Ukraine War Day #265: The Battle For The Dniepr

Dear Readers:

After the Ukrainian victory in Kherson, some analysts believe that the next big thing on the war menu will be the battle for control over the Dniepr River. To help us figure out what happens next, I have this piece by reporter Oleg Isaichenko. He leads with the Pentagon promising the provision of 40 armored river cutters to the Ukraine. The accompanying photo actually shows a Russian cutter called the Buyan, but it gives an idea what the Ukrainian cutters will look like. In case anybody (like me) has trouble distinguishing between different types of boats.

The Dniepr River is now the front line separating Russia from NATO. Yes, my friends, all these years after the end of the Cold War, it has come to this. Now let’s see what happens next.

Military expert Ilya Kramnik is quoted: “We need to take this very seriously. The Americans are constantly developing and perfecting their naval technology. Their main rubric consists of: Reconnaissance – Control – Communications.”

Ilya Kramnik: A cigar is just a cigar, but a boat can be a powerful weapon.

In other words, we see the emergence of a River-based war. The Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) can base their fleet of cutters in the port city of Nikolaev; or in Liman on the Bug River; or in Ochakov.

The cutters can also be used in the planned storming of the Zaporozhie Nuclear Plant. Military analyst and First Rank Captain in Reserve Sergei Ishchenko comments: “The formation of a river flotilla seems like a logical step for the enemy. The Dniepr has become the front line, therefore the enemy is bound to reinforce it with effective military instruments, including armored cutters.”

Using such cutters, the Ukrainians would be able to land commandos on the Left Bank, while also repulsing Russian attempts to cross the river. Ishchenko believes that the Ukrainians will concentrate these cutters around the reservoirs, such as the ones in Kakhovka and Kiev. “There are a lot of islands and coves where they hide.”

What To Do?

Russia has various things in its own arsenal, like helicopters, for example. “We need to sink those cutters using our strike helicopters. We might also start thinking about sending in some of our own cutters, for example from the Caspian flotilla, to start patrolling the Dniepr. In the past, they were brought in several times to the Azov Sea. We need them on the Dniepr, where they would perform roughly the same functions as their Ukrainian counterparts.”

Captain Sergei Ishchenko: “We don’t have much, but what we have is better than nothing.”

Problem: The Russian side has not been producing new cutters for a while, because there was no need for them. Until now. “Although cutters such as the Buyan, which are classed as “River to Sea” were originally intended mostly for river work. Which is why it has the kind of motor that is suitable for shallow waters. Everything that we have currently, we need to throw into the mix, preferably closer to the Kinburn Spit. I mean, it’s better than nothing.”

Captain Maxim Klimov

Next we hear the opinion of Captain of Third Rank Maxim Klimov: The Ukrainians started building their new Dniepr flotilla back in spring. “They also requisitioned civilian boats, adapting them for military needs. From our side, we didn’t do anything like that.” The good news is that the Ukrainian cutters are very vulnerable. They can be easily attacked and destroyed, using practically any available weapon. Strike helicopters are the most effective of all, but usually they have more important tasks to perform. “This experience that we have learned from the Special Military Operation, shows us that speed is more important than armor, both for attack and for defense. Therefore, we need to start using more effectively our means of discovery and attack, combining them into a single system. And it goes without saying that we need our own fleet of swift armored cutters, and also cargo-lifting and high-speed multi-purpose high-speed barges and ferries.”

On the other hand, maybe these Pentagon cutters are just all talk? wonders Captain First Rank Vasily Dandykin: “I’m not sure how they plan to bring these cutters in. The southern part of the River is under our fire control. Even if they try to sail them in via the Danube — all the same, this water is under the umbrella of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation.” [yalensis: Maybe the Americans would disassemble them, transport them in, in pieces, and then reassemble in some boatyard near the River? Or is that a dumb idea?]

Nonetheless, Dandykin does not recommend complacency, he believes that the threat is real. “Taking into account the realignment of forces on the Dniepr, we really do need to think seriously about moving those Buyan type cutters from the Caspian to the Dniepr. The FSB also has its own private fleet of cutters which can be used in case of necessity.”

And A Corvette Too? You Shouldn’t Have!

