ATACMS has much better concrete structure destructive capability from Mach 4(+) kinetic energy compared to a Storm Shadow and it doesn’t require airfield based Su-24’s to launch
ATACMS have much better concrete structure destructive capability from Mach 4(+) kinetic energy compared to a Storm Shadow and it doesn't require airfield based Su-24's to launch.
HIMARS/MLRS are both more numerous (30 compared to 6-to-10) and harder for Russia to target.
— Trent Telenko (@TrentTelenko) September 10, 2023
by TurretLauncher
5 comments
Right now, the best weapon is the one Ukraine can use to kick out the Russians. ATACMs isn’t there yet.
Can’t wait for the inevitable destruction of the Kerch Bridge, by the way Elon Musk is an asshole.
It is also much better for quick reaction strikes. Air launched Stormshadow/SCALP are great for missions with extensive planning, but ATACMS, like GMLRS and GLSDB, can be launched with minimal preparation on a moments notice. No need to prepare pilots, load, fuel and launch aircraft from hundreds of miles away. It’s like having an SU-24 with Stormshadows near the front line 24/7, just waiting for a target. Even better, since flight time is much shorter, 6 minutes max.
How about ATACMS and Storm Shadow timed to arrive at the same high value target at the same time?
According to Perun’s latest video, it seems like Ukraine has at most 6-7 Su-24s left…which probably means maybe 2-3 operational at a time. Maybe not even that.
That’s a very thin reed on which to base their long-range attack capability until the F-16s arrive.