7 ms·
Germany has become the largest ammunition producer in the world
- thunderbong 6mo agoFrom less than a day ago - Germany Overtakes US in Ammunition Production Capacity 141 points, 163 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47944924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47944924
- tristanj 6mo agoGermany is producing weapons to fight the last war. WWIII will be fought with drones, not artillery. They should invest part of this money into becoming the leader in drone manufacturing, not this. Since it's Germany, the money for this manufacturing ramp-up was probably allocated around 2023-2024, when older artillery was needed and before drone superiority was obvious. So maybe this is the expected outcome. If the money was allocated today, we might see it distributed differently. Both China and the US have moved on to drones. China has purchased 1 million kamikaze strike drones to hit targets across Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan [0]; and the US is trying to invest $55 billion into drone procurement [1]. [0] https://www.warquants.com/p/one-million-suicide-drones-with-chinese https://www.warquants.com/p/one-million-suicide-drones-with-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953787
- bluefirebrand 6mo agoDrones will still fire ammunition presumably? Are they just producing ammunition types that aren't suitable for drone weaponry or something?
- tristanj 6mo agoNot this kind, drones don't fire 155mm artillery shells. Artillery has a relatively short range of ~30km, while modern drones are reaching hundreds of km.
- adgjlsfhk1 6mo agoArtillery and drones do different things. An artillery shell costs ~$2k and provides a much bigger bang (and faster speed, totally non-jammable) than a $2k drone (a shahed is ~$20k and much more intercept-able). Drones are 100% useful, but so is artillery.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- jandrewrogers 6mo agoDrones don't use these types of munitions.
- spiderfarmer 6mo agoI'm sorry but you're trying to sound insightful without knowing anything about German drone production. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/14/ukraine-strikes-drone-production-deal-with-germany https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/14/ukraine-strikes-dro... https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-germany-drone-production/33723276.html https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-germany-drone-production/337... https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/02/26/once-reluctant-germany-goes-big-on-one-way-attack-drones/ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/02/26/once-re... https://defencematters.eu/germany-ukraine-drone-factory/ https://defencematters.eu/germany-ukraine-drone-factory/
- tristanj 6mo agoGermany (currently) isn't even in the top 5 for military drone manufacturing. The ranking of number of military drones produced per year goes Ukraine (millions), China (millions), Russia (hundreds of thousands), Iran (hundreds of thousands), then the US (tens of thousands), followed by Turkey and Israel (mid-thousands). German manufacturing is in the low thousands per year. This is a major national security issue, Germany is currently behind many other nations in this technology.
- spiderfarmer 6mo agoAttack Germany, see what happens.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- 948382828528 6mo ago[dead]
- throwawaypath 6mo ago[flagged]
- cmrdporcupine 6mo agoGermany is manufacturing artillery shells because Ukraine specifically needs them and has been suffering shell starvation for years. Ukraine's massive use of them has drained the stocks of the European powers, from my understanding. So, no, the answer is unfortunately they need to do both. Though after the war I suspect Ukraine will take the lead on drone development.
- Havoc 6mo agoYou need both. See Ukraine needing mountains of artillery despite the pre war consensus being that the artillery era is over The drones make the news but can’t be the only weapon you bring
- cjbgkagh 6mo agoThe same pre war consensus also thought that war with Russia was unthinkable, it is Russia that focused on artillery tactics so the two assumptions went hand in hand. It’s my opinion that artillery is out of date and by the end of the Ukraine war they will be even more out of date. It’s hard to make artillery more cost effective than it already is yet still many more opportunities to increase drone effectiveness.
- beachy 6mo agoArtillery is just one piece in the puzzle and it has its place, with drone spotting. You can't jam a shell. But once your artillery positions can't be protected from drones then its game over for sure.
