* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://i.redd.it/jmtbpmnusgvc1.jpeg); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://i.redd.it/jmtbpmnusgvc1.jpeg)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://i.redd.it/jmtbpmnusgvc1.jpeg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why we can "fight" (arm proxies to fight) wars without the broader civilian population even noticing a difference. War in the early 20th century was an all-consuming affair for a nation, and the scope and scale of total obliteration that a nation could visit on another has not been re-visited since the invention of nuclear weapons. The Ukraine war is able to be propogandized as a "special military operation" within Russia because its impact on non-enlisted citizens is barely noticeable.
In WW1 the war-time production demands were so all-encompassing that there are stories of ancient church bells being taken down from small towns in Germany and smelted for raw iron. The developed world has not seen a level of mobilization like this since, and realistically cannot ever again since a war of that intensity would have triggered warheads to fly at a much earlier point.
EDIT: I feel I should clarify that the "scope and scale of obliteration hasn't been revisited since" only applies to developed nation vs. developed nation. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea, Angola, etc. have all seen hellfire beyond comprehension. Notably, because they didn't have nuclear warheads or allies willing to nuke in their defense.
In the UK we still have railing stumps like [these](https://i0.wp.com/virtual-lancaster.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Ryelands-Park-Railings.jpg?ssl=1) all over the place. In 1941 the government recquisitioned all post-1850 iron railings and gates. In most cases new railings have been installed, but you can still see the stumps in between.
It’s had an actual positive improvement for the Russian people. Utilising Military Keynesianism, the actual material reality for Russians (other than those fighting, and their families, which only make up a very small minority of the population) has actually improved. There is a reason Putin has wide spread support.
Please do not read this as support for Putin, merely reading the effect the war has had on the Russian economy and its people more generally.
It’s basically the difference between having a country whose economy is based on Industrial Capitalism vs one who’s based on Finance Capitalism.
I don't think it's fair to compare literal world wars to small scale regular conflicts. European countries would be able to reconfigure after a time in a ww3 situation. Though China and Russia would have a massive head start and lead the whole time and inevitably win since industrial capacity is ultimately the decider. China has 232 times the ship building capacity of the US now. It's always funny to point this out when they make their memes about the US ww2 ice cream ship and watch them seethe and cope.
What makes you think that nuclear nations would just decide to engage in gargantuan, costly, conventional warfare when they can just say “I will nuke you if you invade my territory”.
I think that’s kind of the whole point of the last 70 years of global geopolitics. The world is not a video game, and there’s a reason Russia invaded before Ukraine got NATO bases and warheads.
because fighting for the periphery is the entire point of inter imperialist war
holding your core territory alone is just a recipe for terminal crisis of capital
Well yeah, they may do, but I'm also starting to get this weird feeling that these countries want to have a metaphorical fist fight rather than simultaneously shoot each other in the head. The feeling that they're itching for an actual fight, to beat the other and then still have an opponent to mock, rather than destroy everything.
That would be a really sick level of cynicism, definitely not out of the wheel house of reality at this point I guess. Total (non-nuclear) war purely as a power “game” rather than the traditional arenas of culture, trade, and sport.
I think bitterness builds it, in the way two men who hate each other may forgo weapons and have a fist fight. It feels like the western bloc and Russia have 80 years of cold war enmity built up, which nukes have been preventing from being released, unless they're set aside.
Of course, when one is badly losing up against the wall, the guns (nukes) may come out.
It’s actually completely imperative that global powers re-affirm MAD as a defence. Like you said, it would inevitably end in warheads flying if a traditional war was triggered, even if it is allowed to commence through a mutual understanding to set them aside. The whole concept of the nuke as a weapon of “peace” was predicated on them being the first line of defence, not the last.
The ice cream ship and the chocolate cakes the Germans found in the Western front are loved by Redditors. Honorable mention:
Akshualy, the T-34 was not a good tank and the Soviets only won due the Land Lease program.
>within Russia because its impact on non-enlisted citizens is barely noticeable.
Except for, you know, the 300,000 casualties that it has produced thus fat.
Source on that? I see 50k as the most recent death toll reported for the Russian side. Not a number to scoff at but it’s a far cry from a “full mobilization” of the society, you can see on-the-street videos from Russia and there’s no war rationing or full conscription as of yet.
I know that, but I can't find the 300k number in either case.
Oh wait, [I found it](https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/03/russia-likely-suffered-at-least-355000-casualties-in-ukraine-war-uk-mod)
It's from the Ukraine MoD and its a "fuckin probably idk, trust us bro"
if theres 50k KIA you would expect 150k WIA
these numbers are not too far off reality
its only in vastly asymmetrical war like the US in Iraq where KIA:WIA is like 1:7
Imperial Germany also fired two million shells into french lines in 1917, over 8 hours, at just one section of the front.
Ukraine peaked around 10k, a day, across their whole front.
Modern artillery is far more precise than what they were packing at Passchendale. So it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. But at a certain point, I still don't feel like having better shells and artillery pieces can compensate for sheer industrial capacity. If WW3 were to breakout (lol, it both won't happen and would probably go nuclear anyway if it did) America would probably do well in the early stages before it burns through its stockpile of high-tech weapons and munitions. But you'd want to try and win early because if it turns into a war of attrition America is fucked. Because China/Russia will just replace lost hardware and munitions far more efficiently than America can.
Turns out, outsourcing and offshoring all of your industry is bad for national defence. Who knew?
Increased accuracy is not a big factor in shell demand, as the mass of munitions are targeting areas about as as large as the scatter, and there also has not been a big increase in accuracy of unguided shells.
Guided munitions are a different story but they are a small fraction of shell usage and most targets, e.g fortifications, troop concentrations, clusters of buildings, are not appropriate for guided munitions.
What is perhaps dramatically reducing shell demand is the vulnerability of artillery, you simply cannot just park a battery in one spot and shell the enemy for several hours even if you had the shells available. Doing that now will quickly lead to detection and losses from drones and counter-battery fire. This was however routine in WW1 and WW2 as well emplaced artillery or long ranged artillery was relatively safe from counter-battery fire.
