming system that fires rockets. The costs are in the ammunition, so the rockets. But these also have different costs. There is far less technological sophistication and far more resource requirement for these. They don't have much in the way of higher quality steel or construction requirements. Its basically a tube with a rocket motor, a simple fuel and explosives with a simple fuse. I suspect Russia is pulling these systems out of storage in such numbers, because they are unable to make enough artillery shells and the required artillery pieces to fire them. That is why they are also buying ammo from North-Korea. Meanwhile they can make simpler rockets and fire them en masse. Neither do I think that Russia is unable to replace such systems. I suspect they are more than capable of replacing such losses, meaning their stockpiles are less relevant. It could also suggest that Russia didn't maintain such large stockpiles of rocket artillery because they know they can easily make more. Better to store more traditional artillery that is more difficult to make. Those will be a lot more difficult to replace. As for the background as to why the Soviets had so much more rocket artillery: For the Soviet economy which was resource rich and both technology and quality poor, rocket systems made a lot of sense. Those where a cheap solution to achieve mass of fire and didn't strain the limited capabilities of Soviet industry. For example during WW2 the Soviets used screw breeches with propellant cases for their 122mm and 152mm artillery, because they could not make sliding block breaches. A lot of these artillery pieces where at least "inspired" by German designs, often designed inside the Soviet-Union in the early 1930s. Designs the Soviets could not produce themselves without technical assistance. Eventually those where put into production, but to a lower standard and with the bizarre combination of a screw breech which is easier but more time consuming to machine and propellant cases which are not required with a properly machined screw breech which is gas tight. Cases are used for sliding block breeches which require more precise machining, but are easier to machine when you can do this. The case is normally needed to create a gas seal. In an attempt to remove cases, the Germans during WW2 already developed a sliding breech block that didn't need these any more because it was machined to form a gas seal when closed. They couldn't field it because the war ended. That development however is now in use in a lot of mainly European 52 calibre 155mm howitzers. I suspect this is why the Soviets invested so much in rocket artillery. Such systems and rockets can be assembled in far lower technology facilities than where you would make artillery ammunition, let alone artillery pieces. That also makes them great for a mobilisation situation where you need more than your established facilities can produce. Its why they became so popular during WW2 with particularly the Germans and Soviets, but eventually all major countries. It was an easy way to add more artillery for little technological investment. Its also why the US arguably had the least investment of the major countries during WW2. They could and made huge qualities of long range artillery and the shells. The Germans made more shells, but they could not make the artillery pieces fast enough. Its also why western countries never went that deeply into rocket artillery post WW2. For western countries the logic was inverted with having the ability to produce higher technological quality systems. The limitation was in resources and willingness to spend to much on military stockpiles. That pushed them towards fewer but more advanced systems. Where western countries adopted longer 39 calibre and later 52 calibre 155mm howitzers, the Soviets kept a mix of 122mm, 152mm and rocket artillery. The average western 39 calibre artillery piece was also superior to the overwhelming majority of Soviet 122mm and 152mm howitzers and far closer to the much rarer 152mm long range guns. The 52 calibre 155mm artillery is superior to anything the Soviets or now Russians have. And Ukraine is getting more and more of those 52 calibre 155mm howitzers. Those however are bottlenecked because they require specialised facilities to create the artillery and ammunition. That is the main issue in supply for the last two years.
Of course Russia can produce these systems in required quantities. Problem is, it'll take more concessions from population due to redirection of resources.
Curious that you took so much time to write all this and completely ignored the part of the video where production data is presented and shown to not be remotely enough to replace losses.
@@Jimmy_The_Goat 1)When I need more eggs I can simply just go to a grocery store and buy more eggs 2)Wenn I still have enough eggs in my fridge for quite some time you'll probably not catch me driving in panic to the grocery store to buy more eggs today, because eggs are so commonly available I can buy them than when I need them. 3)Curious that I took so much time to write all this and completely ignored the part of my shopping list is presented and there are NO eggs listed wich, by your logic, seems to cast doubt on my ability to buy eggs or the availability of eggs...
@@Jimmy_The_Goat The thing with especially non guided, shorter range MLRSs is that you don't need to have almost any special production. You can use any truck to mount it on. Russia uses old trucks as they are free, repairing them with parts that are in stock - only labor is required. If they finish the old trucks - they will spend more and mount it on a newer truck. As long as it can carry the weight it is good enough. The bigger variants caring the guided variants are designed to be replaced by the trucks that haul the ammo. So as long as they have some of the trucks in stock - they can rebuild them again. The ammo and ammo production/logistics are much more important factors. Also MLRS have some advantages over standard artillery. You can use one truck to lob the 40 rockets very fast and move away. It simulates the work of several tube arty for the same time by exposing a much cheaper resource. Also you can use bigger variants with different loads - more explosive than standard arty or increased range. You can even load some intelligence equipment in the rocket and use it that way. Modern arty with rocket assisted shells can do some of this - but the cost of the ammo is very very hi and production is slow. Those big soviet rockets are cheep and give you a lot of room for different solutions.
Because Russia has started using dumb bombs with umpk glide kits, 9m542 and 9m544 guided glonass rockets on smerch tornado-s variant, wire guided fpv drones which are jam proof and also krasnopol guided shells for artillery similar to Excalibur and they increased krasnopol production by 25 times this year itself. So, when Russia can produce accurate weapons then why will they make more old weapons rather they're focussing or preparing for something else bigger in future with the production rate of weapons modern weapons including lancet drones
With what? Germany has been trying to deploy one brigade to the Baltics. Sadly, they have no manpower to do it. Britain? With its 130 tanks and a tiny army? Realistically, only France and perhaps Poland are an actual force to be reckoned with on the ground, although Poland's in the process of expanding its army so lots of the soldiers are still fresh. So unless the USA manages to move its troops without them being torped during a war, defending against the ruSSians would still be difficult. Sure, NATO would absolutely wreck the ruSSians in the air and on the sea (except for subs, which would still be a challenge), but both ruSSia and Ukraine have proven you can keep fighting for 2.5 years even after losing most of your modern equipment. This is something people in the West don't appreciate and don't understand: there is no such thing as "manpower losses that will stop the ruSSians from attacking". They lost over 12 million soldiers (and some 27 million people in total) in WW2, yet they kept attacking.
HIMARS shoot missiles. Guided rockets are missiles. The same thing is happening with the Hydra rockets that have guided systems installed on them. Those are called guided rockets which would mean they are missiles.
@@mangatom192 because they added guidance to the existing mlrs rockets and called the new precision one gmlrs lol, i mean it makes sense its the same rockets but just now with gps guidance
Ru authorities, media, talking heads and mouthpieces commonly do a lot of projecting. One of those "expert" "guests" who is a regular on this most important talk show where Solovyov is the host recently said Ukr has resources left for another year, then they would run out. If this was projection again and the guy knows what he's talking about, then things will get pretty rough in Ru in a year or so...
Gotta love Solovyov calling for a war with Germany because we stopped exporting Mercedes replacement parts for his car 🤣 He loves Russia so much he doesn't drive a Russian car.
They will never hit zero, if they start running out of something, like tanks, artillery etc, they will slow down the tempo, to reduce losses and preserve the remaining vehicles.