That’s the end of that article, but I might as well throw in this piece too, although it is over a month old. Which is like an eternity. I had saved the link to the piece, but never got around to reviewing it. But since it also has a naval theme…

The corvette is lowered into Turkish water.
The Hetman Ivan Mazepa

Well, the gist is that Turkey built a brand new corvette for Ukraine. And a fine-looking boat it is too, yar! This is the Ukrainian fleet’s one and only corvette; and please don’t ask me what a corvette actually is. To me it looks like a luxury yacht, but I am sure it has a lot of military bells and whistles.

The Turks started building this boat for the Ukrainians back in September of 2021, a few months before the start of this war. The Ukrainians had already picked out a name for it: The Hetman Ivan Mazepa. As is their wont, honoring the name of a traitor and loser, instead of a winner. Bad omen, if you ask me. Some of the commenters to that piece predict a Kalibr in its future.

Be that as it may… Just over a month ago, Sunday October 2, 2022, Ukraine’s beautiful First Lady, Elena Zelenskaya went to Turkey to participate in the launching ceremony, where the Mazepa was rolled into the water. (I suppose she cracked a bottle of champagne against it, or something like that.)

That’s it for that story, so I don’t know where the Mazepa is now, did it ever make it to the port of Odessa?

Advertisement
This entry was posted in Military and War and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Ukraine War Day #265: The Battle For The Dniepr

  1. Bilaal Abdullah says:

    Russia should control both sides of the Dnieper.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      I have become such a hard-liner, if it were up to me, Ukraine would be reduced to just Lvov, Volhynia, and Vinnitsa. But nobody can see into the future.

      Like

      • Walrus McNasty - American Retard says:

        OK, grab your Kalashnikov and get down to the front lines then, comrade. The Motherland demands your sacrifice. Better fight hard and not have any change of heart, or you might end up getting your skull bashed in with a sledgehammer by the Wagnerites.

        Like

  2. Montmorency says:

    How long would it take Russia to destroy 40 river boats with satellite guided missiles? 10 minutes?
    Anyway, when those nice Ukie/Polish and assorted fellows in Kherson feel the heat coming from the North they can always refresh themselves in the Dnieper waters.

    Like

    • michaeldroy says:

      Yes about 10 mins with satellite guided missiles – probably an hour because I’d expect will use cheaper shells on more or less static targets. It is a crazy idea.
      Like most weapons to Ukraine stories it is just more jam tomorrow promises not meant to be taken seriously. Like the 100,000 S Korean shells that might get negotiated some time in the future to supply 2 days worth of shells at Russia firing rates.

      Like

  3. zina says:

    Ukraine did not win in one part of Kherson, Russia withdrew from that part of Kherson which is militarily unfavorable for Russia, and Ukraine entered Kherson which is a dead end, now neither forward nor back, and the crossing of the Dnieper to the left is just a fantasy that is not mission possible or impossible.

    Like

    • james says:

      i was thinking that too… also – yalensis – assembling them after they arrive in ukraine – dumb idea… cheers.. i think they would be mostly useless either way…

      Like

    • yalensis says:

      The risk of flooding is still there. The part of Kherson (Left Bank) that Russia controls, will be flooded by a tsunami if the Ukrainians are able to bust the Kakhovka Dam. The city of Kherson (Right Bank) is higher ground, so the Ukrainians themselves will be okay. Some experts have said that the flood could last a couple of weeks before it dissipates, sadly it will wash away a lot of peoples homes. This is why Russia is moving administrative offices to Genichesk, because it’s away from the flood zone.

      Like

      • zina says:

        It seems to me, despite everything you said, that this is a tactical maneuver, Uki are now in a dead end, without electricity and water, so they are in a trap, from which it is difficult to get out. When Nikolaev and Odessa are taken, the Russians will return to Kherson.

        Like

    • Walrus McNasty - American Retard says:

      The position was militarily unfavorable because of actions taken by the Ukrainians…

      “A win due to logistics and positioning is still a win, but Russians can’t admit that to themselves” – Sun Tzu

      But you’re right, there’s no reason Ukraine would attack across the river when they could press the offensive elsewhere.

      Like

      • Denkar says:

        So did Sun Tzu say anything about Russians? I kinda doubt it, since Sun Tau died in 496 B. C. E. So, the Walrus either doesn’t know how to write or makes up stuff and calls them facts. How shall one judge the credibility of a Walrus? Maybe like this: put the comment inside parenthesis and multiply that expression by zero.

