Remote mining rockets for Grad MLRS

For MLRS "Grad" was created a large number of rockets for various purposes with different characteristics. A special place in the range of ammunition is occupied by rockets of remote mining - missiles with a cluster head, carrying mines of various types. Consider means for setting minefields using rocket artillery.

BM-21 fires

Unified designs

A characteristic feature of the entire family of Grad multiple launch rocket systems is the use of the same solutions and components on different samples. This approach allowed us to create a large range of ammunition, including remote mining shells. The development of the latter was carried out in the seventies and eighties of the last century.

The placement of mines at a distance from the firing position can be carried out using missiles 3M16 and 9M28K. Both of these products were created on the basis of mastered components and unified with other Grada ammunition. They are built on the basis of a cylindrical housing of standard dimensions, the rear of which is a unified engine compartment. Differences between the 3M16 and 9M28K from other weapons are only in the design and filling of the head.

Thanks to this design, mining shells can be used by almost all Grad MLRS. An exception is the 9P132 handheld launcher with a single rail. Thus, any rocket artillery fighting vehicle can perform the functions of a mine layer.

Shell 3M16

To create an obstacle to infantry or unprotected equipment, it was proposed to use the 3M16 missile. This product has a length of 3,02 m and a caliber of 122 mm. Starting weight - 56,4 kg. The missile part of such a projectile is connected to a cluster head part weighing 21,6 kg.

Cut-out model of the projectile 3M16. Red elements - restraint parts, green - POM-2 mines

The 3M16 payload consists of five POM-2 anti-personnel mines. The latter are placed in one row along the longitudinal axis of the rocket inside the tubular holding device. The head part with a length of 1,6 m is resettable. It has a squib for ejecting mines in a downward section of the trajectory. The discharge is controlled by a TM-120 remote tube screwed into the rocket head fairing.

Mines are delivered at a distance from 1,5 to 13,4 km. The load of one projectile when firing at maximum range falls in an ellipse of 105x70 m in size. When firing multiple rockets from an 40 salvo, the payload is scattered over an area of ​​250 thousand square meters.

Anti-personnel mine POM-2 "Swelling" is made in the form of a cylinder with openable side paws. The mass of the mine is 1,5 kg, of which 140 g of explosive. Mine height - 180 mm, diameter - 63 mm. The blasting is carried out by the VP-09С fuse when exposed to the target sensor thread. The process of placing a mine on a platoon begins when it is ejected from a rocket and lasts several minutes. Self-liquidator triggers in 4-100 hours

Mina POM-2 in combat position

According to the regulations, to mine a site with a width of 1 km along the front, a volley of 20 3M16 shells is required. At the same time, 100 min. The use of several launchers allows you to create a minefield of the required size and density.

Shell 9M28K

Together with 3M16 or on its own, the 9M28K projectile (in some sources also referred to as 9М22К), designed to set anti-tank mines. In dimensions, it is similar to 3М16, but differs in a larger mass - 57,7 kg. The warhead accounts for 22,8 kg. The operating principles and flight characteristics of the two products are similar.

In the detachable head of the 9M28K product, three anti-tank mines PTM-3 are placed with the help of restraining devices. The emission of mines is carried out on the descending part of the trajectory using a pyrotechnic charge controlled by a TM-120 tube.

Product layout 9М28К

The PTM-3 mine has a length of 330 mm and weighs 4,9 kg (charge 1,8 kg of TNT). A VT-06 proximity fuse is used that responds to a magnetic field or mine displacement. The defeat of the armored target is carried out in the caterpillar or in the bottom. For greater efficiency, recesses in the form of cumulative funnels are provided on the charge and on the walls of the housing. Transfer to a combat position takes about a minute. The self-liquidator is triggered within 16-24 hours after being cocked.

The range of the 9M28K shells is from 1,5 to 13,4 km. All the mines of one rocket fall into an ellipse of approx. 105x70 m. The product carries only three mines, which is why the installation of a fence of the required density requires a greater consumption of ammunition - up to 90 missiles at 1 km of the front. Fewer mines per plot dramatically reduce the effectiveness of the boom.

Advantages and disadvantages

The main positive quality of rocket launchers of remote mining is the ability to quickly set up a mine-explosive barrage at a considerable distance and directly on the enemy’s path. In terms of range and safety, the installation of mines MLRS surpass all other options for barriers.

