As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production • Hacker News Board

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#171

Post by euroderf » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:30 AM UTC

clarionbell wrote: post #153

BlueTemplar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same as for : > My solace is that in a real conflict, all of that red tape would be put to the side and people can get about building things. That's just not going to happen. A real conflict would involve nukes, and the war would be quickly over. I doubt that something close to Vietnam can happen again either. (And even for a 2nd Vietnam, I doubt that any significant artillery would be used when, as you point out, mi…

People thought that war in Europe will be impossible. They were wrong. And now we are paying the price. Turns out large conventional war is very much a thing. Right now we have a big one in Europe, handful are brewing around the world. Artillery is still, and for many reasons will be, a king. Shells are order of magnitude cheaper than rockets. They are smaller. Easier to manufacture. Missiles are nice if you want to…

> People thought that war in Europe will be impossible. They were wrong. And now we are paying the price. Turns out large conventional war is very much a thing.

Likely this was the biggest surprise to emerge. Even Georgia and Armenia did not foreshadow the scale and slogmatch reality of Ukraine eh. The need for stockpiles is real.

> Artillery is still, and for many reasons will be, a king. Shells are order of magnitude cheaper than rockets. They are smaller. Easier to manufacture.

This statement is incomplete without also referencing drones. See for example: https://roguesystemsrecon.substack.com/p/drone-war-evolution...

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#172

Post by euroderf » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:32 AM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #28

Dig1t wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a video of these things in action killing somebody on the battlefield, it was truly disgusting. Seeing videos like that has made me feel like I don’t care who wins the conflict anymore, it just needs to come to an end.

People felt this way about Europe in WW2 as well. Freedom is paid for in blood. People forget that after a few generations of peace, and then we have to pay again because we grew complacent.

Wars seem to come and go in 50-ish year cycles. The experiences of the grandfathers are forgotten.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#173

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:33 AM UTC

seo-speedwagon wrote: post #129

c_o_n_v_e_x wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To summarize the author, no one wants to invest in ammo plants because of upfront costs and economics of dealing with .gov Author suggests applying a new manufacturing technology, 3d printing, to help alleviate a supply shortage, but then says new mfg tech probably wont work (I'm inferring that it will not work with the existing design). I'm proposing an alternative - make a 3d printer friendly design (OK, it may not…

Guns and what they fire really haven’t changed since the First World War, not fundamentally at least. There’s incremental improvements in design and materials and manufacturing process but it’s a fundamentally mature technology. This gives them relatively low profit margins which makes them unappealing for privatized defense companies with shareholders to please. Now the classic way to charge the government more mone…

If you really think artillery didn't change since WW1, you have no idea what you are talking about. Im both regards, doctrine (which changed a lot during WW1 alone) and technology (range, precision, fire control...).

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#174

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:36 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #119

ComputerGuru wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Israel has demonstrated much the same approach (confined to a much smaller territory) nonstop over the past four months (first missiles and now 155mm artillery and tank shells), so it’s definitely not just an Eastern Europe thing.

Many Israelis are from Eastern European backgrounds, and it's plausible that they may have inherited some military culture from there.

Of you want to level a city, you either use obe big bomb, a lot of small ones (Israel doesn't have strategic bombers so) or a shit ton of ground fired shells and explosives.

Culture has nothing to with that.

Disclaimer: I consider leveling cities with the goal to displace people to be disgusting, and a borderline war crime. Regardless of the parties or reasons involved.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#175

Post by anovick » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:38 AM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #132

[flagged]

> these shells have been redirected to Israel and are being used in Gaza

The front in Gaza is not Israel's only wartime front, not in the current conflict and not during past conflicts: Currently, Israel needs this ammunition to defend itself from Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon that have engaged in heavy indiscriminate rocket launching against Israeli civilian populations in the Northern Israel. At least 65,000 Israeli civilians have been forced to evacuate from their homes into temporary dorms until this Hezbollah threat is removed. Hezbollah, an Iran-backed terrorist org with ties to Lebanon parliament, must disengage their troops, as they are breaking the UN Resolution 1701 of demilitarization of the Southern Lebanon area.

Rocket launching from South Lebanon has started concurrently with Hamas attacks against Israel that started on October 7th in the Southern Israel.

> these shells have been redirected to Israel and are being used in Gaza

IDF usually doesn't use this ammunition against target threats in the Gaza strip. The most common explosives used are the Israeli air-force's targeted airstrikes, which are very precise and are performed to limit casualties of non-engaged civilians in the conflict.

> these shells have been redirected to Israel and are being used in Gaza in service of genocide, which the International Court of Justice has determined to be likely to be occurring

There is no genocide taking place in Gaza. There is war, yes, and civilians die too, yes, some even plausibly innocent, but the attacks are not with intent to target civilians. IDF commanders don't issue commands that break humanitarian limits and IDF soldiers adhere to their commanders strictly (outlier cases are dealt with promptly by military court).

