Posted on 01/06/2024 2:33:10 PM PST by delta7
“...when NATO militaries are getting replenished and increasing production,...”
When is all this supposed to be happening ?
It takes the USA 3 years just to add a second forging press for artillery shells.
It’s a joke. The Army is REDUCING M1 production.
“The Army plans to produce 22 tanks in FY23, 80 fewer than previously planned; 30 in FY24, 71 fewer than planned, and 53 in FY25, 60 fewer vehicles. “
“...is in decline, with defective governmental institutions, pervasive corruption, a dismal civic life, and a shrinking population.”
Is this about California ?
” Russia’s fundamental military strategy throughout her history is to use large military formations and brutal attrition tactics to beat smaller neighbors, ...”
No. Russia’s fundamental military strategy starting in WW2 is to use artillery to win wars.
Unlike, DOD, they figured out a long time ago that land based artillery is 60-80 percent of casualties in peer wars (Ukraine War is estimated at 80 %).
Meanwhile, the US and NATO has their head up their ass with Gucci purse/Ferrari weapons designs which spends huge money on everything except artillery and artillery shell production.
The USA has ONE artillery shell factory producing shells with ONE forging press, and won’t have a second until the end of 2025.
The entirety of NATO plus Japan, S Korea, Australia etc can’t produce the 5000 shells a day that Ukraine needs.
The M-1 production facilities are not affected and can increase production if or when Congress appropriates the funds. Over 10,000 M-1 Abrams have been built. Maybe 200 have been significantly damaged or destroyed in over 40 years. It is the most survivable tank ever built, nothing comes close. The US Army does not need a lot of new M-1s per year. They have the M10 Booker coming into service, and are replacing Patriots and other weapons sent to Ukraine. They have to prioritize spending.
The Russian military is digging through vehicle graveyards finding anything that can start or shoot. There are no new T-90s, T-14 Armatas, no increase in current model Mig or Sukhoi fighter production. The US Army's decision is about spending priorities, not production ability. The US Army has choices in spending and production the Russian military does not have.
These are not the same problems.
That's the deep tradition of corruption and incompetent management making itself felt. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy eventually cripples Western institutions, but in Russia they start out at the end state and decline from there. Might examine the hypothesis that Eastern Slav culture derives initially from the Byzantine at it's worst. (Even their alphabet was created by a Byzantine monk named Cyril. Before that they were entirely illiterate.)
At the end of the Cold War though, the US and NATO declined to keep producing more military materiel like artillery shells for stockpiles and to maintain full production lines. The assumptions were that: (1) technological advances and time would make much of what was produced obsolete; and (2), given the US post Cold War dominance, we would have enough time to mobilize industry to a war footing.
In fact, the potency of highly accurate guided shells and artillery rockets in Afghanistan led to a reduction in conventional artillery in the US military. Oh well. Who could have imagined that the US and NATO would be in a proxy war in Ukraine that requires lots of conventional tube artillery?
“...and are replacing Patriots and other weapons sent to Ukraine. “
2027.
According to you the Russians could be in Calais by then.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/11/17/boeing-patriot-missile-seeker/#google_vignette
Patriot production capacity in 2019 was 500 per year. Now they are increasing by 30 percent.
Soon they will be up to two a day !
As well as using the "To: All" in the reply to encourage others to pile on with the abuse. It means you are running out of insults, since you don't understand your own facts.
This was old when newsgroups were new. 🙄 /s
“Who could have imagined that the US and NATO would be in a proxy war in Ukraine that requires lots of conventional tube artillery? “
I would have thought after 2014 Crimea that the risk of peer war should have been obvious. They certainly hyped the “threat” from Putin at the time. But as is always with current Western “leadership”, it was all talk. They did nothing.
In retrospect they should have been on an emergency schedule to replace the Paladin with something that could be fired at higher rates with a less trained crew and could be produced in large numbers.
There was a recognition at that point that they were outranged by the Russians and they did develop more rocket assist and longer range 155. But these were still always going to be small numbers of shells.
More importantly, if there is the possibility of peer war where there is 60-80 % of casualties from artillery, and there is ONE shell forging press in the whole country with a maximum output of 1500 per day... that should have been a double emergency, even more than the Paladin replacement.
When I first saw this Jimmy Thomist video going thru the dominance of land-based artillery in this video, my reaction was WHAT THE F*CK have these “leaders” in DOD and NATO been doing ?
(relevant section starts at the prompt)
https://youtu.be/0p2psJbLc44?t=293
We were 8 years on from 2014 and nothing had been done. How could they have been so careless ?
” As well as using the “To: All” in the reply to encourage others to pile on with the abuse. It means you are running out of insults, .. “
No. I use reply all when I have a link to actual factual material, not just opinion.