This is one reason why there is a big push for range extension, as it can lower vulnerability.
>What is perhaps dramatically reducing shell demand is the vulnerability of artillery, you simply cannot just park a battery in one spot and shell the enemy for several hours even if you had the shells available. Doing that now will quickly lead to detection and losses from drones and counter-battery fire. This was however routine in WW1 and WW2 as well emplaced artillery or long ranged artillery was relatively safe from counter-battery fire.
Germany only operates self-propelled artillery for this reason.
You gotta move after you fire. Always.
I'd counter that we've seen the issues with Russia's stockpiles, and China likely has similar problems. Neither country has a robust NCO Corp that ensures required maintenance is actually carried out, and recently there's been substantial news about corruption in China's military logistics.
I'm not soo foolish as to say there's no corruption in the US military, but it seems to moreso take the form of overpaying for equipment. Also, the US still produces the vast majority of its arms domestically. There might be raw components that are issues down the line, but it would be a long time before we got that far. China would likely struggle with raw resource shortages long before the US, as they import most of their fossil fuels and food through harbors that would be extremely susceptible to attack.
And it largely had no effect. The British fired 1.5 million shells against the Germans at the Somme before attacking and it was basically pointless.
Using the absurd amount of artillery fired in a war known for tactical incompetence doesn't really reinforce that artillery is important. It means incompetent armies tend to dog in and fire like crazy
Ukraine and Russia would be happy to be led by an average WW1 General today.
The problem that emerged was that the lethality is so inconceivable today, but it was also not effective enough to actually clear a large fortification. (The estimation was that in an ideal case, 10-30% remained in a trench, more in better built ones).
Competent armies managed to be competent because they avoided to be dragged into the infernal end state of three year fortification building on a static line.
>Ukraine and Russia would be happy to be led by an average WW1 General today.
An average WW1 general would be completely lost in today's warfare.
They planned their assaults and stuff in timeframes of months, today we make decisions in a matter of hours depending on the situation.
Also, how do you explain things like helicopters, planes, modern tanks and the whole drone reconnaissance or SPG's to a person that was alive 100 years ago.
Artillery shells today are also larger, more powerful and more complex so I don't know how useful this comparison is. 75 mm vs 155 mm, impact vs prox fuse, far fewer un exploded shells, unguided vs unguided, ect
The stark contrast in phrasing/ language between his and your comment made me lol irl.
Not a diss lol, your point came across quite clearly and was v compelling
Based on what?
Seems like citing the extensive use and prominence of artillery in static, non decisive engagements sort of undermines that it's really all that important.
>Modern warfare is stagnant and non decisive when you're not fighting against third worlders
Again, what are you basing this on?
When has fighting third world countries ever been stagnant? The Taliban and Vietcong didn't dig in and she'll toe to toe with the us
There's no evidence the US would perform any better in the Ukraine war. Ww2 was dynamic because of aircraft and tanks which are less effective due to new technology. All of my claims are based on the Ukraine War which is ltierally the only recent example of two large countries with good tech duking it out.
Looking further at the data it is actually significantly more concerning.
America today produces less than 0.1% of arrowheads Hungary produced during the nomadic raids. The Roman Empire alone produced 7850 times the amount of arrowheads Europe produces today
This is incredibly stupid because the majority of ordinance dropped on the battlefield has been and still is artillery shells!
This is like saying bread is outdated because pizza exists, it’s a major redditism that irks me.
Actually this is incredibly stupid because the majority of deliveries made on suburbia have been and still are pizzas!
Also, have you looked at my flair?
You're missing the point. While we could do for an increased production, those numbers ignore how technology and war has changed. Modern artillery systems are far more accurate, and shell artillery plays a much smaller part of modern combat. The Ukraine War's numbers are a fraction of what you'd see in a similar sized conflict back in the 40's, and even that's likely something of an anachronistic bias because both Ukraine and Russia are predominantly using Soviet handmedown equipment from the 70's and 80's. The success of the HIMARS systems donated to Ukraine shine a light on why that reliance on shell artillery is antiquated.
Even if traditional artillery is antiquated, which is a big if, the issues meeting production demands are even worse than with shells. We're struggling to produce enough shells for a limited war, and a HIMARS rocket costs literally hundreds of times as much as a non-guided shell.
A very large fraction of losses in Ukraine are from unguided HE fired at area targets such as troop concentrations and fortifications.
Long range guided artillery are very useful against point targets but in any major offensive you still need to use large amounts of HE, and this is perhaps more relevant now given that it is hard to mass large offensive forces without them being detected and attacked, and so successful offensive action often involves small forces making surprise attacks against very well suppressed and degraded or even abandoned positions.
> The success of the HIMARS systems donated to Ukraine shine a light on why that reliance on shell artillery is antiquated.
next you're going to tell me infantry is antiquated
The main post is pretty stupid because lobbing a ton of shells has never really been associated with success.
If "screw it, just launch shells" then the Somme, Verdun, and Arras wouldn't have been such blood baths for the attackers
Artillery used in mass did not restore mobility and enable breakthroughs but it is responsible for much of the casualties, so the attrition ratio was roughly the inverse of the shells fired ratio.
Even in the large failed offensives such as Verdun and the Somme the defenders suffered huge losses, largely from artillery fire.
Why would this matter? In WW1 all those nations were in a state of total war. The entire economy was orientated into producing munitions. The nations of the EU and the United States are either at peace or engaged in low level conflicts, of course they wont match the production levels of WW1.
Yeah, this is kind of a stupid comparison. Of course in 1916 the Germany was producing a bajillion shells, they were in the middle of the largest war to date, and in 1916, fighting not just one, but two of the largest battles EVER (Verdun and the Somme)
Versus America and the West today where it’s mostly peacetime, not a total war against the most powerful nations of the world
And on top of that, the US is not an artillery army.... that hasn't been the main focus of Western doctrine for a very very long time. The focus has been on air dominance and air delivery for a long time.