The head of the shell 9М28К with mines PTM-3

The presence of shells 3М16 and 9М28К, carrying anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, allows you to create minefields for various purposes and the required size. The operation of the Grad with such ammunition forces the enemy to spend time and energy organizing passages for manpower and equipment, which slows his progress.

MLRS in the role of directors of mines can be used together with specialized engineering equipment and helicopters. In this case, the command receives different means of mining and can choose the best for current tasks. Volley fire systems prove to be a means for mining at long ranges, while most other barriers are forced to work directly on the future minefield.

However, mining rockets for the Grad have significant drawbacks. First of all, it is a small payload. In the head part with a diameter of 122 mm and a length of 1,6 m, no more than 3-5 min can be placed. As a result, the installation of a large minefield is associated with a significant consumption of shells. Problems may arise with the supply of artillery units and the provision of mining.

Split prototype anti-tank mines PTM-3

For comparison, 300-mm shells for MLRS "Smerch" capable of carrying 64 mines POM-2 or 25 PTM-3. Thus, the multiple-caliber multiple launch rocket system is several times greater than the Grad in terms of mining efficiency with less munition consumption.

Limited fit

The creation of rocket shells 3М16 and 9М28К made it possible in practice to show the fundamental possibility of performing remote mining by MLRS forces, as well as to develop the necessary technologies. However, the results of these projects were far from ideal.

The characteristics and qualities of Grada as a mine director are limited by its low payload and the reduced range of specialized missiles. Because of this, remote mining shells, having entered service, were used limitedly. According to some sources, such systems were not even taken into account in military planning and were never used in the course of exercises.

However, the ideas and technologies of the 3М16 and 9М28К projects yielded real results. Since the seventies, Soviet industry has developed a number of similar shells for MLRS "Hurricane" and "Smerch". Such missiles, having a larger caliber and launch mass, are capable of carrying larger “ammunition,” and therefore differ favorably from their predecessors. New products have found their place in the army and continue to serve to this day.

Comments

[svp67]

Whatever it was, but a timely installed mine-explosive obstacle can be very useful when carrying out both in defense and in the offensive. No matter how "barbaric" mines are considered. Alas, for a long time Russia will not be able to do without them.
And it is good that in the USSR a harmonious system of such installations was created at various depths, using various means.

[Professor]

The 3M16 payload consists of five POM-2 anti-personnel mines.

A useless load because you need to mine correctly, using gray matter in the head box, and not fill it with landmines.

[garri-lin]

Professor you in your repertoire. Putting bags of saltpeter under patrol routes is not mining, it is a terrorist attack.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

Professor you in your repertoire. Putting bags of saltpeter under patrol routes is not mining, it is a terrorist attack.

My grandfather in Belarus derailed trains with invaders. He was a partisan since he acted on his territory.

And minefields must be set wisely accurately marking each bookmark on the map. Otherwise, their own will be blown up.

[garri-lin]

Remote mining is most often used behind enemy lines. For limiting the maneuver of rear units and reserves. Well, so that to cover their flanks quickly, if the intelligence missed the advance of the enemy. The self-destruction timer on mines is for that. As long as our troops reach the mining zones, they will either be cleared by the enemy, having wasted time and having lost the initiative, or the self-destructors will work out and the terrain will again become passable. Plus, marking on the map the place at which such ammunition was fired can be done with fairly high accuracy. This is so that their own people know where to meddle is not worth it and a lot of time.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

Remote mining is most often used behind enemy lines. For limiting the maneuver of rear units and reserves. Well, so that to cover their flanks quickly, if the intelligence missed the advance of the enemy.

It is understandable when you are going to drape and there can be no talk of victory. In the same way, you can infect the territory with radionuclides.

Quote: garri-lin

The self-destruction timer on mines is for that.

One of the problems is that this timer is not reliable.

Quote: garri-lin

As long as our troops reach the mining zones, they will either be cleared by the enemy, having wasted time and having lost the initiative, or the self-destructors will work out and the terrain will again become passable.

And if the enemy retreated, then these mine plantations become your headache.

