this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
78 points (87.5% liked)

World News

32310 readers
790 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
78
Western ammo stocks at 'bottom of the barrel' as Ukraine war drags on, NATO official warns | CNN (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Pretty sure the US is sending old surplus stock, and I'm sure the military industrial complex is salivating at the chance to resupply. Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.

At any rate, US support for exactly this type of situation was agreed on in the Budapest memorandum as part of Ukrainian nuclear disarmament. Russia broke their end of the bargain and started a war under false pretenses. It is up to them to end it, exactly like it is up to the US to do so when doing the same thing.

If the world can not unite to stand up to countries starting such conflicts, we shall never know peace.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Currently the issue is not tanks and IFVs, but bullets and shells. The US indeed sends older surplus, but the picture is different in Europe. The German army for example had an estimated 20B€ deficit in ammo even before the war started. Production increased, but it's nowhere near replenishing.

And regarding tanks: the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The production also increased much more than in the whole US. Basically Europe's goal was at least a million shells until the end of the year. And even when they might fall a bit short on that goal, the US -by it's own account- is still in the we can probably produce 20k per month from 2024 and onward stage of ramping up production.

the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr

Yeah, that's bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.

The only still existing Leopard-1s in operation are found in Greece. Then there are engineering vehicles because they were still sufficient for their job. And when they weren't anymore (because tanks they would need to tow got too heavy) that's when Wisent1 were invented. Which is a commercially developed upgrade for Leopard-1-based engineering vehicles to improve their power to a level where they can handle modern Leopard-2s again. And before the Ukraine war there was only a single buyer: the danish army.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, that’s bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.

And why do you think these tanks still exist? Nobody would buy those thinks, but if shit hits the fan, a Leopard 1 is still better than no tank at all - this is exactly what it's used for in Ukraine.

Germany also provided thousands of old Strela MANPADS, that were still NVA/East German stock. These were not stored because they are great, but as a kind of emergency-reserve.

The fact that all of this is stored in bad conditions is simply due to Germany's rather weird Bundeswehr politics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

These were not stored because they are great, but ~~as a kind of emergency-reserve~~ because proper disposal costs more than letting them rot on some shelf.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk nearly every video I see the Ukrainian fighters have aks and idk how much 7.62x39 ammo the US even has to give.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Wow that's surprising.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't that... Literally miniscule? Russia is churning out more than two million 152mm ARTILLERY shells every year.

What the fuck? I'm pretty sure the state of Texas has way more than two million rounds of ammunition stashed under people's floorboards.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not talking artillery here. Talking small arms ammo. I'm pretty sure Russia doesnt come close to producing 2m artillery rounds per year. Saw an article the other day about them running out of artillary barrels. If they couldn't manufacture enough barrels to keep up with shooting, I doubt their general manufacturing capacity.

Outside of that, that's two million non-NATO small arms rounds being donated by the private sector. Pretty sure the government would send M4s and SAWs with 5.56.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russia is on course to produce 2.5 million artillery shell rounds this year, up from 1.7 million before the war, Watling said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/18/europe-weapons-military-industrial-base/?isMobile=1

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure they say they are. I'll still doubt their capability

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Watling said

Dr Jack Watling is Senior Research Fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But is the correct type? .22 does not really help Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

There are probably enough guns in Texas to give every Ukrainian both a primary weapon and a sidearm lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe if they send slightly newer stuff it might be over quicker.

Possibly, but some of the new technologies would be considered extremely provocative by Russia if we supplied them to Ukraine. We are already treading a very fine line with involvement in this conflict, and being accused of using Ukraine to fight a proxy war (though mostly by people who have a vested interest in Russia/Putin winning the war).

We have been supplying the Javelin antitank system in large quantities, to great effect. This is relatively easy because it's quick to train a soldier to use and it can just be disposed of if broken or out of ammo.

It's important that we not send them equipment that they can't operate, supply or maintain. For instance we didn't send them any modern US-built fighter jets because they don't have pilots trained to fly them, a supply chain for spare parts, or mechanics trained to fix them. Ultimately, logistics matters more than having the latest and greatest tech (logistics has been absolutely wrecking Russia's battlefield effectiveness).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I actually mostly agree and was being a bit sarcastic. Training on newer systems is prohibitive anyway as you mentioned. Sending personell is clearly provocative and should be avoided. I just find the argument that the military industrial complex ran out of the bullets to help is laughable.

Obviously, production increases with demand and lags it causing stockpiles to decrease until output increases. Hopefully the quoted assessment is talking about that dip and not a more serious problem.

Really though, Russia knows the US is obligated to help. They signed the memorandum too, after all. It's hard to argue with someone that does so in bad faith, but continuing aid is hardly a provocative act.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

When was the last effective Javelin strike? I thought that people have shifted towards using FPV drones to target armoured vehicles instead.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The world didn't start in 2022 lol

Sounds like you're looking for someone to blame so that you don't have to think hard about solutions

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who are we going to need to fight against right now that would require significant ammunition stocks?

