Share this comment
I would say Russia has a time window of industrial superiority, it is not closing fast and may even be expanding right now, but long term it will need China to be able to keep up. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say NATO needs 5 to 10 years. But Russia, like the USSR, is vulnerable to longer term military over spending.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/02/06/us-army-hunts-for-explosives-to-meet-increased-munitions-output-goals/
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/general-dynamics-new-155-millimeter-shell-factory-opens-war-cycle-kicks-higher-gear
I would say Russia has a time window of industrial superiority, it is not closing fast and may even be expanding right now, but long term it will need China to be able to keep up. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say NATO needs 5 to 10 years. But Russia, like the USSR, is vulnerable to longer term military over spending.
A big time window, and expanding
These US reports talk about 100,000 shells per month by end 2025- given US tendancy to lie about everything and to fail to meet industrial goals one may be sceptical
EU ditto
RF, according to S and others is already at 4.6M per year, 380,000 per month
And capable of accelerating production at already established factories, without considering new ones built - it is said current factories are not at 24/7
And can count on the NK stock of 10M, of which it is said only 3M so far delivered
Krasnopol vs Excalibur just happened
We know the result
Russia produced 20.5M in 2023. S using number given by Western media
I do not think so- for the 155mm the figures given in the West press are lower than those given by S, and others
S gives around 4.5 4.6, the Western press is at 3.5 ish, The Estonians may be higher
But nobody is saying anything like 20M
Perhaps you have a link?
I think the problem with numbers comes from the fact that West trying to compare 152 with 155 production which is inherently stupid. 20.5M comes directly from Russian MOD and it includes all artillery calibers (including bigger than 152) and MRLS. And that's correct way of reporting things, because damage comes from all categories.
In fact, I learned that biggest damage to Ukrainian side actually comes from MRLS, not cannons/howitzers/FABs/drones like somebody could imagine after looking at combat footage reels, because MRLS produce terrible footage - it covers huge area and inherently inaccurate. Yet it's incredibly effective, math at works. Big, many booms over large area.
Source: only real military related channel in whole Runet (run by real military guys, Martyanov is there, Trukhan is there); almost impossible to read unless you can read all Russian military abbreviation, can tolerate crude/clever jewish jokes, Warhammer 40k and not repulsed by gachi memes
https://t.me/pozivnoy_kazman/6917
It's a crime that S uses completely discredited sources like Rybar/FB or Fedorov and never covers channels where real military guys wags their chins
The West – I assume by this you mean the US ruling/gvmt class (or perhaps the EU too)- is not trying to compare in any precise way nothing at all, they are blowing smoke, have you ever known otherwise?
Given the equivalency between 152 and 155mm, these have become, for both sides, a point of reference, and a quick measure of armaments production chitchat chest beating
Your initial comment failed to mention your figure was for all ammunition - why not attempt a measure of RF as opposed to US or EU production for all ammo, or for drones, or for whatever
If you wish to criticise S go ahead - but in this case his figures are the conventional measures most use
Some RF administrations, or Tass, journos, telegrammers or whatevers may also wish to be less than truthful, maybe, or may not be as knowledgeable as they assert
You could do everyone a favour by clarifying this or these ammo figures, for both ‘sides’ or for all three if you’d include the EU
My point was twofold. S using wrong Russian sources - one. Second one was that the West (you can call it US if you want, and you most likely correct here) is that 155 equals 152 is seriously wrong.
Russia inherently use/employ more things to do the thing. It's inherently flawed approach to compare systems one-to-one because both camps use very different approach for material strategy.
Russia have like 10x more systems for one purpose where West uses one. It's different. One side wants jack-of-all-trades like F35 where Russia uses 10 planes. It's in everything. How we can compare? We don't.