(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
ummel posted:They're still getting enough chips smuggled in through Chinese companies and even USA companies. The world doesn't want to impose the kind of sanctions that would be needed to stop it. They'll keep cranking out a significant number of missiles to continue these same random acts of civilian death. I don't know if they have enough to greatly increase production, but they surely have enough to continue making them.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Looks like they are still producing tanks too: We don't necessarily know if these tanks are off the assembly line, they could be pulled from storage, being transported from other military districts, or repaired/refurbished.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:We don't necessarily know if these tanks are off the assembly line, they could be pulled from storage, being transported from other military districts, or repaired/refurbished.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Or, without any sort of source, from this time a year (or 3!) ago!  From a careful analysis I have concluded that this video is definitive proof of the existence of tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Looks like they are still producing tanks too: The fact that Russia is manufacturing new tanks (and refurbishing old tanks) is not really in dispute. The only recent disputes I have seen on point would be the actual number they are producing and the quality of the optics available today in new tanks rolling off the lines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I can't answer the earlier question but how is Russia exactly produce ammo and munitions? Isn't there a point where they are going to be stretched thin for shells? I can't imagine they'll be able to lob cruise missiles forever? They're already stretched thin for shells and rationing their use, but they can produce enough domestically to keep the war going if not to win it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The fact that Russia is manufacturing new tanks (and refurbishing old tanks) is not really in dispute. The only recent disputes I have seen on point would be the actual number they are producing and the quality of the optics available today in new tanks rolling off the lines. There was a Forbes article earlier today that speculated (based on this video) that Russia had either gotten around optics sanctions or managed to make something that looks very similar to french optics. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/08/07/a-shortage-of-optics-was-holding-back-russian-tank-production-that-shortage-may-have-ended/ quote:That advantage may be slipping. A video that circulated online this week depicts a trainload of T-80BVMs—30 or so—apparently leaving the Omsktransmash plant. The tanks feature the distinctive optics housings that point to the presence of Sosna-U sights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
saratoga posted:They're already stretched thin for shells and rationing their use, but they can produce enough domestically to keep the war going if not to win it. Here's what I am getting at with my question because what I don't understand is why are there so many headlines/articles over Ukrainian shortages but not for Russia? Did they have large ammunition stockpiles? Why is the whole west struggling with ammo but Russia does not seem to be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Here's what I am getting at with my question because what I don't understand is why are there so many headlines/articles over Ukrainian shortages but not for Russia? Did they have large ammunition stockpiles? Why is the whole west struggling with ammo but Russia does not seem to be? Europe never bothered making & storing eighty years worth of ammo? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 07:58
|
|
|
Russia have/had an absolutely massive stock of shells that it inherited from the Soviet Union, just like its massive quantity of armoured vehicles. They are unlikely to be able to ever replenish their stock back up to the levels they started with, but that doesn't mean they can't produce enough to keep the war going.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 07:59
|
|
|
That makes more sense, I didn't realize they had an absolutely enormous stockpile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 08:00
|
|
|
The Soviets built large stockpiles of artillery munitions, and as of today it is reported they can produce up to 20,000 a month. However, Russian soldiers and most notably Prigozhin have reported at least local shortages of artillery. Whether that is because they are running out or the diffilculty that it is for them to build up large enough stockpiles close to the front. In regards to the headlines, Russian media does what the Kremlin tells them, and it seems they do not like their shortcomings advertised to the world. In contrast, here in the Western world we often find getting media attention as a solution to solving problems. It seems to be working, as the US and other NATO partners have pledged or are already increasing production. Though not at the rate Ukraine would like. There is also the question of the quality/state of those old Soviet stockpiles, as we saw many pictures from 2022 of crates of shells in very poor condition. Dick Ripple fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Aug 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 08:01
