Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[LordsFire]

The problem is that the population of most NATO countries is not nearly dedicated enough to the war for that to be feasible, so it is irrelevant. Barring a large change in circumstances, no NATO country of military-industrial significance is going to enter a war economy footing to help Ukraine.

None of those nations need to do so; the economy of the USA alone, is about fifteen times the size of Russia's.

Let's take a hypothetical. US/NATO/allied states shift their economies to a five percent wartime footing.

Taking data from here: List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

This would mean that just counting allied economic clout in the top ten nations, which is seven out of those ten, you end up with economically outmassing the Russian war-fighting budget by about 30%, and that's before you even account what Ukraine itself has.

The direct figures are 2,314,752 million US$ for 5% of the 'big seven' in the West vs 1,862,470 million US$ for Russia. Do you understand how crushing the economic disparity is?

If you add in what Ukraine has, and contributions from the many smaller NATO states, you're going to end up with something like a war material advantage for Ukraine of 50% overall.

And again, I need to stress here, this is using five percent of their potentially useful resources for this purpose.

In order to give Ukraine enough material to win the war, the West doesn't need to half-ass it.

They don't even need to quarter-ass it.

They just have to be consistent about drunkenly throwing their empty glass over their shoulder to hit Russia with. Proportionately, that will be enough to bury the Russian armed forces in shards of glass.

Arguments can be made that the West hasn't actually been doing that much, but any reasonable take on the situation will show that the West is moving more in that direction. F-16's are in the pipeline to arrive this year, new shell plants are being spun up, the first load of Abrams arrived, and the types of advanced munitions that have been passed on to Ukraine have been steadily increased over the war, HIMARS, Stormshadow, DPICM, ATACMs, etc.


On top of all this, the competence in battlefield use of resources means that attrition has heavily favored Ukraine over the course of the war, both in things like ammunition expenditures, and in losses inflicted and suffered. Combine all of that, and things look steadily bleaker for the Russians as the war wears on.

The only possible victory scenario for the Russians, is complete withdrawal of western/NATO support for Ukraine. This is extremely unlikely, because the eastern European states at least understand bloody well the price they'll pay if Russia wins, and can move on to further targets.

The most likely win scenario for Ukraine, is a sharp and drastic increase in western support giving them the material edge to sharply push Russia back. This isn't terribly likely, but one or two major elections could cause this.

The most likely-bloodiest scenario for a war stretching on for a very long time, is gradual waning of western support for Ukraine. Dropping enough that they can't win, but enough so that they can keep the Russians from do so.

Probably the most likely scenario of all, is that political back and forth and how long it takes to bring factories online, means that there continues to be a gradual increase in aid to Ukraine, Russia's coldwar stockpiles continue to deplete, and after another 3-5 years of attritional warfare, the Ukrainians break the Russian forces, and force them back across the border. I do not put much confidence in this 'most likely' scenario.

All kinds of political things can completely change the shape and face of the war, anything from Trump getting back into office and passing the Ukrainians tactical nuclear weapons, to Putin slipping in his shower and breaking his neck. It's still anyone's game out there.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

None of those nations need to do so; the economy of the USA alone, is about fifteen times the size of Russia's.

Let's take a hypothetical. US/NATO/allied states shift their economies to a five percent wartime footing.

Taking data from here: List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

This would mean that just counting allied economic clout in the top ten nations, which is seven out of those ten, you end up with economically outmassing the Russian war-fighting budget by about 30%, and that's before you even account what Ukraine itself has.

The direct figures are 2,314,752 million US$ for 5% of the 'big seven' in the West vs 1,862,470 million US$ for Russia. Do you understand how crushing the economic disparity is?

If you add in what Ukraine has, and contributions from the many smaller NATO states, you're going to end up with something like a war material advantage for Ukraine of 50% overall.

And again, I need to stress here, this is using five percent of their potentially useful resources for this purpose.

In order to give Ukraine enough material to win the war, the West doesn't need to half-ass it.

They don't even need to quarter-ass it.

They just have to be consistent about drunkenly throwing their empty glass over their shoulder to hit Russia with. Proportionately, that will be enough to bury the Russian armed forces in shards of glass.

Arguments can be made that the West hasn't actually been doing that much, but any reasonable take on the situation will show that the West is moving more in that direction. F-16's are in the pipeline to arrive this year, new shell plants are being spun up, the first load of Abrams arrived, and the types of advanced munitions that have been passed on to Ukraine have been steadily increased over the war, HIMARS, Stormshadow, DPICM, ATACMs, etc.


On top of all this, the competence in battlefield use of resources means that attrition has heavily favored Ukraine over the course of the war, both in things like ammunition expenditures, and in losses inflicted and suffered. Combine all of that, and things look steadily bleaker for the Russians as the war wears on.

