Ukraine is running short on artillery, which is causing a slowdown in its counteroffensive. Why isn’t the West meeting Ukraine’s needs? The problem is production capacity: Western factories simply cannot produce the artillery shells as fast as Ukraine can fire them. Investing in production capacity could easily bridge the gap. However, weapons manufacturers are nervous that demand for shells will disappear as soon as the war ends, leaving the infrastructure investments unprofitable. This video explains how guaranteed contracts solve that problem and simultaneously encourage Russia’s retreat even before the assembly lines are up and running.
@barsoap @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Guaranteeing compensation for an order of artillery shells seems like it should be a trivial concept. Leave it to government to complicate simple business and ignore incentive.
Yes, the west has a security interest in negating the combat power of one of their largest geopolitical rivals. Will shells alone win the war? I’m not that optimistic. However, regardless of additional artillery shells’ impact on the war, the US has a duty to be prepared for China.
Hi there! Your text contains links to other Lemmy communities, here are correct links for Lemmy users: [email protected]
for an artillery heavy army like Ukraine this is a critical component, yes
@skillissuer Increasingly so, I’d say. The cadre of highly proficient troops we trained in maneuver warfare has been attrited. The conscripts, and the Soviet-tactic pensioners leading them, need artillery.
uhhh no? No matter what particular tactics are followed, advancing infantry needs some kind of heavy weapons support. US Army has USAF, but in air-denied situation the natural way to provide this is artillery, both rocket and tube. Long range artillery is the usual (and old) way to conduct SEAD and the fact that USAF also can do it is more of an exception than a rule
@skillissuer Hey man, I’m not disagreeing. I only said that the more one relies on lesser trained troops with eastern doctrine, one increasingly uses artillery. We’re on the same page.
Artillery is indispensable in large scale combat operations.
Elements of NATO doctrine were introduced over the last 8 years or so, so i don’t think that attrition would mean uncreased use of soviet style tactics. Some of troops that were trained in the west would only go through abridged basic, so they don’t matter as much
@skillissuer @timkmak @ukraine @WarInTheFuture
I trained them.
Tons of the guys are dead now.
You’re right, there were two tiers of Ukrainian troops. We partnered with some units long term. Their contact soldiers would go fight in the ATO, then return to train on repeat. The контрактники had terrible morale and motivation, so they learned less.
The brave and skilled who remain in the fray typically die off early in war. All indicators are that a core cadre of experts has dwindled.
Ukrain should not be using less shells than Russia. Fixing that discrepancy seems at the minimum to he necessary.
Even if all it does is get artillery production going faster, it is needed.
