|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Russian Federation614 Posts
On January 31 2023 06:36 plasmidghost wrote:
@Ardias would you be able to provide some insight from the Russian milbloggers on this claim? I don't know what they're saying about Wagner in Bakhmut, if anything
There is kinda an odd flow about participation of regular Russian units in the battle of Bakhmut. Prigozhin likes to claim that Wagner operates there completely alone, but it isn't true, and wasn't for months - Wagner was supported for a long time by 57th Motor Rifle Brigade and 106th Air Assault Division, though mostly with tanks and artillery, rather than with infantry. Tweet doesn't specify which units are these, so it's possible that infantry elements of these particular units are entered the fray somewhere (Wagner troopers need rotation and rest as well).
Plus Wagner is also supported by units of 2nd Army Corps to the north (Siversk direction, mainly 2nd Motor Rifle Brigade and "Prizrak (Ghost)" territorial defense battalion) and 1st Army Corps to the south (3rd Motor Rifle Brigade). Since they are in conjunction, these may also count in.
Russian milbloggers say a lot about Bakhmut, mentioning Wagner mostly, but also sometimes the units I've listed above. Seems that, whatever Wagner losses are claimed, they continue their advance north (Blagodatne, Krasna Gora, Paraskiveevka) and south (in direction of Stupochki, Ivanovske and Konstantinivka) of Bakhmut, probably trying to take all the roads out of the city under fire control.
As for Wagner losses - I heard that one of Wagner's assault groups lost around 15% of the unit with KIA and heavy WIA throughout the whole war (10 months, from April to January, with some rest periods), reportedly partaking in a lot of major actions. Though it was regular Wagner troops, not convicts. It's a bit of inside info, so interpret it as you wish.
Also, about Wagner structure - from award documents of couple of deceased Wagner troopers published by Prigozhin himself, and some other info it was possible to compile some of the Wagner internal structure:
At the bottom is standard squad-platoon system (though labeled as "assault"). Then, platoon is a part of assault group, which is somewhat around 150-200 men, something between company and battalion. Then there are brigades, combining few assault groups and probably some support elements. In the interviews Wagner troopers (though in documents they simply labeled as "employees of the company") were mentioning having separate tank, artillery, MLRS and engineering battalions, plus their own airforce (from loss reports - probably consisiting mostly of Mi-8 helicopters and Su-25/Su-24 ground attack aircraft) of unclear numbers, but not too large.
Wagner seem not to have ranking system like regular military, instead using the system accepted by Red Army during Russian Civil War, where there was no formal rank, and only a position that person occupied matter. So Wagner officers would be simply referred as "Platoon Commander", "Group Commander" etc. Or their callsigns, of course.
|
On January 31 2023 07:41 Ardias wrote:There is kinda an odd flow about participation of regular Russian units in the battle of Bakhmut. Prigozhin likes to claim that Wagner operates there completely alone, but it isn't true, and wasn't for months - Wagner was supported for a long time by 57th Motor Rifle Brigade and 106th Air Assault Division, though mostly with tanks and artillery, rather than with infantry. Tweet doesn't specify which units are these, so it's possible that infantry elements of these particular units are entered the fray somewhere (Wagner troopers need rotation and rest as well). Plus Wagner is also supported by units of 2nd Army Corps to the north (Siversk direction, mainly 2nd Motor Rifle Brigade and "Prizrak (Ghost)" territorial defense battalion) and 1st Army Corps to the south (3rd Motor Rifle Brigade). Since they are in conjunction, these may also count in. Russian milbloggers say a lot about Bakhmut, mentioning Wagner mostly, but also sometimes the units I've listed above. Seems that, whatever Wagner losses are claimed, they continue their advance north (Blagodatne, Krasna Gora, Paraskiveevka) and south (in direction of Stupochki, Ivanovske and Konstantinivka) of Bakhmut, probably trying to take all the roads out of the city under fire control. As for Wagner losses - I heard that one of Wagner's assault groups lost around 15% of the unit with KIA and heavy WIA throughout the whole war (10 months, from April to January, with some rest periods), reportedly partaking in a lot of major actions. Though it was regular Wagner troops, not convicts. It's a bit of inside info, so interpret it as you wish. Also, about Wagner structure - from award documents of couple of deceased Wagner troopers published by Prigozhin himself, and some other info it was possible to compile some of the Wagner internal structure: At the bottom is standard squad-platoon system (though labeled as "assault"). Then, platoon is a part of assault group, which is somewhat around 150-200 men, something between company and battalion. Then there are brigades, combining few assault groups and probably some support elements. In the interviews Wagner troopers (though in documents they simply labeled as "employees of the company") were mentioning having separate tank, artillery, MLRS and engineering battalions, plus their own airforce (from loss reports - probably consisiting mostly of Mi-8 helicopters and Su-25/Su-24 ground attack aircraft) of unclear numbers, but not too large. Wagner seem not to have ranking system like regular military, instead using the system accepted by Red Army during Russian Civil War, where there was no formal rank, and only a position that person occupied matter. So Wagner officers would be simply referred as "Platoon Commander", "Group Commander" etc. Or their callsigns, of course.