Quote: garri-lin

Plus, marking on the map the place at which such ammunition was fired can be done with fairly high accuracy. This is so that their own people know where to meddle is not worth it and a lot of time.

And you look at the map of minefields. The designation of the area is not enough. This allows a maximum to more or less enclose it with a spike for clearance in better times. Mine clearance itself is then super expensive and dangerous.

[garri-lin]

Well on points. 1. It is not necessary to drape. In an offensive, you can also plant enemy rear lines with mines. To retreat complicate or tighten reserves to complicate. (Second important). If the terrain is difficult: mountains, swamps, impassable forests with a limited number of roads, then this can be done quite effectively.
2. The timer is reliable enough. Less than one percent failure if I remember correctly. The danger of course remains, but there is absolutely no danger of war.
3. And if the enemy did not retreat and went to the flank or rear, or was able to tighten reserves, the global pain becomes an order of magnitude greater. And these headaches are mobile, biting and deadly. And they can do much harm. A minefield can calmly wait for a change in the situation, so that it is checked and after self-liquidation they are cleared of non-working ones.
4. Mines to clean a dangerous business. I do not argue. But the benefits from them when used properly are many. And as for the detailed maps of minefields with the designation of each mine, then they are meaningless. A competent sapper will not believe in these cards. God does not give a mistake or negligence in a punishment and the soul flies to paradise. No one will do it.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

1. It is not necessary to drape. In an offensive, you can also plant enemy rear lines with mines. To retreat complicate or tighten reserves to complicate. (Second important). If the terrain is difficult: mountains, swamps, impassable forests with a limited number of roads, then this can be done quite effectively.

If you are able to strike MLRS in the rear of the enemy, why would you not engage in nonsense, but destroy the enemy by striking at it yourself?

Quote: garri-lin

2. The timer is reliable enough. Less than one percent failure if I remember correctly. The danger of course remains, but there is absolutely no danger of war.

Less than one percent of a timer failure is a disaster. Imagine that for every 100th green traffic light for you, a Kamaz jumps out at you at full speed. Ask Lopatov. He has "excellent" in terver. He will tell you how many chances you have to survive. In fact, there are much more refusals with a self-liquidator than 1%.

Quote: garri-lin

3. And if the enemy did not retreat and went to the flank or rear, or was able to tighten reserves, the global pain becomes an order of magnitude greater. And these headaches are mobile, biting and deadly. And they can do much harm. A minefield can calmly wait for a change in the situation, so that it is checked and after self-liquidation they are cleared of non-working ones.

See paragraph 1 for the destruction of the enemy himself.

Quote: garri-lin

4. Mines to clean a dangerous business. I do not argue. But the benefits from them when used properly are many. And as for the detailed maps of minefields with the designation of each mine, then they are meaningless. A competent sapper will not believe in these cards. God does not give a mistake or negligence in a punishment and the soul flies to paradise. No one will do it.

A competent sapper is reinsured, but nobody canceled the maps of minefields. But these mines have been lying in the ground for 70 years and are still mutilating those who come. Reliably done.

Quote: faridg7

Quote: professor

And minefields must be set wisely accurately marking each bookmark on the map.

Well, of course it is, only it was relevant when the mine of intelligence was like in a brick. Now a mine can sort targets not only into military and civilians, but already sort military into friends and foes. In any case, all the prerequisites for this are

So big, but you still believe in fairy tales ...

[garri-lin]

Continue on point 1, do not do nonsense, but strike at the enemy. Specifically for whom? On the troops in the positions? This will be done. On the retreating units in the depths? You need to know their location and time. Suitable reserves and ammunition wagons? You need to know when it will go. And reconnaissance of this data is difficult if the enemy is not a slipper. And mines can be scattered along the most likely paths. And knowing about such mining, the enemy will move much more slowly checking the path in front of him. The limitation of the maneuver is called. 2. Where does the infa on the refusals of self-liquidators come from? And I would like to hear the figure that you think is more real. I found information in "less than 1 percent" in a fairly competent article and, honestly speaking, took it for an axiom. This is the second argument that the mines for remote mining are mainly electrical and the power source is not large there, but as the battery is depleted, it becomes not dangerous.
3. Well, here is the reference to paragraph one. Mines are time flexibility. A volley is 20 seconds of a mine this is several days.
4. So why focus on maps if they will be crawling for purely informative purposes and demining will be carried out as in an unfamiliar area. The sapper will be extremely careful to remove even the mine he has set himself, fearing "surprises" from competitors.
5. For clever mines. This is not a fairy tale, but nobody will use such piece goods in mass mining. This is more for reconnaissance sabotage groups.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

