Posted on 10/19/2023 11:25:54 AM PDT by janetjanet998
In any extended war across the Pacific, the USA would need thousands of ships to carry the logistic train. Just like the Liberty ships of WW2.
Last year, China built 1000 civilian ships, and US shipyards built less than ten.
China doesn’t have to risk anything now. Just wait. Every day the USA gets weaker and more dysfunctional.
Nope. Israel is no better or worse than Ukraine.
America First.
Absolutely. If we are going to have no say over where our tax money is sent, I would far to have it sent to Israel to do damage to those a-holes rather than Ukraine.
Those had been moved to Ukraine before.
At that point maximum USA production will be 3000 per day.
The newest Army Ammunition Plant in the nation, in Stennis, Mississippi, went online in 1983. In 1990, it was mothballed by the Bush 41 administration. Clinton, of course, did not bring it back online - Peace Dividend and all that. Bush 43 closed it permanently and repurposed the facility. I think part of it may be a Government Printing Office "continuity of operations" site, now.
That plant was in the planning and construction phase for almost a decade, then operated for only seven years. I wonder where the specialized tooling for the 155mm artillery shells (and cluster bomblets) ended up.
“I wonder where the specialized tooling for the 155mm artillery shells (and cluster bomblets) ended up.”
Probably China, or sold as scrap.
Rumsfeld tried to get rid of artillery entirely, because his “experts” told him it was obsolete.
Despite the fact that every peer War starting with WW1, land based artillery creates 60-80 percent of all casualties.
In Ukraine it is at least 80 percent.
Yup.
Maybe the Ch!nks bought it.
https://www.wlox.com/story/414964/auction-clears-up-room-for-new-businesses-at-old-ammo-plant/
Rumsfeld wanted to get rid of all artillery or just the Crusader Weapon System?
I think the political fight was over the Crusader, but the thinking underlying it was that artillery was obsolete.
“While it might have been a terrific weapon for the set-piece battles it was designed for—against massed Soviet forces in the flats of Central Europe—the Crusader figured to be of dubious use in short-lead-time maneuver warfare in faraway mountainous places like Afghanistan. And so the Army will have to make do with its Gulf-War-era howitzers, with their much slower rate of fire, eventually to be augmented by a precision-guided round, as well as various planned mobile surface-to-surface rocket systems.”
“”””Rumsfeld tried to get rid of artillery entirely, because his “experts” told him it was obsolete.””””
It was about a wasteful 11 billion-dollar system that was right to be canceled.
You have tried to turn it into Rumsfield trying to eliminate all artillery and even gave a fake reason.
“...eventually to be augmented by a precision-guided round, as well as various planned mobile surface-to-surface rocket systems.”
sounds like the end of massed artillery fire to me.
You made up a fake claim about Rumsfield.
I was in artillery for a while, I probably would have remembered Rumsfeld trying to eliminate all artillery.
“Rumsfeld tried to get rid of artillery entirely, because his “experts” told him it was obsolete.”
Ok, he didn’t try to eliminate it “entirely”. Just to practically achieve the same objective.
No he didn’t, he stopped spending on a system decades ago that no one since has said “if we only had the crusader system”.
no one since has said “if we only had the crusader system”.
Which of these two firing procedures is for the trillion dollar a year military ?
Which is likely to hold up better under stress ?
No to mention rapid fire and then move ?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/f58XCQ323DI7/
LOL, You lied about Rumsfeld.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.