5 ms·

> No one expected to provide a bunch of logistics support to a non-NATO ally that uses our Cold War enemy’s doctrine. Rephrase: No one expected a real land war

• throwup238 3y ago
  You can rephrase it all you like it doesn’t change the question: why would the US spend a bunch of money on artillery ammunition when it and its NATO allies don’t use artillery? Why waste money on something we don’t use? The US armed forces make a lot of dumb choices with their funding but “underspending on artillery we don’t use” is not one of them. Even with hindsight it doesn’t make sense.
  • indymike 3y ago
    Oh, boy. The ones that say "cannon artillery" operate howitzers, mostly M-777, M-109 and M-119. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_artillery_regiments_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_field_artillery_regime... Our allies largely manufacture their own 155MM systems. Plenty of M-777 M-119s and M-109s are still in use. The idea that the US doesn't have or use artillery is just factually wrong. The fact we didn't have substantially more ammunition stocks for those weapons is a mistake.
    • throwup238 3y ago
      >> A good example not having enough artillery ammunition. > The fact we didn't have substantially more ammunition stocks for those weapons is a mistake. Oh boy, so you just contradicted yourself!
      • indymike 3y ago
        There no contradiction there. The whole point is that the US made a mistake by not producing enough ammunition for artillery.