The only possible victory scenario for the Russians, is complete withdrawal of western/NATO support for Ukraine. This is extremely unlikely, because the eastern European states at least understand bloody well the price they'll pay if Russia wins, and can move on to further targets.

The most likely win scenario for Ukraine, is a sharp and drastic increase in western support giving them the material edge to sharply push Russia back. This isn't terribly likely, but one or two major elections could cause this.

The most likely-bloodiest scenario for a war stretching on for a very long time, is gradual waning of western support for Ukraine. Dropping enough that they can't win, but enough so that they can keep the Russians from do so.

Probably the most likely scenario of all, is that political back and forth and how long it takes to bring factories online, means that there continues to be a gradual increase in aid to Ukraine, Russia's coldwar stockpiles continue to deplete, and after another 3-5 years of attritional warfare, the Ukrainians break the Russian forces, and force them back across the border. I do not put much confidence in this 'most likely' scenario.

First of all, Ukraine is going to run out men long before that time.

Second of all, you can no longer produce the needed material.

The factories will take a generation to bring back online. Its not as easy as building them. You no longer have the tools that make the tools that make the material. Its not as easy as buying them either, since these things are expensive, rare and precious.

You no longer have vast numbers of trained machinists. You no longer have the end to end logistics you once had. It all has to be rebuilt from scratch. You also have a military industrial complex based around profit that will not keep slack capacity. The same MIC that owns your politicians. They arent going to increase production on anything but the most profitable items unless forced to, and since they run your defense department, not the other way around its less than likely.

Its took you two years to modestly increase your shell production, and they arent even very complicated. How to to increase production of things like missiles? Only in tanks do you have slack capacity, and even then the logistical tail downstream is no longer there or is literally sourced out to factories in places like asia.

 

[Marduk]

First of all, Ukraine is going to run out men long before that time.

LMAO, give the defeatist Russian proapganda to someone who will believe it.

Second of all, you can no longer produce the needed material.

True, we can produce better material.

The factories will take a generation to being back online. Its not as easy as building them. You no longer have the tools that make the tools that make the material. Its not as easy as buying them either, since these things are expensive, rare and precious.

We don't live in 40k. Western countries and their allies make the best tools on the planet.
In electronics, vehicles, weapons, even when they don't make the most, they are the ones who make the best ones, and they didn't get tools for that from China.

You no longer have vast numbers of trained machinists. You no longer have the end to end logistics you once had. It all has to be rebuilt from scratch. You also have a military industrial complex based around profit that will not keep slack capacity. The same MIC that owns your politicians. They arent going to increase production on anything but the most profitable items unless forced to, and since they run your defense department, not the other way around its less than likely.

So another guy who thinks we are in the 1930's and wars are won by throwing lots and lots of steel onto the battlefield like North Korea or China (though the latter is investing into modern warfare capabilities as far as they can).
I will repeat yet again, steel is cheap, silicon is expensive, that's the mantra of modern military hardware, funny how you absolutely don't want to discuss the silicon side.
Russians think this way too, bought their silicon from the West...

Russia's Struggle with Night-Vision Tech Puts Soldiers in Danger: Ukraine Takes the Lead.

Russia Lacks Night-Vision Technology Russian forces in Ukraine are struggling to see in the dark, despite having night-vision gear. The article discusses the reasons behind this problem, including Russia’s inability to afford the high-end night-vision gear. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been stocking...

morningpicker.com

Silicon is what makes the main difference between a modern tank, airplane or ship and one from 50 years ago.

Its took you two years to modestly increase your shell production, and they arent even very complicated. How to to increase production of things like missiles? Only in tanks do you have slack capacity, and even then the logistical tail downstream is no longer there or is literally sourced out to factories in places like asia.

Political limitations are not technical limitations, using the former as evidence of the latter is a laughably childish argument, who are you trying to fool.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

LMAO, give the defeatist Russian proapganda to someone who will believe it.

True, we can produce better material.

We don't live in 40k. Western countries and their allies make the best tools on the planet.
In electronics, vehicles, weapons, even when they don't make the most, they are the ones who make the best ones, and they didn't get tools for that from China.

So another guy who thinks we are in the 1930's and wars are won by throwing lots and lots of steel onto the battlefield like North Korea or China (though the latter is investing into modern warfare capabilities as far as they can).
I will repeat yet again, steel is cheap, silicon is expensive, that's the mantra of modern military hardware, funny how you absolutely don't want to discuss the silicon side.
Russians think this way too, bought their silicon from the West...

Russia's Struggle with Night-Vision Tech Puts Soldiers in Danger: Ukraine Takes the Lead.

Russia Lacks Night-Vision Technology Russian forces in Ukraine are struggling to see in the dark, despite having night-vision gear. The article discusses the reasons behind this problem, including Russia’s inability to afford the high-end night-vision gear. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been stocking...

morningpicker.com

Silicon is what makes the main difference between a modern tank, airplane or ship and one from 50 years ago.

