3 ms·
Ukraine is still investing in artillery plants, and it's why several other NATO countries are building more capacity as we speak (for their own and Ukraine's us
by wahern 5mo ago
Ukraine is still investing in artillery plants, and it's why several other NATO countries are building more capacity as we speak (for their own and Ukraine's use). Artillery isn't any more obsolete than bullets, it's just not sexy, and at the margins isn't as strategically important.
You can't win a war without controlling ground. It's why the US lost the Iran War, and Vietnam before it, despite having an unfettered ability to pummel forces from the air. To control ground, artillery is essential. Not sufficient, but absolutely necessary.
- tristanj 5mo agoArtillery is only viable on Ukraine's side because Russia is too incompetent to manufacture long-range (30-50km) FPV strike drones at scale. Currently only Ukraine has pushed the "kill zone" to the 15-25km mark. Russia is behind. But this situation will not last, drone technology will improve on all sides, China will innovate on drone range and Russia will buy those drones. The drone "kill zone" will surpass the range of artillery for all sides. This is happening in a few years.
- gpderetta 5mo agoA good artillery team should be able to fire and scoot before counter-battery fire. And that's supersonic. You won't be able to do counter-battery with current drones. And an hypothetical supersonic drone is not going to be cost effective. Drones are likely still great to opportunistically picking up artillery that is scouted by other surveillance drones, but it is probably not the best solution for attacking a battery that is currently firing, unless a drone happens to be already in position.
- tristanj 5mo agoThe latest strategy is to pre-position drones deep in enemy territory, then activate them when a target is found. This (combined with surveillance drones) would cause artillery teams to be targeted by drones within minutes of firing.