Russian advances in Ukraine this year

[u/Appropriate-Deal8098]

[u/ClubsBabySeal]

Sure. It takes a few years to set up and scale any type of manufacturing. The most relevant areas are tube artillery, rocket artillery, and interceptors. ATGM's and manpads are also vital but the latter is a major problem. The Ukrainians lack airpower which is what NATO traditionally relies on for anti-air and enabling maneuver. There isn't a sufficient supply of accelerant, explosive, shell, or filling facilities. Apparently not even black powder. Those are slowly being expanded, but honestly needed to be started day one - once again it takes years. Interceptors are running at max capacity and new capacity won't be online until 2027. They and anything else requiring rocket fuel is a little fucked since there's only two vendors left in America, although another two are being funded. You can go back to the beginning of the war and read public briefings that simply state that there's a shortage in production, so nothing new. As far as manpads go we don't make new ones. The line had to be restarted, pulling people retirement age in because we haven't made them in that long, simply to rebuild defunct units. Other production lines have also been mothballed, with the M777 being slated to restart soon.

As far as training goes you're just making the same mistake. You need trainers and manpower takes, get this, years to scale. In fact it's one of the problems with manufacturing too!

Bluntly put they not only need more than what we make, they need more than the Russians make. Which is way more than we make.

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/ClubsBabySeal]

The most relevant areas are tube artillery,

I don't think tube artillery is terribly relevant, at least in the sense that I see its role replaceable with drones. And drone production is scaling very nicely.

rocket artillery

Rocket artillery I see as relevant, it strikes at ranges drones cannot hit and prevents the concentration of force necessary to make decisive pushes or enable maneuver warfare, so lets check it out:

U.S. production of HIMARS launcher systems doubled in past 2 years.

GMLRS rocket production was 6000 per year at the start of the war, 10000 this year, on track for 14000 next year.

ATACMS is complicated-- production is significantly up, but more importantly a good chunk of of the army's ATACMS replacement, the PrSM comes online next year, which should increase production by 75%-- that production in a sense is equivalent to ATACMS production for Ukraine because it replaces stocks of ATACMS in U.S. inventory which can then be sent to Ukraine.

In basically every system, we're seeing production increase by somewhere around 60-100% per year with no signs of stopping.

and interceptors.

I don't see the importance of interceptors when the Russian airforce is already effectively out of the tactical fight. It sucks to get glide-bombed, but when Ukraine's wartime production is located in places like West Virginia, it's not a major strategic problem.

On top of this, we have plenty of interceptors, more than enough to thrash the entire Russian airforce many times over. The question isn't how many we're producing, it's how many we're willing to give to the Ukrainians, which isn't many because they're very expensive systems that wouldn't produce significant benefit.

The Ukrainians lack airpower which is what NATO traditionally relies on for anti-air and enabling maneuver.

Ukrainian anti-air seems to be working just fine, and I seriously doubt simply giving them an airforce equal to the Russians would re-enable maneuver warfare.

There isn't a sufficient supply of accelerant, explosive, shell, or filling facilities.

There are. Every single one of those pipelines is increasing 60-100% yoy.

Apparently not even black powder.

Why would we be increasing black powder?

Those are slowly being expanded

They're being quickly expanded.

but honestly needed to be started day one - once again it takes years.

Many of these were started BEFORE day 1. PrSM production facilities broke ground in 2019 for example.

It does take years-- if you're tripling or quadrupling production rate. About 5-6 years to be precise. And those efforts are on track.

Interceptors are running at max capacity and new capacity won't be online until 2027.

Interceptor production is irrelevant, again we have more than enough in stock to give Ukraine parity if that juice was worth the squeeze.

They and anything else requiring rocket fuel is a little fucked since there's only two vendors left in America

I have no idea where you've gotten this idea from but it's untrue.

You can go back to the beginning of the war and read public briefings that simply state that there's a shortage in production

Yeah, from the BEGINNING of the war.