Continue on point 1, do not do nonsense, but strike at the enemy. Specifically for whom? On the troops in the positions? This will be done. On the retreating units in the depths? You need to know their location and time. Suitable reserves and ammunition wagons? You need to know when it will go. And reconnaissance of this data is difficult if the enemy is not a slipper. And mines can be scattered along the most likely paths. And knowing about such mining, the enemy will move much more slowly checking the path in front of him. The limitation of the maneuver is called. 2. Where does the infa on the refusals of self-liquidators come from? And I would like to hear the figure that you think is more real. I found information in "less than 1 percent" in a fairly competent article and, honestly speaking, took it for an axiom. This is the second argument that the mines for remote mining are mainly electrical and the power source is not large there, but as the battery is depleted, it becomes not dangerous.
3. Well, here is the reference to paragraph one. Mines are time flexibility. A volley is 20 seconds of a mine this is several days.
4. So why focus on maps if they will be crawling for purely informative purposes and demining will be carried out as in an unfamiliar area. The sapper will be extremely careful to remove even the mine he has set himself, fearing "surprises" from competitors.
5. For clever mines. This is not a fairy tale, but nobody will use such piece goods in mass mining. This is more for reconnaissance sabotage groups.

We are going in the second round. I do not see the point in repeating. The failure rate of self-liquidators met in the literature. The figure is approaching double-digit. Here's a fresh one:

Quote: garri-lin

I liked about the hundredth traffic light and kamaz. I will answer separately. They, like MANPADS, operate minefields by the very fact of their existence. It is not undermined by mines, but a lot of energy is spent on neutralizing minefields. Including where these fields are not. Reinsured. But the position of their fields is known and will be checked accordingly. To make sure that after self-liquidation there are no surprises left. I’ll say more, they’ll check whether the enemy threw anything from above from above. So the number of failed self-liquidators is a conditional value.

Passages in minefields in wartime are organized very quickly, that of the bourgeois, that of the highly spiritual. The problem is that the fields sown by mines are equally harmful, which is what the enemy himself determines.

[garri-lin]

You are incorrigible. The bottom line is that "ours" know exactly where they planted the mines and the enemy knows this approximately. In our time, with the presence of artillery fire tracking radars, this is no longer so relevant. The mining sites will be known to the opponent. But this does not negate the need for demining. And this time. You say that the passes are done quickly. Can I have a number? How long will it take to clear 1 km of the road?

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

So you say that the passages are done quickly.

He is confident that the detected minefield instantly becomes safe.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

You are incorrigible. The bottom line is that "ours" know exactly where they planted the mines and the enemy knows this approximately. In our time, with the presence of artillery fire tracking radars, this is no longer so relevant. The mining sites will be known to the opponent. But this does not negate the need for demining. And this time. You say that the passes are done quickly. Can I have a number? How long will it take to clear 1 km of the road?

Since you just these mines sprinkle the road, it will slow down the progress of the column.

PS
Here are Russian anti-tank cluster mines. As you can see, there are obvious problems with self-liquidation.

[garri-lin]

Here! Well, you finally get it. The column will go slower. The reinforcements won't be in time. The group making the flank attack will slow down and "our" troops will have time to regroup and prepare. The retreating enemy will slow down and it will be possible to catch up and break it. Well, to point one. Those who stopped in front of the demining territory of the enemy's military personnel are an excellent target for a second strike, this time with conventional missiles. And not in a prepared position. And on level ground, where the damage will be much less.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

Here! Well, you finally get it. The column will go slower. The reinforcements won't be in time. The group making the flank attack will slow down and "our" troops will have time to regroup and prepare. The retreating enemy will slow down and it will be possible to catch up and break it. Well, to point one. Those who stopped in front of the demining territory of the enemy's military personnel are an excellent target for a second strike, this time with conventional missiles. And not in a prepared position. And on level ground, where the damage will be much less.