Political limitations are not technical limitations, using the former as evidence of the latter is a laughably childish argument, who are you trying to fool.

There really isnt much point in engaging you.

Ukraine running out of bodies to throw into russian artillery isnt "defeatism". Its objective reality. They recently pulled a dogtag off a 17 year old ukrainian girl who was killed on the front lines ffs.

If you cant see how important it is to have the basic inputs and the ability to turn those inputs into things like gun barrels, tank hulls and IFV engines then I dont know what to say. We really have nothing to say to each other.

All the silicon in the world wont help you if you dont have a missile or a tank to put it into. and you need to make those missiles, those tanks, those bradleys. And to do that you need steel and alloys, you need machining tools, you need lathes, you need industrial robots and CnC machines. And you need people trained to use them.

 

[Marduk]

There really isnt much point in engaging you.

Of course you wouldn't see one, you just want to simp for eastern powers in a misguided attempt to own the current western governments, who even people like me have their problems with, but that doesn't justify such delusions.

Ukraine running out of bodies to throw into russian artillery isnt "defeatism". Its objective reality. They recently pulled a dogtag off a 17 year old ukrainian girl who was killed on the front lines ffs.

Ukraine is not running out of bodies, and Russian artillery focus is not by choice, but a fallback option from failure to pull off a Desert Storm style campaign in early war.

Russian attacks against Ukraine kill 1, injure 21 over past day

Russia targeted a total of nine Ukrainian oblasts — Chernihiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Kharkiv.

www.yahoo.com

A total of 16 people, including a 15-year-old boy and a 17-year-old girl, were injured in Kurakhove, Donetsk Oblast, after Russian forces dropped a 500-kilogram guided missile on the roof of a residential building, Ukraine's National Police said.

You fucking Putin bot, she lived there, stick the vatnik mythology you know where.
Do you have any shame?

If you cant see how important it is to have the basic inputs and the ability to turn those inputs into things like gun barrels, tank hulls and IFV engines then I dont know what to say. We really have nothing to say to each other.

Again, who gives a fuck if you can make 1000 tank hulls a year, if you have only the means to furnish 200, are you going to send naked steel T-62's to the frontline with no modern sensors, comms, battle management system, defense systems and so on? Well we know the Russian answer...
Congratulations on your ATGM fodder.

All the silicon in the world wont help you if you dont have a missile or a tank to put it into. and you need to make those missiles, those tanks, those bradleys. And to do that you need steel and alloys, you need machining tools, you need lathes, you need industrial robots and CnC machines. And you need people trained to use them.

Again, wanna talk about western and allied construction machinery, truck and car production? After all those also use all these things and can be switched for war production in many more and less obvious ways...
Don't worry, i'll start:

Top-10 Leading Global Construction Equipment Manufacturers

Although COVID-19 jolt was apparent for last 2 years, revenues of global construction equipment manufacturers with their rankings has begun to show impact now.

www.worldconstructiontoday.com

What do you mean China starts to show up only on third spot and Russia is not even worthy of the list, unlike tiny funny Sweden?

Top countries for Trucks Production

Mexico Trucks Production rose 10% in 2019, compared to a year earlier. Need to compare country statistics and get a global overview? Find all data easily.

www.nationmaster.com

Can you explain to me why great industrial superpower Russia can only make about as many trucks as not so great Italy stuck in globohomo EU?

What part of "the West is not even in partial war economy" do you struggle to understand?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Basically (to my mind) the only thing that will save the Russian Army in Ukraine is the Russian version of 1796 Napoleon showing up to straighten out a force in even worse shape than the Army of Italy ever was.

And as Putin would never allow someone that competent to get a position of such power…

 

[Zachowon]

Counterpoint 1: Ukrainian aid in 2022 was notably diverted to corrupt ends--thus Zelensky's whole anti-corruption push and sacking of generals and officials through 2023 (besides the hope it would engender more aid).

Counterpoint 2: Ukrainian aid isn't meant to win them the war, it's meant to prolong the war such that the maximum degree of damage is done to Russia's military, domestic economy, and international standing without overmuch effort required on the part of NATO countries. A short, victorious war fails that, an extended quagmire provides (on top of being ripe opportunity for foreign investment into the area at its most depressed state...Or, for that matter, domestic investment and expansion--Russia is hardly the only one in the Russia-Ukraine conflict infamous for oligarchs).

The war was never going to be short. The prolonging of aid was what caused it to be prolonged even further.

And the aid sent at the start was still being used towards the ends of fighting the war.
It was one if the only reasons they managed to retake Kharkiv oblast and protect Kiev...

 

[Prince Ire]

None of those nations need to do so; the economy of the USA alone, is about fifteen times the size of Russia's.

Let's take a hypothetical. US/NATO/allied states shift their economies to a five percent wartime footing.

