“..You are making irrelevant assumptions about one category, of 155mm howitzer ammo, ...”
Every peer-peer war since WW1, SEVENTY PERCENT of casualties are from artillery.
That is, more than infantry rifles, machine guns, mortars, grenades, flame throwers, bombs, rockets , depth charges, torpedos etc... etc... etc. COMBINED.
But according to you “it’s different this time” and the wizz-bang high tech bullshit is more important.
“NATO will destroy all air defenses, obtain air supremacy,...”
What happens if they can’t ? What happens if Russian air defence is like Russian minefields ?
Without air superiority, NATO has to get down on the ground with these guys, against a massive artillery imbalance.
And then the 70 % of casualties that artillery causes will be the final end of NATO and their BS claims of superiority.
“Every peer-peer war since WW1, SEVENTY PERCENT of casualties are from artillery.”
Except where they aren’t. One cannot expect a peer to peer war in the case of Russia vs Nato. Russia can’t maintain its artillery in existence in the face of Nato air supremacy.
You are assuming a “hail mary” save on the part of the Russian S400 system. I doubt it can survive given the sheer variety of assets available to suppress these things. Ukraine hasn’t even 1% of the SEAD assets and tech available to the USAF.