That's super informative, thank you so much
|
On January 31 2023 06:34 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 03:37 maybenexttime wrote:On January 31 2023 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
Germany deserves the flak they got over their position on tanks. However, if the final outcome (US sending Abrams as well as various European nations sending Leopards) was achieved because of Scholz's refusal to move without the US, it might actually be for the best. I'm not sure there are enough Leopards available for sending to Ukraine, while there are more than plenty Abrams sitting around doing nothing. I have to agree. I think that, perhaps, the best way to bolster the spring offensive would be for the Americans to agree to replace Poland's post-Soviet tanks with Abrams tanks. The former could be used by Ukraine immediately. They actually do so. The only production factory (in Lima, Ohio) capable of making new M1s is producing them currently for Poland and Taiwan. Thing is, it produces only 12 tanks per month. I'm not sure which factories are capable of capital repairs of M1s, if any, but the fact that M1s that are supposed to go to Ukraine are bought through the fund that is used to procure the new equipment, rather than taking it from existing stocks says that either US don't have additional capability to conduct capital repairs on mothballed vehicles, or for some reason don't want to. Meanwhile UVZ alone is said to produce around 100 tanks a month - T-72B3M/T-90M, though to be fair, most of them are old hulls undergoing capital repairs and moderinzation with protection, sights and fire control system, though T-72B3M variant seems to recieve only less capable thermals, than previous Sosna-U thermal sight, without incorporating it into fire control system, probably due to the high demand on Sosna-U on T-90M. And then there are also T-80BVM produced in Omsk and T-62M2 in Chita. Though again, they are old hulls restored, repaired and modernized. The only tank produced completely from scratch in Russia is T-90M (and maybe some T-80BVM).
I meant prioritise sending Abrams to Poland and do it ASAP. The US was clearly reluctant to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, but sending them to Poland should meet less resistance.
|
Russian Federation614 Posts
On January 31 2023 09:49 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 06:34 Ardias wrote:On January 31 2023 03:37 maybenexttime wrote:On January 31 2023 01:15 Acrofales wrote:
Germany deserves the flak they got over their position on tanks. However, if the final outcome (US sending Abrams as well as various European nations sending Leopards) was achieved because of Scholz's refusal to move without the US, it might actually be for the best. I'm not sure there are enough Leopards available for sending to Ukraine, while there are more than plenty Abrams sitting around doing nothing. I have to agree. I think that, perhaps, the best way to bolster the spring offensive would be for the Americans to agree to replace Poland's post-Soviet tanks with Abrams tanks. The former could be used by Ukraine immediately. They actually do so. The only production factory (in Lima, Ohio) capable of making new M1s is producing them currently for Poland and Taiwan. Thing is, it produces only 12 tanks per month. I'm not sure which factories are capable of capital repairs of M1s, if any, but the fact that M1s that are supposed to go to Ukraine are bought through the fund that is used to procure the new equipment, rather than taking it from existing stocks says that either US don't have additional capability to conduct capital repairs on mothballed vehicles, or for some reason don't want to. Meanwhile UVZ alone is said to produce around 100 tanks a month - T-72B3M/T-90M, though to be fair, most of them are old hulls undergoing capital repairs and moderinzation with protection, sights and fire control system, though T-72B3M variant seems to recieve only less capable thermals, than previous Sosna-U thermal sight, without incorporating it into fire control system, probably due to the high demand on Sosna-U on T-90M. And then there are also T-80BVM produced in Omsk and T-62M2 in Chita. Though again, they are old hulls restored, repaired and modernized. The only tank produced completely from scratch in Russia is T-90M (and maybe some T-80BVM). I meant prioritise sending Abrams to Poland and do it ASAP. The US was clearly reluctant to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, but sending them to Poland should meet less resistance.