Taking data from here: List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

This would mean that just counting allied economic clout in the top ten nations, which is seven out of those ten, you end up with economically outmassing the Russian war-fighting budget by about 30%, and that's before you even account what Ukraine itself has.

The direct figures are 2,314,752 million US$ for 5% of the 'big seven' in the West vs 1,862,470 million US$ for Russia. Do you understand how crushing the economic disparity is?

If you add in what Ukraine has, and contributions from the many smaller NATO states, you're going to end up with something like a war material advantage for Ukraine of 50% overall.

And again, I need to stress here, this is using five percent of their potentially useful resources for this purpose.

In order to give Ukraine enough material to win the war, the West doesn't need to half-ass it.

They don't even need to quarter-ass it.

They just have to be consistent about drunkenly throwing their empty glass over their shoulder to hit Russia with. Proportionately, that will be enough to bury the Russian armed forces in shards of glass.

Arguments can be made that the West hasn't actually been doing that much, but any reasonable take on the situation will show that the West is moving more in that direction. F-16's are in the pipeline to arrive this year, new shell plants are being spun up, the first load of Abrams arrived, and the types of advanced munitions that have been passed on to Ukraine have been steadily increased over the war, HIMARS, Stormshadow, DPICM, ATACMs, etc.


On top of all this, the competence in battlefield use of resources means that attrition has heavily favored Ukraine over the course of the war, both in things like ammunition expenditures, and in losses inflicted and suffered. Combine all of that, and things look steadily bleaker for the Russians as the war wears on.

The only possible victory scenario for the Russians, is complete withdrawal of western/NATO support for Ukraine. This is extremely unlikely, because the eastern European states at least understand bloody well the price they'll pay if Russia wins, and can move on to further targets.

The most likely win scenario for Ukraine, is a sharp and drastic increase in western support giving them the material edge to sharply push Russia back. This isn't terribly likely, but one or two major elections could cause this.

The most likely-bloodiest scenario for a war stretching on for a very long time, is gradual waning of western support for Ukraine. Dropping enough that they can't win, but enough so that they can keep the Russians from do so.

Probably the most likely scenario of all, is that political back and forth and how long it takes to bring factories online, means that there continues to be a gradual increase in aid to Ukraine, Russia's coldwar stockpiles continue to deplete, and after another 3-5 years of attritional warfare, the Ukrainians break the Russian forces, and force them back across the border. I do not put much confidence in this 'most likely' scenario.

All kinds of political things can completely change the shape and face of the war, anything from Trump getting back into office and passing the Ukrainians tactical nuclear weapons, to Putin slipping in his shower and breaking his neck. It's still anyone's game out there.

5% of GDP is a significant amount which I am extremely skeptical of Western countries being willing to dedicate to sending aid to Ukraine

 

[Marduk]

5% of GDP is a significant amount which I am extremely skeptical of Western countries being willing to dedicate to sending aid to Ukraine

That would be massive overkill.
1% of EU GDP would be a massive increase over what Ukraine is getting, and considering how many EU countries underspend even the modest NATO 2% defense goal there would be a good argument for it.

 

[LordsFire]

5% of GDP is a significant amount which I am extremely skeptical of Western countries being willing to dedicate to sending aid to Ukraine

Not 5% of GDP, 5% of war-fighting potential.

During WWII, depending on what numbers you use, the US GDP was roughly 43% directed towards the war effort. If we take that as a benchmark for 'fully militarized economy,' then the actual percentage of GDP you need to hit 5% of that, is 2.06%.

NATO members are already supposed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. That's still a pretty big chunk to shift directly to Ukraine, but again, Ukraine actually has their own resources and economy committed to the fight, and there are the many smaller NATO/allied nations.

There were meme posts recently about one of the Baltic states, I think Estonia? Basically throwing their whole defense budget at Ukraine, and it was something like 3.4% of their GDP. Now, Estonia only has ~4% of Russia's GDP, so that's not going to be a game-changer by itself, but it does help tip the scales.


To sum things up, NATO so overwhelmingly overmatches Russia economically, that it does not take any significant amount of exertion to keep Ukraine in the fight, and eventually push them to win. If most of the West's leaders weren't leftists allergic to understanding how wars actually work, giving 'just' the amount of aid Ukraine has received at this point, but doing it all in the first six months, might have already pushed them to the point of actually being able to kick the Russians out.

All it takes is Trump in the White House and feeling like exerting some muscle, or another political shift in Poland, or some well-publicized atrocity on the part of the Russians making supporting them the 'current thing' for leftists again, and enough 'beans, bullets,' and boots could flood into Ukraine to let them bury the Russians. Especially if the 'bullets' part includes a few hundred F-16s and ATACMs.

 

[planefag]

First of all, Ukraine is going to run out men long before that time.

Not given the casualty rates we're seeing on the front-line. I've yet to see an entire Ukrainian platoon laid out dead on a road within 50 meters of each other.

