Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

roblh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 367 posts

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

#221

Post by maxglute »

hugryhoop wrote: post #209
maxglute wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how would they deliver? By the time they get a device (untested), every entrance to underground facilities would have been destroyed with persistent aerial coverage for follow on strikes to make sure they stay destroyed. If TW was credibly trying to nuclearize, both US/PRC would be coordinating to try stop it because PRC would directly attribute TW nuclear use to US negligence. Realistically if PRC seriously thin…

US in Korea or UK in HK were not in a survival situation as Taiwan would be. > drop 50-100k troops That's fantasy land, most of those planes would be shot down, and if not the soldiers would land in a kill zone with no reinforcements.

This is about PRC willingness to eat nukes for security interests independant of TW willingness to survive.

Shoot down with what, preempt air campaign would have destroyed most of TW anti air. Fantasy is thinking TW has any chance to deny the air game. Planner for porcupine model US advocates doesn't assume TW has any chance to deny PRC air superiority, only hope they sink enough amphib to deny mass invasion, and barring that, make the ground/urban fighting long enough until US comes to assist.

If scenario is actually about denying TW nuke run, then US won't be assisting. Only other actor with intelligence on ROCA comparble to PRC is probably US. Given stakes, things will get stupid real fast. PLA airlift will be dropping in zones secured by persistent CAS and a buffer soaked in chemical warfare on a one way mission to destroy TW nuclear infra in the mountains if they have to. Maybe TW resists fine alone, and nukes a few mainland targets (assuming no duds, and no intercepts). Then what, PRC nukes living resistance off surface of island and then waltz in bunny suits to breech production sites.

TW trying to nuclearize is automatic invasion redline for a reason. It's not like PRC has an exact contingency plan, only they'll throw everything and the kitchen sink to make sure it doesn't happen.

E: Dang is going to badger me for engaging this thread too long. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether PRC will be deterred by TW nukes.

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

#222

Post by jasomill »

jalapenos wrote: post #208
Animats wrote: post #83

The US government-owned facilities are not the only US source of 155mm rounds. NAMMO [1] is a major manufacturer, and they have a facility in Mesa, AZ. Here's their marketing video for 155mm rounds.[2] Nammo's management complains that they are being offered 3-4 year contracts, and they need 10-15 year contracts to build new factories. Peacetime demand for large-caliber ammo is very low, so when there's not a war on,…

> Peacetime demand for large-caliber ammo is very low Even in the US?

While the American Dream of howitzer ownership may be alive and well among the 0.01%, it's getting harder and harder for the rest of us to maintain our $4,000/round artillery habits.

A modest proposal: the US Army should offer obsolete and surplus artillery in exchange for handguns. Given the price of ammunition, correlation between poverty and gun violence, the logistics involved in large-scale artillery theft, and the comparative complexity of non-assisted suicide by howitzer, this policy seems like a sure-fire way to drastically reduce the number of lethal gun crimes committed in the US.

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

#223

Post by zmgsabst »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #213
zmgsabst wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia was negotiating even after hostilities escalated — up until April 2022, when Boris Johnson scuttled the peace settlement. Since then, Russia has repeatedly offered to negotiate a settlement, but Ukraine refuses to negotiate. You can believe that’s a good idea, but indisputably it’s Ukraine who won’t negotiate.

Russia will always "be open" to negotiations if only to create cracks in the western support for Ukraine. But what are they offering? Last I head Putin was only prepared to negotiate based on the understanding that all occupied territories would stay under Russian control. Ukraine should have handled this better and also signaling being open for negotiations. On the condition of returning all territories that are wit…

Russia annexed those territories, following referendums, because Ukraine refused to negotiate. Russia views them as Russian territory now — and has said they’re willing to use nuclear weapons in their defense (as they would for any territory). De facto those are Russian.

Ukraine has passed a law saying they absolutely refuse to negotiate a peace settlement with Putin.

Again, you can believe that’s righteous… but all I see is a world in which Ukraine has permanently lost territory due to failing to implement peace accords a decade ago while killing or displacing ~10% of their population (4M in 45M).

I think that’s a tragedy — and for what? …a worse outcome?