@@patwilson2546 just merely from a statistics viewpoint, some will reach zero because they no longer produce T-55, T-62, T-64 tanks as well as several aircraft types in use are no longer being produced either from a military viewpoint, not enough is good enough, like you said, so I'm not trying to contradict your statement, rather add to it
That's... weird? 1)Russia and USSR view MLRS as one of the niches to be proud of. So they'd be more cautious with it and prioritise it's production more; 2)MLRS(unguided) is easier to produce then full blown SPGs as far as I know so again, higher priority in production to get more firepower; 3)I don't recall mass usage of MLRS breaking news and neither their mass losses. If anything, it's the equipment you'd expect to see more of, unlike critically important, but slow to replace IFVs.
IFVs - especial the soviet build are not that hard to replace. You have some damaged - you repair up to 70% just for 2-3 weeks close to the front lines. They use standard parts that can be stripped from those that are written off. For Ukraine that uses many IFV- types this can me more of an issue if delivery of spare parts is not done in time. Russians have IFVs with army groups that are not part of the war - so if they need some fast, they can just take them from the army inside Russia. Also increasing the production of IFVs can be done much much faster that the production of Artillery or tanks. They use much less steel and don't need some of the more fancy equipment like big guns. The smaller something is - usually it is much faster easier cheaper to produce. And don't put too much on the sentimental value of one type of equipment or another for either Russia or Ukraine. Those are tools, if they work well, they will try to have more, if they don't - well, they will stay in history. People in eastern Europe are less sentimental and more practical. Perception of something - as media call it, was rarely a real factor here.
Ah someone with a brain. These channels also never show you the footage pre-war of outgoing factory areas filled with new production missiles for years in various videos, they were stockpiling it well, well before this war, almost like it was... expected! This channel copes so hard it's hilarious.
@@N4CR you do realise that said factory images, were explicitly staged promotional ones? Russia is the same nation that 50 years ago drove their mobile ICBM launchers around the block in their annual victory parade so they could paint bigger numbers on them and make it seem like they had more. Russia is a country that bases itself on deceit, generally their sources have been proven wrong hundreds of times. This is the next best thing we can do, which while imperfect, is still a tad more reliable than russias claims of having destroyed over a hundred Abrahams using fifty thousand newly built T-14s, that nobody can apparently find because of how stealthy they are. It’s a joke of country that masquerades as a superpower, and while these numbers may be incorrect, they’re the best thing we’ll get until independent, impartial studies are done after the war to determine the true losses.
I don't think it's super weird, MLRS wouldn't be making headlines because it's one of those boring assets you just use as opposed to making a stink about like Terminator or Armata. It's the sort of system that would have its numbers get chipped away at over the course of 2 years of a wasteful war as opposed to being lost in vast swathes, just like we'd expect it to.
@@N4CR no where in the video did he say they're running out of rockets. If they're making so many new launch vehicles, then why are they rapidly emptying all of their reserves? At best, this means they're still losing a lot of vehicles one way or another. This is an attrition war and this channel simply shows the extremely high price Russia is paying to invade a country. Live proof that Russia is done for as a world power, no NATO country will ever fear them again.
TOS is a Thermobaric weapon system - they're not included with the standard artillery ORBAT ... not sure why but they are possibly considered a special use system. .
They are a bit different with a quite short range. The overall number of the TOS systems is small and as a relative new system none are expected to be in storrage. There are also Rocket pods for helicopers that essentially work like an MLRS.
TOS can do 1 thing - to attack fortified positions. It can't be used like other artillery units for cover fire or to attack advancing enemy or to swap shell types for a specific goal. Just a very specialized tool. I think they wanted to do something with the concept but at some point shifted focus to something that can be used for more tasks.
Probably the truck is the hardest to replace - but as I know Soviet equipment, probably you can use any truck as long as it can carry the load. But let them count - it seems they have fun.
Good Video I had training on the US 115mm Chemical rockets how to do leak sealing and transport to a disposal site or short-term storage for later transport to a disposal site. Plus familiarization training on the Grad Warheads and motors and the decision tree for blowing in place or transport to a better place to disposal.
Unless Russia can ramp up production of new units, we are looking at a year at most at this rate. They might be able to source them from any 3rd party market. I am assuming there are plenty of them sitting around in the world. Not to mention the spare parts market that might help refurbish damaged units.
What's interesting is that presumably the Russians valued MLRS highly, otherwise why use them so heavily? So the fact that the Ivans are nearly out of them is significant. I'm guessing though that the tech behind these things are pretty low? Aren't they just trucks with tubes on top?
Yes, but that is basically the advantage of these systems. You can modernize the ammunition instead of having to modernize the system firing the ammunition. This makes them more expensive to operate than tubed artillery but also means that upgrades aren't as necessary.
@@highjumpstudios2384 There is no good faith argument you can have with them, they will continue to deny the satellite imagery and visual loss data. It just doesn't fit their narrative. Being silly is the only way to cope with the facts on the ground.
Your work and unbiased presenting makes you a must watch and you don't have many trolls as a result of that. Russia is simply burning through so much of everything yes they are making progress but the cost of that progress just isn't sustainable and within a year we are going to start seeing how that changes the war.
3:24 you forgot to mention about how long it takes to reload these. You need to manually reload all 40 rockets, one at a time. This makes their fire rate abysmal.
The TOS-1 and TOS-1A are not flame throwers, despite their Russian name. They are short range MLRS with thermobaric warheads. That is, just before impact the warhead disperses fuel (probably just regular diesel) as a fine mist in the air and ignites it. If done correctly you get a massive shock wave that can knock over buildings, deplete oxygen and give everyone hidden in a fox hole a disabling concussion. If done incorrectly you just set things on fire. From the Ukrainian reporting these fall somewhere in the middle. As in, they do generate a decent amount of shock wave but dispersal isn't too good so there's also a decent amount of burning.
For anyone coming, you can skip straight to 4:28 to get to the actual information teased at in the video title. Assuming if you clicked on this video you don't need the most basic explanation of what an MLRS is or a sponsored plug to GROUND news
Go to ground.news/covertcabal to understand how different perspectives shape our worldview. Save 40% on the Ground News unlimited access Vantage plan with my link
But why we can't get the Israel base satellite data after Iran Attack?
Congratulations. You've assured I'll never use ground news. I hate sitting through forced ads, so that's their punishment
@markc6714 there's a fast forward feature - use it.
"more to fewer" not "more to less" yo.
More ads for ground news rather than actual news, crap vid, crap click bait channel..
Congrats on 500k, very well deserved.
This channel sucks now, to everyone save The Count from Sesame Street.
@@alexschoep7126 Why does it "suck", recently minted blank profile guy?
Still milking the fantasy that open-air storages is the totality of storages. Ukraine’s Syrsky reports RU now has more artillery, tanks and MRLS than ever all while this channel makes those ridiculous videos on how RU is running out of everything. Year after year. And it never comes.
@@StrangerHappened he's always said they will run out a some point not they are out of them
@@twplayer1999 tge
Issue it never happens because RU is not really running out of anything. Production has drastically increased, RU added 700K workers to the medal on industry, which now totals 3.7M
I still can't believe some random guy with a bit of cash can simply order satellite images from basically every place imaginable and can do the job of a NRO-analyst with image-quality that would have most cold warriors drool with envy.