The column is already moving at a ridiculous speed. But this is not important. It is important that in the presence of MLRS, EVERYTHING (that is, absolutely everything) is hit directly against the enemy, and not mine the area.

Quote: garri-lin

Photo of mines from under the homs? So they didn’t even seem to cock. Cant manufacturers but I will not argue.

It is precisely thanks to these jambs that self-destruction is not worth hoping for.

Quote: garri-lin

And I forgot to add a video. Rut trawls against anti-bottom mines are not very effective. A mine missed between trawls and falling under the bottom of a vehicle will incapacitate, and possibly destroy. I apologize for the confusion but it was a hard day.

There is also a photo with a dump. I will not upload photos of bulldozers going in front of the column.

[garri-lin]

That is strange. You turn out to reject all the effectiveness of mines. And the whole world ignores it and despite the mass of conventions continues to stamp them. Strange why.
I do not argue about jambs. They are present always and everywhere. But this does not mean that they are an excuse to reject something useful. You just need to minimize the jambs.
Bulldozer blade is good. But with it, the speed is slower and even non-contact anti-bottom mines can do business when undermining and to the side of the equipment. And so the opportunity will certainly be taken into account when making passes. P is just a waste of time. And an extra waste of time by the enemy in a battle is good.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

That is strange. You turn out to reject all the effectiveness of mines. And the whole world ignores it and despite the mass of conventions continues to stamp them. Strange why.

Quote: garri-lin

I do not argue about jambs. They are present always and everywhere. But this does not mean that they are an excuse to reject something useful. You just need to minimize the jambs.

Remote mining is so "useful" that it is quite common.

Quote: garri-lin

Bulldozer blade is good. But with it, the speed is slower and even non-contact anti-bottom mines can do business when undermining and to the side of the equipment. And so the opportunity will certainly be taken into account when making passes. P is just a waste of time. And an extra waste of time by the enemy in a battle is good.

Mines are good because they are invisible and are a surprise. Moreover, mines are a psychological factor that causes stupor. Mines scattered with MLRS do not possess such properties.

[garri-lin]

And how do the mines scattered MLRS differ from mines manually set in psychological terms? A single mine is essentially a diversion; putting a minefield manually in the enemy’s rear is fantastic. A field of any complexity and any size lined up manually after the first blasting is cleared exactly the same PDA and set remotely. The difference for the opponent is which field, remotely set or manually, is absolutely minimal. Mine.

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

And how do the mines scattered MLRS differ from mines manually set in psychological terms?

Some lie on the surface and shout: "Here I am." Others are hidden and every step can be the last.

Quote: garri-lin

A single mine is essentially a diversion; putting a minefield manually in the enemy’s rear is fantastic. A field of any complexity and any size lined up manually after the first blasting is cleared exactly the same PDA and set remotely. The difference for the opponent is which field, remotely set or manually, is absolutely minimal. Mine.

Mine is cleared, but in the second case, this requires more time.

[garri-lin]

Now a little problem remains. How would we discreetly put several thousand mines on enemy communications. So that the enemy does not notice. So as not to risk people. So that during these events the situation does not have time to change much. Feasible? Almost certainly not. And such fields will be cleared by means of mechanized clearance. Type of Uranus or Urka. Long, compared to manual installation time almost instantly. Manual installation is unreasonably labor-intensive. Minefields are needed where the enemy will move. Or one-time sabotage mining by the forces of a highly trained mobile group. Or remote.

[demokrat86]

God himself will indicate to the chosen ones where what and how, they are used to hitting a weak opponent and even like jackals from the undercoat, you already feel sick of the plugs in each opera, so chosen that you’re afraid that none of your neighbors got rocket technology, because you got everyone already by God's chosenness

[Professor]

Quote: demokrat86

God himself will indicate to the chosen ones where what and how, they are used to hitting a weak opponent and even like jackals from the undercoat, you already feel sick of the plugs in each opera, so chosen that you’re afraid that none of your neighbors got rocket technology, because you got everyone already by God's chosenness

Are you talking about Georgia and Ukraine? Strong opponents. Try to jump out to Lithuania. NATO scared?

[demokrat86]

And what does Lithuania have to do with it, it’s the jackal of the USA, and for the sake of these jackals NATO will not fit

[garri-lin]

Photo of mines from under the homs? So they didn’t even seem to cock. Cant manufacturers but I will not argue.