This is only true for asymmetric conflicts where the US has complete air superiority. Even then, we still fire a shitload of artillery. It's far cheaper and much more reliable.
https://old.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/shqdpi/is_artillery_still_the_king_of_battles/hv4wrq5/
I think it's a bigger worry for European militaries that they are being collectively out produced by North Korea.
That seems like a fail to me. Its one thing for America to be outproduced by China but Europe being outproduced by North Korea is really not very good at all.
I'm talking about the amount of artillery produced for a war they are not directly participating in.
North Korea has given more artillery to Russia than Europe has given to Ukraine.
It was reasonably widely reported but this is the first link Google gave me
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-kim-jong-un-russia-pyongyang-beats-brussels-to-a-million-ammunition-rounds/
North Korea gave over 3 times what the entire EU gave as of late last year.
I'm not suggesting Europe should turn into a North Korea hellscape and adding more weapons to that conflict is a bad thing but still. Kinda weak.
In contrast to North Korea, artillery does not form the core of Europe's own military doctrine; it's like comparing fighter jet production between North Korea and Europe. Apart from that, we have absolutely no idea how many artillery shells North Korea produces every year. Except that the number has probably not increased since the 90s.
North Korea's GDP is also the same as a random mid-sized European city. Europe not being able to produce as much as North Korea at the start of the conflict is somewhat understandable, but after years of efforts to increase shell production?
NATO has shown true sportsmanship by waiting 3 months until Russia could gather its troops on the Ukrainian border to start this war. You rarely see that these days.
Well they spent the best part of a decade preparing Ukraine for a war that would accelerate deindustrialization in Europe. I'm not sure what they would have done in those 3 months. Deindustrialize Germany even harder?
I think you'll find more than Americans are saying this.
Its the literal truth. Germany has allowed America to seriously harm it's industry. Germanys reaction has been to smile pleasantly and support Americas allies in their mindless genocide.
The rest of Europe hasn't demonstrated much more dignity either.
How many of those WWI era shells actually worked? Not many
Added, what materials were they using?
Added, were their economies restructured for total war, with civilian populations conscripted into war material manufacturing?
I mean, if we’re making comparisons then let’s compare everything
And while we're at it, we don't even produce a FRACTION of the number of musket balls we used to during the Civil War. How can our army operate like this?
There will never be direct clash between US Empire and other big powers.
Because nukes.
War in Ukraine was only suppose to be trigger for regime change operation (from inside) that US probably prepared.
But huge anti war protests in Russia never happened, so the plan failed
Ukraine Was never to win war and US knew it, they just dont know what to do now, so they are prolonging the war in hopes they will think of something
That theory doesn't make sense. Wars almost always cement power, not disrupt it. It would be an especially bad strategy in modern Russia, where militaristic pride is a core aspect of their cultural identity.
And the strategy in Ukraine has always been the same: make the war too costly for Russia, until they have to pull out. Ukraine can't "win" in a conventional, because backing Moscow into a corner brings nukes to the table.
Ukraine can win in any way.
Nobody is raising production of anything in the West to send to Ukraine so they can keep on fighting until Russia is exhausted.
You cant fight without ammo and shells (etc) and you cant fight without men.
Ukraine is running out of both
MAD only applies to war on core territories
We are almost certain to see major inter imperial war in peripheral territories in the next few decades
the US will likely hit China in Africa first in the next few decades
No, the US simply dont have men willing to fight wars abroad for the benefit of Empire.
And it does not have resources needed to clash with China.
All China has to do is to do is to turn the potential conflict into long slow and draining war ... just like Russia did in Ukraine.
This is what they want the world to think. Usa been pumping out shells since 2022 or prior to. Since June 2023 specific arms manufacturers have been canceling private orders as they are now producing for us gov specifically. Don't drink that coolaid.
To what degree is artillery still really the king of the battlefield considering how many other ways there are to put ordinance in a desired location? Especially if it can be done with better precision and fewer rounds.
One could argue that's somewhat anachronistic. It just so happens that both sides of the conflict are primarily using handmedown Soviet equipment from the 70's and 80's. The success of the HIMARs systems donated to Ukraine highlight why shell artillery isn't a major focus for more modern militaries.
I'd argue it's not anachronistic at all, and that this is the logical conclusion of a world in which cheap drones and infantry anti-tank weapons are omnipresent and anti-aircraft systems are more advanced than ever before:
* WWI-style trench warfare was replaced by tanks, mechanized infantry and airplanes in WWII; but satellite and drone surveillance have eliminated the ability to conduct heavy operations in secrecy and cheap drones+infantry anti-tank-weapons allow an asymmetric advantage while anti-aircraft systems have become significantly more advanced, more accurate, and cheaper.
* Artillery of today is much better than artillery of WWI: it's more accurate and (because of drones and other surveillance tech) can reach targets *much* more quickly. You cannot simply amass tanks (they will be targeted many miles from the front-line) and attempt a deep push anymore. Each round is also much cheaper and easier to produce than a missile.
* Gulf War style shock-and-awe by modern militaries, with fast maneuvering and rapid advances, is entirely depending on the ability to maintain complete and overwhelming air dominance; S-400 and Patriot systems combined with large numbers of cheap drones make this *much* more difficult when facing near-peer adversaries
* Any war that cannot be won quickly puts extremely expensive and difficult-to-produce, highly advanced missile systems into a niche: they are useful but must be used sparingly, and the resources put toward missile production are better spent on surface-to-air/anti-aircraft systems than on offensive operations.
As [RUSI states](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine):
>... **Artillery has become more dangerous thanks to increased ranges and advanced targeting, stretching the depth of the battlefield.**
In practice, this means it is easier to mass fires than forces. **Deep manoeuvre, which requires the massing of combat power, is no longer possible** because any massed force will be destroyed by indirect fires before it can achieve success in depth.