- tristanj 6mo agoThis is more of a doctrine issue. Ukraine was given mountains of artillery by western nations, so naturally they were going to use it. But artillery has lower RoI than drones, drones are cheaper, more accurate, more versatile, and have longer range. It makes the most sense to heavily invest in the better technology drones, not artillery. If we look at what Ukraine spends its military budget on, >50% of its military spending goes towards drones. Only 15% is going towards artillery & ammunition. We can also look at present wars to view where the trend is going. I'd estimate that during the latest conflict between Israel/Iran/US + gulf states, approximately zero artillery shells were fired*. During a hypothetical US/China/Taiwan + Korean/Japan conflict, I'd expect this number to be similar. *excluding rocket artillery such as HIMARS
- Havoc 6mo ago> I'd estimate that during the latest conflict between Israel/Iran/US + gulf states, approximately zero artillery shells were fired*. That has nothing to do with the merits of artillery and everything with the type of war. Air campaigns with no front line obviously don’t use artillery… Once you’re in a positional static fight artillery is still the cheapest way to deliver heavy ordinance. US isn’t likely to end up in a fight like that but that doesn’t invalidate artillery in general. Rheinmetal from the article is arming countries that are worried about a land invasion by Russia > HIMARS Very much hoping the US learned the lesson on relying on expensive tools like that. The shock and awe strategy didn’t work against Iran and it sure as hell won’t work against an adversary like China that has a much higher ability to backfill
- drob518 6mo agoIt’s rare for military technology to completely “move on” to other things. Typically, the new just gets added to the old. So, yea, drones are new, but drones don’t cause artillery to become completely obsolete, in the same way that aerial bombs didn’t cause artillery to become obsolete. You’ll end up spending on both.
- tristanj 6mo agoUkraine has essentially moved-on from artillery to drones, just last month (March 2026) drones caused 96% of Russian casualties. Artillery and small arms fire accounted for the rest. Also, artillery has a maximum effective range of ~30km. Ukraine's drone kill-zone is 20km and with newer drones pushing to 50-100km. By next year it won't even possible to bring artillery and a large number of shells into the frontlines without being targeted.
- oezi 6mo agoOf the confirmed casualties. Much easier to give kill numbers if you have video evidence from a drone. Doesn't mean that artillery strikes are any less lethal even though they don't give such clear confirmation pictures.
- tristanj 6mo agoThis isn't correct at all. Artillery strikes are near-universally drone assisted, meaning there is a surveillance drone recording the strike and calling the exact target coordinates. Any casualties from artillery strikes would be recorded by drone, and added to the total casualty statistics.
- LarsDu88 6mo agoYou haven't seen the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones? Or the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland from the necessitated by the massive amount of drone jamming and crowding of RF channels? Artillery is still queen of the battlefield regardless of what highlight reels from r/CombatFootage would have you believe.
- tristanj 6mo ago> the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones No, Ukraine does not drop artillery shells from drones. They typically drop VOG-17/25 grenade launcher rounds or RGD-5/F-1 fragmentation grenades, neither of which are considered artillery shells. > the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland That's massive evidence for using drones over artillery. Why do we see fields covered with thousands of fiber optic wires, instead of fields covered with thousands of artillery craters like WWII? It's very clear what's happening. I'd have a look at the latest Ukraine military procurement data. Over 50% of Ukraine's military procurement budget is going into drones. Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition. That's a clear signal of which technology is more effective. We can also look at statements by Ukrainian military officials, currently 95%(!!) of Russian casualties are caused by drones. > Artillery is still queen of the battlefield That was true in 2023, but we are now in 2026, and drones are clearly superior.