Clearly Russia can't do jack shit to anyone else right now, they're far too busy even just trying to hold the small chunk of Ukraine they invaded.

Do we think China is going to take this opportunity to invade a NATO ally?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do we think China is going to take this opportunity to invade a NATO ally?

Possibly Taiwan, especially if they think the US is overextended and unwilling to invest in another conflict.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Taiwan is not a NATO ally, only the US has said they are going to get involved. Also the US clearly isn't overextended given that they have no troops at all in Ukraine. It wouldn't be a war of bullets and artillery either, it's going to be ships and aircraft and missiles. None of which are committed to Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why would they do that when they're strategy of peaceful economic integration has been working so well?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Same reason Russia did it. The allmighty leader gets older and wants to see it happen before he dies as some stupid form of legacy.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fine, let's play this game. What does China gain from capturing Taiwan? How does China rev up their population to invade Taiwan?

Remember, Taiwan's economy is mostly derived from complex high-value-add industries, Taiwan and China share one of the largest bilateral trade relationships in the world, Taiwan and China are tightly integrated in terms of culture (the best selling artist in China is Taiwanese, for example), and bilateral migration between China and Taiwan is extremely high. Meanwhile, Taiwan is literally a fortress with a massive force of military-trained personnel.

China's key policy goals are twofold: 1. Economic integration of Taiwan into the greater Chinese economy and 2. Taiwanese neutrality (or at least, no Taiwanese alignment with the West). Essentially, Taiwan is China's Cuba (but if Cuba was populated by people who look the same, speak the same language, have similar culture, and didn't have nuclear missiles).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

China wants direct control over the chip fabrication capabilities of TSMC, which produces ~90% of microchip fabrication in the 5-10nm range and ~60% of all microchip fabrication. Exerting control over the rest of the world's access to advanced microchip fabrication is the primary goal. Don't pretend China's aggressive behavior is about anything else.

Taiwan and China are tightly integrated in terms of culture (the best selling artist in China is Taiwanese, for example), and bilateral migration between China and Taiwan is extremely high.

Less than 12% of Taiwanese citizens support unification with the PRC, while 50% support Taiwanese independence and 25% support maintaining the status quo (see section 10). Additionally, 62% support Taiwan seeking international recognition as a sovereign nation (section 6).

Meanwhile, Taiwan is literally a fortress with a massive force of military-trained personnel.

Of course it is, they are being threatened by an aggressive authoritarian nation with a vastly larger military.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Nobody can control TSMC except TSMC lol. The equipment is incredibly delicate and incredibly precise. If TSMC decided to wake up one day and destroy their entire business, they could be done before lunch. Anyway, TSMC is only really relevant because government subsidies allowed it to outlast American and Korean fabs. Whereas GloFo had to pull out and Intel burned almost a decade on delays, TSMC was able to make progress. That's not a long-term objective worth invading over.

Moreover, note how I talked about integration. Recent calls for independence have mostly been driven by DPP politicking. Oddly enough, the DPP is funded rather heavily by US interests, which I'm sure is a complete coincidence.

An invasion isn't happening and pretending that one is is harmful to stability in the region.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Except China has a vibrant democracy with a 95 percent approval rating, Xi isn't that old, and Russia is a nakedly corrupt bourgeois "democracy", sure

Or literally any historical analysis as opposed to marvel movie understandings of politics

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Approval ratings" are rather nebulous. By the divisive and partisan nature of American politics, approval ratings in America are naturally going to be low because both parties exist solely to shit on each other. In China, "approval ratings" get measured from the perspective of "is my life improving?" rather than "would my life be improving more under someone else?"

Honestly? I think asking if someone's life has improved is a more fair polling question to ask, but it's one that's difficult to differentiate in the US because of how radicalized everyone is.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the US would have a higher effective approval rating in the Chinese context than it does today, because many American lives ARE improving under the American government. People just think (often incorrectly) that it would improve more if the other party had power.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In China, “approval ratings” get measured from the perspective of “is my life improving?” rather than “would my life be improving more under someone else?”

Wow, an actual useful metric for whether the government is responsive to the populations needs.

Basically, what I’m saying is that the US would have a higher effective approval rating in the Chinese context than it does today, because many American lives ARE improving under the American government.

Except for life expectancy reductions, child malnutrition, literacy rate reductions, etc

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Sure, I agree. The US is basically adopting Deng Xiaoping's policies on common prosperity: to develop some regions and pray that it drives less-developed regions.

Of course, that doesn't really work in a capitalist structure.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Guys, we're out of stock. It's been going on long enough now anyway and we earned enough selling it to you, so can we stop the war please?"

😅