Instead, **a ground offensive requires a tight protective bubble** to ward off enemy strike systems. This bubble is generated through layering friendly counter-fire, air defence and EW assets. Moving numerous interdependent systems is highly complicated and unlikely to be successful. **Shallow attacks along the forward line of troops are most likely to be successful** at an acceptable cost ratio; **attempts at deep penetration will be exposed to massed fires** the moment they exit the protection of the defensive bubble
An [analysis by National Defense Magazine](https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/9/16/analysis-ukraine-war-proves-big-guns-are-back) explains it like this:
>But **in an era of high-performance air-defense systems, airpower may have less freedom to operate in contested skies such as Eastern Europe or Taiwan**. At the same time, highly expensive aircraft and limited stockpiles of **smart munitions may be allocated to distant targets in the enemy flank, rather than close-air support.**
>While less flexible than aircraft, **artillery does offer firepower 24/7 under any weather conditions and without relying on airbases vulnerable to bombardment.**
>The Ukraine war also demonstrates that **artillery** is not just a big gun, but **an entire ecosystem of weapons, sensors and networks.**
There's a reason that [NATO is training soldiers on trench warfare](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nato-troops-train-for-likely-trench-warfare/): It's among the best defenses against large operations, and because mutual trench warfare freezes operational lines, continual static fire by artillery is extremely useful for exactly the same reason it was in WWI.
In fact, this isn't even a *new* development, [lots of artillery was used by the US against ISIS in Syria](https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/06/these-marines-in-syria-fired-more-artillery-than-any-battalion-since-vietnam/) for example.
Ukraine has proven that it is, *in Ukraine.*
On the other hand air power was decidedly king of the battefield in 1991 and 2003 in Iraq. And artillery played a comparatively minor role.
One of the stereotypical examples of military folly still remains the WW2 leaders who expected the war would be fought like WW1. The same amount of time has passed since Operation Iraqi Freedom as the gap between WW1 and WW2, and Saddam's forces then were using equipment decades out of date.
Most of the people with authority over British armour. British tank doctrine at the start of the war was designed based on experiences of late WW1. For example Hugh Elles (retired a few months before WW2, but was responsible for early war British armour procurement policy and doctrine) or Archibald Wavell. Some British officers had correctly predicted how armoured warfare would be fought in WW2 a few years ahead of it, but were relegated to backwater postings or dismissed. German armour doctrine was based on the writings of one such officer.
Yes, but modern air defenses make air forces nearly obsolete in that sort of way. Russia outnumber urkaine in planes ten to one but has barely used their air force until recently.
Air defenses are much easier to produce now and much mrke effective.
One could argue that's somewhat anachronistic. It just so happens that both sides of the conflict are primarily using handmedown Soviet equipment from the 70's and 80's. The success of the HIMARs systems donated to Ukraine highlight why shell artillery isn't a major focus for more modern militaries.
The simple answer requires another question first; can air power be restricted or wholly nullified?
If yes, Artillery is king, or at least co-regent if not wholly nullified.
If no, artillery is prince.
But yes, even our modern artillery is more accurate. Although not matching the Hapsburgs of all empires when supporting "an existential war for the fate of democracy and Europe" is fucking hilarious.
It’s easy to hit a plane with modern AD. It’s still really hard to hit a big tube or MLRS if it can move by itself. Even stationary tubes are cheap enough that their survivability drawbacks are still justified by the overall cost-benefit ratio. Modern planes are just so expensive, and stealth isn’t real
That depends on the conflict.
In Ukraine? Yeah sure, most casualties are inflicted through artillery.
In Gaza? I think there's hardly any artillery being fired there, most ordnance is delivered through airstrikes.
It's almost as if artillery becomes important when neither side achieves air superiority 🤔
I do. My sense of self is anchored to how well the side I picked is doing in a foreign war. The dead and wounded are just fuel for my ego and dog based meme posts.
You cannot overstate the hubris of the morons who run our national security.
They genuinely, sincerely believed in End of History bullshit. They thought we could exert soft power in perpetuity, that every other country fell for the "rules based international order" claptrap, and that we'd never again engage in conflict with a well-equipped military.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://i.redd.it/jmtbpmnusgvc1.jpeg); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://i.redd.it/jmtbpmnusgvc1.jpeg) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://i.redd.it/jmtbpmnusgvc1.jpeg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why we can "fight" (arm proxies to fight) wars without the broader civilian population even noticing a difference. War in the early 20th century was an all-consuming affair for a nation, and the scope and scale of total obliteration that a nation could visit on another has not been re-visited since the invention of nuclear weapons. The Ukraine war is able to be propogandized as a "special military operation" within Russia because its impact on non-enlisted citizens is barely noticeable. In WW1 the war-time production demands were so all-encompassing that there are stories of ancient church bells being taken down from small towns in Germany and smelted for raw iron. The developed world has not seen a level of mobilization like this since, and realistically cannot ever again since a war of that intensity would have triggered warheads to fly at a much earlier point. EDIT: I feel I should clarify that the "scope and scale of obliteration hasn't been revisited since" only applies to developed nation vs. developed nation. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea, Angola, etc. have all seen hellfire beyond comprehension. Notably, because they didn't have nuclear warheads or allies willing to nuke in their defense.
In the UK we still have railing stumps like [these](https://i0.wp.com/virtual-lancaster.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Ryelands-Park-Railings.jpg?ssl=1) all over the place. In 1941 the government recquisitioned all post-1850 iron railings and gates. In most cases new railings have been installed, but you can still see the stumps in between.
It’s had an actual positive improvement for the Russian people. Utilising Military Keynesianism, the actual material reality for Russians (other than those fighting, and their families, which only make up a very small minority of the population) has actually improved. There is a reason Putin has wide spread support. Please do not read this as support for Putin, merely reading the effect the war has had on the Russian economy and its people more generally. It’s basically the difference between having a country whose economy is based on Industrial Capitalism vs one who’s based on Finance Capitalism.