I wonder what OSInt's version of the discovery of the Caspian Sea Monster will be....
Not to mention WW1 and WW2 spies would literally kill for that kind of intel.
I'm an old dude and am a bit future shocked by the rapid advance of tech, especially in the last 5 years. AI, drones, precision weapons. Oh, and advances in medicine.
What I cant believe m, is that Russia, knowing very well about the capabilities of satellites these days, still stores it's critically important ordnance just straight in a bare field, just exposed to the wide world to see... Like at least build a shed above the equipment?! 👀 Or just put A MOTOFUKIN TARP OVER THE STUFF!!! This is just ridiculous bro 😖😂😂
@@Lock484 yeah, fields of tarp tents would be absolutely not suspicious 😅
Russia hides high priority equipment from satellites and that's TELs for ICBMs and SAMs and planes. If they would hide everything, the amount of effort to hide would outrun any benefit of enemy not knowing about the equipment.
"The TOS-1 is actually a flamethrower" - lol. Yea, the name mean "Heavy Flamethrower System" and officially russians call it that way... but it does not change a fact that it IS MLRS. It fire rocket (multiple at at the time) with thermobaric warhead, not a jet of flames like flamethrower.
Dunno, but the TOS-1 looks just very cool and dangerous to me. Wouldn't want to be at the other end of it due to its particular ammo, tho!
Either way they are irrelevant as none were seen in storage
But TOS-1 is not a MLRS artillery due to its incredibly short effective range. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to include them on the calculations anyway since all the other's are actual MLRS artillery systems.
@@TheDeludedFactor it's used as artillery, even though it's very short range, it serves the same function.
@@TheDeludedFactor It is a system that launches multiple rockets, or as you might call it; multiple launch rocket system.
Tremendous work by the open-source community. Would be interesting to get a sense for how many taken from storage are due to creation of new MLRS units, how many due to attrition and how many due to wear-and-tear. In principle, MLRS trucks and tubes seem like they would be relatively inexpensive to manufacture.
they are pretty easy to build especially when your country prepared for WW3 for decades, they are just restarting new factories, modernizing them and building more modern stuff in there
You can get an idea of how many where lost by looking at independent sources that collect data on this. For the rest it is mostly guess work where they are going.
One thing this does show, where ever they where going, the supply is at the end now and they will have to mostly do with what they have and what is lost can no longer be replaced.
@@AgentK-im8ke If Russia prepared for decades they didn't do a good job, their new factories are similar to old soviet factories or worse being of poor quality and low inefficient production, that's if they can get the manpower to run them!?!
@@AgentK-im8ke except they are not nothing really point to them modernizing anything but sending it directly to the frontline, and they are not making any modern stuff
@@AgentK-im8ke: Russia/USSR never demobilized after the cold war was over. They just put everything in storage. 9000 tanks alone including T-54/55s. Russia/USSR is and always has been an aggressive country with their eyes always fixed on conquest.
Congratulations on 500k. Excellent video, thank you.
Isn't the problem with Soviet/Russian rocket artillery that the individual rockets are packed in wooden crates. Before they can fire them each rocket has to be removed from its crate then individually loaded into a launch tube. Western systems have the rockets, however many the launch vehicle fires, fired directly from their storage container. So instead of loading 40, or however many, rockets into tubes the west just has a magazine of rockets loaded onto the launcher and fires it.
The Czech RM-70 was one of the only Warsaw Pact MLRS to try to speed up reloading. It was a BM-21 style 40 tube 122mm launcher, but had 40 rounds of reloads in a rack in the middle of the truck. The launcher could be aligned with the rack, allowing the rockets to be easily fed into it. While not palletized like the M270/M142, it did substantially speed up at least the first reload.
It's not a problem if you have millions of rockets in crates against a hundred thousand in pods. So both sides fire millions of rockets from ex-soviet platforms because both launchers and rockets are cheap and available and there's so much less pod-based systems from both sides.
@@Daoklit is a massive problem. Someone has to stack those crates at armouries. More people have to hand load them onto transport. More people have to unload them to be distributed. More people have to load them up and then they need to be unloaded at the final point.
Then each crate has to be opened and the rocket hand loaded.
Literally hundreds of man hours that a forklift and modern logistics could do 100 times quicker with 10x fewer people.
@@Daoklthere is a massive difference between handloading a dozen 220mm rockets with several hundred kilos weight each from individual crates per launcher and having the launcher vehicle extend a loading crane, drop off the emptied launch tube container and loading a fresh one. The difference is like handloading an ak47 magazine after you fired your 30 rounds to switching to a Read and full magazine. M270 and m142 take less than 1/10 the time to reload and can be reloaded by a single person. Prepared pods are easier to transport and are easier to logistics, meaning you lessen the burdon on your logistics train from the depot to the front.
@@cathulhu-q7y everything has a special loading vehicle, so you can handload them, but generally (from 220 and up) don't have to. You can lose some loading vehicles, but one can handle a few mlrs, since they don't fire near ammo depots so while they travel you reset loading vehicle.
Sure pod is faster, but you have to have special crane in each vehicle, so they cost more, like a lot. Same with pods, they have more volume per missile, much more expensive and have to be loaded/unloaded by special equipment at each leg. You think one missile is heavy, try to move a pod from a truck to a van by hand (since your loader is smoking pile of rubble). So in one depot or train you'd have a lot more individual rockets and all you need to move them is some idle hands.
So you can shot your 5 preloaded magazines faster, but in this case your opponent would have more rifles and much more ammo. So either you will fire less to conserve it or fire everything fast and then sit and take their fire. This is why only guided munitions are made for himars and Ukraine only been given 50 or so launchers, not 500.
And what you have in pod is what you have to launch - there's a lot more variety in rockets for soviet mlrs - flame, thermo, mines, auto-targeting submunitions, etc - whatever fits, even uav's. But most recent russian mlrs does use pods (one they adopted a few decades ago didn't stick), one before that has loading crane on it, so maybe they finally seen the light.
Such things are impressive and devastating when they hit.
However, loading 40 rockets by hand is a bit of a bother, and they are not easy to hide.
It’s a manpower intensive job. Russian logistics in general are not great. It’s a bit who needs forklifts when we have men.
I suppose one positive is they won’t run out of fire wood
It is the exact opposite. They are very easy to hide as opposed to large pods. All you really have to do is find some wood or a barn or even just a large enough garage to hide in, and you can load at leisure.
@@Warren_Peace Sorry, what do you mean by 'large pods' ?
@@viandengalacticspaceyards5135 It is what they call the containers in which the rockets and missiles are loaded in. Essentially, instead of loading every tube with munitions, some systems directly install new ones, usually with a crane.
@@Warren_Peace you can use a drops pallet to unload a M270 rocket pod from a truck in under a minute. The rocket launcher then uses its in built crane to unload and load the complete pod. It can be done by 1 truck driver and the 3 crew of the M270
Versus hand moving everything 1 at a time. Opening all the crates individually.
Every forces that has used both systems prefers the ease of the M270
I would like to add my voice to the chorus that sings Covert Cabals praises! Amazing content
Thx again Covert Cabal, really good video's supported by facts instead of fake news or propaganda.
you gullible individual
Congratulations on 500k
Love your work. I watch and rewatch a lot of your videos
Mr Cabal, welcome back!