Again, as I said, main bottleneck for new tanks is production capacity - 12 tanks a month. Source:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/26/us-sends-ukraine-advanced-abrams-tanks-00079648
There is a reason why Polish contract is up to 2025 in delivery.
There are only two ways to get tanks faster:
1) to do capital repairs on mothballed ones, since you basically just need to replace all non-metal or more delicate parts of the tank, mostly in engine and transmission, because hull, tracks, gun - it all will work fine once properly cleaned and oiled where needed. But as I said, US seems to lack either capacity or desire to do that.
And US can't give them to Poland because Poland wants better version, so US must also modernize them with new gear (which also needs to be produced and properly placed).
2) to use tanks from active service, taking them from US-based units, which are not a part of some rapid reaction force (or from National Guard). And also US withdrew 450 M1s (M1A1HC version IIRC) from US Marine Corps just 1-2 years prior, so these ones should be in decent condition. But US seems to be unwilling to do that as well.
And also US can't give them to Poland either, because export packages of M1 are different from domestic ones.
|
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
|
Russian Federation614 Posts
On January 31 2023 17:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
How long ago was that? It isn't simply a question of money (though them too), you need to have active production lines and qualified workforce for a specific task. If such numbers were 20-30 years ago, it would take considerable time and effort to increase that number.
Plus, is it possible in US to make people work 3-shift 6-day working week with no vacations? Because that's what Russia does on their defense factories.
I'll clarify on restoration part - "do US have necessary immediate capacity to do so now, or they need to re-launch some old factories that were closed after the end of Cold War due to the decrease of production?". And if answer is the second one, it sends us to the arguments above.
Industrial base depends a lot on the actual sector of economy. Current technology leads to increased diversification (hence the increase in global trade after WW2 and especially after Cold War). Even the biggest and riches countries can't produce all by themselves, and it's not WW2 where you could build tanks on tractor plant, so shifting civilian industry into war effort is almost impossible, you need dedicated military production, which is unnecessary in peacetime. Every country went through that issue (I believe it was discussed here previously about UK not being capable to produce new tanks for exactly the same reason).
Russia also had these issues, UVZ (main tank producer in Russa, making T-72B3 and T-90) was near-bankrupt few times in 00-s and 10-s, and had to be saved by subsidies from state. Other plants didn't fared so well, even Omsk and Chita ones are tank-repairing, not tank-producing plants.
As of budget - I'll link couple of my previous posts regarding Russian military budged and PPP (purchasing power parity)
https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=313#6252
https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=347#6936
TLDR - Russian actual military budget could be around 100-110 billion USD (considering that some military spending, like salaries of mobilized, is delegated to the regional budgets).
And if we include
1) PPP into account (which is around 2,3 IIRC. so, simply put, to maintain same standards of living as US, you need 100/2,3 = 43% of the number of USD youw would spend in US). It's important since Russian defense industry is quite heavily domestic, though they import stuff of course.
2) cheaper workforce and military (even with PPP taken into account, Russian defence industry have never paid too well, though it depends on the factory)
3) and the fact that main military trade partners of Russia are China and Iran (not too expensive PPP-wise countries either).
we could look at actual approximate military budget of Russia of 250-300 billon USD if we compare an actual amount of gear bought, produced, salaries paid, supply delivered, stuff developed etc. compared to US. Though quite a lot of it is eaten by increased salaries of soldiers on the front.
And the same thing applies to Ukraine of course, I would say that financial aid from the West is what allows Ukraine at least to pay their soldiers something (amount of aid given currently is somewhat around 30 Ukrainian 2021 defence budgets, or 3,5 yearly budgets).
|
Ardias I'm not an expert on military industry but I did study economics and I think you're overestimating the impact of human labor on military production, as well as misapplying PPP. There's a reason industrial productivity in Germany is way higher than in Russia - its industry is way more capital-intensive and its workforce more qualified. That means that while you can get a haircut at a fraction of the price in Russia, it also means that each laborer in Russia produces a fraction of what a laborer in Germany does on average.