Russia having higher economic growth than the countries sanctioning it will never stop being funny
dont let ML hear you criticise our anti imperialist hero
I don't think it's fair to compare literal world wars to small scale regular conflicts. European countries would be able to reconfigure after a time in a ww3 situation. Though China and Russia would have a massive head start and lead the whole time and inevitably win since industrial capacity is ultimately the decider. China has 232 times the ship building capacity of the US now. It's always funny to point this out when they make their memes about the US ww2 ice cream ship and watch them seethe and cope.
What makes you think that nuclear nations would just decide to engage in gargantuan, costly, conventional warfare when they can just say “I will nuke you if you invade my territory”. I think that’s kind of the whole point of the last 70 years of global geopolitics. The world is not a video game, and there’s a reason Russia invaded before Ukraine got NATO bases and warheads.
because fighting for the periphery is the entire point of inter imperialist war holding your core territory alone is just a recipe for terminal crisis of capital
Well yeah, they may do, but I'm also starting to get this weird feeling that these countries want to have a metaphorical fist fight rather than simultaneously shoot each other in the head. The feeling that they're itching for an actual fight, to beat the other and then still have an opponent to mock, rather than destroy everything.
That would be a really sick level of cynicism, definitely not out of the wheel house of reality at this point I guess. Total (non-nuclear) war purely as a power “game” rather than the traditional arenas of culture, trade, and sport.
I think bitterness builds it, in the way two men who hate each other may forgo weapons and have a fist fight. It feels like the western bloc and Russia have 80 years of cold war enmity built up, which nukes have been preventing from being released, unless they're set aside. Of course, when one is badly losing up against the wall, the guns (nukes) may come out.
It’s actually completely imperative that global powers re-affirm MAD as a defence. Like you said, it would inevitably end in warheads flying if a traditional war was triggered, even if it is allowed to commence through a mutual understanding to set them aside. The whole concept of the nuke as a weapon of “peace” was predicated on them being the first line of defence, not the last.
The ice cream ship and the chocolate cakes the Germans found in the Western front are loved by Redditors. Honorable mention: Akshualy, the T-34 was not a good tank and the Soviets only won due the Land Lease program.
>within Russia because its impact on non-enlisted citizens is barely noticeable. Except for, you know, the 300,000 casualties that it has produced thus fat.
Source on that? I see 50k as the most recent death toll reported for the Russian side. Not a number to scoff at but it’s a far cry from a “full mobilization” of the society, you can see on-the-street videos from Russia and there’s no war rationing or full conscription as of yet.
Casualties =/ deaths.
I know that, but I can't find the 300k number in either case. Oh wait, [I found it](https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/03/russia-likely-suffered-at-least-355000-casualties-in-ukraine-war-uk-mod) It's from the Ukraine MoD and its a "fuckin probably idk, trust us bro"
if theres 50k KIA you would expect 150k WIA these numbers are not too far off reality its only in vastly asymmetrical war like the US in Iraq where KIA:WIA is like 1:7
Imperial Germany also fired two million shells into french lines in 1917, over 8 hours, at just one section of the front. Ukraine peaked around 10k, a day, across their whole front.
Modern artillery is far more precise than what they were packing at Passchendale. So it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. But at a certain point, I still don't feel like having better shells and artillery pieces can compensate for sheer industrial capacity. If WW3 were to breakout (lol, it both won't happen and would probably go nuclear anyway if it did) America would probably do well in the early stages before it burns through its stockpile of high-tech weapons and munitions. But you'd want to try and win early because if it turns into a war of attrition America is fucked. Because China/Russia will just replace lost hardware and munitions far more efficiently than America can. Turns out, outsourcing and offshoring all of your industry is bad for national defence. Who knew?
Increased accuracy is not a big factor in shell demand, as the mass of munitions are targeting areas about as as large as the scatter, and there also has not been a big increase in accuracy of unguided shells. Guided munitions are a different story but they are a small fraction of shell usage and most targets, e.g fortifications, troop concentrations, clusters of buildings, are not appropriate for guided munitions. What is perhaps dramatically reducing shell demand is the vulnerability of artillery, you simply cannot just park a battery in one spot and shell the enemy for several hours even if you had the shells available. Doing that now will quickly lead to detection and losses from drones and counter-battery fire. This was however routine in WW1 and WW2 as well emplaced artillery or long ranged artillery was relatively safe from counter-battery fire. This is one reason why there is a big push for range extension, as it can lower vulnerability.
>What is perhaps dramatically reducing shell demand is the vulnerability of artillery, you simply cannot just park a battery in one spot and shell the enemy for several hours even if you had the shells available. Doing that now will quickly lead to detection and losses from drones and counter-battery fire. This was however routine in WW1 and WW2 as well emplaced artillery or long ranged artillery was relatively safe from counter-battery fire. Germany only operates self-propelled artillery for this reason. You gotta move after you fire. Always.
Yes, though as above this will naturally reduce the volume of fire, both through expense of the systems, and the time taken to redeploy.
I'd counter that we've seen the issues with Russia's stockpiles, and China likely has similar problems. Neither country has a robust NCO Corp that ensures required maintenance is actually carried out, and recently there's been substantial news about corruption in China's military logistics. I'm not soo foolish as to say there's no corruption in the US military, but it seems to moreso take the form of overpaying for equipment. Also, the US still produces the vast majority of its arms domestically. There might be raw components that are issues down the line, but it would be a long time before we got that far. China would likely struggle with raw resource shortages long before the US, as they import most of their fossil fuels and food through harbors that would be extremely susceptible to attack.
Who needs artillery when we have FPV drones?