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Here's what I am getting at with my question because what I don't understand is why are there so many headlines/articles over Ukrainian shortages but not for Russia? Did they have large ammunition stockpiles? Why is the whole west struggling with ammo but Russia does not seem to be? Did you miss the huge clusterfuck about 'The MOD is denying us ammo!' that spiraled into the world's dumbest mutiny? Russia had enormous reserves of shells, unlike the West, but they've been depleting those reserves at a frightening rate. Even with the attrition the artillery units have suffered, they've been forced to heavily ration ammunition compared to the profligate barrages of the early war offensives. While they certainly have enough shell production to continue the war, and are likely ramping that up just as the West is, they are in no way in a position to spend shells at the rate they desire and its been a big point of contention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Looks like they are still producing tanks too: 1) that's not new production, that's an actual military unit being moved around by train (note the range of vehicles there) 2) no idea when or where that is without anything concrete to go off of so literally all it shows is that someone moved a unit containing some tanks around at some point
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 09:04
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:Europe never bothered making & storing eighty years worth of ammo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 10:04
|
|
|
NATO never intended to get into a multi year long artillery duel with the Russians/Soviets either. Though maybe with nuclear artillery rounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 10:20
|
|
|
It took forever, but the Belgium defense company OIP finally sold its 50 Leopard 1s, (and M113 armor carriers) to an anonymous buyer. They're going to Ukraine, after getting refitted with modern equipment in Germany. That will probably take another half year. I don't know how useful these will be, depends a bit on the kit they'll get in Germany I suppose?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:1) that's not new production, that's an actual military unit being moved around by train (note the range of vehicles there) Its in Voskresensk, Moscow Oblast. T-80BVMs with Sosna-U thermal optics. Its the train referenced in the Forbes article above. Could be the old sight too, but I don't think Russia will reach a point where they can no longer conduct any cruise missile strikes etc due to lack of munitions. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Aug 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 12:21
|
|
|
Not to start another US politics derail, but a new funding bill for Ukraine is getting ready to go to Congress. Here's an article on it from Punchbowl's morning newsletter. Bolding mine.quote:Happy Tuesday morning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 12:25
|
|
|
mrfart posted:It took forever, but the Belgium defense company OIP finally sold its 50 Leopard 1s, (and M113 armor carriers) to an anonymous buyer. They're going to Ukraine, after getting refitted with modern equipment in Germany. 50 more tanks is better than not having 50 more tanks. Moon Slayer posted:Not to start another US politics derail, but a new funding bill for Ukraine is getting ready to go to Congress. Here's an article on it from Punchbowl's morning newsletter. Bolding mine. There will be hemming and hawing but it will pass, the MiC will put its thumb down on those who need to be put down on until it gets passed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 12:27
|
|
|
Seeing a lot of chatter about this situation. https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1688826136430510080
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
Re: Soviet stockpiles. Didn’t we see videos of badly corroded and deteriorating old shells that had to be sanded down to fit in gun breeches at the beginning of the war? I can’t imagine that situation has gotten any better over the course of a year or two
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I don't know if they have enough to greatly increase production, but they surely have enough to continue making them. Agreed. Which is why the missile attacks have become set in amount. Every now and then there will be a larger one, but the regular ones all seem about the same size. I'd guess this is their production amount and they ship most of each batch straight into service and keep a smaller amount in reserve for the larger attacks. I remember there being missile counters last year (known stock vs used) and then that just kind of stopped once people realized the sanctions weren't keeping all chips away. Scratch Monkey posted:Re: Soviet stockpiles. Didn’t we see videos of badly corroded and deteriorating old shells that had to be sanded down to fit in gun breeches at the beginning of the war? I can’t imagine that situation has gotten any better over the course of a year or two Yeah but what percentage of the extremely large amount of shells was that? That's how I've wrapped my head around it. Even with 25% loss, they still have a bunch. The amount being used has dropped significantly since the start, partly because of targeting of large ammo dumps, but even with logistical changes the rate of artillery fire from Russia hasn't rebounded to anywhere near previous levels. They would have a hard time doing a block-by-block artillery razing like in Mariupol again. I don't think this is because of production or reserves though. Just logistical changes due to HIMARS, etc. All armchair general posting and conjecture, so feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