Second of all, you can no longer produce the needed material.

Three new 155mm production lines are coming on-line in Texas by 2025.

You no longer have vast numbers of trained machinists. You no longer have the end to end logistics you once had. It all has to be rebuilt from scratch.

As a tradie that works with, in, and around these people and facilities, I can confidently attest that you're laughably wrong. Only vatniks and journalists believe that America's no longer a manufacturing powerhouse; we're still the fourth-largest steel producer, second-largest automaker and the #1 largest aerospace exporter. If you think we can't lay hold of machinists, then you're in for a big fucking surprise.

I'd also like to remind you that Russia is a pathetic rump state filled with crack addicts and alcoholics, generating the GDP of Canada. We don't exactly have to rebuild the entire fucking Arsenal of Democracy to handily out-produce them... especially since we have South Korea, France, Germany and other major arms exporters to call on; nations that maintain significantly more production capacity than needed for maintaining their own war stockpiles as arms exports make up a non-insignificant part of their GDP.

Its took you two years to modestly increase your shell production

And Russia's doing any better? Why did they buy all those jank-ass dogshit shells from the Norks, then?

Pretty much every argument you have either comes straight from RT or from your own delusions. Please update your priors. It is not 1945 anymore, Russia is no longer a regional power, and you cannot zerg rush your way to victory.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Counterpoint 1: Ukrainian aid in 2022 was notably diverted to corrupt ends--thus Zelensky's whole anti-corruption push and sacking of generals and officials through 2023 (besides the hope it would engender more aid).

Counterpoint 2: Ukrainian aid isn't meant to win them the war, it's meant to prolong the war such that the maximum degree of damage is done to Russia's military, domestic economy, and international standing without overmuch effort required on the part of NATO countries. A short, victorious war fails that, an extended quagmire provides (on top of being ripe opportunity for foreign investment into the area at its most depressed state...Or, for that matter, domestic investment and expansion--Russia is hardly the only one in the Russia-Ukraine conflict infamous for oligarchs).

1. Ukraine has had ongoing anti-corruption efforts for quite a while now, but I find it hard to believe that if HIMARS, Patriots, and F-16s had been rushed to the front in 2022 they would have ended up falling off the back of a turnip truck. Can you connect the dots a bit more firmly?

2. A hypothetical short victorious war (ending in Ukrainian victory) would have been much more damaging to Russia's international standing than a surprisingly equal contest. And arguably more damaging to the Russian military, too, by crushing it before Russia's military-industrial complex got a chance to really spin up. Sure, there would be a lot more T-62s left peacefully rusting away in Siberia, but it's a little hard to believe NATO values degrading that type of asset over getting Ukrainian grain shipments back on track. I agree with you that Russia's domestic economy would have been much better off if the war had been short (no matter who won) but ... who is really threatened by the Russian domestic economy?

The factories will take a generation to bring back online. Its not as easy as building them. You no longer have the tools that make the tools that make the material. Its not as easy as buying them either, since these things are expensive, rare and precious.

A generation? That's insane. It's one thing to argue that current production capacity is bottlenecked, but this sounds like an argument that the west has forgotten how to build things entirely. What tools and products are you talking about?

 

[ATP]

Not given the casualty rates we're seeing on the front-line. I've yet to see an entire Ukrainian platoon laid out dead on a road within 50 meters of each other.

true.

Three new 155mm production lines are coming on-line in Texas by 2025.

Also true.

As a tradie that works with, in, and around these people and facilities, I can confidently attest that you're laughably wrong. Only vatniks and journalists believe that America's no longer a manufacturing powerhouse; we're still the fourth-largest steel producer, second-largest automaker and the #1 largest aerospace exporter. If you think we can't lay hold of machinists, then you're in for a big fucking surprise.

you are right.

I'd also like to remind you that Russia is a pathetic rump state filled with crack addicts and alcoholics, generating the GDP of Canada. We don't exactly have to rebuild the entire fucking Arsenal of Democracy to handily out-produce them... especially since we have South Korea, France, Germany and other major arms exporters to call on; nations that maintain significantly more production capacity than needed for maintaining their own war stockpiles as arms exports make up a non-insignificant part of their GDP.

KGB could still send all those alcoholics in human waves.And Germany is hidden Putin ally.

And Russia's doing any better? Why did they buy all those jank-ass dogshit shells from the Norks, then?

Pretty much every argument you have either comes straight from RT or from your own delusions. Please update your priors. It is not 1945 anymore, Russia is no longer a regional power, and you cannot zerg rush your way to victory.

All true - but in 1945 Democrats gave soviets Central Europe for notching,when in their best interest was burn them before they made their own A bombs.
It is kind of miracle,that USA later do not burned when soviets had H bombs,means to deliver them,and undarstandt that they lost.

Now,Democrats are ruling USA again - so,they could gave up half of Europe to Moscov for notching again.