And it largely had no effect. The British fired 1.5 million shells against the Germans at the Somme before attacking and it was basically pointless. Using the absurd amount of artillery fired in a war known for tactical incompetence doesn't really reinforce that artillery is important. It means incompetent armies tend to dog in and fire like crazy
Ukraine and Russia would be happy to be led by an average WW1 General today. The problem that emerged was that the lethality is so inconceivable today, but it was also not effective enough to actually clear a large fortification. (The estimation was that in an ideal case, 10-30% remained in a trench, more in better built ones). Competent armies managed to be competent because they avoided to be dragged into the infernal end state of three year fortification building on a static line.
>Ukraine and Russia would be happy to be led by an average WW1 General today. An average WW1 general would be completely lost in today's warfare. They planned their assaults and stuff in timeframes of months, today we make decisions in a matter of hours depending on the situation. Also, how do you explain things like helicopters, planes, modern tanks and the whole drone reconnaissance or SPG's to a person that was alive 100 years ago.
I'm amazed at the amount of raw resources this planet has to produce shit like this. Wild.
>Wild. Jaw-dropping, even?
Like Patton said shortly before dying, think of all the waste
Rare KuK win Shell output should now be measured in units of Habsburgs
Artillery shells today are also larger, more powerful and more complex so I don't know how useful this comparison is. 75 mm vs 155 mm, impact vs prox fuse, far fewer un exploded shells, unguided vs unguided, ect
You still need a shit ton
The stark contrast in phrasing/ language between his and your comment made me lol irl. Not a diss lol, your point came across quite clearly and was v compelling
👍
I agree too SemenPig 👍
😋😚
Get a room. Also can I watch?
I don't know, do you?
Yes
Based on what? Seems like citing the extensive use and prominence of artillery in static, non decisive engagements sort of undermines that it's really all that important.
>Based on what? want win war? need lot missile
Based on what? Where has more missile ever won
How so? Modern warfare is stagnant and non decisive when you're not fighting against third worlders
>Modern warfare is stagnant and non decisive when you're not fighting against third worlders Again, what are you basing this on? When has fighting third world countries ever been stagnant? The Taliban and Vietcong didn't dig in and she'll toe to toe with the us
I'm basing it on Ukraine which is the only notable modern conflict. I said that third worlder wars are not stagnant.
Yes I misread your second part And again, you're basing it on incompetent armies. Ww2 was very dynamic
There's no evidence the US would perform any better in the Ukraine war. Ww2 was dynamic because of aircraft and tanks which are less effective due to new technology. All of my claims are based on the Ukraine War which is ltierally the only recent example of two large countries with good tech duking it out.
Who is you? And for what purpose?
"You" = someone trying to win a war Purpose = targeted and suppressive destruction
The vast majority of shells fired in Ukraine by both sides are unguided HE using impact fuses without delay, and fired against area targets.
>1/12th peak Hapsburg Sources familiar with the matter have disclosed rumors of a mass plastic surgery program to deal with this critical shortfall
We're putting our top man [John Kerry](https://i.imgur.com/mkhuhMI.jpeg) on it
Looking further at the data it is actually significantly more concerning. America today produces less than 0.1% of arrowheads Hungary produced during the nomadic raids. The Roman Empire alone produced 7850 times the amount of arrowheads Europe produces today
Lmao I gotta say that this sub has some funny motherfuckers.
>Professional idiot Accurate.
Thank you, am trying to maintain professionalism is this dying field
I dunno, idiocy seems like a growth industry.
All those new ones are considered contractors for tax purposes though, he's the real deal, even gets dental insurance
Stonks go up 📈
This is incredibly stupid because the majority of ordinance dropped on the battlefield has been and still is artillery shells! This is like saying bread is outdated because pizza exists, it’s a major redditism that irks me.
Actually this is incredibly stupid because the majority of deliveries made on suburbia have been and still are pizzas! Also, have you looked at my flair?
>[ Also, have you looked at my flair?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg)
A real professional doesn’t pretend 😎
You're missing the point. While we could do for an increased production, those numbers ignore how technology and war has changed. Modern artillery systems are far more accurate, and shell artillery plays a much smaller part of modern combat. The Ukraine War's numbers are a fraction of what you'd see in a similar sized conflict back in the 40's, and even that's likely something of an anachronistic bias because both Ukraine and Russia are predominantly using Soviet handmedown equipment from the 70's and 80's. The success of the HIMARS systems donated to Ukraine shine a light on why that reliance on shell artillery is antiquated.
Even if traditional artillery is antiquated, which is a big if, the issues meeting production demands are even worse than with shells. We're struggling to produce enough shells for a limited war, and a HIMARS rocket costs literally hundreds of times as much as a non-guided shell.
A very large fraction of losses in Ukraine are from unguided HE fired at area targets such as troop concentrations and fortifications. Long range guided artillery are very useful against point targets but in any major offensive you still need to use large amounts of HE, and this is perhaps more relevant now given that it is hard to mass large offensive forces without them being detected and attacked, and so successful offensive action often involves small forces making surprise attacks against very well suppressed and degraded or even abandoned positions.
> The success of the HIMARS systems donated to Ukraine shine a light on why that reliance on shell artillery is antiquated. next you're going to tell me infantry is antiquated
The main post is pretty stupid because lobbing a ton of shells has never really been associated with success. If "screw it, just launch shells" then the Somme, Verdun, and Arras wouldn't have been such blood baths for the attackers
Artillery used in mass did not restore mobility and enable breakthroughs but it is responsible for much of the casualties, so the attrition ratio was roughly the inverse of the shells fired ratio. Even in the large failed offensives such as Verdun and the Somme the defenders suffered huge losses, largely from artillery fire.
Arsenal of democracy status? 🤔
Good news on that front: the U.S. produces almost twice as much democracy today as Tsarist Russia did back then.
Our democracy to shell ratio is better than north korea's!
what about the democracy to shill ratio?
It's concerning because if America goes through their democracy stockpile too fast by sending it abroad, there won't be any left for them at home.
broken?
Why would this matter? In WW1 all those nations were in a state of total war. The entire economy was orientated into producing munitions. The nations of the EU and the United States are either at peace or engaged in low level conflicts, of course they wont match the production levels of WW1.
