3 ms·

The USA has 7500 excalibur shells in stock. So it’s clearly not an anecdotic piece of equipment. They cost much less than a tank or an artillery piece, so it wo

The USA has 7500 excalibur shells in stock. So it’s clearly not an anecdotic piece of equipment. They cost much less than a tank or an artillery piece, so it would make sense to use them most times you shoot at those.

sudosysgen 4y ago
7500 shells is a very small amount. To give you an idea, the US has millions of artillery shells. They represent a fraction of a percent of the US arsenal. They aren't anecdotal, but they are exceptional.
- tomatotomato37 4y ago
  Trying to follow the conversations here I think the problem is you both are trying to compare apples and oranges, or more appropriately the $10 bullets of an anti-material rifle with the $0.3 ammo used in a submachine gun. Just because they are both shot out of a barrel doesn't mean their purpose is the same. It's better to think of the excaliber rounds as more of cruise missiles with odd launch characteristics than as a tool for bombardment
  - the_af 4y ago
    If I'm following this conversation right, that's what u/sudosysgen seems to be saying...
    - fvdessen 4y ago
      My point, which was probably badly made, is that the article compares the artillery capabilities while (among other things) completely ignoring the existence of the various smart shells (rocket assisted, bonus rounds, airburst fuse, laser guided, etc, etc). Those of course do not replace the dumb shells completely, but means that a NATO artillery in a standard configuration can, when needed, shoot the equivalent of a cruise missile, clear trenches with airburst, etc. Russia can't afford those shells at all and only has dumb rounds. Those difference in capabilities clearly matter. And even smart rounds aside, there is also the question of the communication links, the targeting systems, how reliable is the gear, how trained the soldiers, the software used to coordinate the strikes. How much time does it takes between a soldier requesting a strike and it actually happening ? Ukraine does it in 5 minutes, with shots scheduled on an individual gun basis across multiple units, meaning there's no obvious place to counter barrage at. etc. etc. You can think of artillery as a parcel delivery problem, except you're delivering explosives, and this article is comparing competing solutions by comparing the volumetric capacity of their delivery trucks, a component they've chosen because coincidentally they're the better at. But you have to look at the whole solution and how all the pieces work together.
dragontamer 4y ago
> They cost much less than a tank or an artillery piece, so it would make sense to use them most times you shoot at those. Tanks and artillery pieces are probably blown up by BONUS rounds instead. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/155-bonus https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/155-bonus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors/Nexter_Bonus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors/Nexter_Bonus ------- It seems like Excalibur rounds are basically just a slightly cheaper "hellfire-like missile" kind of thing. But there are other 155mm rounds that are probably cheaper and more effective at destroying tanks. (Ex: because BONUS rounds have no GPS-guidance, they cannot be jammed) Tanks and artillery pieces also __move__. It takes 1.5 minutes for a typical artillery shell to land on its target, and Tanks/artillery could very well be moving at 30mph. By the time the artillery shell reaches there, the enemy has moved and you miss. In contrast, BONUS rounds scan a 30,000 square-meter area and shoot at the first vehicle that they see. So if you place the BONUS round in the right area, even if the enemy has moved, you'll successfully kill them.

sudosysgen 4y ago

7500 shells is a very small amount. To give you an idea, the US has millions of artillery shells. They represent a fraction of a percent of the US arsenal. They aren't anecdotal, but they are exceptional.

tomatotomato37 4y ago
Trying to follow the conversations here I think the problem is you both are trying to compare apples and oranges, or more appropriately the $10 bullets of an anti-material rifle with the $0.3 ammo used in a submachine gun. Just because they are both shot out of a barrel doesn't mean their purpose is the same. It's better to think of the excaliber rounds as more of cruise missiles with odd launch characteristics than as a tool for bombardment
- the_af 4y ago
  If I'm following this conversation right, that's what u/sudosysgen seems to be saying...
  - fvdessen 4y ago
    My point, which was probably badly made, is that the article compares the artillery capabilities while (among other things) completely ignoring the existence of the various smart shells (rocket assisted, bonus rounds, airburst fuse, laser guided, etc, etc). Those of course do not replace the dumb shells completely, but means that a NATO artillery in a standard configuration can, when needed, shoot the equivalent of a cruise missile, clear trenches with airburst, etc. Russia can't afford those shells at all and only has dumb rounds. Those difference in capabilities clearly matter. And even smart rounds aside, there is also the question of the communication links, the targeting systems, how reliable is the gear, how trained the soldiers, the software used to coordinate the strikes. How much time does it takes between a soldier requesting a strike and it actually happening ? Ukraine does it in 5 minutes, with shots scheduled on an individual gun basis across multiple units, meaning there's no obvious place to counter barrage at. etc. etc. You can think of artillery as a parcel delivery problem, except you're delivering explosives, and this article is comparing competing solutions by comparing the volumetric capacity of their delivery trucks, a component they've chosen because coincidentally they're the better at. But you have to look at the whole solution and how all the pieces work together.

dragontamer 4y ago

> They cost much less than a tank or an artillery piece, so it would make sense to use them most times you shoot at those. Tanks and artillery pieces are probably blown up by BONUS rounds instead. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/155-bonus https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/155-bonus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors/Nexter_Bonus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors/Nexter_Bonus ------- It seems like Excalibur rounds are basically just a slightly cheaper "hellfire-like missile" kind of thing. But there are other 155mm rounds that are probably cheaper and more effective at destroying tanks. (Ex: because BONUS rounds have no GPS-guidance, they cannot be jammed) Tanks and artillery pieces also __move__. It takes 1.5 minutes for a typical artillery shell to land on its target, and Tanks/artillery could very well be moving at 30mph. By the time the artillery shell reaches there, the enemy has moved and you miss. In contrast, BONUS rounds scan a 30,000 square-meter area and shoot at the first vehicle that they see. So if you place the BONUS round in the right area, even if the enemy has moved, you'll successfully kill them.