So,Putin,with Biden and germans help,could still win.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Not given the casualty rates we're seeing on the front-line. I've yet to see an entire Ukrainian platoon laid out dead on a road within 50 meters of each other.



Three new 155mm production lines are coming on-line in Texas by 2025.

Thats great. Now, where will you get the nitrocellulose for the gunpowder? Guess who used to supply you with that? Russia and China. Right now there is a shortage..thats why europe cant increase shell production. You have to get the logistical train to produce nitrocellulose up and running.

Now that you are making shells, you need expand artillery barrel production. Where will you get the machining for it? You need to buy that from other countries because the USA no longer makes many of the machines needed to do things like bore barrels. That stuff is time consuming to produce. And this requires that hundreds of smaller subcontractors increase production, and these subcontractors are also running on the JIT production philosophy that the rest of western industry runs on and have little slack capacity. That capacity has to be built up.

As a tradie that works with, in, and around these people and facilities, I can confidently attest that you're laughably wrong. Only vatniks and journalists believe that America's no longer a manufacturing powerhouse; we're still the fourth-largest steel producer, second-largest automaker and the #1 largest aerospace exporter. If you think we can't lay hold of machinists, then you're in for a big fucking surprise.

I never claimed otherwise. But car manufacturing isnt going to build you new missiles. And your aerospace industry is running flat out, and wont increase production without a massive contractual obligation, an obligation they arent going to get.

And no, you wont get those machinists easily. There is already a shortage of machinists.

I'd also like to remind you that Russia is a pathetic rump state filled with crack addicts and alcoholics, generating the GDP of Canada. We don't exactly have to rebuild the entire fucking Arsenal of Democracy to handily out-produce them... especially since we have South Korea, France, Germany and other major arms exporters to call on; nations that maintain significantly more production capacity than needed for maintaining their own war stockpiles as arms exports make up a non-insignificant part of their GDP.

Ironic, considering that drug deaths in the USA far exceed alcohol deaths in Russia. And only South Korea maintains significant slack capacity in their war industries and they arent going to stick their necks out too much even for their overlords in Washington.

If you think Canada actually produces the same amount of stuff Russia does, you need to stop eating paint chips.

And Russia's doing any better? Why did they buy all those jank-ass dogshit shells from the Norks, then?

Yes and? 3 million shitty shells with 1 million duds is still far more ammunition that 100,000 shells with 5000 duds.

Pretty much every argument you have either comes straight from RT or from your own delusions. Please update your priors. It is not 1945 anymore, Russia is no longer a regional power, and you cannot zerg rush your way to victory.

If you cant make enough tanks, shells, missiles and IFVs, you arent gonna win.

 

[planefag]

Thats great. Now, where will you get the nitrocellulose for the gunpowder? Guess who used to supply you with that? Russia and China. Right now there is a shortage..thats why europe cant increase shell production. You have to get the logistical train to produce nitrocellulose up and running.

You're so full of shit.

Now that you are making shells, you need expand artillery barrel production. Where will you get the machining for it?

Right here in the USA. Or failing that, ANYWHERE IN FUCKING EUROPE. You gonna tell me the Germans don't build machine tools anymore? Or the Turks? Both of whom are in NATO, by the way.

I never claimed otherwise. But car manufacturing isnt going to build you new missiles.

Whatever will the biggest fucking aerospace manufacturer on planet Earth ever do?

Ironic, considering that drug deaths in the USA far exceed alcohol deaths in Russia.

Source or shut the fuck up.

And only South Korea maintains significant slack capacity in their war industries and they arent going to stick their necks out too much

Baseless supposition without even a rationale offered.

If you think Canada actually produces the same amount of stuff Russia does

"I don't know what GDP means"

Yes and? 3 million shitty shells with 1 million duds is still far more ammunition

Except the part where it wears out barrels twice as fast when it doesn't blow up the fucking gun on the spot. To say nothing of reducing the effective firepower on target by 50% due to the staggeringly high dud rate of up to 50%. And then there's severe accuracy issues due to inconsistent muzzle velocity, making the shells land wide, meaning fire is even more ineffective and multiple batteries have to be massed to achieve what a single battery could do with ammunition that actually works.

If you cant make enough tanks, shells, missiles and IFVs

What about electronics to go in them? Or do you think Russia's going to win using T-62s with fucking glass optics, WWII style, against western-supplied thermal scopes? Good fucking luck buddy.

 

[Jormungandr]

You're so full of shit.



Right here in the USA. Or failing that, ANYWHERE IN FUCKING EUROPE. You gonna tell me the Germans don't build machine tools anymore? Or the Turks? Both of whom are in NATO, by the way.



Whatever will the biggest fucking aerospace manufacturer on planet Earth ever do?



Source or shut the fuck up.



Baseless supposition without even a rationale offered.