We missed you...
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Thank you once again for the info.
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.
Thanks for your work. No way i can honor this enough. Please keep going!
Love every vid and detail. Hats off to you!
Thanks!
Thank you and Jompy for this hard but very important work!
It is mind-boggling to see these numbers.
According to Juzzie There are 1223 MLRS systems destroyed since early 2022. Assuming "pre war" Russia had 1000 such systems in the lining-up for the war (including new builds and repairs that were started already) and assuming the 1474 listed here as pre was storage are not included in that number, Russia would have had a total number of 2474 MLRS systems pre war and would have some 1251 units left in total including the ones in storage. This said the number in usage would have shrunk from more than 1000 in early 2024 to some 912 units. Representing a loss rate of 10% in 6 Months or 20 % in a year. This would suggest the reduction on storage since pre war is merely representing the backfills of losses. In other words, one could expect the storage be more or less fully depleted in 1 year from now.
That there are already vids of Russian improvised MLRS presumably means it's already having a tough time finding a sufficient number. You don't improvise unless there's a problem getting the standard stuff.
@@cv990a4 However you have to be careful what conclusions are drawn here. By that I mean that if they can't find enough systems to fit all new formations, it's not the same as trying to sustain existing ones. Basically they'll start fielding improvised systems before they reach the peak in total active systems, before they even start declining.
Sounds great!
@@cv990a4not necessarily this is Russia we are talking about their logistics are terrible, improvising might mean they can't get the available systems to the front not necessarily they don't exist. (Though if I was betting they don't exist) However a similar problem happened for Russia with food in WW1 people in Petrograd were starving to death while boats full of grain for export in the black sea sat there so long the grain spoiled.
🤔 I'm not following your math...
If the numbers in storage have gone down faster than the number destroyed, then the numbers in use should have gone up.
Incredible amount of work you and your team do on our behalf - thank you!
Thank you for all the work you do!
*Stannis grumble*
“Fewer.”
Thank you! It's great seeing facts and not "I saw it in a dream" type figures when it comes to Russian military storage.
Amazing Report! Great information! Thanks.
77% taken out of storage in 32 months means it'll be less than 10 months before anything usable is taken out of storage, after which they'll face more problems, that means August 2025.
So MLRS is another type of weapon/vehicle you put on the increasingly long list that Russia will have a severe shortage of before the end of 2025.
Probably slightly earlier as some systems are beyond reasonable repair. Some may have been raised for spare parts to repair the others also.
The real question is how many are now in service. Ukraine has destroyed a lot but it's possible the number in service has also been increasing.
Less an issue with MLRS which dont wear out their barrels than with standard artilary where the barrel is only good for a certain number of shots before it wears.
This was very interesting.
Thanks to everyone involved.
TOS is not a "flamethrower", but a heavy MLRS with thermobaric warheads. The confusion comes from the fact that thermobaric weapons are reffered as "flamethrowers" by Russia, but they really aren't.
We're still talking a short-range (a mere 4 km), specialized weapon that does not really fit the role of MLRS proper. So leaving it out of this count makes good sense.
@@autochton 10km* Tos-1a has 10k range.
TOS is a very specialized tool. Yes it shoots rockets but if this is the logic then ships are MLRS and Helicopters can be MLRS too. The army that produced the system decided that it can't fit the same role of other things they classify as MLRS so it was never part of any artillery group/force. Some tanks can do indirect fire - but they are not classified as an artillery, some plains drop bombs but are not bombers. If you want to think of it as an MLRS - you are free to do so.
Most militaries would classify these kinds of systems alongside flamethrowers and they're generally operated by engineering units. This isn't really unique to Russia as flame weapons are just generally considered a unique type of weapon meant for specialized tasks.
If we classify this thing as an MLRS system then anyone who has launched multiple bottle rockets has used a multiple launch rocket system. So I don't know if I'd go down that road personally. Also, it has a range of 10 km which is basically nothing when we're talking about a modern battlefield
Interesting, thanks for the update.
Crazy how many have been lost
HIMARS showed up and Russia started loosing Grads massively
People? I know… it’s really sad.
Oh you mean these missile trucks? Nvm..
@cubefreak123 True that. We tend to notice systems being destroyed because it's spectacular but it's amazing how much stuff and people a military will burn though just *operating*.
@cubefreak123Yea I remember that one clip going around of them trying to hammer a missle into the launcher using an ammo crate. Between the operators and barrel wear I'd bet that's why the few systems they saw missing the rocket pods were like that.
@@eduwino151 What himars? All got destroyed or left hiding to avoid detection lmao.
Russian production of armored vehicles is heavily weighted towards reconditioning old stock. Stock that is running low. Their war production is expected to peak in 2025 then will drop precipitously until it stops at the level of new unit production, which is much lower than losses.
Many analysts believe the summer of 2024 will be known as the high point of russian power in this war.
They regenerated a lot of new forces the last 2 years. But now have reached a point where what they have is what they have. Less and less replacements for stuff that is gone now.
Something else to consider is that the unemployment rate in Russia is now extremely low which is not actually a good thing. And as Russia continues to conscript or persuade people to fight in Ukraine, the less people Russia will have working in the factories. There is already an issue where Factories are having to pay higher and higher wages to people to try and keep them from joining the military.
It will be interesting to see what new wartime stuff we will see after they run out the old stuff...but if I had to guess they'll likely get access to chinas's scarp
That looks like prevision if nothing else is done.
Like new plants, increased turnout etc...
I guess the russians have those numbers too, know it and will act on it, no?
Planning for your ennemy to do nothing/act stupid isn t a smart plan. (The ennemy can be stupid, but expecting him to be is a recipe for disaster)
@@etienne8110 Thank you for adding that. I laugh at the ppl that count the minutes with anticipation when Russia will finish stock of this or that. The factories that now refurbish are being prepared for production of new material when the old is gone. Soo the production of new things will jump rapidly. Also a lot of equipment is being repaired close to frontlines - so it can return to the front multiple times. I have no clue why ppl think war is something static and sides are not constantly adapting. Every time we see something old on the front - "this should be the end, they are tapped out". Reality is a very very different beast. The war will continue until the sides will want to continue and decide enough is enough. Probably Russia will not go to massive production of Tanks or artilleries - but from the current increase of drones it is likely they shift massively in to that. Some souses say that for 2024 more than 1.7 million drones where delivered to the army so far. If 2025 means less tanks but again 3-4 times increase in delivered drones, this can be the adaptation required.
Nice report. Of course, low pressure tubes mounted on trucks would be easier to produce than the rockets needed to feed them. I found it interesting that even with the war revealing a severe starting shortage of tactical supply trucks and losing so many, there were still trucks in storage!? I expect they are mostly parts trucks.
Empty husks. No engine, no transmission, no fuel tank, no seats, no nothing inside
Or at least, that would be my guess, but I can't prove it
Imagine the work required to get a used 30 year old truck that’s been parked in Russian weather for 20+ years running reliably and then keep it running for the duration of the war.
Wow
There's likely also a bottleneck in refurbishment capabilities and most new production is probably being dedicated to weapons rather than the less sexy supply vehicles.
