6 ms·

Meanwhile America is now struggling to produce something as simple as artillery shells, while Russia is producing 2-5 times the number produced by the entire US

by _xnmw 2y ago

Meanwhile America is now struggling to produce something as simple as artillery shells, while Russia is producing 2-5 times the number produced by the entire US + EU combined. Sources: [1] https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/ https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artill... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery...

immibis 2y ago
Capitalism at work.
- _xnmw 2y ago
  Slavoj Žižek talks about "wartime communism", the tendency towards centralized control during extreme situations like a war or pandemic, because it is absolutely necessary for effective results at scale, when the problem is narrow and well-defined. Capitalism tends to do better at peace when there is no single fixed objective.
- Negitivefrags 2y ago
  I guess the market isn’t demanding a lot of mortar shells.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/ https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artill... makes it clear that's exactly what's happening in Europe: there's vague statements about demand, but not cash-up-front payments to make it actually happen. The economics and politics actually matter! The public do not want a war, and they do not like forseeing one, they want their own pricing issues dealt with, and they have power at elections. Whereas Russian and Chinese leaders can simply impose whatever level of hardship they need that doesn't provoke full scale open revolt and mass slaughter in their own streets.
amarcheschi 2y ago
Russia also spends something like 7% of its gdp in the military, while for most European countries defence budget is around 2% of their gdp. I'm not a war analyst also, but nato doctrine is kinda different from Russia'S. During both Bosnia and Serbia bombing campaigns nato inflicted most damage through bombs, not shells. In Ukraine both Ukrainians and Russians had to resort to artillery shells because none of them could fly uncontested
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
JoBrad 2y ago
Your linked articles don’t back up the first part of your claim: the US doubled production, and exceeded production targets, but that progress is being hindered due to Congressional funding. So we have the ability to make shells, but don’t need them in mass numbers (because we’re not in an active war). The OP article is about creating the manufacturing capability, which is different from having the capability and not needing it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _xnmw 2y ago
  Actually, an American engineer notes, the US is actually "struggling" with manufacturing artillery shells for some strange reason. https://roblh.substack.com/p/as-much-as-you-ever-wanted-to-know https://roblh.substack.com/p/as-much-as-you-ever-wanted-to-k...
hollerith 2y ago
Sure, if you have the mistaken belief that making modern artillery shells at scale is simple, the US looks bad compared to a country whose government has always prioritized having lots of supplies for its army because unlike the US, it is not separated by vast oceans from any army that could possibly pose a threat to it.
bluGill 2y ago
There is good reason for that: the US/NATO war plans are not to get into an artillery war in the first place. If there is artillery in the way the US/NATO plan is send an airplane with a few bombs to take it out. There is still some room for artillery in the army and so we produce some, but that isn't the major way to fight wars. The Soviet plan - which both Russia and Ukraine are well trained in - was to use lots of artillery. In backing Ukraine NATO suddenly sees a need for some shells that they wouldn't use if it was them. But the Ukrainian generals know them and so that is what they want. (Note too the nobody has provided Ukraine anywhere near the number of airplanes needed to fight a NATO style war - even if all promised F16s arrive today with full training it isn't enough for a NATO war)
- John23832 2y ago
  Right, I think the idea that America plans to go into an artillery slugsfest misunderstands American military doctrine. One could argue that the reason we weren't prepared to do "artillery war" in Ukraine is because, politically, we're restrained from conducting an air superiority campaign (which would be used to eliminate enemy artillery). The Soviet/Russian land doctrine is totally based on artillery. It makes sense that that is their priority. Now, that doesn't mean that American doctrine would work well in a hypothetical war with China. I personally don't think the current doctrine would work well. But those that watch the military sphere know that brass have taken note of that and are implementing changes. That all you can really ask for.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- anikan_vader 2y ago
  It’s disingenuous to claim without citation that the US does not anticipate using artillery as one (of many) primary weapons in a land conflict against a near-peer adversary. The fact that thr US hasn’t had such a conflict since at least Vietnam (and arguably Korea) not withstanding. Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China. In short, artillery remains important, which is why US artillery shell production is up an order of magnitude over the last 3 years, and will continue to rise.
alberth 2y ago
That’s expected. Russian has been in a war for the past 2-years. The US & EU have not.
- pphysch 2y ago
  On the topic of supplying materiel, which is the topic of this thread, NATO countries have been 100% involved. If NATO could supply the materiel for Ukraine to "singlehandedly" defeat Russia, they would do it in a heartbeat. But they don't have it!
  - alberth 2y ago
    I’m not sure that’s the case. It seems more like politics than anything else. Countries want to help. But they don’t want to help too much, where they then get pulled into the war (or have Russia target them).
class3shock 2y ago
Did you read these? The first article clearly states the US is actually ramping up production better than expected and it can do even better with more support/funding. It's Europe/NATO being behind where they want to be and limitations on funding/support in the US that is causing the difference in supply, not US production struggles.

by _xnmw 2y ago

immibis 2y ago

Capitalism at work.