"I don't know what GDP means"



Except the part where it wears out barrels twice as fast when it doesn't blow up the fucking gun on the spot. To say nothing of reducing the effective firepower on target by 50% due to the staggeringly high dud rate of up to 50%. And then there's severe accuracy issues due to inconsistent muzzle velocity, making the shells land wide, meaning fire is even more ineffective and multiple batteries have to be massed to achieve what a single battery could do with ammunition that actually works.



What about electronics to go in them? Or do you think Russia's going to win using T-62s with fucking glass optics, WWII style, against western-supplied thermal scopes? Good fucking luck buddy.

The only thing on his list I think he could be correct on is drug deaths, since the US has a serious problem with both illegal (crack, et cetera) and legal (painkillers) drugs.

But the others? Yeah, it's all shit. I know I'm uneducated in a lot of things compared to other people, but fucking hell does he take the cake.

 

[Wargamer08]

The only thing on his list I think he could be correct on is drug deaths, since the US has a serious problem with both illegal (crack, et cetera) and legal (painkillers) drugs.

But the others? Yeah, it's all shit. I know I'm uneducated in a lot of things compared to other people, but fucking hell does he take the cake.

I mean, it's all well and good to talk about how the West in general and the US in particular could step up production of war material if it wanted to. But it so far hasn't.

The EU had to cut back it's production targets over and over. It has hundreds of tank orders for various models of Leos and a per year production in the low tens with vague promises of increased numbers years out.

The US has made zero steps towards increasing vehicle production. I don't think even the tooling for more then engine replacements exist for the Abrams. There has been little movement on increasing missile production, orders for Tomahawks were in the tens for the next couple years with again vague statements promising increasing production years out.

It's fine to poke fun at how badly Russia has rusted from decades of corruption and decay. But at least they are making the attempt. They are in the race, hungover and crippled as they are. The West is still on the couch talking a big game about how they'll win for sure in this arms race, just like they did eighty years ago. And maybe that's true, but not if they don't try. Not if they stay on the couch.

 

[Jormungandr]

I mean, it's all well and good to talk about how the West in general and the US in particular could step up production of war material if it wanted to. But it so far hasn't.

The EU had to cut back it's production targets over and over. It has hundreds of tank orders for various models of Leos and a per year production in the low tens with vague promises of increased numbers years out.

The US has made zero steps towards increasing vehicle production. I don't think even the tooling for more then engine replacements exist for the Abrams. There has been little movement on increasing missile production, orders for Tomahawks were in the tens for the next couple years with again vague statements promising increasing production years out.

It's fine to poke fun at how badly Russia has rusted from decades of corruption and decay. But at least they are making the attempt. They are in the race, hungover and crippled as they are. The West is still on the couch talking a big game about how they'll win for sure in this arms race, just like they did eighty years ago. And maybe that's true, but not if they don't try. Not if they stay on the couch.

Because until now they really hadn't needed to do any of those things (existing stockpiles were pretty much all we needed for anything and everything, including Middle-Eastern misadventures), and the gears of bureaucracy are slow to turn. But they are turning, and the main thing the West has on its side is quality.

Russia may be trying to ramp up production, but the key issues for them are a) their most technologically advanced/modern stuff is produced in such low numbers that they may as well still be prototypes, and the West is still out producing them even before Russia went on "war-footing", b) these advanced pieces of war materiel are pretty much hard or impossible to replace, so every single one blown up or knocked out of action is a harder blow than Ukraine losing any pieces of its Western aid, and c) the stuff Russia is trying to mass produce again is aging and obsolete, even straight from the factory.

Yes, I know it's also a numbers game and a tank from the 50's can still be as deadly as a tank from the 90's; just as much as an M1 Garand can kill someone as much as a modern M16 can, but many of these vehicles aren't even equipped with modern necessities for combat effectiveness and survival.

And this isn't going into Russia actually bringing out its aging vehicles from mothball storage, ike T-54/55 tanks.

Many people still seem to think it's all about human waves and "drowning your enemies in steel" like in the early to mid-20th, but on the modern battlefield? It's not working out as they thought it would.

 

[Wargamer08]

Because until now they really hadn't needed to do any of those things (existing stockpiles were pretty much all we needed for anything and everything, including Middle-Eastern misadventures), and the gears of bureaucracy are slow to turn. But they are turning, and the main thing the West has on its side is quality.

Russia may be trying to ramp up production, but the key issues for them are a) their most technologically advanced/modern stuff is produced in such low numbers that they may as well still be prototypes, and the West is still out producing them even before Russia went on "war-footing", b) these advanced pieces of war materiel are pretty much hard or impossible to replace, so every single one blown up or knocked out of action is a harder blow than Ukraine losing any pieces of its Western aid, and c) the stuff Russia is trying to mass produce again is aging and obsolete, even straight from the factory.