        Like

  4. stephentjohnson says:

    Ha! Military’s ship terminology *is* confusing, especially as it changes over time. Basically, a hundred years or so ago, most Naval ships were classified in terms of their guns and displacement:
    Battleship > cruiser > destroyer > frigate > corvette.
    But, as complicating factors like submarines and aircraft carriers entered the mix things got more complicated, armaments changed (more torpedoes, special weapons like the hedgehog anti-submarine mortar, and, of late, missiles) and generally the battleships disappeared, with cruisers soon to go the way of all flesh.
    This isn’t entirely new – I’d argue that the Battle of the Atlantic in WWII was mostly won by the Flower class Corvettes and their valiant, cold and damp crews, but it’s certainly the case now.
    Anyway, if we neglect the hulking aircraft carriers, the bulk of the blue or brown water fighting fleet of most navies are frigates and corvettes, with the odd destroyer or cruiser. Riverine craft are even smaller – even on a huge river like the Dnieper.
    I guess my question is: How, exactly, do those ships get to Nikolaev or points North? It’s not like Banderastan will build them, so they’ll have to cross the Black sea, and unless Bulgaria or Romania builds them (also unlikely), they’ll have to transit Turkey which requires Turkey’s consent, them being warships. Even the cutters are 20-40m long, so I don’t think you could ship them by rail unless in quite a lot of parts.
    Short answer, I think, is that even if the RF don’t interfere in the Black sea and Turkkey allows passage, once they’re at the mouth of the Dnieper, they’ll get a pretty hot reception.

    Like

  5. mtnforge says:

    I apologize for my cynicism, things must have got pretty desperate if the lying media is touting riverine tactical speedboats instead of M1 Abrams tanks and Apache’s, as latest western arms deliveries. This latest western largess makes for good false narrative copy. So there’s that. Somebody must be thinking Mekong Delta Kerry swift boats and Apocalypse Now glory days or something.
    The ukies need tanks and bullets, not more useless stuff soon to be turned into bloody scrap while making no serious difference to the ukies combat capabilities.
    Thats all very revealing about the state of weapons inventories remaining across NATO if you ask me. It does give the NATO secret squirrels something to base complex terror and reprisal operations with. Which they seem not to learn the lessons of stolid highly effective simple brute force Russian countermeasures. Russian rotary wing stand off capabilities are just superb, so talk about sitting ducks. There’s some people who do not have a grasp of the nature of the Russian’s excellent air to ground ATGM technology, nor drone weaponry, and a boat on water is about as wide open vulnerable target as it gets. Hey, if it means more ukronazi’s who become no longer a threat by all means don’t stop them, because they will most likely only man those boats with special operators and foreign merc’s. Crazy screwed up world.

    Like

    • BM says:

      Yes, I agree that any Ukrainian boat on the Dnieper is a sitting duck, and Russia is the side best equipped to take out boats of the opposing side because they have air supremacy, plenty of drones for surveillance, more weapons, etc. Destroying such Ukrainian boats would be easy as pie for Russia.

      But while any Ukrainian boat is a sitting duck so is any Russian boat! The Ukrainians just need to work a bit harder to destroy the Russian boats, lose a lot of men and equipment in the process, and try again and again. But make no mistake, destroy they will.

      I don’t see that Russia has any reliable defence against that. These boats are not designed for a war between two parties on opposite sides of a river: either side can easily bring a wide range of weapons near of the river and fire – a bit like Iran successfully overwhelming the defences of big heavily armed US destroyers just by shear numbers of very small missile-armed speedboats; except that in the Iran case the water is wide, but in the Dnieper case the river is just a on-dimensional line with no width at all, compared to the range of relevant weapons. An attacker just needs to hide on one side of the river and wait. Any boat navigating the river must necessarily come past within range – then BANG! Its over!

      With waring parties on both sides of the river, using boats to counteract boats is the wrong modality, full stop. It can only work in areas where one side controls both banks of the river – and restricted to boats remaining within that zone..

      Like

      • yalensis says:

        a sitting duck on the Dniepr… I bet there are a lot of actual ducks…
        No wait! don’t harm the actual ducks! Little Hedvig will be upset…

        Like

      • mtnforge says:

        You can bank on the Russian’s making such mistakes no more than once, not so the ukronazi’s, they seem to define on the tactical level Einstein’s theory of insanity, you know, repeating the same thing over and over hoping for different results. Though, ahem, just have to say it, too good to pass on, even a blind ukronazi finds an acorn once in a while.

        Like

        • Walrus McNasty - American Retard says:

          Yeah you are so right, that’s why the Ukrainians have been losing so much territory these last few months because of their horrible tactics…….oh wait….