Because then everyone on the thread has the opportunity to see actual fact based source material, not just the usual ‘Merica, F*ck yeah ! cheerleading.
How effective can ERA be in an active and ongoing battle? The first missile hit may be defeated by the ERA, but the second should strike a killing blow.
Yes.
No money in a low cost high volume munition like unguided HE artillery shells.
That’s why they are built in a government factory.
You need to read Col. Doug MacGregor’s critiques of our front line tanks. He says the biggest problem is that we are using jet turbine engines whose heat signature is easily identifiable from space sattellites and they can be knocked out by Russian anti-tank missiles. Not to mention they have to be run continuously to keep them operable.
Yikes! I copied the link, but somehow neglected to paste it into my reply. Thanks for catching that and providing the link!
ROFL.
Those "cope cages" do NOT protect Russian tanks from modern ATGM's such as TOW2B or Javelin.
The current cope cages surround the entire tank/APC with chain-link fencing, thus preventing the crew from escaping.
“How effective can ERA be in an active and ongoing battle? The first missile hit may be defeated by the ERA, but the second should strike a killing blow.”
What’s the likelihood of hitting the same exact spot?
Factor in distance, wind speed, temperature, movement of the launch vehicle, movement of the target vehicle and it will be virtually impossible to hit the same spot twice.
BUT
The way around ERA, are missiles with tandem warheads. The first smaller warhead detonates the ERA brick, leaving the second larger warhead to penetrate the armor. For example, the TOW missile starting with the BGM-71C ITOW thru the BGM-71E TOW 2A had stand off probes to defeat reactive armor. At the tip of the probe is a small explosive charge to pop the ERA while the main body of the missile is just far enough away to keep from being disrupted by the exploding ERA.
No, they don’t do much when it comes to top tier ATGMs. They’re used more for drones.
And yes, they have got more sophisticated:
The tanks with the latest cope cage also feature factory-produced camouflage, replicating foliage, as part of a camouflage ‘wrap.’ This same covering, reportedly known as Nakidza, and produced by the NII Steel company, is also seen on an example of the T-14 Armata new-generation tank at the show. Although unconfirmed, it appears that the manufacturer also claims that these wraps help shield the vehicle from infrared sensors, which would be achieved by masking its heat signature.”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/cope-cages-go-mainstream-at-russias-arms-bazaar
If you think they are so useless and stupid, maybe you should tell the Israelis. It appears the IDF is still in the improvising stage with their cages anyway:
Again, I never said they were perfect protection, just that they more or less worked (against drones — I didn’t think it necessary to specify drones, as I figured everyone knew they are for drones).
Heat signature identifiable from space?
Ol' Dougie needs to lay off the vodka because the heat signature of the BS coming out of his mouth can be seen from Alpha Centauri.
They can be destroyed by Russian antitank missiles?
All tanks can be destroyed to one extent or another by missiles. With the Abrams however, the crew has a better than 90% chance of survival when hit unlike their Russian counterparts.
And it's a historical fact that the Abrams has survived hits by other Abrams tanks using the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" rounds during Desert Storm, as well as shrugging off hits from the much more powerful M829A3 "Super Sabot" during OIF during attempts to destroy disabled tanks to prevent them from being captured. The M829A3 BTW hits with a muzzle energy of 12.1 MJ or 8.9 million foot pounds of force.
On April 5, 2003 an Abrams was hit by a recoilless rifle and set ablaze (gear on the outside caught fire). After several failed attempts to put the fire out, it was decided to destroy the tank in place. Oil and .50 rounds were spread in the turret, the ammo doors were locked in the open position, a few thermite grenades were tossed in the turret, and another Abrams fired a HEAT round at it. After all that the tank was only disabled. The Air Force later dropped a bomb on it to destroy it.
So Russian missiles should be of no issue.
Run continuously to keep them operable?
Hardly
Well, there’s this:
“Again, while the M1 has very advanced armor protection, and a low profile, so do other modern tanks. The M1 is unique, however, in suffering from an enormous heat signature. The heat signature (ability of the tank to be seen with infrared devices) of the M1 comes from the hot exhaust of its turbine engine. While the Soviets have reduced their tanks’ thermal signature by roughly 24% in recent models8, we have increased our heat signatures dramatically by adopting the turbine engine for the M1. The M1’s exhaust is so hot that it can burn the paint off a car should it follow the tank too closely. The operator’s manual repeatedly warns that the exhaust if “very hot and can burn personnel.”9 This means that the M1 is not only easily spotted, but is also positively identifiable at extremely long ranges with infared equipment - being the only tank in the world with such a heat signature.”
Excerpted from here:
https://www.pogo.org/reports/armys-m1-tank-has-it-lived-up-to-expectations
More on the Abrams’ problems discussed here, with suggestions for improvement (USMC officer):
https://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
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.