One "taurus" or 500 shells? Is the German long -range long -range missiles that are already vital to Ukraine

It is not necessary to take so close to the heart of the refusal of Germany to supply Ukraine with Taurus long -range missiles, the journalist Denis Popovich calls. Not so much this miracle weapon, in his opinion, but costs-as 500 155 mm shells. Many have been asked about Taurus missiles recently. Even a lot. I'll try to comment. Immediately I note that Germany helps us very much now. In fact, while the US is on the pause, Germany is one of the leaders of our support.

That is, blankets and helmets at the beginning of the Great War compared to what Germany is doing now is not just the sky and the earth - it is space. I'm not talking about helping refugees from Ukraine, I'm not talking about political support for Ukraine's promotion to the EU, I am not talking about Rheinmetall. It is worth noting here the well -known German meticulousness: everything they promise - they do.

Want a report? Please, on the Government's website, everything will be written - he will read. You need to thank all this. But with the Taurus, Scholz hangs and to some extent the Scholz. Although it could give the party these missiles as an additional political signal. But about politics a little later. If you look at all these objections from a slightly different angle, then, unfortunately, they have some practical meaning.

Taurus is a perch winged rocket, which, despite all its manufacturability, is confused by air defense systems with a probability of 0. 6-0. 8, depending on how modern the SCR is working on it. She gets stuck! And the one who still believes that the enemy's aircraft is sitting, then to you - in the fiction department to the second floor. That is, under such conditions, out of 10 "tauruses" will hit two. What are two "tauruses"? It is $ 2 million, one million for every unit.

And what is $ 2 million? It is from 400 to 500 shells for the Armed Forces of 155 mm at the rate of about 4 thousand euros per unit. I think that those who defended Avdiivka would be glad to have "extra" 500 shells of a caliber 155 mm. They may be glad and accurate taurus, but we need shells here and now. Now we are a little better understanding the saying that the Armed Forces needed shells than the winged air base missiles.

You will say that we need everything, at once and as much as possible - and of course, you will be right. But unfortunately, we do not pay all this story. And the assistance budget of Ukraine was approved in Germany with some difficulties. Number. How many taurus do we need for full happiness and how many can we pass? Suppose that Germany can transfer to us a party at 50 rockets at once. That is, it is 50 million bucks, or approximately 12- 12. 5 thousand shells of a caliber 155 mm.

Of these 50 rockets, 80% will be shot down, and 20%, that is, about 10 missiles, will hit the target. What can be this goal? From the intercepted and fused Russians, the conversations of German officers understand that it is unlikely that the so -called "Crimean bridge" can hardly be destroyed. Thus, given the range (500 km, if, of course, it is not "trimmed"), it can be some other object, perhaps in the territory of the Russian Federation or in the occupied Crimea.

For example, oil depot, factory, headquarters, possibly an airfield. Will it be honey? Of course, yes! Will it affect the front? To some extent, yes! Will this change the course of war in our favor? Absolutely not! This, in fact, refers to Pistorius when he says that Taurus missiles will not affect the overall course of war. This requires massive blows, which means - hundreds of rockets.

Can Germany give us hundreds of "tauruses"? First, there are doubts about production opportunities, and therefore the terms of supply, and secondly, again the issue of budget arises. After all, all this will be done at the expense of other types of equipment and weapons - shells, machines, ammunition, which will not be supplied to us due to the fact that within the framework of the already approved budget will need to supply missiles.

And if you pass to us 50 Taurus, 50 Scalp and 50 Storm Shadow from three countries, you ask? Well, so much, maybe it will be enough to eventually deal with this inadequate "Crimean bridge", especially if you soak it with drones from above and below. However, the question is, do we have enough carrier aircraft? In addition, in a month we will need the same number of missiles for some other purpose. And so in a circle. But, unfortunately, the number does not always decide.

Remember the winter of 2022-2023. The Russians have released hundreds of winged missiles on the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. The result is close to zero. Winter 2023-2024 has passed. The shelling of this was, and quite significant, but there were fewer, and their results are also quite debatable. But this is another topic for conversation. And here we return to politics.

The case of transmission of long -range missile systems - ATACMS, Taurus, Storm Shadow, Scalp without a willingness to invest in it and give a lot of such missiles - this is a purely political issue. I do not even touch the issue of carriers, and in the case of air base, these are planes. And the transfer of planes is a completely separate series. That is a question of leadership.

The United Kingdom, which was the first to give us Storm Shadow, declared leadership in this regard, calculating the fact that others would be tightened. France, which always wished Britain's leadership in any matters, was tightened and gave us scalp. This competition, of course, is on our hand, but unfortunately, it has not yet led to the scaling. That is why the German calculation enters the game.

I lead all this to the fact that in matters of creation of long -range weapons we need to count on our own strength. With the participation of partners, but the samples should be ours. The "Decended Ships" in the Black Sea, burning oil refineries somewhere in the Leningrad region, two A-50 and Su-34 aircraft (I continue to be conferred that they are being knocked down with the help of C-200)-so bail. The author expresses a personal opinion that may not coincide with the editorial position.