"Ammunition shortages in Ukraine?" Topic

Ammunition shortages in Ukraine – production, supply, & are Russia or the West running dry? by Perun, 30/12/2022.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Another interesting presentation.

The US was called the Arsenal of Democracy … we have the capabilities to make all the ammo needed. And we can assist other NATO nations in producing the ammo needed as well. Much of which is Russian design. We have to help the Ukraine defeat Putin's 21st Century Imperialism. The US wastes a lot of money. Our leadership + NATO needs to get focused on helping destroy the Russians and push them out of the Ukraine.

Did you watch that video? Perun's analysis of which countries can manufacture many artillery shells is very interesting.

Wait, wasn't there talk of Ukraine taking back Crimea? Can't do that without ammo.

The US wastes a lot of money.

It certainly does.

Definite subtext that the Russian army is a bit of a one-trick pony and that without the ability to turn Ukrainian positions into the surface of the moon its struggling even more than before. I suspect the Ukrainians are up to something that isn't being reported as yet.

(Also, I'm hoping Peron does the analysis of the situation inside Russia he mentioned – the rate at which current and former Russian politicians and other public figures are having unfortunate fatal accidents is worthy of a deep dive).

Yes, I listened to Perun's video. He is very good. And as I saw elsewhere the conflicting intel estimates. I still believe the US can up it's production and make the difference for the Ukraine. But it again wastes $ on things that do not enhance our warfighting capabilities.

We all know after the Cold War almost all nations downsized their militaries. As he points out. I and many of my comrades were RIF'd because of this. I'm still not sold that Russia will be able to out produce the US. And the US could assist other nations in producing the shells needed. Of course, I could be wrong …

Ukraine is going to win.
It's a far less corrupt regime than Russia has.

+1 Andy … Ukraine will win … and Russia is very, very corrupt.

or national interest like giving money to a corrupt regime in Ukraine

Russia attacked the Ukraine for no real reason. The Russians must be punished for their imperialism. Russia has been the West's enemy for a very long time. We can't let them get away with this.

Having an aggressive Russia that takes control of Ukraine is very much of national interest to the US. People said the same thing in the 30s when Hitler was taking land and countries, look how well that worked out. What is that quote "The only necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to sit back and do nothing."

in the process reduce our own warfighting capabilities by exhausting our reserves of weapons.

carnot, by "our" you are referring to Russia, yes?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Basically the West isn't comprising its warfighting capabilities (any more than it may have done by its own hand though procurement and strategic policies). And a lot of the equipment in question if not handed off to Ukraine was destined for continued storage and eventual decommissioning all at no small cost to the tax payer. Frankly, even if we have taken stocks below the redlines advised by the various militaries NATO can substitute, you can get by with less artillery and ATGMs if you can pretty much kerb-stomp any opponent with Western airpower and a barrage of PGMs. I'd also note on a practical level that the most likely opponent in the European theatre was Russia who've been, at best, taken to a stalemate by a second tier military largely using a mix of former-Warpac and NATO Cold War kit. Javelins and NLAWs excepted.

Even if USA was short of shells (which it is not), that wouldn't be a problem. USA has allies and friendlies could easily back fill artillery rounds. As that video explains. Talk of shell shortages in the west is just click bait.

Maybe shells wouldn't be so useful anyhow.
These potential targets would presumably be aliens. I can't imagine there are Earth bound targets stupid enough to choose to take USA on who would be dealt with using thousands of 155 shells.

Grattan54 +1

carnot, by "our" you are referring to Russia, yes?

I think he maybe talking about the USA ?

ROU +1

I can't imagine there are Earth bound targets stupid enough to choose to take USA

Bingo !

It is without a doubt the cheapest war USA has ever fought. Not one dead service member so far, not one lost tank, ship or aircraft.

Russia, the MAIN opponent of the USA is being defeated at basically no cost at all for the US.

After this is over only China remains, no other country can even remotely challenge the US.

So the more US supports Ukraine the better, because it is cheap compared to fighting a war by itself.

Do not take Carnot seriously, he is either a Russian or a Putin nxt hugger.

Peron's previous presentation on 6th gen aircraft makes the point that the USAAF doesn't fight fair by going out of its way to ensure it has a stupidly big technological advantage over any potential opponent. That advantage goes along way to ensuring air supremacy and all the advantages that can bring to US surface forces…. There's a reason why the US and to some extent other NATO countries are relatively artillery-light compared to Russia (and compared to the two Koreas – the South clearly feeling the need to have an artillery park that can match the North's).

soledad +1

ROU +1

Yes, we don't fight fair. We will use every technical and tactical, operational, strategic, etc. superiority to defeat our enemy. However, sometimes CD, ROE, etc. limits our advantages. Which may mean we will take more losses in Infantry and maybe Tanks. That upsets me.

The US has lot of FA. Some of the best around. E.g. HIMARs, M270 MLRS, M777, etc. But we do fight combined arms … the Russians don't. They always had a predilection for FA. And lots of it.

We saw at the beginning of the invasion the Russian BTG had 1 Tank Co., 3 Inf Cos. and 3 FA Cos. They were relying on FA to do all the work. But you can't "win" without seizing and holding ground with FA[and CAS] support. And continue to maneuver and advancing using combined arms. The Russians have failed miserably since Day 1 not being able to use combined arms, etc.

E.g. our Mech Hvy Bde at Benning had 2 Mech Inf Bns, 1 Tank Bn and 1 FA Bn. That is a much better mix than the Russian BTG. Albeit our Bde was bigger organization than the BTG. The US mix can be brought down to Bn TF level. The lesson remains the same. But we have discussed this many times before.