FYI the ICJ's court of justice has NOT determined that a genocide is likely to be occurring, in fact it only issued a provisional statement that humanitarian care for the population of the Gaza Strip should continue, which Israel has already been doing for many months now, and will continue to provide, with enabling the entry of 100-200 or more trucks full of food every day, gasoline, and other humanitarian products etc.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#176

Post by roca » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:39 AM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #135

Throw73747 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And shelling Donetsk City is somehow different?

I am also against the Ukraine war and believe a peaceful settlement is possible. NATO (the US) is using Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, though having to fight two wars at once is causing them to rethink their position. ICJ did rule against Russia, and it makes sense since they invaded, but the roots of the conflict go back to attacks on Donetsk like you say since 2014 and various aggressive moves by NA…

> NATO (the US) is using Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian

So you believe that most Ukrainians actually want to surrender to Russia?

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#177

Post by roca » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:42 AM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #167

TulliusCicero wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, these pacifist-style comments are really tone deaf and out of touch. Yes, we'd all prefer peace and leaving each other alone, but if some other nation comes to kill your countrymen and replace your democracy with a puppet, suddenly just relying on pacifist ideals doesn't work well anymore. Most of the time, these commenters don't want to engage with reality as it currently exists. If you ask them what exactly y…

I agree that we should engage with reality as it currently exists. Davyd Arakhamia [1] is a Ukrainian member of parliament, in Zelensky's party. He was one of the negotiators early on with Russia. He stated that Russia's main demand was simply that Ukraine agree to not join NATO. Meduza has an article about it (which also links to the interview itself) here, as well as spin from various sides. [2] If you're unaware o…

Your version of history entirely ignores the fact that Russia recently grabbed Donbas and then Crimea.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#178

Post by somenameforme » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:44 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #154

somenameforme wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That piece is not well thought out in my opinion. The "magical shield" that's been protecting people in developed nations is simple - nukes. Countries with nukes don't get invaded. Countries without nukes, do. It doesn't matter if you're a democracy (which Iran was until they dared question our control over their oil, and so naturally had to be have... monarchy... brought to them), or a little dictatorship with an af…

The US is a fairly aggressive power that gets involved in a lot of overseas wars. If you backcast the same logic to WWII; the US could have had a nuclear shield then and been perfectly safe from invasion, but what it actually wanted was the ability to get involved in Europe and the Pacific. Having an impenetrable defence is nice, but the US hasn't fought a defensive war in ... I don't know how long. Maybe a century f…

But if you send us back with nukes, you'd have to do so for everybody else as well. And in such a scenario WW2 would never have happened, and WW1 damn sure wouldn't have happened. A Bosnian Serb assassinates an Astro-Hungarian royal and Brits end up killing Germans over it? The whole world needed a nice ice cold shower there, and the mere existence of nukes is that perpetual cold shower.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#179

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:44 AM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #84

MilStdJunkie wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be a hopeless optimist, but I don't think a USN/USAF/USMC vs PLAAF in SCS/Taiwan situation would escalate to nukes. At least, I don't think it's likely . Definitely a nonzero chance, maybe a coin toss, but Taiwan isn't core territory for either Power. Invasion, now . . well, there's the magic power that comes with having 'em. No one invades you, ever. Also,outside factors could change the math here, like a me…

But that only means that the US would give up on Taiwan before the fight would get any serious (from USA's point of view). I also kind of doubt that China is going to try, at least in the next decade or so, because those so far irreplaceable chip factories are almost certainly booby trapped and are a critical piece of the global economy, so China would be sabotaging itself first. (And Xi has probably a long way to go…

Mainland China wants Taiwan back since WW2, chip fabs are a bonus, maybe that is.

The big problem of a Chinese invasion so is: the Taiwan straight. They have to get the invasion force across, that meens a lot of big, slow, fat transport vessels. Those are easily sunk, meaning not enough boots on the ground. Which leaves pounding Taiwan with missiles.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#180

Post by jltsiren » Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 9:47 AM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #167

TulliusCicero wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, these pacifist-style comments are really tone deaf and out of touch. Yes, we'd all prefer peace and leaving each other alone, but if some other nation comes to kill your countrymen and replace your democracy with a puppet, suddenly just relying on pacifist ideals doesn't work well anymore. Most of the time, these commenters don't want to engage with reality as it currently exists. If you ask them what exactly y…

I agree that we should engage with reality as it currently exists. Davyd Arakhamia [1] is a Ukrainian member of parliament, in Zelensky's party. He was one of the negotiators early on with Russia. He stated that Russia's main demand was simply that Ukraine agree to not join NATO. Meduza has an article about it (which also links to the interview itself) here, as well as spin from various sides. [2] If you're unaware o…

The root issue is the culture of fear among Russian leadership. They are constantly afraid that someone is trying to stab them in the back. (And they are often right, but the backstabber is usually another Russian leader.)

Because they live in fear, they cannot afford being trustworthy. And because they are not trustworthy, Russia's neighbors seek protection from other powers. Which in turn fuels the fears of Russian leadership.

Russia could break the cycle by stopping to be afraid. They could find role models in Europe. Germany, France, and the UK are all former major powers that started behaving like normal countries. With varying degrees of success.