- wahern 6mo ago> Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition. That simply reflects, in part, the cost differential. It's difficult to find the most recent data, but as of mid 2025 and, AFAICT, still today, Ukraine and Russia were still exchanging 10,000+ shells every day. Moreover, Russia fires 5 shells for every 1 Ukrainian shell. It used to be 10:1. It's a huge reason Ukraine can't break through Russian lines, and during offenses hold off Russian advances. Ukraine still has major supply issues with shells, and that's also likely one reason for their emphasis on drones. It's certainly the reason Germany and others are still pursuing increased artillery production. Ceteris paribus, the marginal effectiveness of deploying more drones may be superior to more artillery, but that's against the backdrop of existing artillery usage. If Ukraine switched to only drones, they'd lose the war in weeks if not days.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- lopsotronic 6mo agoIt's going to be both, and it's because of physics. At this moment, the best way to put kinetic energy into an enemy is sticking some quantity of explosive on them. You have a few ways of going about this. Two we consider today: 1) a chemical charge launches a block of explosive ballistically at a closing range of mach 2-5, 2) a complex assembly of plastic/rare earths/silicon/PCBAs flies over to the enemy at somewhere around "fast bicycle" or "leisurely highway" speeds. By weight, 1 is cheaper, and all you lose is the explosive. 2 is more accurate, but that whole flying assembly is a loss. Now, when you do something cute like take one little chunk of electronics and stick it on your block of explosive, and then orbit your doodad at a nice safe distance so it beams a homing dot on the target - your ballistic explosive sees the dot and steers toward it. See what I'm getting at? Cheap as 1, accurate as 2. This is a really, really winning combo when you can pull it off, but lately, UAS ops has gotten a universe more difficult with the dirty dirty EW and now with all sorts of countermeasures. Even better reason for our little flying widgets to keep their frickin' distance. Even if they get swatted down, they can cue in shot after shot after shot, with much more bang.
- magicalhippo 6mo agoBut artillery only has a short range, less than 50-60km. Ukraina is bombing trucks with FPV drones at that range now. So you'd need serious anti-drone capabilities to get the artillery close enough, and good luck if you have it sitting around deployed for any lenghth of time.
- jyounker 6mo agoModern artillery doesn't sit in fixed emplacements. It fires a few shells, and then moves. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_artillery_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_artillery_system
- magicalhippo 6mo agoSure, but when they're moving they're not shooting, so those few shells better count. Both shooting and moving is very detrimental to staying hidden. And with FPV drones moving doesn't do you much good unless you move out of drone range, which as mentioned is or very nearly is 2x the effective range of such artillery systems. The attack drones don't have to be big, just big enough to score a mobility kill and the artillery is pretty much f'd in the a...
- bayareabadboy 6mo ago[flagged]
- cromka 6mo agoAs a Pole: it was bad before they stepped up. I am happy to see Germany becoming a stronger force in the region.
- sashank_1509 6mo agoMaybe your thoughts will change if they invade you again a few elections later
- newsclues 6mo agoDepends on how far away the Russian invasion was.
- jyounker 6mo agoI live in Germany. My roommate is Polish. I have friends who are Polish. Poles are infinitely more afraid of the Russians.
- cromka 6mo agoYeah. Germany is the only nation who actually learned from its troubled past. I would never trust a Serbian or Japanese with serious army, though.
- i000 6mo agoNot sure why you are voted down. Came here to make the same joke.
- strangegecko 6mo agoIt's a dumb joke considering Germany has been one of the most peaceful countries in decades. And the people making the jokes are often citizens of a country actively engaged in wars.
- spiderfarmer 6mo ago[flagged]
- urbandw311er 6mo ago[flagged]
- inquirerGeneral 6mo ago[flagged]
- whatever1 6mo agoWhat could possibly go wrong by waking up the Europeans war talents?
- walrus01 6mo agoThe actual risks of modern day Germany going on a hegemonic rampage across Europe are extremely low. Their interests these days are much more aligned with maintaining proper democratic institutions, the EU, and being a voice for the free non-russia-aligned world.
- CamperBob2 6mo agoAll of which was also true for the US... right up until it wasn't.
- vkou 6mo agoThe US political system is inherently unstable. It has a strong god-king executive branch of government, and only uses first-past-the-post voting, which results in truly insane election results, and little to no need for cross-party coalition building. Germany has a partially proportionate-representation multi-party strong-parliament system. While some fringe lunatics can definitely win an election, they are incredibly unlikely to sweep it.
- Levitz 6mo agoYeah, the US, which doesn't even want to put boots on the ground regarding Iran, will totally start invading nuclear powers in Europe any time now. Totally.
- tardedmeme 6mo agoAnd Israel. Don't forget, Merkel and Scholz both said the protection of Israel is Germany's reason to exist (Staatsräson).