_xnmw 2y ago
Slavoj Žižek talks about "wartime communism", the tendency towards centralized control during extreme situations like a war or pandemic, because it is absolutely necessary for effective results at scale, when the problem is narrow and well-defined. Capitalism tends to do better at peace when there is no single fixed objective.
Negitivefrags 2y ago
I guess the market isn’t demanding a lot of mortar shells.
- pjc50 2y ago
  https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/ https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artill... makes it clear that's exactly what's happening in Europe: there's vague statements about demand, but not cash-up-front payments to make it actually happen. The economics and politics actually matter! The public do not want a war, and they do not like forseeing one, they want their own pricing issues dealt with, and they have power at elections. Whereas Russian and Chinese leaders can simply impose whatever level of hardship they need that doesn't provoke full scale open revolt and mass slaughter in their own streets.

amarcheschi 2y ago

Russia also spends something like 7% of its gdp in the military, while for most European countries defence budget is around 2% of their gdp. I'm not a war analyst also, but nato doctrine is kinda different from Russia'S. During both Bosnia and Serbia bombing campaigns nato inflicted most damage through bombs, not shells. In Ukraine both Ukrainians and Russians had to resort to artillery shells because none of them could fly uncontested

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

JoBrad 2y ago

Your linked articles don’t back up the first part of your claim: the US doubled production, and exceeded production targets, but that progress is being hindered due to Congressional funding. So we have the ability to make shells, but don’t need them in mass numbers (because we’re not in an active war). The OP article is about creating the manufacturing capability, which is different from having the capability and not needing it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_xnmw 2y ago
Actually, an American engineer notes, the US is actually "struggling" with manufacturing artillery shells for some strange reason. https://roblh.substack.com/p/as-much-as-you-ever-wanted-to-know https://roblh.substack.com/p/as-much-as-you-ever-wanted-to-k...

hollerith 2y ago

Sure, if you have the mistaken belief that making modern artillery shells at scale is simple, the US looks bad compared to a country whose government has always prioritized having lots of supplies for its army because unlike the US, it is not separated by vast oceans from any army that could possibly pose a threat to it.

bluGill 2y ago

There is good reason for that: the US/NATO war plans are not to get into an artillery war in the first place. If there is artillery in the way the US/NATO plan is send an airplane with a few bombs to take it out. There is still some room for artillery in the army and so we produce some, but that isn't the major way to fight wars. The Soviet plan - which both Russia and Ukraine are well trained in - was to use lots of artillery. In backing Ukraine NATO suddenly sees a need for some shells that they wouldn't use if it was them. But the Ukrainian generals know them and so that is what they want. (Note too the nobody has provided Ukraine anywhere near the number of airplanes needed to fight a NATO style war - even if all promised F16s arrive today with full training it isn't enough for a NATO war)

John23832 2y ago
Right, I think the idea that America plans to go into an artillery slugsfest misunderstands American military doctrine. One could argue that the reason we weren't prepared to do "artillery war" in Ukraine is because, politically, we're restrained from conducting an air superiority campaign (which would be used to eliminate enemy artillery). The Soviet/Russian land doctrine is totally based on artillery. It makes sense that that is their priority. Now, that doesn't mean that American doctrine would work well in a hypothetical war with China. I personally don't think the current doctrine would work well. But those that watch the military sphere know that brass have taken note of that and are implementing changes. That all you can really ask for.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
anikan_vader 2y ago
It’s disingenuous to claim without citation that the US does not anticipate using artillery as one (of many) primary weapons in a land conflict against a near-peer adversary. The fact that thr US hasn’t had such a conflict since at least Vietnam (and arguably Korea) not withstanding. Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China. In short, artillery remains important, which is why US artillery shell production is up an order of magnitude over the last 3 years, and will continue to rise.

alberth 2y ago

That’s expected. Russian has been in a war for the past 2-years. The US & EU have not.

pphysch 2y ago
On the topic of supplying materiel, which is the topic of this thread, NATO countries have been 100% involved. If NATO could supply the materiel for Ukraine to "singlehandedly" defeat Russia, they would do it in a heartbeat. But they don't have it!
- alberth 2y ago
  I’m not sure that’s the case. It seems more like politics than anything else. Countries want to help. But they don’t want to help too much, where they then get pulled into the war (or have Russia target them).

class3shock 2y ago

Did you read these? The first article clearly states the US is actually ramping up production better than expected and it can do even better with more support/funding. It's Europe/NATO being behind where they want to be and limitations on funding/support in the US that is causing the difference in supply, not US production struggles.