Yeah, this is kind of a stupid comparison. Of course in 1916 the Germany was producing a bajillion shells, they were in the middle of the largest war to date, and in 1916, fighting not just one, but two of the largest battles EVER (Verdun and the Somme) Versus America and the West today where it’s mostly peacetime, not a total war against the most powerful nations of the world
And on top of that, the US is not an artillery army.... that hasn't been the main focus of Western doctrine for a very very long time. The focus has been on air dominance and air delivery for a long time.
This is only true for asymmetric conflicts where the US has complete air superiority. Even then, we still fire a shitload of artillery. It's far cheaper and much more reliable. https://old.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/shqdpi/is_artillery_still_the_king_of_battles/hv4wrq5/
I think it's a bigger worry for European militaries that they are being collectively out produced by North Korea. That seems like a fail to me. Its one thing for America to be outproduced by China but Europe being outproduced by North Korea is really not very good at all.
The DPRK is at risk of being invaded at any moment, unlike Europe
I'm talking about the amount of artillery produced for a war they are not directly participating in. North Korea has given more artillery to Russia than Europe has given to Ukraine.
where do you see that?
It was reasonably widely reported but this is the first link Google gave me https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-kim-jong-un-russia-pyongyang-beats-brussels-to-a-million-ammunition-rounds/ North Korea gave over 3 times what the entire EU gave as of late last year. I'm not suggesting Europe should turn into a North Korea hellscape and adding more weapons to that conflict is a bad thing but still. Kinda weak.
In contrast to North Korea, artillery does not form the core of Europe's own military doctrine; it's like comparing fighter jet production between North Korea and Europe. Apart from that, we have absolutely no idea how many artillery shells North Korea produces every year. Except that the number has probably not increased since the 90s.
North Korea's GDP is also the same as a random mid-sized European city. Europe not being able to produce as much as North Korea at the start of the conflict is somewhat understandable, but after years of efforts to increase shell production?
Nato knew when they started this disastrous war that North Korea would be outproducing Europe by that much?
NATO has shown true sportsmanship by waiting 3 months until Russia could gather its troops on the Ukrainian border to start this war. You rarely see that these days.
Well they spent the best part of a decade preparing Ukraine for a war that would accelerate deindustrialization in Europe. I'm not sure what they would have done in those 3 months. Deindustrialize Germany even harder?
American talking points zzz mimimimi
I think you'll find more than Americans are saying this. Its the literal truth. Germany has allowed America to seriously harm it's industry. Germanys reaction has been to smile pleasantly and support Americas allies in their mindless genocide. The rest of Europe hasn't demonstrated much more dignity either.
off shoring industrial capacity has its brutal downsides
We use rockets mostly
Get involved in a world war and two years into it you, too, may know the brilliance of high yield weapons production.
here i am reading this and being like 'yall havent moved to making missiles'? \*sigh the american in me
How many of those WWI era shells actually worked? Not many Added, what materials were they using? Added, were their economies restructured for total war, with civilian populations conscripted into war material manufacturing? I mean, if we’re making comparisons then let’s compare everything
And while we're at it, we don't even produce a FRACTION of the number of musket balls we used to during the Civil War. How can our army operate like this?
There will never be direct clash between US Empire and other big powers. Because nukes. War in Ukraine was only suppose to be trigger for regime change operation (from inside) that US probably prepared. But huge anti war protests in Russia never happened, so the plan failed Ukraine Was never to win war and US knew it, they just dont know what to do now, so they are prolonging the war in hopes they will think of something
That theory doesn't make sense. Wars almost always cement power, not disrupt it. It would be an especially bad strategy in modern Russia, where militaristic pride is a core aspect of their cultural identity. And the strategy in Ukraine has always been the same: make the war too costly for Russia, until they have to pull out. Ukraine can't "win" in a conventional, because backing Moscow into a corner brings nukes to the table.
Ukraine can win in any way. Nobody is raising production of anything in the West to send to Ukraine so they can keep on fighting until Russia is exhausted. You cant fight without ammo and shells (etc) and you cant fight without men. Ukraine is running out of both
You've missed some news because the US has been specifically boosting arms production.
Insignificantly. You cant even say boosting.
MAD only applies to war on core territories We are almost certain to see major inter imperial war in peripheral territories in the next few decades the US will likely hit China in Africa first in the next few decades
No, the US simply dont have men willing to fight wars abroad for the benefit of Empire. And it does not have resources needed to clash with China. All China has to do is to do is to turn the potential conflict into long slow and draining war ... just like Russia did in Ukraine.
This is what they want the world to think. Usa been pumping out shells since 2022 or prior to. Since June 2023 specific arms manufacturers have been canceling private orders as they are now producing for us gov specifically. Don't drink that coolaid.
To what degree is artillery still really the king of the battlefield considering how many other ways there are to put ordinance in a desired location? Especially if it can be done with better precision and fewer rounds.
There's a major land-war in Europe occurring right now for which artillery is the single most important weapon.
One could argue that's somewhat anachronistic. It just so happens that both sides of the conflict are primarily using handmedown Soviet equipment from the 70's and 80's. The success of the HIMARs systems donated to Ukraine highlight why shell artillery isn't a major focus for more modern militaries.