Quite right. Since they haven't pulled these out of the bases despite a shortage severe enough to resort to Chinese golf carts, the initial decision to keep them was dubious. The decision to keep them another year became blatantly stupid unless it was for a non-practical reason, like propaganda or graft.(If you get paid well to maintain each truck, you keep as many as you can, especially those you don't do anything for.)
Your work continues to be unsurpassed !!! When we first started playing with pixels back in the 1980s, one central question was whether satellite imagery would merely depict and illustrate the news, or whether imagery would discover and make news. Your work is clearly in the later category - you are telling us things that are important and not otherwise knowable.
meanwhile poland already ordered 486 himars from the US and some south korean equivalents
How many have been delivered? I haven't heard anything since they made the announcement.
poland doesnt wanna be bossed around no mode
@@MrRatludDelivery is set to start in 2025.
@@shawnr771 And will take well over a decade to complete, as Lockheed Martin produces under 100 Himars per year (for all buyers).
@@SirenHead00 Are they going to leave the EU?
Thank you for another excellent video!
Russian MLRS vehicles are high value targets to Ukranian drone operators. As soon as they spot one, they'd try to attack it. Those MLRS have no virtually no armor against this type of attacks, making them very easy targets to destroy.
Impressive analyzis. As always 👍👏
Jeez, if only the Soviets made more for Putin.
They did
The problem is that it only took Yeltsin 10 years to reduce it to dust, for example Russias tank fleet went from 65000 to ~10000 operational
Like look at 4:35
We see that there were over 7000 storage bases different sizes from small bases with little garages with capacity 10 or less up to a humongous arsenals storing over 1000s pieces of different military vehicles ALL packed back in Soviet days
He had vodka money from the scrap man!?!
@@TomTomicMic yea that's basically it
@@TomTomicMic
I will actually claim more and say that Kim's 50 and China 1500 (claimed) nukes are just gifts from Yeltsin and later Putin
Love this channel!
This makes me so happy! I can't wait for all of the categories to be gone!
Don't tell me you believe that BS 😂😂😂😂😂 most people here get their copium knowing it is pure BS
@@toto-yf8tc Yes, I do believe the satellite images.
@@wishingb5859 its not like no new stuff is being manufactored, all these sattelites see is old stuff thats rotting away out in the open, but the war-industrial machinery hasn't ceased production of new, perhaps more effective systems. Russians have been running out of missiles for 2 straight years.
@@wishingb5859 Not really. Dont trust these specific channels. The Militrary Show, United24,Oryx etc
@@wishingb5859 And dont trust this channel too i forgot its name but it starts with something like A. It provides both false info and propaganda from both russia and ukraine and mixes it up
This makes my day!!!!! Thanks kid!!!!
Been readin this since the first week of this war.
You must be blind
Appreciate your work. Thank you. 😎
Just another Soviet relic fast approaching zero.
Relic or not its still deadly AF. In war, nothing is relic or useless as long as it kills. Ukranians are still using weapons from WW2
The Soviets threw down the Nazis with this kind of equipment. Don’t mock it.
@@braxxianAnd they'll do it again 😂😂😂
@@braxxian The US built the factories that made this stuff. It's top of the line stuff for WWII but that was 80 years ago. Almost everything that the Russians use has no place on a modern day battlefield.
@@Woozi1 Ukraine isn't claiming to be the #2 military in the world though. They're fighting a war of survival. They get a pass for having no other choice but to use this stuff.
What's Russia's excuse?
Great effort - thanks for this!
Given that I've been reading articles from very serious publications about how the Russians are out of Bombs, Shells, Planes, Men, Tanks, Trucks, Artillery pieces, Missiles, Ships, and diet coke since March 2022, I guess it will be true one of these years.
Your video and the Russian version of Radio Free Europe got into my recommendations at the exact same time, one under the other 🙂.
Good job in both counting and reaching people.
Wonder how long it's going to take for them to as N Korea gor some of their MLRS systems?
It's more about the rockets. The MLRSs are needed for the parades.
@@orlock20 so Kim will give them rockets and a box of really long matches? Like Wile E. Coyote got from the ACME company?
@@marcusott2973 Same quality and same no refunds.
I want to believe
Brilliant analysis
To make a new tank takes an enormous amount of precision heavy engineering.
To make a new artillery tube takes weeks of precision casting and boring.
To make a new MLRS .... surely that is a vastly easier and cheaper task than making a tank, a towed 152mm, or even a BMP?
Or am I missing something?
500K! Fantastic how hard work pays off even in niche areas.
"hard work"
AKA being a US government shill
yah Russian MLRS system more for psychological effect, USA MLRS more for real direct physical effect on the target. wonder which is more effective.
If you're referring to himars vs russian mlrs,then you should compare himars to iskander,iskander has longer range and higher payload vs himars lower payload and higher number of missiles for similar effect.
Iskanders is similar to ATACMS tornado-s similar to gmlrs@@leachimy24
@@leachimy24 what difference does it make what flight path they take,himars uses guided missiles so does iskander,you're a misguided about the classification.
@@ibrahimcehajic Yes, but when you consider that HIMARS can also fire ATACMS, it is basically the same thing, so iskander should not be compared to HIMARS, as HIMARS can play two roles, while the iskander cannot.
Besides, the iskander is not mlrs, so it can't be compared in the first place.
@@65k25 I think you're confused,russian mlrs are used for saturation attack close to the front lines of enemy soldiers and equipment, no accuracy desired or needed because they move quickly,himars with a range of 300 miles and to achthosw distances requires ballistic trajectory, same as iskander,number of launch tubes is irrelevant,who ever is trying to compare himars to unguided short range mlrs is severely misguided.
I always look forward to your videos. 👍
8:38, removed rocket pods: cannibalizations of truck parts over time until it makes more sense to remove the rocket part than replace the truck parts.
Keep up the excellent good work
So according to these counts, they took approx 1100 MLRS from storage, and Ukranian daily losses show 1230 destroyed MLRS, makes me think those daily losses stats are pretty accurate.
There has been days where it's actually lower than the confirmed losses. And that was me counting the losses and I knew what days the footage was taken from. When you watch a recon strike unit destroy 8 howitzers in a day in just one part of the front it makes you realise that destroying or damaging such a high amount of equipment across a massive front isn't actually unrealistic. The unit in talking about is Magyars birds, they destroy masses of artillery every day it's unreal.
It's been said again and again, they don't just take systems out of storage exclusively to compensate for losses. If they're building new formations, they will also take systems out of storage.
They might've replaced 400 MLRS losses and equipped new troops with an additional 700 MLRS, for example. However, visual confirmation of artillery losses is particularly difficult because counter-battery fire often doesn't provide any images. It's not like a tank that generally sits right on the frontline where someone will eventually fly a drone. Oryx currently puts Russian MLRS losses at 425 give or take, which is likely to be an underestimation. It still means that Russia has lost a significant amount of systems and will have issues replacing them in the future.
