- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
Russia appears on track to produce nearly three times more artillery munitions than the US and Europe, a key advantage ahead of what is expected to be another Russian offensive in Ukraine later this year.
Russia is producing about 250,000 artillery munitions per month, or about 3 million a year, according to NATO intelligence estimates of Russian defense production shared with CNN, as well as sources familiar with Western efforts to arm Ukraine. Collectively, the US and Europe have the capacity to generate only about 1.2 million munitions annually to send to Kyiv, a senior European intelligence official told CNN.
The US military set a goal to produce 100,000 rounds of artillery a month by the end of 2025 — less than half of the Russian monthly output — and even that number is now out of reach with $60 billion in Ukraine funding stalled in Congress, a senior Army official told reporters last week.
“What we are in now is a production war,” a senior NATO official told CNN. “The outcome in Ukraine depends on how each side is equipped to conduct this war.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Unfortunately for Ukrainian efforts they’re going to have to pivot to an even more mobile strategy as Russia increases bombardment. So pretty much all Ukrainian emplacements will become semi permissive and all ground troops are going to be sleeping in non permissive environments. I cannot imagine the toll of having to sleep through shelling, then ruck a few kilometers to bivouac, only to be shelled again.
I really hope the Ukrainians can get better air support and run sorties where these russian guns are. Because unfortunately, they cannot rely on a consistent supply of shells from the west. Slava Ukraini.
The problem with that is the massive mine fields the Russians have put down, clearing mines isn’t quick or easy so they can’t really be that mobile.
Agreed, they’re in a very difficult situation without being able to project air power which is traditionally the way you defeat artillery. Hopefully they’re cooking up some black magic with their drones.
I know that Canada just approved 80000 70mm air to ground missles for Ukraine, which is a decent, if short term, supply. I think a good fleet of modern aircraft is what Ukraine really needs to regain its momentum. Can’t do a whole lot when the enemy has basically free reign of the artillery war.
It’s also war economy (Russia) vs non-war economy (Europe/US) which is a big difference. Plus even if you would move into a war economy, to ramp up production will cost time.
Can you really say the US doesn’t have a war economy though? It’s only not been at war for like 6 years of the last 200.
Even the US occupation of Syria, bombing of Yemen, and forces fighting in Niger + Somalia are all a fraction of the US’s military production, since it’s the biggest arms dealer in the world.
The US economy is still largely a civilian economy (except the Military-Industrial Complex which goes brrrrrrrt). A true war economy hasn’t occurred in the US since WWII, when the 2/3rds of the American economy were geared for mass production of wartime goods.
18 separate shipyards were (combined) producing a new Liberty Ship almost every day. Ford completed a car every 69 seconds. The Willow Run bomber factory made 1 plane an hour by March 1944. The industrial scale here was massive.
In contrast, the Global War on Terror type counterinsurgency campaigns could be done without the US in full hardcore war economy mode.
Another comparison with ship building is the number of capital ships built. Building a transport nearly every day is impressive but many people don’t realize we were also building the most capital warships by far.
So first, for reference, the Germans built 4 Battleships and most of an Aircraft Carrier during World War 2. The British built 6 Battleships, and 7 Fleet Carriers. The Japanese managed 2 Battleships and 10 Fleet Carriers. However 2 were merchant ship conversions and the last 3 were getting engines and other parts from whatever stock they had. So one had cruiser engines, another had destroyer engines, etc.
The US built 10 Battleships, and 24 Fleet Carriers. More than the UK, Germans, and Japanese combined. This is also without counting the rebuilt Battleships from Pearl Harbor.
True. Its not a total war economy, but its without a doubt a war economy.
Russia cant keep this up forever as its unsustainable, but the US has no issues maintaining its level. Its a war of attrition at this point.
Russia’s inability to keep up with the economic challenges of the US’ military output is what cause the collapse of the Soviet Union after all.
technically, to be accurate here. The USSRs inability to shift from an industrialized economy into a services economy is what led them to not having money. Then followed by the amusingly high oil prices of the 70s and 80s, which gave them a shit ton of money. So they were able to coast for some time. Also a significant portion of the USSRs economy was directly involved in the military.
Economics are hard man.
War economy for the US would for me be like during WW2. 800+ billion a year is basically planned so you can’t really call that a war economy.
The United States fought for 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq and it was business as usual back home. There was no rationing. There were no steel drives. I don’t even remember them pushing war bonds. We did not have a draft. Most changes to civilian life involved airport security.
During WWII, they drafted so many men they had to shut down major league baseball. They tried to outlaw sliced bread because the steel for the slicers was needed for tanks and ships. Civilians had to ration food and production of most consumer goods stopped. Oh, and as a result of wartime industrialization, the United States became the world’s richest nation, the world’s only superpower and the world’s first nuclear power. In four years.
Meanwhile Ukraine has been doing remarkably well with the scraps we’ve let them dumpster dive. If I understand the situation correctly, we’ve been giving them our old stuff that was due to be disposed of because it’s cheaper to let the Ukrainians lodge our old stuff firmly in Russian torsos than it is to dismantle. Same with the F-16’s they’re getting soon. These aren’t new, a few NATO nations are retiring them in favor of new F-35s. Those F-16’s are 1970’s technology, but they’re a step up from the Soviet-era MiG’s they’re working with now.
Speaking of F-16s, do we know the time table for when the first jets should arrive? Some time this year?
I don’t know that. I hope no one like me knows that.