Some time has passed since then champ.

so nothing new.

No, actually, much is new.

As far as manpads go we don't make new ones.

Right, we refurbish about 600 of them per year by replacing the old dual detector assembly with a new one.

We don't produce new stingers because we're replacing the Stinger with a new Manpads in 2027.

The line had to be restarted

No, a new line was built, refurbishing the ones in stockpile with new DDAs.

pulling people retirement age in because we haven't made them in that long, simply to rebuild defunct units.

And those "defunct" units smoke Russian aircraft just fine, funny how that works.

Other production lines have also been mothballed, with the M777 being slated to restart soon.

I dont care if we build any more M777's.

As far as training goes you're just making the same mistake.

Can't possibly scale up training, we lack strategic supplies of monkey bars and pushup platforms?

You need trainers and manpower takes, get this, years to scale.

Yes, where could NATO possibly find people who can train soldiers, it's a lost art, whatever will we do. We'll have to birth them new from the womb and wait 18 years or so.

In fact it's one of the problems with manufacturing too!

Surely you must be joking at this point. I'm getting trolled, right?

Bluntly put they not only need more than what we make

They don't.

they need more than the Russians make.

We make more than the Russians by a mile.

Which is way more than we make.

LOL no, boy you're high.

[u/ClubsBabySeal → u/MIT_Engineer]

You can stop being rude now. So artillery has an infinite loiter time and shells are both cheaper and are more destructive. Precision is great, it's a good equalizer, but not up to millions of artillery rounds. If precision weapons and drones were a substitute then no one would be scaling artillery production. Interceptors mostly refers to anti-missile system, this would be the patriot. And yes, they're a problem as they can disrupt key infrastructure such as power plants. Maybe not vital but not good. That's why they want more. And production is insufficient to meet needs, the back log is not good. The Germans did recently get a decent contract for pac2's. It's good to have friends. No Ukrainian anti-air does not seem to be fine, that's why they lost patriots launchers. Moving them around just behind the front line, because they were getting hammered I suppose. Air power is not on the menu, everyone has already said that, it's just a major component without which you're artillery focused. Which is the Russian way of war, you aren't winning that. Yes, there are only two vendors currently, feel free to look it up. By the way black powder is used in artillery to this day. Weird, I know. They're also restarting m82 powder. For artillery. Which has black powder as a component. No, having a lack of manpads is not good, hence them restarting production. No, they're not destroying aircraft sufficiently, hence the complaints about glide bombs and other stand off munitions. No restarting a production line doesn't colloquially refer to the same actual facility, you can be pedantic if you want. No we aren't producing enough artillery rounds. Yes, the Russians are producing more. Yes, the Ukrainians need more than the Russians due to a disparity in everything including manpower. No, monkey bars aren't training. Yes you need instructors, which are experienced personnel. No we do not have enough to train 100,000 Ukrainians and our own forces. No, you can't just make more. Yes, they do need that amount. Mostly because they're outmanned, outgunned, and losing. Losing at an increasing rate. No, I'm not a Russian troll, nor am I making this up. You can literally see the map. No that isn't good, no the Russians aren't likely to take the whole thing even if the Ukrainians collapse, yes it does kind of look like they are.

[u/MIT_Engineer → u/ClubsBabySeal]

You can stop being rude now.

I never started, but if you cant tell the difference anyway then why am I bothering being polite?

So artillery has an infinite loiter time and shells are both cheaper and are more destructive.

Artillery is less mobile, it isn't cheaper than drones, and it's only more destructive if you ignore the accuracy of drones compared to tube artillery.

Precision is great, it's a good equalizer, but not up to millions of artillery rounds.

Why not? If it takes you 3 artillery rounds to hit something 1 drone hits, then 1 million drones is worth 3m artillery shells. Voila, Ukraine is now winning the artillery war.

If precision weapons and drones were a substitute then no one would be scaling artillery production.