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #196
tehjoker wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here is Gorbachev about the gentleman's agreement: https://twitter.com/i/status/1749887239226617873

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by MOARDONGZPLZ »

adrian_b wrote: post #188
MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the top of my head, in this space DOD invented: CPUs/registers, random access memory, packet switched networks, internetworking, TCP/IPv4. I’m sure there’s more.

DoD did not really invent anything, but they have financed the research required to invent things according to their requirements, without which the things enumerated by you might have been invented only decades later. All the modern semiconductor industry, including the discovery of transistors and of solar cells, has its origin in the research done during WWII, mostly at Bell Laboratories, to make improved detector…

This seems like a very semantic difference, bordering on pedantry.

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

#226

Post by denton-scratch »

JohnBooty wrote: post #106
nradov wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Towards the end of WW2 the US Navy got pretty good at anti-aircraft gunnery. The Japanese responded by sending their "guided missiles" (kamikazes) to attack in column formation. By the time the target ship shot down the attacking aircraft at the head of the column the others shielded behind it would be that much closer. Often the last one would get through to score a hit. The weapons are faster and more lethal now, b…

At this point, I think the burden of proof is on anybody who thinks a serious saturation attack on a carrier group (hundreds of missiles and/or decoys per wave, multiplied by multiple waves) from a peer adversary wouldn't work. If a conflict with Russia or China breaks out, I think the first thing that happens is aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles as quickly as battleship…

Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been largely confined to port in Novorossiysk by Ukrainian "naval drones", having previously been used to bombard Ukrainian cities with cruise missiles. So what are these naval drones? I assumed they were fancy, expensive sea-skimming cruise missiles; nope. Apparently they're modified jet-skis with cheap FPV navigation equipment.

So I don't think you're wrong, and I think we've already found out.

A submarine with a nuclear torpedo could take out an entire carrier group.

Nuclear submarines are apparently still hard to detect underwater; but once someone figures out how to detect them, they'll be obsolete.

I think the Senior Service may be doomed.

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

#227

Post by BlueTemplar »

rasz wrote: post #88
BlueTemplar wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

China is steadily funding Fab R&D. They already managed to get from zero to somewhat modern ram and NAND (YMTC). YMTC is bad https://goughlui.com/2023/10/10/psa-ssds-with-ymtc-flash-pro... , but _very_ cheap so eventually will improve and start taking over more and more volume. In couple of years China will get to the point erasing UMC/TSMC does give them advantage.

That's why I said in the next decade... you seem to be much more optimistic than me about them catching up.

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

#228

Post by baud147258 »

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…

> various aggressive moves by NATO since 1991 in violation of the gentleman's agreement.

gentleman's agreement, which was never acknowledge by the US and was with the previous regime, unlike the written agreement _Russia_ signed recognizing Ukraine's independence and sovereignty, with their 1994 borders. And NATO wouldn't have expanded East if the countries in Eastern Europe didn't feel a need to join a defensive alliance.

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

#229

Post by somenameforme »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #211
somenameforme wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine Russia completely disarmed itself, destroyed all nuclear weapons, deposed its entire military, and all military weapons and production capability. Exactly how long do you think it would be before the US invaded? We might debate the timeline, but I don't think you can argue in good faith that they wouldn't be invaded. But if you accept this then it becomes clear that trust is impossible. You have a power that…

The US can not even be bothered to pay 5% of its defense budget for Ukraine aid and you really think that they would invade Russia?

You could replace [Russia] there with the countless other countries we invade/occupy, for far lesser rewards than Russia would offer. So, yes I'm 100% certain we would.

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

#230

Post by denton-scratch »

actionfromafar wrote: post #136
Log_out_ wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is currently loosing to Russia in Europe, it's all talk no walk, similar to west - europe.

The US is "loosing" because it barely dipped a toe in the conflict. Motivate the US to go all in and it's a different story altogether. But I agree on the reluctance of Western Europe and the US to give support, the Ukraine conflict could have been over by now with proper support.

Much of Europe is giving support; but decades of US military support has resulted in our stockpiles being rather depleted, and supplies to Ukraine have so far been from stockpiles, not new manufacture.

Russia presents a threat to Europe that it doesn't present to the USA. Europe needs to tool-up. I say this as a former pacifist.

Post reply on HN