Ukraine - somebody explain to me

[Goatnapper'96]

Not Napper, but had one that was a fire support vehicle from my FST days as well as my mortar platoon mounted their 120s on them. They are old and not used for APC purposes in the US inventory anymore at least they were not in 1AD in 1997 - 2001, but for other purposes as noted. They were replaced by the Bradley Fighting Vehicles prior to my entry into active duty. The base armor is not much, will not stop a .50 cal direct hit or obviously anything larger. But it is a safer way of moving troops than a dueceandahalf or 5 ton, or even an up armored HMMWV.

This guy nails it. By the time I was even at West Point I think the 113 had been transitioned to National Guard units in its intended role as either a Cavalry Reconnaissance Vehicle or Mechanized Infantry vehicle. In the 1980's it was replaced by the Bradley Fighting/Cavalry Vehicle for both mechanized infantry and cavalry reconnaissance. It was still in use in Active Duty units in mortar and various support (chemical, medical and service support)- I do think it was the assigned vehicle for First Sergeants in armor, mech infantry and cavalry units but I think even then there was a movement to faze them out and move Tops into Bradleys. But Initially there just was not enough Bradleys for 1st SGTs to get away from the 113. It has plenty of space back there for Top to transport beans and bullets so it worked well in that respect.

The Bradley is far superior as far as both surviveability and firepower. As pointed out a .50 cal could tear up a 113 and I don't think it could ever get a bigger weapon system for direct engagement than a M2 .50 cal. Whereas the Bradley has a 25 MM with the capability of shooting up all Soviet era armor. I also believe the gunner in a 113 is exposed similar to the HUMMWV gunner whereas the gunner on a Bradley is inside the turret and protected from small arms fire.

So what the Ukrainians are getting is some pretty old stuff-but hey beggars can't be choosers! WOLVERINES!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ship did not sink. Boo.

UPDATE: Ship sunk while they were towing back to port. Confirmed by the Russians. Haha!

Embedded Tweet

[Moliere]

Ship did not sink. Boo.

Embedded Tweet

WSJ is saying it sunk while it was being towed to port.

[Bo Diddley]

Embedded Tweet

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

This seems way more believable than "all personnel were safely evacuated".

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

Haha. That's a good one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The internet always wins:

Embedded Tweet

[myboynoah]

This seems way more believable than "all personnel were safely evacuated".

Embedded Tweet

Yeah, some reports were that this all happened in a storm as well. Just think of the confusion of getting hit by a missile, the resultant damage and fire and folllow on explosions of your own ordinance, and trying to save the ship. All in a storm.

[Bo Diddley]

The internet always wins:

[Bo Diddley]

Yeah, some reports were that this all happened in a storm as well. Just think of the confusion of getting hit by a missile, the resultant damage and fire and folllow on explosions of your own ordinance, and trying to save the ship. All in a storm.

What are the chances the Black Sea Fleet Commander died as well?

[Copelius]

This guy nails it. By the time I was even at West Point I think the 113 had been transitioned to National Guard units in its intended role as either a Cavalry Reconnaissance Vehicle or Mechanized Infantry vehicle. In the 1980's it was replaced by the Bradley Fighting/Cavalry Vehicle for both mechanized infantry and cavalry reconnaissance. It was still in use in Active Duty units in mortar and various support (chemical, medical and service support)- I do think it was the assigned vehicle for First Sergeants in armor, mech infantry and cavalry units but I think even then there was a movement to faze them out and move Tops into Bradleys. But Initially there just was not enough Bradleys for 1st SGTs to get away from the 113. It has plenty of space back there for Top to transport beans and bullets so it worked well in that respect.

The Bradley is far superior as far as both surviveability and firepower. As pointed out a .50 cal could tear up a 113 and I don't think it could ever get a bigger weapon system for direct engagement than a M2 .50 cal. Whereas the Bradley has a 25 MM with the capability of shooting up all Soviet era armor. I also believe the gunner in a 113 is exposed similar to the HUMMWV gunner whereas the gunner on a Bradley is inside the turret and protected from small arms fire.

So what the Ukrainians are getting is some pretty old stuff-but hey beggars can't be choosers! WOLVERINES!

I didn't realize how old the Bradleys were. When I was in 1-1 Cav in 98 the 1SGs had Bradleys and the Troop COs had Tanks. Poor XOs got stuck in a HMMWV. I loved the amount of firepower in the DivCav squadron.

[LVAllen]

What are the chances the Black Sea Fleet Commander died as well?

Rumors are abounding in Twitter that Admiral Igor Osipov wasn't aboard the Moskva, and has been arrested by folks in plain clothes who also beat his adjutant. No doubt he will be welcomed home by Putin and invited to a window-side seat for dinner and warm drinks.

[myboynoah]

lol

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

Rumors are abounding in Twitter that Admiral Igor Osipov wasn't aboard the Moskva, and has been arrested by folks in plain clothes who also beat his adjutant. No doubt he will be welcomed home by Putin and invited to a window-side seat for dinner and warm drinks.

That would totally fit with the narrative.

In other news, Russia fires missiles at a factory in Kyiv where these anti-ship Neptune missiles are made.