          Like

          • GooberRatfinkin says:

            Are you by any chance a sitting walrus? Hie thyself aquatically to the Dnieper for a quick splash around where you might well be mistaken for a Ukie secret weapon and dispatched to the great beyond. Should be good for a few mcnasty bubbles on the way down.

            Like

  6. Aslangeo says:

    It will be a challenge getting the boats to Ukraine

    Several Possible ways to transport the boats

    A. by truck or train – limits the size of the boat
    B . By ship to Odessa – can be challenged by Russian Navy – also will Turkey Allow shipping via the Bosporus due to the Montreux Convention
    C. via the Danube to Romania and then along the coast to Odessa – again limits the size of the boats but they can be much larger than those transported by truck or train

    The Dnieper – Bug canal is in Belarus and thus off limits

    The Russians have an extensive inland transport system based on the Great rivers such as the Volga and Don linked by Canals that can transport relatively large warships

    A Russian boat example – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor-class_patrol_boat
    A Swedish example used by USA and other NATO – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB90-class_fast_assault_craft
    US mk 5 boat – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_Special_Operations_Craft
    Ukrainian Gryuza gunboats – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyurza-M-class_gunboat

    All of the above a very vulnerable to helicopters or drones

    Like

  7. John Thurloe says:

    In consideration of this subject it is useful to review the history of both the French and American riverine forces in Vietnam (Mobile Riverine Force). In both cases, small, armoured and armed vessels acting rather like tanks on water roads engaged the Viet Cong and NVA forces. The latter had at their disposal automatic weapons, small rockets, mortars and snipers. The American vessels had a high level of support from helicopters, jet aircraft and ground forces. Because they were slow moving and openly exposed, the VC were prone to ambushing them from dense jungle cover. In response, the US combined forces turned heavy firepower on such attackers. (See Apocalyse Now).

    Given the Vietnam experience and then the current air dominance of Russia, it’s possession of heavy artillery, tanks etc. plus the openness of the landscape it is hard to imagine any scenario in which the use of small riverine vessels would be viable.

    Which means the Ukies will probably go ahead and the Russians will retreat.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Because their methods are unsound. The Horror! The Horror!

      Like

      • John Thurloe says:

        The cited casualty ratio from the American side vs the Viets was 10:1. The Yanks had the hardware, saw themselves as ‘professionals’ and were contemptuous of the crazy attack style of the Viets. Sound familiar? Yet, who won?

        The side with more grit.

        Like

  8. the pair says:

    problems that come to mind:

    1. as you mentioned: transport. getting them there without a drone turning them into slivers.
    2. not mentioned but seems obvious: mines. i know the river is shallow at several points but mining the deeper areas basically turns it into a moat.
    3. the russians own the air so owning a river is a bit weak. between drones, helicopters and planes those boats will be sitting ducks. also, the ukies used waterborne drones in their black sea attack so i’m sure russia has an equivalent. the US may have decent naval capacity but a river is different than a sea or ocean.
    4. it’s not like the boats are amphibious. they can “project force” from the water but after a certain range they’re just barking guard dogs. this war has been a lot of big groups moving at once over large areas of land so lack of mobility (“shall we go up the water or down it cuz those are our two choices”) is an issue.

    just my guesses from the peanut gallery.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      All good points, except I quibble with #3. I used to believe that the Russians owned the air, but this war seems different. Maybe because the Ukrainians have good anti-air. So, when the other side has strong anti-air, even if they don’t actually have any airplanes left, then one don’t necessarily own the skies,

      I mean, it’s not like WWII, when planes could just fly around dropping bombs whenever they felt like it. And it was the Soviet Union who really shone at developing anti-air. Which, unfortunately, the Ukrainians inherited!

      Like

  9. Steve says:

    @yalensis, your first sententence starts with “After the Ukrainian victory in Kherson….” Do you really believe that the Russian strategic withdrawal from Kherson is a victory for Ukraine?

    Like

    • Walrus McNasty - American Retard says:

      LOL dude you are coping so hard. Of course it’s a victory for Ukraine.

      You are truly delusional if you think losing the foothold across the Dnieper, including territory that had been “annexed” and proclaimed permanent Russian territory, is a win for Russia.

      Ukrainians attacked Russian logistics and made the position in Kherson unsustainable, so they had to withdraw. If they were getting the better part of the engagement they would not have withdrawn.

