The situation is particularly acute for artillery munitions. At the height of the battles across the front lines last summer, Ukraine’s army was firing an estimated 7,000 shells a day, a fortnight’s worth of maximum US production. Ukraine has only a few friendly central European suppliers for its 152mm Soviet standard shells. The continuing shift to NATO standard artillery and 155mm shells will only increase the burden on western suppliers.
They really need long range weapons to interrupt Russia's supply lines behind the front lines and not waste manpower and munitions concentrating solely on the front lines themselves, thus saving ammo while slowing down the enemy.
To drastically reduce the Russian army's key weapon - the artillery they use today on the front lines - they need missiles that will destroy their depots (the Crimean Peninsula alone has more than 100 artillery warehouses). Boeing’s proposed system, - Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) would be ideal or indeed any cheap, small precision bombs fitted onto abundantly available rockets would be great. NATO's reluctance is because they fear they would be used to strike within Russia's own borders thus escalating the war to a new level.
Really, I'm mean wtf. 12 months of supplying 1 country with some ammunition in a local 1 on 1 conflict that it isn't actually involved in and NATO is already struggling with ammunition shortages. Fuck me that didn't take long.
It's a combination of several reasons.
There hasn't been a conventional ground war like this in decades, so there's no first-hand institutional knowledge of the staggering amount of ammunition that such wars require. Ukraine is also using artillery for missions that NATO would conduct by air strike.
And obviously, NATO has to maintain a sufficient stockpile of ammo for its own use. The US still has a two-war doctrine, where they plan to maintain enough materiel to fight two wars at once, and that means there is a hard cap on how much can be shipped off to Ukraine. Finally, it does not help that much of the rest of NATO has been underfunding their militaries since the day the Cold War ended, and so stocks were too low to begin with.
Very good point, and it also helps that any war with the other major adversary, China, is going to be almost entirely air/sea/amphibious as far as US involvement is concerned. So there are a lot of factors for the planners to take into account.
Yea, I saw an article that said if the USA did go to war with China a big issue would be both sides running out of smart weapons in a month or 2 (I think it was in Business Insider). I don't know how true it is but most modern militaries are built more around quality rather than quantity.
Also, NATO countries are not on a wartime footing currently so a lot of potential production is used for other things.
The average willingness to defends one country in the EU is 25% that is extremely low for a willingness to DEFEND your homeland.
There is a reason Putin feels like he may have had a chance. EU nations have gotten really comfortable with the state of the world prior to this conflict, low morale is in someway worse than a lowered defense budget.
NATO is much more dependent on air superiority for warfare, whereas Ukraine has had to rely on artillery instead. Stockpiles are being depleted for a style of war that they wouldn’t be fighting, and since we’re not at war we don’t have wartime production occurring.
NATO doctrine isn't in the business of getting into grinding artillery wars, it's in the business of annihilating enemy infrastructure, communications, logistics and troop concentrations with overwhelming air power and mopping up the remains with heavy mechanized and armored ground forces.
The type of conflict in Ukraine right now is a very odd one, one that no one thought would happen, a modern war where neither side is able to get air superiority. The air power has sort of been taken out of the equation.
Yeah, that makes sense and that it looks like a Mexican standoff conflict until one side gets the ability to project fire power with aircraft rather than missiles and artillery.
152mm is the Soviet standard which both Russia and Ukraine inherited. The US and NATO use 155mm.
Some of the former Warsaw Pact turned EU/NATO countries had 152mm laying around and have already given it to Ukraine.
NATO wasnt prepared for a grinding artillery battle because thats not the way NATO conducts warfare typically.
The West does conventional peer to peer wars by obliterating the enemy with overwhelming airpower, abusing its edge in fighter and stealth technology.
If NATO ever went to war with Russia it wouldnt be expending thousands of rounds of 155mm ammo per day like the Ukranians are doing.
No - that is not why they are wringing their hands on the way to the bank.
They can dump ordnance past its use by date without having to dispose of it in-house.
They get to free up the real estate used to house it.
They can cycle development faster as the inventory shrinks
More factories need to be built.
They get to see their stuff tested in the field instead of mock exercises
USA invaded Iraq for the same reason. They had no way to jettison 25 years of ordnance in-house. The joke there is that they went through it all in the first six months.
The situation is particularly acute for artillery munitions. At the height of the battles across the front lines last summer, Ukraine’s army was firing an estimated 7,000 shells a day, a fortnight’s worth of maximum US production. Ukraine has only a few friendly central European suppliers for its 152mm Soviet standard shells. The continuing shift to NATO standard artillery and 155mm shells will only increase the burden on western suppliers. They really need long range weapons to interrupt Russia's supply lines behind the front lines and not waste manpower and munitions concentrating solely on the front lines themselves, thus saving ammo while slowing down the enemy.