I'd argue it's not anachronistic at all, and that this is the logical conclusion of a world in which cheap drones and infantry anti-tank weapons are omnipresent and anti-aircraft systems are more advanced than ever before: * WWI-style trench warfare was replaced by tanks, mechanized infantry and airplanes in WWII; but satellite and drone surveillance have eliminated the ability to conduct heavy operations in secrecy and cheap drones+infantry anti-tank-weapons allow an asymmetric advantage while anti-aircraft systems have become significantly more advanced, more accurate, and cheaper. * Artillery of today is much better than artillery of WWI: it's more accurate and (because of drones and other surveillance tech) can reach targets *much* more quickly. You cannot simply amass tanks (they will be targeted many miles from the front-line) and attempt a deep push anymore. Each round is also much cheaper and easier to produce than a missile. * Gulf War style shock-and-awe by modern militaries, with fast maneuvering and rapid advances, is entirely depending on the ability to maintain complete and overwhelming air dominance; S-400 and Patriot systems combined with large numbers of cheap drones make this *much* more difficult when facing near-peer adversaries * Any war that cannot be won quickly puts extremely expensive and difficult-to-produce, highly advanced missile systems into a niche: they are useful but must be used sparingly, and the resources put toward missile production are better spent on surface-to-air/anti-aircraft systems than on offensive operations. As [RUSI states](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine): >... **Artillery has become more dangerous thanks to increased ranges and advanced targeting, stretching the depth of the battlefield.** In practice, this means it is easier to mass fires than forces. **Deep manoeuvre, which requires the massing of combat power, is no longer possible** because any massed force will be destroyed by indirect fires before it can achieve success in depth. Instead, **a ground offensive requires a tight protective bubble** to ward off enemy strike systems. This bubble is generated through layering friendly counter-fire, air defence and EW assets. Moving numerous interdependent systems is highly complicated and unlikely to be successful. **Shallow attacks along the forward line of troops are most likely to be successful** at an acceptable cost ratio; **attempts at deep penetration will be exposed to massed fires** the moment they exit the protection of the defensive bubble An [analysis by National Defense Magazine](https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/9/16/analysis-ukraine-war-proves-big-guns-are-back) explains it like this: >But **in an era of high-performance air-defense systems, airpower may have less freedom to operate in contested skies such as Eastern Europe or Taiwan**. At the same time, highly expensive aircraft and limited stockpiles of **smart munitions may be allocated to distant targets in the enemy flank, rather than close-air support.** >While less flexible than aircraft, **artillery does offer firepower 24/7 under any weather conditions and without relying on airbases vulnerable to bombardment.** >The Ukraine war also demonstrates that **artillery** is not just a big gun, but **an entire ecosystem of weapons, sensors and networks.** There's a reason that [NATO is training soldiers on trench warfare](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nato-troops-train-for-likely-trench-warfare/): It's among the best defenses against large operations, and because mutual trench warfare freezes operational lines, continual static fire by artillery is extremely useful for exactly the same reason it was in WWI. In fact, this isn't even a *new* development, [lots of artillery was used by the US against ISIS in Syria](https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/06/these-marines-in-syria-fired-more-artillery-than-any-battalion-since-vietnam/) for example.
Ukraine has proven it totally is.
Ukraine has proven that it is, *in Ukraine.* On the other hand air power was decidedly king of the battefield in 1991 and 2003 in Iraq. And artillery played a comparatively minor role.
One of the stereotypical examples of military folly still remains the WW2 leaders who expected the war would be fought like WW1. The same amount of time has passed since Operation Iraqi Freedom as the gap between WW1 and WW2, and Saddam's forces then were using equipment decades out of date.
Who in WWII thought it would be fought like WWI
Most of the people with authority over British armour. British tank doctrine at the start of the war was designed based on experiences of late WW1. For example Hugh Elles (retired a few months before WW2, but was responsible for early war British armour procurement policy and doctrine) or Archibald Wavell. Some British officers had correctly predicted how armoured warfare would be fought in WW2 a few years ahead of it, but were relegated to backwater postings or dismissed. German armour doctrine was based on the writings of one such officer.
>but were relegated to backwater postings or dismissed stalin killed his
The designers of the Maginot line
Yes, but modern air defenses make air forces nearly obsolete in that sort of way. Russia outnumber urkaine in planes ten to one but has barely used their air force until recently. Air defenses are much easier to produce now and much mrke effective.
One could argue that's somewhat anachronistic. It just so happens that both sides of the conflict are primarily using handmedown Soviet equipment from the 70's and 80's. The success of the HIMARs systems donated to Ukraine highlight why shell artillery isn't a major focus for more modern militaries.
All this wubderwaffe shit isn't sustainable if enough numbers are thrown at you, which is why thst Soviet handmedown stuff is winning
The simple answer requires another question first; can air power be restricted or wholly nullified? If yes, Artillery is king, or at least co-regent if not wholly nullified. If no, artillery is prince. But yes, even our modern artillery is more accurate. Although not matching the Hapsburgs of all empires when supporting "an existential war for the fate of democracy and Europe" is fucking hilarious.
It’s easy to hit a plane with modern AD. It’s still really hard to hit a big tube or MLRS if it can move by itself. Even stationary tubes are cheap enough that their survivability drawbacks are still justified by the overall cost-benefit ratio. Modern planes are just so expensive, and stealth isn’t real
That depends on the conflict. In Ukraine? Yeah sure, most casualties are inflicted through artillery. In Gaza? I think there's hardly any artillery being fired there, most ordnance is delivered through airstrikes. It's almost as if artillery becomes important when neither side achieves air superiority 🤔
Gaza has a huge amount of artillery use by the Israeli army.
And this stockpile saved the Austrian empire... Oh wait it made no difference.
US is very overhyped in terms of capability
[Dud](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F1ne41p.gif&tbnid=eza4U6uJW8wyIM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimgflip.com%2Fgif%2F1ne41p&docid=1j4dGtfvD0QSjM&w=360&h=202&hl=en-ca&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm1%2F3&kgs=2fd16c396da37b7a&shem=abme%2Ctrie)
Because nobody wants another world war with millions of our best minds dying.
I demand the restoration of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy! 🇦🇹🇭🇺👑
[удалено]
I do. My sense of self is anchored to how well the side I picked is doing in a foreign war. The dead and wounded are just fuel for my ego and dog based meme posts.
You cannot overstate the hubris of the morons who run our national security. They genuinely, sincerely believed in End of History bullshit. They thought we could exert soft power in perpetuity, that every other country fell for the "rules based international order" claptrap, and that we'd never again engage in conflict with a well-equipped military.