I do know that it’s kind of a monumental task, becuase…it’s an American-made jet from the 1970’s. In the 1970’s, American defense contractors were in the habit of NOT writing manuals and training aids in Ukrainian. We either have to translate the reference and training materials into Ukrainian, or their pilots and mechanics have to learn English. It’s not as simple as kick the tires and light the fires.
Removed by mod
Yes, the US doesn’t have a war economy. The US has an industrial military complex that excels at producing low quality crap for extremely high prices - our defense contractors are extremely inefficient and are basically just a really poorly targeted version of social welfare.
The US actually gearing up for a war economy would take a fucking miracle in the modern world - even if we were being actively invaded it’s likely most of the capital would just flee.
Say you have no clue what you’re talking about without saying you have no clue what you’re talking about.
There’s a reason we have 11 Supercarriers when the rest of the world has zero. There’s a reason we have thousands of stealth jets when the rest of the world has a collective couple hundred of non-us made stealth jets. There’s a reason we’re the only ones to ever make a stealth bomber. The reason is not that we “excel at producing low quality crap”.
Stop falling for Fighter Mafia bullshit or Russian/Chinese propaganda.
well. They aren’t technically wrong, ironically, it’s not the high value cost items that are a terrible value. Just 2 trillion (?, i dont remember the actual value) to develop the f35 is a fucking STEAL.
The problem is all the small shit. Tiny drone? Thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars. You sell software for arty to the military? You bet your ass that shit costs a fortune and a half. You sell something to the military and it needs maintenance? Oops, you need to be catered ALL the way out to where that problem is now just to fix it, because nobody produces repairable things anymore. (this one is actually a big issue now)
The biggest problem with the US opening up to a war economy would be the distinct lack of any existing industry in a significant capacity to support itself, im sure that could be fixed, but we already have issues with it today. Let alone if we were to double it for instance. Correct me if im wrong here, but we have dubious levels of industry for the existing shipyards as is, let alone any significant refit, although im sure that will eventually be fixed.
not everything that people say is “fighter mafia bullshit” or propaganda, the single biggest way you can fuck up, is by being wrong. We should be careful of these things, because this is the single biggest target during a time of war, after all. We all thought that one funny soviet jet was a “super fighter” and then it was made of steel, and it turns out we had accidentally 10x’d it already. Whoops.
I completely agree with literally everything you said. We do have issues to fix with our military industry for sure, but they’re nowhere near the troubles our industry was in during the Great Depression and pre-ww2, so we can still probably fix it. I’d see the CHIPS Act and Infrastructure Bill as potential first steps towards strengthening our war industry.
The “fighter mafia bullshit” remark was completely me being sick of hearing Tankies/random people act like the F35, and our supercarriers are just several billion dollar cardboard boxes.
yeah, that’s true, my main concern is less that we wouldnt be able to pull out, but more along the lines of we shouldn’t have this problem in the first place, given how much money we spend on our military.
US equipment is quite good. It’s expensive, yes, but we do get the military we pay for.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
Why are we still restricting what weapon systems we send to Ukraine? American doctrine for beating superior numbers calls for advanced technology. If we’re going to ask them to fight like us, we need to give them what they need.
they are SO close to having f-16s, it’s really a matter of time at this point.
The biggest problem for the US is the government, naturally.
To be clear: we need to send more. Lots more. I’m never quite sure how to frame these things, because I’m in favor of sending more, but I also like accurate information.
However, Russia has always favored quantity over quality. They don’t really do smart guided artillery shells. It doesn’t matter if they make three times more if they also need ten times more to hit the target.
i mean, it does also kind of matter though, if those shells miss they’re just going to hit civilian locations. Which in it of itself could technically be considered advantageous.
There aren’t any civilian locations on the front. There’s really not much of anything there anymore, except trenches, mines, fields, and holes from artillery.
Until the front moves.
yeah, i suppose that’s true. Even then there is still probably marginal benefit. Just less.
I really misread that title.
It works either way, who do you think Russia is producing those artillery shells for?
True, true.
russia is producing artillery for ukraine? How nice of them.
In a bad sense, yes.
i love using sarcasm on the internet, it’s funny.
Ukraine cannot win without foreign troops on the ground.
To think otherwise is delusional, and I guarantee after Ukraine loses you’ll be saying “if they just received more aid!”
US boots will not touch Ukrainian soil until NATO boots do. Europe would have to bring the US into it. It’s always been a proxy war. US gear and Ukrainian blood.
I would have been better for Ukraine for troops to be there on day 1, but it’s better for the “western powers” to have a weakened Russia after a drawn out war so you know what we went with
And if we already have problems making shells, merely sending in the troops wouldn’t exactly help. Besides, very politically expensive to open up what would be a long war
Air superiority would be the major thing Western forces would add; and it would make a night and day difference in the war.
Not to mention trying to hold against a western backed resistance movement.
FWIW, USA doesn’t really want them to win, just to kill the other side as much as possible (with as little help as possible)
I’m sure the US would want them to win.
It’s just their military leaders recognize Ukraine cannot win and it’s better for Ukrainians to die fighting Russia than NATO members.
There’s a faction in the US that wants them to win, another faction that wants them to lose (but doesn’t quite come out and say it), and a whole lot of people who think it’s not their problem.
The faction that wants them to win is in the White House, but they have to work with a bunch of people in Congress who have been sabotaging the effort.
Those shells aren’t going to do them much good sitting in rear area warehouses though. They lose trucks like a gambler loses money in Nevada. And if they move the warehouses closer to compensate they get blown up too.
So they can make 10 million if they want. They can only deliver so much to the front line.