[garri-lin]

And I forgot to add a video. Rut trawls against anti-bottom mines are not very effective. A mine missed between trawls and falling under the bottom of a vehicle will incapacitate, and possibly destroy. I apologize for the confusion but it was a hard day.

[garri-lin]

I liked about the hundredth traffic light and kamaz. I will answer separately. They, like MANPADS, operate minefields by the very fact of their existence. It is not undermined by mines, but a lot of energy is spent on neutralizing minefields. Including where these fields are not. Reinsured. But the position of their fields is known and will be checked accordingly. To make sure that after self-liquidation there are no surprises left. I’ll say more, they’ll check whether the enemy threw anything from above from above. So the number of failed self-liquidators is a conditional value.

[faridg7]

Quote: professor

In the same way, you can infect the territory with radionuclides.

Well, what insidiousness and barbarism. Bad bad

[faridg7]

Quote: professor

And minefields must be set wisely accurately marking each bookmark on the map.

Well, of course it is, only it was relevant when the mine of intelligence was like in a brick. Now a mine can sort targets not only into military and civilians, but already sort military into friends and foes. In any case, all the prerequisites for this are

[Tektor]

This is an extremely important development, because Using competent remote mining, you can completely paralyze the enemy’s actions at the most critical time. With the help of a competent mine war, you can solve all your tasks without straining at all. Mines are surprise and uncertainty, because it’s not immediately clear who, what and why. This is a secret weapon ... It can easily be passed off as strangers ... Until time is sorted out, it will be critically missed.

[Professor]

Quote: Tektor

Mines are surprise and uncertainty

That's it. And here "secretly and quietly" they mine with the help of missile defense systems.

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

That's it.

For you, the minefield that appeared within minutes is not sudden enough?
Or is the mere possibility of such a field appearing in any place is not sufficiently uncertain?
I understand, troll, but you need to see at least a little shore.

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

For you, the minefield that appeared within minutes is not sudden enough?

Go to the pioneers tell how "suddenly" a minefield appears after it is installed there by the MLRS.

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

Go to the pioneers tell how "suddenly" a minefield appears after it is installed there by the MLRS.

Is it not enough for you suddenly?
Or will you now deliberately discuss the fact that 8 hours of laying mines by drill is actually less than a few minutes of a volley of MLRS?

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

Is it not enough for you suddenly?

Absolutely not sudden. A volley of MLRS for tens of kilometers around informs about its action. The enemy has been warned and there can be no talk of any "surprise". The enemy will no longer run into a minefield. You told him where it is.

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

The MLRS volley for dozens of kilometers around reports its deed.

So what?????
Damn, one platoon, a hundred AT mines, setting up a minefield by combat crew. Without masking, on the ground. Only 20% min for non-handling. 1 hour 5 minutes in the afternoon on "excellent". Hour, Karl !!!
And one "Gradovskaya" installation of 120 minutes will lay in 20 seconds, plus the flight
And deeply on .. the enemy sees it or not. With modern mine detection tools this does not matter. It matters only that the minefield will either have to be circumvented or overcome.

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

Quote: professor

The MLRS volley for dozens of kilometers around reports its deed.

So what?????
Damn, one platoon, a hundred AT mines, setting up a minefield by combat crew. Without masking, on the ground. Only 20% min for non-handling. 1 hour 5 minutes in the afternoon on "excellent". Hour, Karl !!!
And one "Gradovskaya" installation of 120 minutes will lay in 20 seconds, plus the flight
And deeply on .. the enemy sees it or not. With modern mine detection tools this does not matter. It matters only that the minefield will either have to be circumvented or overcome.

A lot of noise, little sense. In confirmation of the "massive" combat use of remote mining. Is that so? Artillery does not work directly against the enemy, but mines areas.

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

There is a lot of noise, little use.

The tale. And amateurism.
Is the quality of the fence determined by the number of people hanging on it?
By the way, I did not see evidence that one hour five minutes is much less than 20 seconds.

Quote: professor

Artillery does not work on the enemy directly, but it mines the area.

For the eleventh time .... Stopped by remote mining, hit like a motionless target.
This is the standard. I didn’t think it was so hard to understand.