@@ivanlagrossemoule New formations require new personnel, we are not seeing that kind of growth there
@@ivanlagrossemoule If they can replace the truck - they can replace the system. MLRS systems are actually cheep and quick to replace. Tubes are simple, mechanism is nothing special. You need a truck to mount it. Especially when it comes to the unguided variants - production/ stock/ delivery of ammo is much more important. Also training ppl to use them is not a difficult task. Russians refurbish old only because it is cheaper not because it is much faster or they can't surge new production. For those that use guided missiles - it might be significantly more expensive to build new or to adapt trucks but the trucks that carry the ammo are actually the same type and are made to be replacement beads.
@@MrRatlud Unless you're arguing that Russia is deliberately recycling old systems because it's better for the environment or something, the reality is that it refurbishes old soviet stuff because that's faster. So the rate of depletion of the old soviet stuff is close to the total rate of production, and when the soviet stuff runs out, the production rate will be much lower.
To claim otherwise is to say that the Russian government doesn't know even the most basic stuff when it comes to arming its troops, and that it has not learned after years of war and switching to a wartime economy.
I love your work! Thanks for a great job 👍
Russia took a massive L to Mighty Mouse
Ghost of Kiiiv reports
@@usun_politics1033 LEGENDS
@@usun_politics1033 That SU -34 lost today might have a word with you.
Russia lost to Demetrious Johnson?
@@DerDop It looks like it was traded for entire Patriot battery, not sure who came on top.
Nice video!
Why is Putin continuing to fight Ukraine? Go home!!!
That's why the war started, Russians wanna go home.
I'd imagine the reason is very similar to why the US continues to fight in Syria - resources.
@@southseasflying Unlike Russia in Ukraine, the US is not looking down the barrel of demographic disaster by continuing to fight in Syria. At this rate, the cost is ridiculously high, even by Russian standards.
@@adamhall5298 The birth rate in Russia is 1.49 children per woman. Birth rate in the US is 1.66 children per woman. Source for both is the World Bank 2021 national birth rate statistics. Additionally Americans die to drug overdoses more than Russians die to Ukrainians (151,042 deaths in 2023 according to the US CDC - the lowest in 10 years), while according to Radio Free Europe (July 29, 2021) Russian overdose deaths are 5% that of the US at 7812 in 2021 (last statistic I could find easily). Figured I'd hit the "they're dying just as fast of alcohol poisoning" argument now - the alcohol problems in Russia don't directly kill but rather contributes to the dramatically lower life expectancy.
The minimum birth rate to sustain a population is 2.1 children per woman. Other NATO countries are worse off than the US on birthrates (UK is 1.56, Germany is 1.58, and Italy is 1.25), and US Asian allies make Russia look like a font of fertility (South Korea is 0.81 and Japan is 1.33-1.16). So the argument of "they're failing faster than us" isn't that great.
If you think I'm in error, come to me with numbers (and sources) and I'd be happy to discuss them. American superiority over Russia in economy, industry, technology, and population is obvious on its face - I'm not sure why people have to come here making bad faith arguments. Or is this just about excuse US actions while trying to paint US enemies as bad for doing the same thing?
EDIT: Sorry, I thought this reply was to my figures showing life expectancy and average age of soldiers in the field for Russia, Ukraine and UK as a control.
@@southseasflying The US isn't fighting in Syria (which has no resources to speak of anyway). No NATO country has fought a real war like Russia is doing now, since it was created.
Thanks for the update. Sorry you have to spend so much time looking at Russia. Keep up the good work!
Let's take a moment to appreciate the Russian bots that comment on this video. Thank your for the boost to the algorithm
I will take a guess at the Answers without looking first.
1) the storage has went down as they are all modernised and sitting somewhere else now nobody can see.
2) it doesn’t mean they are destroyed there are loads more in service now.
3) oryx is not accurate at all.
@@kameronjones7139 then explain why
@@kameronjones7139 while i do agree that oryx isnt accurate
I dont think we would agree on the reason
Oryx simply due to the need of photos wont be accurate
Not every vehicles is photoed or well has anything left to photo
Oryx is the bottom the numbers can not be lower
Fair enough. However some people just cope with "bot" jokes, because they know they are on the wrong side of the history.
@@Statueshop297yes oryx is not accurate. Russos real loss count is way bigger than oryxs count. 🤣
7:04 improvised or not, that is hellish idea.
Love your videos.
Great work. Thank you, we need some good news right now. So they will be out of MRLS in a year or so? Hang in their UKR you are winning
I can't get enough of these videos.
Personally I consider the TOS rocket launcher as the worst one the Russians have because they have a very short range , they are very slow , not much accurate and generally very expensive .
maybe you should volunteer on the ukrainian side and get out there and go up against these and then come back to tell us how slow and how terrible and how overpriced they are.
also.. inaccurate? it's thermobaric rockets that mix fuel with air to create massive shockwaves and that smoke every living creature within a certain range. what are you talking about with your accuracy? next you're going to say that sniper rounds or laser-guided hellfire missiles or SDBs are terrible because they don't have enough firepower..
@@issadraco532 I didn't say it's totally useless , just the worst out of them in my personal opinion. The fact that it has short range forces the Russians to bring it closer to the front line which makes it easier for the Ukrainians to spot it and destroy it and the fact that it's slow and expensive makes things worse. Also how is this smoke wave effective when the troop's are hiding in a banker in the City? Unless they hit the building directly or very closely it doesn't have much of an effect. For example Russians have been constantly using TOS for one straight year in Ugledar upon buildings with not much of an effect.
You should see the results of that 'not much of effect'.
@@histrion5390 I have seen a lot of empty fields get evaporated. Not gonna lie the grass didn't have a chance
@@Moneo_Artaid Thermo weapons are a great idea, Russia makes many great thermobaric weapons like RPO-A and Thermo grenades, but I don't know why they made it a short range rocket mounted on a vehicle, no artillery vehicle should be slow and bulky and short range on the modern battlefield.
thanks, excellent
I feel tracking MLRS systems isn't the best indicator of dwindling Russian stockpiles because of what these systems are and what they represent. Let me explain.
Rocket artillery is quite a bit different in terms of production requirements vs. traditional artillery. Traditional artillery requires higher quality steel for the barrel, lots of very precise machining and higher quality ammunition that is made to a higher standard to work reliably and accurately. This effect only gets greater with more advanced and longer range artillery systems. Rocket artillery is far simpler because its in essence a tube and a rough aiming system that fires rockets. The costs are in the ammunition, so the rockets. But these also have different costs. There is far less technological sophistication and far more resource requirement for these. They don't have much in the way of higher quality steel or construction requirements. Its basically a tube with a rocket motor, a simple fuel and explosives with a simple fuse.
I suspect Russia is pulling these systems out of storage in such numbers, because they are unable to make enough artillery shells and the required artillery pieces to fire them. That is why they are also buying ammo from North-Korea. Meanwhile they can make simpler rockets and fire them en masse. Neither do I think that Russia is unable to replace such systems. I suspect they are more than capable of replacing such losses, meaning their stockpiles are less relevant. It could also suggest that Russia didn't maintain such large stockpiles of rocket artillery because they know they can easily make more. Better to store more traditional artillery that is more difficult to make. Those will be a lot more difficult to replace.