Yes, I know it's also a numbers game and a tank from the 50's can still be as deadly as a tank from the 90's; just as much as an M1 Garand can kill someone as much as a modern M16 can, but many of these vehicles aren't even equipped with modern necessities for combat effectiveness and survival.

And this isn't going into Russia actually bringing out its aging vehicles from mothball storage, ike T-54/55 tanks.

Many people still seem to think it's all about human waves and "drowning your enemies in steel" like in the early to mid-20th, but on the modern battlefield? It's not working out as they thought it would.

No it's working out in a very typical soviet manner. Russia has gotten its burn rate under its production and refurbishment numbers. It has the ability to spread its casualties across a broad enough population demographic to soak the losses and is pressuring its oligarchs enough to squeeze a decent for Russia wage out for the troops. They can sustain this pretty much indefinitely, but certainly for a couple years. This took around 2 years to finally get organized. It's currently crushing Ukraine in a slow but steady manner. It's taking hilariously outsized losses for a Western power, but well within expected losses for Russia.

As Ukraine has basically zero equipment production outside of small drones, everything needs to be provided to them. Increasingly time is running out to get said production set up, given the lead times on manufacturing equipment from scratch and training people on it.

Though, I'm increasingly doubtful of Ukraine's ability to regenerate functional assault capable battalions. They are taking serious losses and are still dithering on another conscription wave. Those troops take time to train. Especially if they want to use them for more then basic defensive uses.

Basically Russia is currently winning. If Ukraine is to have a chance, there needs to be a commitment of a large, coherent equipment package with a decent sized production build up from the West, combined with at minimum another 200k plus mobilization wave.

 

[Marduk]

No it's working out in a very typical soviet manner. Russia has gotten its burn rate under its production and refurbishment numbers. It has the ability to spread its casualties across a broad enough population demographic to soak the losses and is pressuring its oligarchs enough to squeeze a decent for Russia wage out for the troops. They can sustain this pretty much indefinitely, but certainly for a couple years. This took around 2 years to finally get organized. It's currently crushing Ukraine in a slow but steady manner. It's taking hilariously outsized losses for a Western power, but well within expected losses for Russia.

It's fucking trench warfare. If you think this sort of "slow but steady" is a good idea, you need to look up WW1 a bit more, and if you think Russia is an exception and can take it, remind yourself how WW1 ended for Russia.

As Ukraine has basically zero equipment production outside of small drones, everything needs to be provided to them. Increasingly time is running out to get said production set up, given the lead times on manufacturing equipment from scratch and training people on it.

That's just plainly wrong.
www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1229974838/ukraine-weapons-industry-russia-war

MSN

MSN

Though, I'm increasingly doubtful of Ukraine's ability to regenerate functional assault capable battalions. They are taking serious losses and are still dithering on another conscription wave. Those troops take time to train. Especially if they want to use them for more then basic defensive uses.

The fresh conscripts aren't going to be good for anything other than defensive uses. If they will be doing any advancing, it will be with the other troops relieved from the defensive uses.

Basically Russia is currently winning. If Ukraine is to have a chance, there needs to be a commitment of a large, coherent equipment package with a decent sized production build up from the West, combined with at minimum another 200k plus mobilization wave.

The mobilization wave is meant more for enabling rotation of long mobilized conscripts rather than increasing numbers. Equipment supply increase, and long range ordnance supply especially, is needed to resume offensive ops, not "to have a chance".

Because until now they really hadn't needed to do any of those things (existing stockpiles were pretty much all we needed for anything and everything, including Middle-Eastern misadventures), and the gears of bureaucracy are slow to turn. But they are turning, and the main thing the West has on its side is quality.

The question of ramping up production is purely theoretical for those who don't want to send more of even old stuff to Ukraine for political reasons, that's the bigger problem.

Yes, I know it's also a numbers game and a tank from the 50's can still be as deadly as a tank from the 90's; just as much as an M1 Garand can kill someone as much as a modern M16 can, but many of these vehicles aren't even equipped with modern necessities for combat effectiveness and survival.

And this isn't going into Russia actually bringing out its aging vehicles from mothball storage, ike T-54/55 tanks.

Many people still seem to think it's all about human waves and "drowning your enemies in steel" like in the early to mid-20th, but on the modern battlefield? It's not working out as they thought it would.

That sort of principle works decently only with some lower tech stuff, like rifles and tube artillery, to a degree. A 1940's machinegun may well still be good enough by modern standard, but if you take the armored vehicle, or worse yet, aircraft, that it used to be mounted on in 1940's and put it in the frontline in Ukraine, it's going to get wrecked without getting anything done, period. Technological arms race applies to some types of equipment far more than to others.
There are even ways to make something like T-55 a functional "light" tank for modern combat, but it's basically half the price of a proper modern MBT, mostly in electronics and precision machinery, so why bother. As i said, steel is cheap, silicon is expensive.