Well, a 466% increase. They math bad or perhaps a typo?
Theoretically. But I am doubt we will never get there because the cost is too high under most circumstances. 70,000 rounds in an average 30 day month = 14 days usage at 5,000 rounds a day. Ukraine is purportedly burning through rather more than that and complaining that they need to be burning through more. Russia was purportedly burning through almost that much per day earlier in the war (~60,000/day was the number commonly cited number, perhaps exaggerated). Even at current usage (purportedly ~20,000/day) Russia would burn through that amount in a tenth of the time it takes to manufacture. And that’s when and if that production capacity ever does reach that high. If we opine that a reasonable usage level is say 10,000 rounds/day for this kind of conflict (I have no idea), then you need to be pumping out 300,000 rounds/month to keep up.
Even the most basic artillery rounds today are relatively more expensive to manufacture than in WW II (usually thinner-walled forged steel vs cast steel and larger amounts of a more complex explosive mixture) . That’s without getting into the fancier stuff like guided munitions. I don’t think we’ll ever see quite that WW II-level of military industrial output ever again.
I make it 367%.
math is hard
Good point. “Increase” being the key word.
My math was fine, my reading comprehension was piss-poor.
Express Feb 24, 2023
Latvian MP tells Putin’s delegates to 'Go f*** yourself’ as he explodes at UN meeting
-
A Lativan MP used a famous Ukrainian war quote of “Russian warship go f*** yourself” in a UN security meeting with Kremlin delegates present where he delivered an impassioned speech.
-
Rihards Kols said he could not sit in the same room as Russian lawmakers as if “nothing happened” when thousands of Ukrainians had been killed when Putin invaded a year ago.
-
He spoke as Russian Federation politicians attended the European security meeting in Vienna, Austria, of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The Iraqis had almost 4,000 tanks, of the same variety that are now being fielded by Russia (T-72s, T-80s, etc).
The Battle of Medina Ridge in Iraq is instructive. On paper, the Iraqis had all the advantages. They were located behind a ridge, in prepared and hardened positions. Hundreds of T-72’s, T-80’s, and other tanks waited for the Americans, who could not see them until they came over the ridge. At that point, the Americans would be least protected and the Iraqis most protected hull down. The Iraqis were supported by infantry in hundredsmof infantry fighting vehicles, artillery, anti-missile systems, etc. They were trained by the Russians.
The Americans routed them. The Iraqis lost 186 tanks, and the American Abrams tanks suffered four losses, but three of the four were repairable. The crews survived, and the Americans only lost two soldiers in the entire battle.
The Abrams is very hard to kill. Having stabilized guns that can fire accurately while the tank is on the move, optics and sensors that can see through smoke, high speed and heavy armor means they can shoot while manoevering. Their turret ammo is in an armored box with blowout panels on the outside, so they don’t blow their turrets and kill the crew likeRussian tanks do when they are hit.
The Russians are likely down to fewer tanks than the Iraqis had, other than maybe old mothballed WWII era tanks we’re now seeing in the field. In the meantime, Ukrainian tanks are being upgraded to Leopard IIs and Abrams. This will not end well for the Russians if the Ukrainians are trained well and supported by infantry, artillery and drone spotters.
Russia is not Iraq, however, nor is Ukraine the US. Yes, tank for tank western models are better than Russian. But the battlefield in Ukraine is very different from the Iraqi desert. Russia still enjoys superiority in artillery and aviation, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. In many parts of the front the terrain is not nearly as open, allowing greater cover for infantry with ATGMs and such.
And the count of western tanks pledged to Ukraine so far is less than 100. They will certainly help, but I would be surprised if that relatively low number of vehicles will prove decisive. I’m sure the Ukrainian command will use them shrewdly, as they have HIMARS. Armoured speartip towards Berdyansk, perhaps, leaving the entire southern front entirely reliant on the Kerch bridge for supply?
Americans in the Battle of Medina had significant air support, while Iraq had virtually none.
Interesting analysis about the capture of Kherson.
Denny discussed the plane on his channel. Does it have similiar capability as the US AWAC?
Link Russian Plane Destroyed At Belarus Airstrip: Opposition | Barron's
Yes, an early warning and tracking aircraft, A-50. Russia is believed to have 10-12, not all serviceable. It’s a strain to provide 24 hour coverage over all areas of Ukraine and keep up maintenance. The replacement, an A-100 model is hamstrung by Russian inefficiencies, budgets, and western sanctions.
A current article in addresses this in greater depth with links to stories about the two aircraft. Claims Swirl Around Supposed Strike On Russian A-50 Radar Jet In Belarus
The maps of the airspace should quickly reveal if the A-50 is flying in the next few days.
Russia has been unable or unwilling to spend its aviation assets since the opening week of the war, and if reports are correct has been rationing its artillery shells for some weeks now. Absent Chinese selling shells to it, is that going to change?
It continues to baffle me that anyone thinks we’re getting true numbers and delivery schedules on material vital to a war effort. That’s the sort of thing that is kept secret/obscured to avoid giving any more information to the enemy than necessary.
I understand there are, or rather, were until this weekend, three Russian “AWAC”-equivalent planes Russia had been keeping in the air: the northern one recently damaged in Belarus, an eastern one over Donbas, and a southern one over Crimea.
Does anyone more familiar with AWACS-type systems know what sort of impact the loss of this capability in the north means in practical terms?
Depending how badly it was damaged, it may be out of the war, as I understand this plane has been out of production for many years and can’t simply be replaced.
The Guardian reports substantial damage.
BYPOL, the Belarusian partisan organisation took quite a risk. The security services will be swarming after any partisans.
After the war, I can imagine that a certain kind of tourism might increase birth rates and generate revenue. (I’m joking, but I wouldn’t put it past them.)
Only if Ukrainian air defenses run out of missiles (which is an actual worry). It looks like Russia could use electronic suppression to degrade Ukrainian air defenses to some degree - they were apparently successful doing so in the first couple of days. But not without fratricidally wrecking Russian ground CCC at the same time, which makes it counter-productive as long as Russia is hotly engaged. Ironically if Russia were to pull out of Ukraine entirely, it is likely the Russian air force could do more damage.