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

The tale. And amateurism.
Is the quality of the fence determined by the number of people hanging on it?
By the way, I did not see evidence that one hour five minutes is much less than 20 seconds.

I absolutely agree with you. The tale. And amateurism. We have not seen any evidence of the effectiveness of remote mining using MLRS, and everyone, as usual, shoots in direct salvos DIRECTLY at the enemy, and not where he can appear.

Quote: Spade

For the eleventh time .... Stopped by remote mining, hit like a motionless target.

In your fantasies. In practice, they hit the enemy without mining. You can easily refute me FACTS. Right?

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

and everyone in the old fashioned way volleys DIRECTLY at the enemy, and not where he can appear.

Really hard?
Attention, a question on quick wits: what is easier to hit a standing column, or moving "at increased speed with increased distances" (s)?

Quote: professor

In your fantasies.

Remind you what educational institution I graduated from? Methods of hitting moving targets are not "fantasies" at all 8))))))))))))))

In short, verbiage has gone completely empty, and I have not seen evidence that an hour is less than 20 seconds.

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

Really hard?
Attention, a question on quick wits: what is easier to hit a standing column, or moving "at increased speed with increased distances" (s)?

Demagogy. Incidentally, I did not expect another from you. No evidence We didn’t see the effectiveness of remote mining using MLRS from you, and they all shoot in the old fashion as usual DIRECTLY on the enemy, and not where he can appear.

Quote: Spade

Remind you what educational institution I graduated from? Methods of hitting moving targets are not "fantasies" at all 8))))))))))))))

Well? In my native Alma Mater, Nobel laureates teach. I took a course from one of them. You in your educational institution haven’t been taught anything else in the crown of the Normal Distribution Law. And then you have not learned correctly. In your opinion there is a final diameter into which 100% of the shells will fall with a certain CVO. Tin.

So where FACTSthat my statement "in practice they hit the enemy without mining" is not true?

Quote: Spade

In short, verbiage has gone completely empty, and I have not seen evidence that an hour is less than 20 seconds.

Verbiage and cheap trolling is with you. However, as usual.

[demokrat86]

Hezbollah I would hesitate to make such head parts and would look how God's chosen it would seem pointless and not effective

[tarakan]

It’s easy to understand, but to accept and agree (to the professor) is incomprehensible.

[Nikolaevich I]

Having said about the remote-mining NURS for the Soviet / Russian-made "Grad" MLRS, can we also mention the 122-mm remote-mining NURS "foreign" made?

[gaudin]

Against a high-tech adversary, the system is useless, the launch site and the place of ammunition fall, the hail will be destroyed, and no one will go to the minefield.

[Lopatov]

Quote: gaudin

the place of launch and the place of the fall of ammunition will hover, as a result, hail will be destroyed, and no one will go to the minefield.

"Grads" will not destroy, they leave the firing room immediately after the volley. Well, the fact that "no one will go" is just wonderful. After all, the task is completed.

[Professor]

Quote: gaudin

Against a high-tech adversary, the system is useless, the launch site and the place of ammunition fall, the hail will be destroyed, and no one will go to the minefield.

They will detect it before the deployment of the battery and destroy it before the battery has time to shoot.

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

Detect before battery deployment

What will they spot?
Downed by a drone?
Or a jammed radar?

Quote: professor

IDF destroys Islamic terrorists' rocket launcher

Again beguiled their ordinary opponents and a normal army?

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

What will they spot?
Downed by a drone?
Or a jammed radar?

You tell Shamanov how to jam the radar and shoot down drones, otherwise he does not know.

Quote: Spade

Again beguiled their ordinary opponents and a normal army?

Well, why? That’s the normal army.

There is also about the Iraqi normal army. And a lot.

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

You tell Shamanov how to jam the radar and shoot down drones, otherwise he does not know.

Already, I think, has known for a very long time. At you live in the past, in 2008 froze.

Quote: professor

Well, why? That’s the normal army.

Where is the "normal army"?
Israeli heroes beat tied and lying, using the confidence that they will not answer?

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

Already, I think, has known for a very long time. At you live in the past, in 2008 froze.

From what? The video above is pretty recent.

Quote: Spade

Quote: professor

You tell Shamanov how to jam the radar and shoot down drones, otherwise he does not know.