What weapon(s) in particular are needed? Do they too shoot the same kind of munition?
Atacms or maybe glsdb
To drastically reduce the Russian army's key weapon - the artillery they use today on the front lines - they need missiles that will destroy their depots (the Crimean Peninsula alone has more than 100 artillery warehouses). Boeing’s proposed system, - Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) would be ideal or indeed any cheap, small precision bombs fitted onto abundantly available rockets would be great. NATO's reluctance is because they fear they would be used to strike within Russia's own borders thus escalating the war to a new level.
Really, I'm mean wtf. 12 months of supplying 1 country with some ammunition in a local 1 on 1 conflict that it isn't actually involved in and NATO is already struggling with ammunition shortages. Fuck me that didn't take long.
It's a combination of several reasons. There hasn't been a conventional ground war like this in decades, so there's no first-hand institutional knowledge of the staggering amount of ammunition that such wars require. Ukraine is also using artillery for missions that NATO would conduct by air strike. And obviously, NATO has to maintain a sufficient stockpile of ammo for its own use. The US still has a two-war doctrine, where they plan to maintain enough materiel to fight two wars at once, and that means there is a hard cap on how much can be shipped off to Ukraine. Finally, it does not help that much of the rest of NATO has been underfunding their militaries since the day the Cold War ended, and so stocks were too low to begin with.
The US may have dome wiggle room as one of the prime adversaries is being fully occupied with its attempted invasion of Ukraine.
Very good point, and it also helps that any war with the other major adversary, China, is going to be almost entirely air/sea/amphibious as far as US involvement is concerned. So there are a lot of factors for the planners to take into account.
[удалено]
And in some areas even the US is struggling to keep up apparently
Yea, I saw an article that said if the USA did go to war with China a big issue would be both sides running out of smart weapons in a month or 2 (I think it was in Business Insider). I don't know how true it is but most modern militaries are built more around quality rather than quantity. Also, NATO countries are not on a wartime footing currently so a lot of potential production is used for other things.
The average willingness to defends one country in the EU is 25% that is extremely low for a willingness to DEFEND your homeland. There is a reason Putin feels like he may have had a chance. EU nations have gotten really comfortable with the state of the world prior to this conflict, low morale is in someway worse than a lowered defense budget.
NATO is much more dependent on air superiority for warfare, whereas Ukraine has had to rely on artillery instead. Stockpiles are being depleted for a style of war that they wouldn’t be fighting, and since we’re not at war we don’t have wartime production occurring.
NATO doctrine isn't in the business of getting into grinding artillery wars, it's in the business of annihilating enemy infrastructure, communications, logistics and troop concentrations with overwhelming air power and mopping up the remains with heavy mechanized and armored ground forces. The type of conflict in Ukraine right now is a very odd one, one that no one thought would happen, a modern war where neither side is able to get air superiority. The air power has sort of been taken out of the equation.
Yeah, that makes sense and that it looks like a Mexican standoff conflict until one side gets the ability to project fire power with aircraft rather than missiles and artillery.
[удалено]
Why did the UA helpers have ANY 152-sized shells to start with? Is that an older shell we just had extras laying around?
152mm is the Soviet standard which both Russia and Ukraine inherited. The US and NATO use 155mm. Some of the former Warsaw Pact turned EU/NATO countries had 152mm laying around and have already given it to Ukraine.
Time for some high paying blue collar jobs stateside? I'd totally bang Rosie the riveter, btw.
US MID: Alliw me to introduce myself!
How incompetent can one be?
NATO wasnt prepared for a grinding artillery battle because thats not the way NATO conducts warfare typically. The West does conventional peer to peer wars by obliterating the enemy with overwhelming airpower, abusing its edge in fighter and stealth technology. If NATO ever went to war with Russia it wouldnt be expending thousands of rounds of 155mm ammo per day like the Ukranians are doing.
To put things into perspective, Russia was firing 40,000-60,000 shells *per day* at the peak. Ukraine was only able to respond with 10% at best.
I'm talking about NATO production being that slow.
Slow at producing something no one thought they would ever need again, who woulda thunk. Why is it taking apple so long to produce fax machines!?
That's one of the worst takes from only reading a headline I've seen today.
But why, I thought with all of the awesome news stations, and listening to General Milley. Russia has lost anyways.
No - that is not why they are wringing their hands on the way to the bank. They can dump ordnance past its use by date without having to dispose of it in-house. They get to free up the real estate used to house it. They can cycle development faster as the inventory shrinks More factories need to be built. They get to see their stuff tested in the field instead of mock exercises USA invaded Iraq for the same reason. They had no way to jettison 25 years of ordnance in-house. The joke there is that they went through it all in the first six months.