What was with that big Tu95 cruise missile raid a few days ago? Was a bunch of alarms but never heard about damage OR intercepts
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 13:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/general_ben/status/1688728642782625792?s=20 This is kind of a big deal. If the US is now producing 24,000 shells/month, that's more than the 20,000 shells/month Russia was producing in late 2022 estimated by some Western analysts. Russia will certainly be trying to increase that number, but the US is trying to get to 80,000 shells/month over the next 12 months. Consider, too, that the US has relatively inexpensive modifications to take unguided shells and make them guided, and that could prove a decisive differential in 2024. The coverage I've seen has focused almost exclusively on 155mm shell production. Have any goons seen anything about production of other ammunition types? Mortars, recoilless rifles, hand grenades of all types, GMLRS, etc. all matter too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The coverage I've seen has focused almost exclusively on 155mm shell production. Have any goons seen anything about production of other ammunition types? Mortars, recoilless rifles, hand grenades of all types, GMLRS, etc. all matter too. GMLRS went from about 6,000/year to 10,000. A portion of that increase already had a jump start due to overseas purchases. However, that also means increased production != automatic excess aid to Ukraine, as rounds are sold overseas or replenish US stores. LM looking at getting that up to 12-14,000 per year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Genuinely big news if true. I think Perun did a video on this a month or so ago. Most commentators would agree, that Putin's main theory of (some sort of) victory at this stage is gambling that Russia's authoritarian system will allow him to 'outlast' the West, as its weak and decadent democratic societies get tired of hearing about the war and want to move on to other issues, leading to support for Ukraine becoming just another divisive partisan issue on which neither side can agree, resulting in future opportunities to isolate Ukraine and grind it down. But if the US has invested in massively ramping up munitions production - with contracts signed and all of the risks that entails - then that signals the US are genuinely in this for the long-haul - giving manufacturers and producers the certainty they need to take the risk of investing in actually scaling up production. And even if political support later wanes, once the assembly lines are up and running, no politicians will want to shut down the plants and lay off a bunch of workers, and the ammo produced has to go somewhere... So why not Ukraine. This really does signal to Russia that its main hopes for politically isolating Ukraine and eking out an attritional win are fading every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Moon Slayer posted:Not to start another US politics derail, but a new funding bill for Ukraine is getting ready to go to Congress. Here's an article on it from Punchbowl's morning newsletter. Bolding mine. At the risk of getting probated again, I've been reflecting on our previous discussion and settle on a position that I can be comfortable with. I strongly believe that if the USA is going to fund what can potentially be another forever war, then we need to be willing to pay for it up front and not take on more debt. Therefore, I would only support additional funding for Ukraine if we pass a tax increase to pay for it. Ideally, a 10% surtax on incomes over 500,000 a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
daslog posted:At the risk of getting probated again, I've been reflecting on our previous discussion and settle on a position that I can be comfortable with. I strongly believe that if the USA is going to fund what can potentially be another forever war, then we need to be willing to pay for it up front and not take on more debt. Another forever war? Our previous wars were occupations and absolutely nothing like this. From a realpolitik angle, We’re helping a country defend themselves and hurting our number one geopolitical adversary for pennies on the dollar with no blood cost to ourselves. From a moral angle, we’re actually doing good and helping people who 1) want our help and 2) were being subjected to a genocide. Who gives a poo poo about another $10 billion versus that (though taxing the wealthy is always a good idea, agreed)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Its in Voskresensk, Moscow Oblast. T-80BVMs with Sosna-U thermal optics. Its the train referenced in the Forbes article above. lol it's from a sushko tweet being used as a source for a forbes article god help us
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
tehinternet posted:Another forever war? Our previous wars were occupations and absolutely nothing like this. Wars don't end until both sides want them to end. Putin can keep this going on his side for years, or until someone takes him out. Even if the war ended tomorrow, the rebuild of Ukraine is going to require reconstruction funding that the US will be asked to at least partially fund for years and years. If the cause is really worth it, then the wealthy in the US should be willing to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
