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

251–260 of 367 posts

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

#251

Post by the-dude »

dageshi wrote: post #181
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…

I don't really understand why people get so caught up on the fabs in Taiwan, as if their presence is the actual goal or the important thing. An invasion of Taiwan would probably effectively destroy globalisation, China exports would be sanctioned, China imports of energy and raw materials would be heavily disrupted (China's supply of fossil fuels is very vulnerable). It would be the most disruptive event to the world…

The US only stopped trading with Nazi Germany after Germany declared war on the them, after Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

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

#252

Post by ttepasse »

somenameforme wrote: post #198
jltsiren wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> Of course, vice versa, imagine the US disarmed. They'd be invaded by like 80% of the world within a fortnight.

The US is protected from 95% of the world by being conveniently located behind two oceans and having two friendly neighbours.

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

#253

Post by 83 »

oblio wrote: post #220
jalapenos wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I doubt Texan gun ranges need a lot of 155mm.

If it were allowed and available I bet a huge amount of Texans would be buying 155mm just for bragging rights.

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

#254

Post by missedthecue »

Icingdeath wrote: post #38
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.

Appeasement doesn't work with this aggressor; it only emboldens them and increases the likelihood of another landgrab in a few years. The only thing they understand is force.

It worked with Stalin at Yalta in 1945, when Churchill signed away vast swaths of Eastern Europe to Soviet rule. "Appeasement" is frankly nothing more than a pejorative word for diplomacy. Be wary of those who employ its use.

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

#255

Post by missedthecue »

yywwbbn wrote: post #147
cameron_b wrote: post #62

It should probably be restated that instead of the conflict in Ukraine catching our production capacity off guard, that rather it was our production posture along with denuclearization and disarmament of Ukraine that set the stage for the conflict. I’m not a “team America world police” advocate, much more the opposite. Even as stated in the article, most production is more interested in a deterrent. Hate ‘em or hate…

Ukraine wasn’t real a nuclear power though. They some of Soviet arsenal and some facilities required to maintain but it would have required significant investment to make it actually usable longterm. That was totally unfeasible during the economic collapse of the early 90s

To add, the keys, targeting coordinates, orders, and control of the weapons was with the Russians in the Kremlin. Kazakhstan and Turkey also housed nuclear weapons. No one argues they were a nuclear power stripped of their defense.

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

#256

Post by philwelch »

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?

Explosive shells are legally considered “destructive devices” and each round would require a separate tax stamp.

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

#257

Post by missedthecue »

euroderf wrote: post #172
kstenerud wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not so sure. The WW2 generation plowed millions of men and billions of dollars into Vietnam.

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

#258

Post by missedthecue »

mopsi wrote: post #113
zmgsabst wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Are you claiming that shelling ethnic Russians in Donbas The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine diligently documented the use of lethal force and resulting casualties in the low-intensity conflict before the full-scale invasion in 2022 and did not witness anything like what you describe. The number of civilian casualties was in low tens per year, mostly due to landmines and unexploded ordnance.

It's well documented that Ukraine was firing unguided MLRS into Donetsk years ago.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets...

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

#259

Post by everforward »

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?

Large caliber here would mean artillery size, maybe mortar or grenade launcher.

None of that is commonly consumed by civilians. There are routes to get there, but it seemed difficult to me (I looked once upon a time).

The largest caliber even somewhat commonly used by civilians is .50 BMG (12.7x99mm NATO). I have seen 20mm rifles and ammo for sale (once), but it is a HUGE pain in the ass to get them and probably rightfully so.

Anything over .50 is automatically considered a destructive device by the ATF unless a specific sporting exemption is given to it (that's generally only for big game rifles). Getting one of those requires a fistful of certifications last I checked; I think you effectively have to be an arms dealer to get one (or at least pretending enough to be certified as one).

None of this is legal advice, talk to the ATF and/or a lawyer before trying to buy anything too exotic.

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

#260

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

zmgsabst wrote: post #201
shiroiuma wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ust ask Angela Merkel about their sincerity: > In an interview published in Germany's Zeit magazine on Wednesday, former German chancellor Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements had been an attempt to "give Ukraine time" to build up its defences. What's wrong with that? Obviously, you don't think anyone has a right to defend themselves against aggression from Russia.

That’s obviously Ukraine and Western allies not implementing Minsk in good faith, as the post I was responding to claimed.

What does "good faith" mean in the context of being forced to negotiate after being invaded by a much stronger foe?

Did Russia show "good faith" by backing the conflict in Donbas, lying about it and deploying their "little green men"?

Post reply on HN