      Militarily: HIMARS range advances toward Crimea. Easier for Ukraine to defend against a river crossing in the future. And we all know how good Russia is at river crossings. too soon? 😦 Because easier to defend, Ukraine can move troops and supplies to other fronts (although so can Russia)

      Politically: Russia annexed territory and claimed it permanently, then demonstrates it cannot effectively defend that territory. Videos of Ukrainian military being greeted as liberators in “Russian” territory, undermining the Russian narrative. Locals singing songs and weeping tears of joy in the street. Improves war support in the West and increases likelihood of future aid. Russian ultranationalists criticize war effort. Regular Russians have seen several consecutive “strategic withdrawals” that is beginning to look a lot like Russia losing. Deserters are having their heads bashed in with sledgehammers, which is videotaped and plastered all over social media.

      Anything else I missed? That’s just what I could come up with off the top of my head.

      Like

    • Walrus McNasty - American Retard says:

      How many times will the “strategic withdrawal” narrative be gobbled up by Putin Stans? First the cunning “strategic withdrawal” from Kiev, Sumy, and Chernihiv. Then the genius “strategic withdrawal” from Kharkiv/Izyum. And now the astonishingly brilliant “strategic withdrawal” from Kherson. These Russian generals are so good at withdrawing strategically. But I wonder if they can do even better at withdrawing. What would really show an American idiot like me that the Russian military is run by world-class geniuses: If they strategically withdrew all the way back to Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, and never set foot Ukraine again! That would sure show those “Ukronazis” not to mess with the Russian bear!

      Like

      • yalensis says:

        Walrus, I know that you are American idiot, as you yourself admit. But even an idiot like you knows damn well that the Russian military is not going to withdraw from Ukraine, just because you said so. Nor can they promise “never to set foot again”, that just isn’t going to happen. This war is on to the bitter end, it’s Russia vs NATO, the war being played out on Ukrainian soil. You need to cope with that. Like I said above, I recommend that you sign up as a mercenary and go out there to fight for NATO.

        If that isn’t possible, then you could make yourself feel better by commenting on like-minded forums specifically set up for Idiots like you who only know how to spout silly Pentagon and Bandera talking points. Like reddit or CNN, for example.

        Like

    • yalensis says:

      Hi, Steve,
      I am so sorry that this Walrus moron has disrupted what could be an interesting discussion. Your question is a serious one, and I have a serious answer. Here is my analysis, in brief:

      If I were an umpire calling balls and strikes, then I would have to deem (unfortunately) Kherson as a victory for the NATO side. Not in the sense that they fought a classic battle, man to man and sword to sword. But in the sense that the NATO side used cunning and ruthlessness to get their way.

      I am pretty sure that it was the Pentagons “thinkers” who came up with the idea of bombing the dam with HIMARS thereby putting the Russian troops in danger of getting cut off from their supply lines. This was Surovikin’s main concern and why he wanted to get those guys out of that potential cauldron. For this reason I call it as a “defeat” for Russia. Again, not in the classic sense, but in the sense that they the Russian side were outmaneuvered on this occasion.

      Hey, it happens. You win some and you lose some, that’s war…

      Like

      • Steve says:

        Thank you, yalensis, for your reply. Unfortunately the world is not short of moronic Walruses :).

        Now about the so-called “Ukrainian victory” in Kherson, you make a good case and I agree with you to a large extent. I’m just thinking that it might be too early to call a strategic move a victory for the opposition. This might well be a trap. I have learned not to underestimate the Russian strategic moves.

        In a post by Batiushka for the Saker blog, the writer makes an interesting point, he wrote that people perhaps “had forgotten that if Russia had difficulties holding right-bank Kherson, then the Ukraine would certainly have even more difficulties.” I’m sure that observation is not completely irrefutable, however I think it’s food for thought.

        I remember when most of us were so sure during the Mariupol steel plant siege that if the Ukronazis did not start surrendering immediately the RF would commence bombarding the holdout. We were surprised and many of us were outraged when President Putin ordered the military not to bombard the holdout but to seal it completely until the Nazis come back to their senses and surrender.

        A friend of mine jokes that when it comes to military strategies, Russians always put their cards on the table, but the joker is always in their breast pocket. And unless one can guess when that joker would out it’s better to hold one’s judgemet about the RF actions.