tehinternet posted:Another forever war? Our previous wars were occupations and absolutely nothing like this. I'd argue China is more the #1 geopolitical adversary. Russia is a regional threat; nothing more. Which still sucks if you're in that region, mind you... And yeah, the increased shell production doesn't automagically ship them to Ukraine, but it does create a supply from which we could ship to Ukraine, so there's that. We haven't shipped out more due to a limited stockpile and the JCS re-evaluating our posture in light of the extreme ammo utilization in a near/peer conflict. Having more shells--especially in numbers outstripping Russia by our lonesome--means that the AFU will not be hurting for ammo in the mid-term future, especially when coupled with Europe's aggregate production. Near term, well, remains to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
Tigey posted:Genuinely big news if true. I think Perun did a video on this a month or so ago. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: this is the US MIC’s wet dream and there is no way they’re letting this golden goose get killed off by some noisy republicans. They have way too much lobbying power and are way too pernicious. At the first hint of real danger to funding, they’ll throw around their lobbying weight, and that’s a gravy train which is way too important for politicians to lose. They’ve wanted to throw their toys at a Soviet style opponent for literal decades. Now they have the chance and they don’t even have to spend American blood to do it. I simply don’t see how this is a realistic outcome despite how much Trump and co. bang on about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Re: Soviet stockpiles. Didn’t we see videos of badly corroded and deteriorating old shells that had to be sanded down to fit in gun breeches at the beginning of the war? I can’t imagine that situation has gotten any better over the course of a year or two This is completely normal. If you read accounts of shipboard life in the time of the Napoleonic wars, you will see instances of crews having to spend time hammering corrosion off their cannonballs to make them fit again. Why should that be any different today? Such is life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:31
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:lol it's from a sushko tweet being used as a source for a forbes article god help us Friendly reminder that anything on Forbes not written by staff is basically a free space editorial, they accept virtually anyone.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
daslog posted:At the risk of getting probated again, I've been reflecting on our previous discussion and settle on a position that I can be comfortable with. I strongly believe that if the USA is going to fund what can potentially be another forever war, then we need to be willing to pay for it up front and not take on more debt. Thank you for articulating the position espouses by false american deficit hawks, who have shown time and time again that their opposition isn't to debt, but to spending on certain kinds of programs. The financial argument against this war is the qeakest, because this thing is a deal. We are taking a "near peer" military essentially off the board for less than 10% of our military budget. Combine that with an opportunity to show the world, and especially our peer competitors, the strength of Nato arms and tactics, and it starts to look like we can't afford to not see this thing through. In one fell swoop the US has diminished Russia, sold tons of military equipment, restored faith in our transatlantic alliances, and made a new ally in Ukraine. All with largely last generation military equipment. Now, none of this means that this is necessarily just or right, just that dollar for dollar it is a doorbuster deal. daslog posted:Wars don't end until both sides want them to end. Putin can keep this going on his side for years, or until someone takes him out. Even if the war ended tomorrow, the rebuild of Ukraine is going to require reconstruction funding that the US will be asked to at least partially fund for years and years. Again participating in rebuilding Ukraine is something every major western conglomerate is going to compete to participate in, in no small part because of the economic upside of doing so. Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Aug 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
daslog posted:Wars don't end until both sides want them to end. Putin can keep this going on his side for years, or until someone takes him out. Even if the war ended tomorrow, the rebuild of Ukraine is going to require reconstruction funding that the US will be asked to at least partially fund for years and years. this war ends the minute putin orders russian soldiers to leave
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
daslog posted:If the cause is really worth it, then the wealthy in the US should be willing to pay for it. Do you apply this test to every government program, or just ones you'd like to end?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:https://twitter.com/general_ben/status/1688728642782625792?s=20 Finally, the Arsenal of Democracy gets kicked into gear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
daslog posted:Even if the war ended tomorrow, the rebuild of Ukraine is going to require reconstruction funding that the US will be asked to at least partially fund for years and years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2023 16:14
|
|