As for the background as to why the Soviets had so much more rocket artillery:
For the Soviet economy which was resource rich and both technology and quality poor, rocket systems made a lot of sense. Those where a cheap solution to achieve mass of fire and didn't strain the limited capabilities of Soviet industry. For example during WW2 the Soviets used screw breeches with propellant cases for their 122mm and 152mm artillery, because they could not make sliding block breaches. A lot of these artillery pieces where at least "inspired" by German designs, often designed inside the Soviet-Union in the early 1930s. Designs the Soviets could not produce themselves without technical assistance. Eventually those where put into production, but to a lower standard and with the bizarre combination of a screw breech which is easier but more time consuming to machine and propellant cases which are not required with a properly machined screw breech which is gas tight. Cases are used for sliding block breeches which require more precise machining, but are easier to machine when you can do this. The case is normally needed to create a gas seal. In an attempt to remove cases, the Germans during WW2 already developed a sliding breech block that didn't need these any more because it was machined to form a gas seal when closed. They couldn't field it because the war ended. That development however is now in use in a lot of mainly European 52 calibre 155mm howitzers.
I suspect this is why the Soviets invested so much in rocket artillery. Such systems and rockets can be assembled in far lower technology facilities than where you would make artillery ammunition, let alone artillery pieces. That also makes them great for a mobilisation situation where you need more than your established facilities can produce. Its why they became so popular during WW2 with particularly the Germans and Soviets, but eventually all major countries. It was an easy way to add more artillery for little technological investment. Its also why the US arguably had the least investment of the major countries during WW2. They could and made huge qualities of long range artillery and the shells. The Germans made more shells, but they could not make the artillery pieces fast enough.
Its also why western countries never went that deeply into rocket artillery post WW2. For western countries the logic was inverted with having the ability to produce higher technological quality systems. The limitation was in resources and willingness to spend to much on military stockpiles. That pushed them towards fewer but more advanced systems. Where western countries adopted longer 39 calibre and later 52 calibre 155mm howitzers, the Soviets kept a mix of 122mm, 152mm and rocket artillery. The average western 39 calibre artillery piece was also superior to the overwhelming majority of Soviet 122mm and 152mm howitzers and far closer to the much rarer 152mm long range guns. The 52 calibre 155mm artillery is superior to anything the Soviets or now Russians have. And Ukraine is getting more and more of those 52 calibre 155mm howitzers. Those however are bottlenecked because they require specialised facilities to create the artillery and ammunition. That is the main issue in supply for the last two years.
Of course Russia can produce these systems in required quantities. Problem is, it'll take more concessions from population due to redirection of resources.
@@my3bikaht88 if they make more of these, they can make less of something else.
It all comes down to priority, production capacity is just limited.
Curious that you took so much time to write all this and completely ignored the part of the video where production data is presented and shown to not be remotely enough to replace losses.
@@Jimmy_The_Goat
1)When I need more eggs I can simply just go to a grocery store and buy more eggs
2)Wenn I still have enough eggs in my fridge for quite some time you'll probably not catch me driving in panic to the grocery store to buy more eggs today, because eggs are so commonly available I can buy them than when I need them.
3)Curious that I took so much time to write all this and completely ignored the part of my shopping list is presented and there are NO eggs listed wich, by your logic, seems to cast doubt on my ability to buy eggs or the availability of eggs...
@@Jimmy_The_Goat The thing with especially non guided, shorter range MLRSs is that you don't need to have almost any special production. You can use any truck to mount it on. Russia uses old trucks as they are free, repairing them with parts that are in stock - only labor is required. If they finish the old trucks - they will spend more and mount it on a newer truck. As long as it can carry the weight it is good enough. The bigger variants caring the guided variants are designed to be replaced by the trucks that haul the ammo. So as long as they have some of the trucks in stock - they can rebuild them again. The ammo and ammo production/logistics are much more important factors. Also MLRS have some advantages over standard artillery. You can use one truck to lob the 40 rockets very fast and move away. It simulates the work of several tube arty for the same time by exposing a much cheaper resource. Also you can use bigger variants with different loads - more explosive than standard arty or increased range. You can even load some intelligence equipment in the rocket and use it that way. Modern arty with rocket assisted shells can do some of this - but the cost of the ammo is very very hi and production is slow. Those big soviet rockets are cheep and give you a lot of room for different solutions.
subbed, thanks for all the work 🇳🇱❤🇺🇦
at least keep some for the museums in future
Thx for a great video!
Because Russia has started using dumb bombs with umpk glide kits, 9m542 and 9m544 guided glonass rockets on smerch tornado-s variant, wire guided fpv drones which are jam proof and also krasnopol guided shells for artillery similar to Excalibur and they increased krasnopol production by 25 times this year itself. So, when Russia can produce accurate weapons then why will they make more old weapons rather they're focussing or preparing for something else bigger in future with the production rate of weapons modern weapons including lancet drones
Lmao nice cope orc
algorithm please remind me of covert cabal more often
Vintage junk
NATO would subdue Russia in hours
With what? Germany has been trying to deploy one brigade to the Baltics. Sadly, they have no manpower to do it. Britain? With its 130 tanks and a tiny army? Realistically, only France and perhaps Poland are an actual force to be reckoned with on the ground, although Poland's in the process of expanding its army so lots of the soldiers are still fresh.
So unless the USA manages to move its troops without them being torped during a war, defending against the ruSSians would still be difficult.
Sure, NATO would absolutely wreck the ruSSians in the air and on the sea (except for subs, which would still be a challenge), but both ruSSia and Ukraine have proven you can keep fighting for 2.5 years even after losing most of your modern equipment.
This is something people in the West don't appreciate and don't understand: there is no such thing as "manpower losses that will stop the ruSSians from attacking". They lost over 12 million soldiers (and some 27 million people in total) in WW2, yet they kept attacking.
Ya but take the air, takes the logistics, they would sue for peace in a heartbeat.
Or, you know, poof there goes most cities in the Northern hemisphere 🤯
@@CraigAshton-d7q that's what Hitler said in 1941. And Napoleon a while earlier.
How much does this shilling pay?
Thank you Jompy
Rocket artillery isn't designed to be accurate...
Himars: Am I a joke to you?
HIMARS shoot missiles. Guided rockets are missiles. The same thing is happening with the Hydra rockets that have guided systems installed on them. Those are called guided rockets which would mean they are missiles.
@@orlock20Why do you think the US military calls it a rocket rather than a missile though?
@@mangatom192 Because the US military has really weird naming conventions?
@@mangatom192 because they added guidance to the existing mlrs rockets and called the new precision one gmlrs lol, i mean it makes sense its the same rockets but just now with gps guidance
@@TheStephaneAdamwhat do you mean if everything is an M1 how can that complicate things?
Thank you!
Ru authorities, media, talking heads and mouthpieces commonly do a lot of projecting.
One of those "expert" "guests" who is a regular on this most important talk show where Solovyov is the host recently said Ukr has resources left for another year, then they would run out.
If this was projection again and the guy knows what he's talking about, then things will get pretty rough in Ru in a year or so...
Gotta love Solovyov calling for a war with Germany because we stopped exporting Mercedes replacement parts for his car 🤣
He loves Russia so much he doesn't drive a Russian car.
We have hit the high point of the russian effort. Things will only weaken from here forward.
Fantastic thanks again
Which Russian vehicle will be the first to hit zero?
None. They keep making them. Zero is not the point. Not enough is.
