6 ms·

>>> stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough War is not only the 155mm shells. NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for w

>>> stockpiled and it is plainly obvious that it is not enough and was never enough War is not only the 155mm shells. NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war with USSR, they could send everything to Ukraine and it will help a lot. As an example, just check how many old Abrams the are in storage and never will be used and how many have been sent.

pydry 1y ago
>War is not only the 155mm shells. In this war it is most: >Artillery has been known as the “king of battle” for centuries, and this largely remains true today. In the Russia-Ukraine war, artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties on both sides. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-russia-and-ukraine https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-ru... >NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war Many, like the F16 proved expensive and fairly useless. And, at some point they had to start deciding whether to strip their inventories bare or hold back weapons deliveries to Ukraine. So, while there are many stockpiles, theyre not necessarily much help. In a supreme act of irony the NATO member that stripped its inventories the most now has America threatening its territory.
- tim333 1y ago
  >Artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties is no longer the case. Now it's drones https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-80-of-casualties-in-ukraine-russia-war/ https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-... which I guess show that things can change. If it had been a NATO vs Russia war it would have been air power or maybe nukes which everyone wants to avoid. The switch to drone warfare may be a problem of Russia. They had a clear advantage in artillery but it's more even with drones and western collaboration like this Project Octopus may give Ukraine the advantage. (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western-funded-drone-surge-could-end-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western...)
  - littlestymaar 1y ago
    > is no longer the case. Now it's drones Now, yes. But we wasted two years of war before going to that point and during this entire time Russia has outgunned Ukraine by almost an order of magnitude, mostly because shells where a scarce resource for the AFU, which is a shame. And artillery still is far from irrelevant even now.
    - tim333 1y ago
      The whole war seems a bit unnecessary. If Biden had said if you invade Ukraine we'll set the USAF on the invading troops the whole thing probably wouldn't have happened.
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
        Or the French, the Germans, the Poles and the Brits could have prepositioned troops (a brigade each, maximum) in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and Putin wouldn't have moved either. As I said above, I don't blame the US for not doing more as their action maximized their own interests, but I blame out European leaders for being spineless cowards.
        pydry 1y ago
        The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. There is no question of that. European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. Trump has comprehensively and publicly ruled that out though. He refuses to be drawn in. And what would you do in that situation? with a bunch of dead troops, an infuriated Russia and no US to come to the rescue?
        littlestymaar 1y ago
        > The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. 4 years and a million casualties too late though. > If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly, nor can they secure air dominance over a country with only old Soviet airframes, they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. > European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. They'd been no need to save anything, Putin isn't dumb enough to start a fight with European countries. Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years, hoping to win against the whole Europeans would be stupidly delusional.

pydry 1y ago

>War is not only the 155mm shells. In this war it is most: >Artillery has been known as the “king of battle” for centuries, and this largely remains true today. In the Russia-Ukraine war, artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties on both sides. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-russia-and-ukraine https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/weapons-war-race-between-ru... >NATO has so many weapons stockpiled for war Many, like the F16 proved expensive and fairly useless. And, at some point they had to start deciding whether to strip their inventories bare or hold back weapons deliveries to Ukraine. So, while there are many stockpiles, theyre not necessarily much help. In a supreme act of irony the NATO member that stripped its inventories the most now has America threatening its territory.

tim333 1y ago
>Artillery fire accounts for about 80 percent of the casualties is no longer the case. Now it's drones https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-80-of-casualties-in-ukraine-russia-war/ https://www.army-technology.com/news/drones-now-account-for-... which I guess show that things can change. If it had been a NATO vs Russia war it would have been air power or maybe nukes which everyone wants to avoid. The switch to drone warfare may be a problem of Russia. They had a clear advantage in artillery but it's more even with drones and western collaboration like this Project Octopus may give Ukraine the advantage. (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western-funded-drone-surge-could-end-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-western...)
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  > is no longer the case. Now it's drones Now, yes. But we wasted two years of war before going to that point and during this entire time Russia has outgunned Ukraine by almost an order of magnitude, mostly because shells where a scarce resource for the AFU, which is a shame. And artillery still is far from irrelevant even now.
  - tim333 1y ago
    The whole war seems a bit unnecessary. If Biden had said if you invade Ukraine we'll set the USAF on the invading troops the whole thing probably wouldn't have happened.
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
      Or the French, the Germans, the Poles and the Brits could have prepositioned troops (a brigade each, maximum) in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and Putin wouldn't have moved either. As I said above, I don't blame the US for not doing more as their action maximized their own interests, but I blame out European leaders for being spineless cowards.
      - pydry 1y ago
        The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. There is no question of that. European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. Trump has comprehensively and publicly ruled that out though. He refuses to be drawn in. And what would you do in that situation? with a bunch of dead troops, an infuriated Russia and no US to come to the rescue?
        littlestymaar 1y ago
        > The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. 4 years and a million casualties too late though. > If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly, nor can they secure air dominance over a country with only old Soviet airframes, they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. > European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. They'd been no need to save anything, Putin isn't dumb enough to start a fight with European countries. Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years, hoping to win against the whole Europeans would be stupidly delusional.