- arjie 6mo agoI always wonder about these production numbers in the military. The US has a large military complex and Germany is an industrial power and North Korea is a small military autocracy suffering from raw material shortages, but Googling around I see[0]: > The expert also said that the North’s annual production estimate of 2 million 152-millimeter artillery shells is premised on peacetime manufacturing rates. But here Germany is the largest ammunition producer and they're making 1.1 million (presumably both are per-year rates). This link[1] says the US makes 672k/year (I'm annualizing their per-month number) so definitely Germany is making more than the US. I get the impression a lot of these things need some contextualization. Are the rates per month or per year, is production dispatchable, do some countries have stockpiles or refurbish shells? Because just looking at raw numbers here results in strange results like North Korea being way larger than Germany at this. 0: https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2023-11-06/national/northKorea/Expert-says-North-likely-to-ramp-up-production-of-shells-for-Russia/1907006 https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2023-11-06/nationa... 1: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/02/army-official-not-happy-with-gds-handling-of-155mm-contract-as-production-lags/ https://breakingdefense.com/2026/02/army-official-not-happy-...
- spacemanspiff01 6mo agoThe US (and Europe) have been under investing in shell production since the end of the cold war. North Korea is a dictatorship, which one of its main deterrents is to shell soul to oblivion.
- bee_rider 6mo agoMaybe the article is counting the “medium-caliber ammunition” as well; Germany seems to have boosted that quite significantly. > medium-caliber ammunition from 800,000 to 4,000,000, and artillery shells from 70,000 to 1,100,000 Of course it isn’t really obvious that this would be an apples-to-apples comparison (I suspect it isn’t). Then again it isn’t obvious that a NK artillery shell is an apples-to-apples comparison to a German one (I’d hope the German ones are a bit more modern). Context is needed but I suspect the full context is complicated—the US doesn’t shoot as many artillery shells just because of the way we do war, so it isn’t obvious that in-context this is a meaningful metric anyway.
- ekianjo 6mo agoMore than Russia? I kind of doubt it.
- mothballed 6mo agoThat was my thought as well. Before the war Russia was a a (the?) major source for 7.62 ammunition in the USA.
- heyheyhouhou 6mo agoGerman industry is changing a lot loosing against China, so they have been moving to war related stuff for the past years. Personally, I know a bunch of people who were offered get transferred from VW to a military drone company. On one side I understand that manufacturing a lot of weapons could be somehow a protection for the future, but also Germany provides a lot of ammunition to Israel that is killing thousands of innocents in Gaza and Lebanon. Germany is friend of Israel despite many people disliking it in Germany (they are still waving Israeli flags in many official places). Also, weapons will lead to more weapons, more violence and more war, specially if you have investors behind willing to see their shares going up...
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- varispeed 6mo agoI find it puzzling why they won't pivot to industries that actually matter like making competition to Micron or Samsung and manufacture RAM at scale. Amping up military production is basically a reaction to certain countries electing maniacal pedos as presidents instead of jailing them.
- alex43578 6mo agoPrecision manufacturing has been Germany’s thing for a while, but semiconductors is a completely different skill set. Making a car and tank has way more in common than making a car and a CPU.
- noosphr 6mo agoAnd you won't get electric tanks for many decades. Where else could you hawk ICE at a premium without environmental regulations?
- alex43578 6mo agoYou won’t get electric tanks for the same reason you won’t get electric planes: energy density and supply chains. An Abrams has a multi-fuel jet turbine that’ll take diesel, gas, and jet fuel; all of which are easy to transport and store in bulk, in any environment, compared to needing to generate and store the same quantity of energy. The closest tanks will come any time soon is a diesel-electric hybrid, for noise and electric load purposes (EW, lasers, etc).
- zitterbewegung 6mo agoIt also probably helps since Russia is now sanctioned that Germany is basically filling in the huge void right ?
- esseph 6mo agoRussia uses different ammo calibers and designs than Western / NATO armies. Small arms, machine guns, mortar and artillery sizes, etc. US is the only one in NATO fielding any 6.8mm battle rifles to line infantry, but Russia and China both have equivalent calibers and rifles under development.
- debo_ 6mo agoThis article needed more bullet points. /joke
- yanyanhack 6mo agoI took a look and realized it was a Ukrainian website. They’ve been addled by the bombs—spouting such utterly disruptive, shit-stirring nonsense.