At this point all the Russians can do is fire FA at non-combatants and infrastructure. Oh, and die in large numbers. With nothing to show for it.

It is without a doubt the cheapest war USA has ever fought. Not one dead service member so far, not one lost tank, ship or aircraft.<?q>

In terms of things and people yes, in terms of actual money not so much and money is what drives a country's economy into the ground. Not sure how Russia has been this might threat since '91? Not seeing a whole lot of Russian fleets moving around. Not seeing a lot of their big scale exercises. But we have been watching their economy flounder since the wall came down. Meanwhile as we throw money into a "not as corrupt as Russia" country the PRC watches. So when we need more ships, which is what kind of threat the PRC is, will we have it? Russia should easily be handled by the Europeans, those same ones who are going to backfill any munitions void, the same ones who can pull the NATO card back if it's not something they want to be a part of (and no, EU policies are not US policies). The "evil Russia" drumbeat is like still being afraid of a grade-school bully 20 years later.

The money is available to the US Gov't to help the Ukraine to defeat and push the Russians out of territory they occupy. NATO will have to continue to help too, of course. Again, the US wastes a lot of $ on many things. They seem to have few "real" priorities IMO.

Just because the gov't wastes money on lots of things doesn't mean they should always pour it on everything. Seeing how much oversight was done in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm done with US military playtime all over everywhere with very selective cries of holy crusade to save democracy as we know it.

If everything is a priority … than nothing is a priority …

I'm done with US military playtime all over everywhere with very selective cries of holy crusade to save democracy as we know it.

That was our first mistake trying to bring democracy that don't want it or can't understand it. However, right now China is building up its military like they are going to war tomorrow. Also it has to be remembered. The big companies that build our military assets are big contributors to elected officials. They gave $ to those elected, now they want a return on investment. The military-industrial complex that Ike mentioned decades ago after fighting WWII.

All that being said, as former Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co Cdr. I want my troops to have the best equipment and training available. Based on my experience, '79'-'90, we were short a lot of equipment. Is it that way now ? I hope not …

"or can't understand it."

Unfortunately likes some many things we recent demonstrated to the world that we are really sure what it is either.

" to have the best equipment and training available"

Yes

"Based on my experience, '79'-'90"

Unfortunately kind of a low point but on by the debacle in Viet Nam.

Unfortunately likes some many things we recent demonstrated to the world that we are really sure what it is either.

Maybe … many in Gov't & media said if this or that happened it would be the "end of democracy" … then nothing happened. It was a good thing to say for some elected and appointed officials and headline in the media. But AFAIK we are still a Constitutional Republic and a democracy.

Unfortunately kind of a low point but on by the debacle in Viet Nam.

Debacle is much too strong and inaccurate term. But the whole thing was not handled well as we know on many levels. The US Military has to pull itself up by its bootstraps and rebuild itself. Like after any war. I was there for that.

As an ROTC Cadet, '75-'79 then on active duty in 4 Infantry Bns, '79-'90, finally USAR '91. Many of our senior NCOs and Officers had served in Vietnam. Sometimes with multiple tours. They saw the elephant. They were combat tested.

We learned a lot from them. How to do certain things in a combat environment, etc., etc. Some of the techniques we learned from the VC, etc. That in another war we could use some of those techniques, etc. Yes, even in a conventional war with the USSR/WP. So, a low point … ? No … a good military rebuilding itself that has some very good combat experience. Bought at a very high price.

Now the withdrawal from A'stan … Now that is a debacle. Brought to us by the same people who made Vietnam a big 'n mess for the Grunts of the ground, the aircraft in the air, etc., etc. I think we know who is responsible in both cases. 'nuff said …

Withdrawl from Afghanistan was just the icing on the cake. The amount of $$ poured in with no check or questioning for years was the problem, starting with the idea that it was going to be anything other than the poster child for failed states.

Yes, seems few lessons were learned from Vietnam, or the wrong ones, etc. A'stan is a failed state for many reasons we have discussed before. If they remain in their mindset, they will continue to be a failed state. With many suffering under the Taliban, AQ, ISIS-K, Tribal, etc. leaderships.

The withdrawal could have been handled much better … but we have discussed this before in detail. We lost 13 good Americans because of poor decisions made at the very top. But that seems to be nothing new.

I was ROTC Cadet from 78-80 when I dropped out of the program, I had been asked what I want to do and as a teenager I thought maybe it would be cool to fly helicopters. Which my Army handler was sure I could get into. My Dad had me talk to several Reserve officers, one said that the Army was losing a helicopter every three days due to really poor maintenance. Another one, simply said moral in the army is really bad as a result of South Asia and advised that I not continue. I will mention that all three of these guys were not liberals by any stretch. Finally, I was in Germany during the mid-eighties visiting a Friend who was stationed there as an officer his comments suggested that not a lot had changed in that time. You can dismiss this as just antidotal but, I remember being told that I had passed the mountaineering part of ROTC without ever touching a rope or even walking up a hill. We will have agreed to disagree about the status of the Army in the late 70's

I don't doubt any of those stories. But my experience and training were different than yours it appears. I took command of a Rifle Plt in '80 with the 101. The Army was on its way up. It became clearer to me with 22 months in the ROK, '84-'85. So … my time on active duty for over a decade in the Infantry I saw the Army getting better.

But as always with everything … opinions may vary …