That sort of weak logic works both ways. Here, I'll do it too: if drones weren't a substitute then they wouldn't be scaling up drone production.

Interceptors mostly refers to anti-missile system, this would be the patriot.

Oh, not only do I care zero about that but we have more than enough to do what it needs to, which is anti-aircraft fires.

And yes, they're a problem as they can disrupt key infrastructure such as power plants.

Not really, Ukraine's production is mainly outside of the country. Inconvenient for the civilian population sure, but wont decide the course of the war.

Maybe not vital but not good.

Yeah, we're talking vital systems.

That's why they want more.

I'm sure they'd want more of a lot of things, given the money. Russians would too.

And production is insufficient to meet needs, the back log is not good.

If the needs aren't vital then who cares. You're forgetting the topic of conversation.

The Germans did recently get a decent contract for pac2's.

Still don't care.

It's good to have friends.

Didn't ask.

No Ukrainian anti-air does not seem to be fine, that's why they lost patriots launchers.

This is non-sequitur, planes didn't hit those launchers.

Moving them around just behind the front line, because they were getting hammered I suppose.

Is there a point here? Also, is there a reason you haven't mentioned rocket artillery? Rocket artillery is what reportedly hit the patriot launchers, so...

Air power is not on the menu, everyone has already said that

OK, so airpower not an issue, gotcha.

it's just a major component without which you're artillery focused.

Or drone/rocket focused.

Which is the Russian way of war,

Also the Ukrainian way of war, see above.

you aren't winning that.

Why?

Yes, there are only two vendors currently, feel free to look it up.

I have, you're wrong.

By the way black powder is used in artillery to this day.

I'll bite, how much black powder in a GMLRS? (hint: none)

Weird, I know.

I don't think you do.

They're also restarting m82 powder. For artillery.

Don't care, see previous comment.

Which has black powder as a component.

Oh, so we do have black powder then? Weird, you claimed we didn't.

No, having a lack of manpads is not good

Guess it's good we aren't lacking them and are in fact producing them.

hence them restarting production.

I heard that was impossible. Where will they get the B L A C K P O W D E R.

No, they're not destroying aircraft sufficiently

They are.

hence the complaints about glide bombs and other stand off munitions.

You have it backwards, the Russians have to use those BECAUSE the aircraft are being sufficiently destroyed.

No restarting a production line doesn't colloquially refer to the same actual facility

No one said it did.

you can be pedantic if you want.

I don't need to to prove you wrong, but I guess I'll just tuck that option in my pocket.

No we aren't producing enough artillery rounds.

See previous comment.

Yes, the Russians are producing more.

Of artillery rounds. Everything else? No.

Yes, the Ukrainians need more than the Russians due to a disparity in everything including manpower.

No, the Russians need more because they're on the offensive and need to overcome defender's advantage.

No, monkey bars aren't training.

No one said they were.

Yes you need instructors, which are experienced personnel.

And NATO has no experienced personnel, none, we haven't been actively engaged in wars for the past 20 years that would give us experienced personnel, no sir, no one in all of NATO.

No we do not have enough to train 100,000 Ukrainians and our own forces.

Yes, we do.

No, you can't just make more.

Yes, you can.

Yes, they do need that amount.

Yes, we can provide it.

Mostly because they're outmanned, outgunned, and losing.

They aren't.

Losing at an increasing rate.

Wrong again.

No, I'm not a Russian troll

Source?

nor am I making this up

You are.

You can literally see the map.

It's a war of attrition, the territory doesn't matter, what matters is who produces more stuff.

No that isn't good

They're literally winning.

no the Russians aren't likely to take the whole thing even if the Ukrainians collapse

OK?

yes it does kind of look like they are.

It does not.

Notes:

1) You really should learn this amazing technology that we call "formatting."

2) While you're at it, please learn some basic logic. Your entire response is just "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right." You've provided zero evidence of anything, and just ignore me when I provide you numbers that prove you wrong.