Already, I think, has known for a very long time. At you live in the past, in 2008 froze.

Quote: professor

Well, why? That’s the normal army.

Where is the "normal army"?
Israeli heroes beat tied and lying, using the confidence that they will not answer?

1. Religion forbidding to answer? Like Assad is not a Christian. Should not substitute a second cheek.
2. I remember in Bekaa they carried out the very, very air defense already there was dust. Oh yes. That was a long time ago. True, neither then, nor after, no one was able to demonstrate your wishlist about "Downed drones" and "jammed radar". In all the conflicts of the last 40 years, artillery was carried out by aviation and no air defense and jammers helped either the Assad, Saddam or Muammar. However, you live in a different galaxy. All your processes are subject to the Normal Law of Distribution.

[Lopatov]

Quote: professor

1. Religion forbidding to answer?

No, the realization that they will not be able to fight on another front.
Your state prefers just such opponents.

Quote: professor

I remember in Bekaa

And what was under Jericho? Remember, so remember. I remind you that in the yard is mid-2019.

Quote: professor

True, neither then, nor after, no one was able to demonstrate your wishlist about "Downed drones" and "jammed radar".

Damn, your hat-making of borders has no 8)))
Slash with Russia, and you strive for this with all your might, you will be smeared like a snot on asphalt. Only at the expense of your hypertrophied conceit.

[Professor]

Quote: Spade

No, the realization that they will not be able to fight on another front.
Your state prefers just such opponents.

Our state prefers peace to war and even offered the Assad ALL the Golan (or whatever they are in Arabic?) In exchange for peace. Assad refused the night before the war. Attention issue; Who's guilty? Correctly. Israel.

Quote: Spade

And what was under Jericho? Remember, so remember. I remind you that in the yard is mid-2019.

In Bekaa, unlike Jericho, there was a modern air defense system. And the richest in the world (EMNIP). There were Soviet "advisers", electronic warfare, aviation, reconnaissance and further down the list. Boom and there was no air defense.

Quote: Spade

Damn, your hat-making of borders has no 8)))
Slash with Russia, and you strive for this with all your might, you will be smeared like a snot on asphalt. Only at the expense of your hypertrophied conceit.

Why do we need to fight Russia? We do not touch Russia and it does not touch us. Our Bibi is still free to visit "friend" Vova for a beer. I remember how the USSR tried to directly fight against tiny Israel, but somehow it immediately got sick. Probably I realized that it is better to be friends than to fight. We are of the same opinion. We are for peace. It's good for business.

[demokrat86]

Rides to nap next preferences

[CTABEP]

If the enemy detects your MLRS batteries even at the moment of arriving at the position and within a couple of minutes finds the forces and means to strike at them, and the pace of its offensive and the supply of close-range rear with engineer-sapper equipment is also such that even a randomly set minefield will not cause any problems - perhaps you can start to dry crackers and order a wooden mac. And in all other cases - the presence of such an option for the MLRS could well be useful. Another thing is that it is quite possible during the course of a serious war because of problems with the logistics of munitions with mines will not be exactly when they are needed :).

[cat Rusich]

3M16 and 9M28K shells needed. The point is that the minefield can be delivered to the usual unit in a few minutes (if there are the necessary shells), and only sappers can go through it. There is a special technique for MINING and MINING, but it is not always at hand

[maximum.]

Question to the author: what are the standards for installing fuses and opening fire for an unplanned purpose?
And how is the time for self-destruction of mines set?

[Grim Reaper]

Mines, of course, are very good. Especially pre-prepared positions, with potatoes. That I doubt that the mining system from the city ...
Well, for example, how the mines scattered - they abruptly moved into the most likely paths, dug in, and covered themselves with foliage / snow. They are smart. Isn't it easier to "hit" the attackers than to waste expensive missiles with low exhaust emissions.

[tarakan]

Yeah, stand and wait when it comes to the distance of the shot.
It’s not better to work out with mines and go about your business while the enemy scratches your turnips with the Russian language?

[tarakan]

Now I understand where the jokes about the Jews come from))))))) /

[tarakan]

The professor has 2 rules.
1st is always right!
2-if not right, see paragraph - 1)))))))

[demokrat86]

He .... beat the stubborn