Ropucha class ships... aircraft carriers!.. lol, i bet i can think of more, i haven't even reached land yet...
They will never hit zero, if they start running out of something, like tanks, artillery etc, they will slow down the tempo, to reduce losses and preserve the remaining vehicles.
@@patwilson2546 just merely from a statistics viewpoint, some will reach zero because they no longer produce T-55, T-62, T-64 tanks as well as several aircraft types in use are no longer being produced either
from a military viewpoint, not enough is good enough, like you said, so I'm not trying to contradict your statement, rather add to it
the venerable MT-LB, already hit 0 in storage bases, though there still are some kicking around with frontline units.
let me give you an algorithm pleasing content sir 😊
That's... weird?
1)Russia and USSR view MLRS as one of the niches to be proud of. So they'd be more cautious with it and prioritise it's production more;
2)MLRS(unguided) is easier to produce then full blown SPGs as far as I know so again, higher priority in production to get more firepower;
3)I don't recall mass usage of MLRS breaking news and neither their mass losses.
If anything, it's the equipment you'd expect to see more of, unlike critically important, but slow to replace IFVs.
IFVs - especial the soviet build are not that hard to replace. You have some damaged - you repair up to 70% just for 2-3 weeks close to the front lines. They use standard parts that can be stripped from those that are written off. For Ukraine that uses many IFV- types this can me more of an issue if delivery of spare parts is not done in time. Russians have IFVs with army groups that are not part of the war - so if they need some fast, they can just take them from the army inside Russia. Also increasing the production of IFVs can be done much much faster that the production of Artillery or tanks. They use much less steel and don't need some of the more fancy equipment like big guns. The smaller something is - usually it is much faster easier cheaper to produce. And don't put too much on the sentimental value of one type of equipment or another for either Russia or Ukraine. Those are tools, if they work well, they will try to have more, if they don't - well, they will stay in history. People in eastern Europe are less sentimental and more practical. Perception of something - as media call it, was rarely a real factor here.
Ah someone with a brain. These channels also never show you the footage pre-war of outgoing factory areas filled with new production missiles for years in various videos, they were stockpiling it well, well before this war, almost like it was... expected!
This channel copes so hard it's hilarious.
@@N4CR you do realise that said factory images, were explicitly staged promotional ones?
Russia is the same nation that 50 years ago drove their mobile ICBM launchers around the block in their annual victory parade so they could paint bigger numbers on them and make it seem like they had more.
Russia is a country that bases itself on deceit, generally their sources have been proven wrong hundreds of times. This is the next best thing we can do, which while imperfect, is still a tad more reliable than russias claims of having destroyed over a hundred Abrahams using fifty thousand newly built T-14s, that nobody can apparently find because of how stealthy they are.
It’s a joke of country that masquerades as a superpower, and while these numbers may be incorrect, they’re the best thing we’ll get until independent, impartial studies are done after the war to determine the true losses.
I don't think it's super weird, MLRS wouldn't be making headlines because it's one of those boring assets you just use as opposed to making a stink about like Terminator or Armata.
It's the sort of system that would have its numbers get chipped away at over the course of 2 years of a wasteful war as opposed to being lost in vast swathes, just like we'd expect it to.
@@N4CR no where in the video did he say they're running out of rockets. If they're making so many new launch vehicles, then why are they rapidly emptying all of their reserves? At best, this means they're still losing a lot of vehicles one way or another. This is an attrition war and this channel simply shows the extremely high price Russia is paying to invade a country. Live proof that Russia is done for as a world power, no NATO country will ever fear them again.
TOS is a Thermobaric weapon system - they're not included with the standard artillery ORBAT ... not sure why but they are possibly considered a special use system. .
They are a bit different with a quite short range. The overall number of the TOS systems is small and as a relative new system none are expected to be in storrage.
There are also Rocket pods for helicopers that essentially work like an MLRS.
TOS can do 1 thing - to attack fortified positions. It can't be used like other artillery units for cover fire or to attack advancing enemy or to swap shell types for a specific goal. Just a very specialized tool. I think they wanted to do something with the concept but at some point shifted focus to something that can be used for more tasks.
BM-27 Uragan. More like BM-27 U are gone.
Just an excellent analysis
For rocket artillery i would expect the launcher to be much less of a factor than the ammunition.
This is because you are sane and smart. Majority of ppl came here to fangirl for one team or another.
Probably the truck is the hardest to replace - but as I know Soviet equipment, probably you can use any truck as long as it can carry the load. But let them count - it seems they have fun.
This man is doing god's work. Counting pixels. Patience for days.
To be fair, tanks get all the Glory.
Good Video I had training on the US 115mm Chemical rockets how to do leak sealing and transport to a disposal site or short-term storage for later transport to a disposal site. Plus familiarization training on the Grad Warheads and motors and the decision tree for blowing in place or transport to a better place to disposal.
Unless Russia can ramp up production of new units, we are looking at a year at most at this rate. They might be able to source them from any 3rd party market. I am assuming there are plenty of them sitting around in the world. Not to mention the spare parts market that might help refurbish damaged units.
What's interesting is that presumably the Russians valued MLRS highly, otherwise why use them so heavily? So the fact that the Ivans are nearly out of them is significant. I'm guessing though that the tech behind these things are pretty low? Aren't they just trucks with tubes on top?
Yes, but that is basically the advantage of these systems. You can modernize the ammunition instead of having to modernize the system firing the ammunition. This makes them more expensive to operate than tubed artillery but also means that upgrades aren't as necessary.
It's another episode of "russia is running out of x"!
Next week, russia runs out of small arms ammo.
Yep, some viewers seem to still eat this bs up though.
That would be really funny, but no. Running out of Small arms ammo is ridiculous. Stop being silly this is a serious discussion.
@@highjumpstudios2384 There is no good faith argument you can have with them, they will continue to deny the satellite imagery and visual loss data. It just doesn't fit their narrative. Being silly is the only way to cope with the facts on the ground.
If they had so many ammo, why they are stil fighting against Ukraine and not already won by now? Jezus russia is 20 times bigger total failure
Your work and unbiased presenting makes you a must watch and you don't have many trolls as a result of that. Russia is simply burning through so much of everything yes they are making progress but the cost of that progress just isn't sustainable and within a year we are going to start seeing how that changes the war.
3:24 you forgot to mention about how long it takes to reload these. You need to manually reload all 40 rockets, one at a time. This makes their fire rate abysmal.
The TOS-1 and TOS-1A are not flame throwers, despite their Russian name. They are short range MLRS with thermobaric warheads. That is, just before impact the warhead disperses fuel (probably just regular diesel) as a fine mist in the air and ignites it. If done correctly you get a massive shock wave that can knock over buildings, deplete oxygen and give everyone hidden in a fox hole a disabling concussion. If done incorrectly you just set things on fire. From the Ukrainian reporting these fall somewhere in the middle. As in, they do generate a decent amount of shock wave but dispersal isn't too good so there's also a decent amount of burning.
For anyone coming, you can skip straight to 4:28 to get to the actual information teased at in the video title. Assuming if you clicked on this video you don't need the most basic explanation of what an MLRS is or a sponsored plug to GROUND news
The animation at 0:33 made me smile!
Summery of video - "Orcs have shov.. missles for a week".