        Like

        • BM says:

          That’s absolutely correct. Seeing the risk of being trapped in a cauldron, the Russians moved out. THAT IS NOT A DEFEAT, not one bit of it, it is a tactical manoeuvre. The objective of war is not to get your troops trapped in a cauldron, the objective is to destroy the opposing army while minimising the destruction of your own army so that you can continue to fight. So what do the Ukrainian side do now? [That is, Nato, actually, since most of the Ukrainian army has been destroyed and replaced by Nato personnel]. They move their personnel and equipment into the very region that Russia left because it is difficult to defend. THEY WILL REGRET IT! I predict, that in the coming weeks we will see that they will have been cut off, and will be annihilated using stand-off weapons. I’ll bet after all those massive missile strikes Russia is doing just now, the Nato ability to move in supplies will be cut. By early December all the new Russian forces will be in place to start majow operations. By that time it will be too late for all those Nato personnel who have moved into the Kherson region. THAT is what defeat means – destruction of your forces so that you cannot continue to fight – that is what happens to Ukraine every time Russia makes a tactical withdrawal.

          Moving out of an area doesn’t really matter – it’s just optics, no more. You can always move back later.

          Dead soldiers does matter – you can’t move them back into life – ever.

          Like

          • BM says:

            It’s like the difference between stumbling on uneven ground and twisting your ankle, and falling over a 500meter cliff onto the rocks below. In the former case it’s not serious; in the latter case you’re dead!

            In the Ukrainian case their fighting force is being totally obliterated – including the Nato forces and equipment – then they can’t fight. That is defeat. By moving their forces into indefensible territory that will soon be a cauldron, they are bringing on defeat. Once the present forces and equipment are gone, that’s it – the west is broke, they have no more money or equipment to give; and without money and equipment there will be no more new soldiers from Nato.

            When they have no soldiers to fight, and no equipment to fight with, and the country has no electricity or water or food, and the economy is wiped out … does that mean defeat or not? It means that Russia is able to force her will – therefore it is defeat for Ukraine.

            Like

            • yalensis says:

              To Steve and BM: These are all good points. I am pretty sure the Russians will be able to move back and take re-take Kherson at some point.
              The immediate issue of the cauldron (and defensibility), though, the difference is this:

              The Russian bridgehead on the Right Bank: They had Ukrainians to the North of them, and their backs to the River at the South. Supplies had to be brought South to North from the other side of the River. With the bridges out and danger of flooding, the Russian supply chain was in jeopardy. Those 30K Russian troops risked being cut off from their supplies, which was the logistical nightmare that General Surovikin had to solve.

              Ukrainian situation is somewhat different (and better for them): They have the River to the South of them, true; but to the North of them they don’t have Russians, they have their own supply lines. That’s the major difference. It’s Russia’s job to figure out how to come at them from the North and cut THEIR supply lines.

              Like

  10. Bad Deal Motors On says:

    Interesting.

    In Vietnam in the Mekong Delta. The US Navy used a variety of lightweight shallow draft patrol vessels.

    The slowest were basically modified landing craft. Complete with assorted rapid-fire weaponry. Mounting up to 105mm howitzers. Using the final defense use canister shells. Used often in direct fire open sights mode. Very lethal at close range. Sort of like a super size me 12 gauge buckshot at ranges under 250 meters. Additional armor to resist the standard RPG’s of the day. Cons not very fast. Very few were made.

    In addition faster lightweight all fiberglass water jet powered shallow draft (0.62m) diesel engined Swift boats. Or PBR mark 1/2. Speed on the water is notionally rated at 28.5 knots. Dependent on equipment fit out. Mounting twin mount .50 caliber heavy machine guns forward. Up to 1500 rounds per gun. Plus an M60 machine gun and an 80mm mortar. Approximately 718 were made between 1968 to 1975. Ceramic and ballistic armor was fitted to protect the engine and helmsman. Against the AK47 assault rifle bullets.

    Basically, being all fiberglass. Any boatyard could swiftly build them. Provided they have the appropriate power plants and water jets. Such as easy-to-convert HGV turbo diesel truck engines.

    Imagine the lethal firepower forward if one was to mount twin “Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-1″(MIG-29) or “Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23″(SU-25) autocannons with 500 to 1000 rounds of ammo. That is one big ouch.

    Replace the aft Yankee mortar with a “2B9 Vasilek”. One would have a formidable easy to hide by day very maneuverable turn on a-dime river attack boat”. A super ouch! Built at any standard boatyard.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Awesome! Thanks for your expertise, you sound like you know quite a lot about boats. Re. diesel fuel, from what I have read, Ukraine is low on diesel, but they can still get some from the West, I reckon.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s