PPP might tell you it's cheaper to get a big mac (or whatever they're called in Russia now) in Russia vs Western Europe or the US but it does not allow you to make an apples-to-apples comparison of the relative cost to produce a tank in Russia vs Europe. I would assume tank production is dependent on a lot of materials and components whose price is not really variable between countries. So it's cheaper to get a haircut in Russia, but it's not cheaper to get optics components or composite armor for tanks. There's also a problem in comparing the number of tanks produced. Russian tanks are cheaper, but also arguably worse quality than western tanks being produced. I guess that'll be seen in the battlefield soon enough.
Given the industrial base and workforce, there should be no doubt that the West could vastly outproduce Russia in the medium run, without turning to a war economy. The question is whether we're gearing up to it or not.
|
It ran 50 tanks a month from 1985 to 1992. But given that is have been saved in order to maintain that line it is a very odd line of reasoning to assume they dismantled it partially.
Also you think a country where some people work 3 jobs to survive will have a problem getting people to work shifts?
The state of tank production was similar for both Russia and the US and restoring it would probably be similar for both countries as well.
I don't think its potential avalability that is the problem if there is any problem at all.
|
Russian Federation614 Posts
On January 31 2023 20:02 warding wrote:
Ardias I'm not an expert on military industry but I did study economics and I think you're overestimating the impact of human labor on military production, as well as misapplying PPP. There's a reason industrial productivity in Germany is way higher than in Russia - its industry is way more capital-intensive and its workforce more qualified. That means that while you can get a haircut at a fraction of the price in Russia, it also means that each laborer in Russia produces a fraction of what a laborer in Germany does on average.
PPP might tell you it's cheaper to get a big mac (or whatever they're called in Russia now) in Russia vs Europe or the US but it does not allow you to make an apples-to-apples comparison of the relative cost to produce a tank in Russia vs Europe. I would assume tank production is dependent on a lot of materials and components whose price is not really variable between countries. So it's cheaper to get a haircut in Russia, but it's not cheaper to get optics components or composite armor for tanks. There's also a problem in comparing the number of tanks produced. Russian tanks are cheaper, but also arguably worse quality than western tanks being produced. I guess that'll be seen in the battlefield soon enough.
Given the industrial base and workforce, there should be no doubt that the West could vastly outproduce Russia in the medium run, without turning to a war economy. The question is whether we're gearing up to it or not.
Post about budget wasn't necessarily referring to production, and more to the claim that "US defense budget dwarfs Russian one". To which I point out, that supply, maintenance, salary, medical insurance, ammo production etc. are much cheaper in Russia, and they are all part of military budget.
Cost-wise, as example - M1 costs 10+ million USD
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/what-are-m1-abrams-tanks-and-how-will-they-help-ukraine/3264385/
T-90SM (previous version to T-90M) - 4,5 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
Cost of materials also often depends on costs of means of production and labor for said materials, as well as their availability. There is a reason why during, and especially after the Cold War production of different stuff has been steadily moved from developed countries into developing ones. It's cheaper.
As for the size of economy - as I was saying before, current economy is heavily diversified. If you have no tank production, you can't turn it on on a whim. UK military budget was slightly less than Russian in 2021, but it isn't capable of producing new tanks at all. Or Saudi Arabia has similar budget as well, but has few means of production in any military department, and buys almost everything from other countries.
As for the quality of equipment - well, East-to-West balance is often judged by Arabo-Israeli wars, and US-Iraqi wars, where the Western side had decisive quality advantage in equipment and training, as well as overwhelming aerial superioirity (especially in latter case). In near-peer conflicts (Vietnam 1973-1975, Indo-Pakistani war 1971, Irano-Iraqi war 1980-1988) Western equipment didn't fare that well.
Now we have another near-peer conflict, so yeah, we'll see about that.
West of course could outproduce Russia, but there is a time, and considerable one needed to do so (nevermind the money). Here, for example, a new Rheinmetall ammo plant.
https://www.army-technology.com/news/rheinmetall-ammunition-factory-hungary/
Full production capacity expected to be reached only in 2025.
On January 31 2023 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It ran 50 tanks a month from 1985 to 1992. But given that is have been saved in order to maintain that line it is a very odd line of reasoning to assume they dismantled it partially.
Also you think a country where some people work 3 jobs to survive will have a problem getting people to work shifts?
The state of tank production was similar for both Russia and the US and restoring it would probably be similar for both countries as well.
I don't think its potential avalability that is the problem if there is any problem at all.
Well, even if production is intact (though is it possible to conserve a production line for 30 years?), hiring 4x time the workforce, and train it is also a challenge, if production shrank that much. I believe somebody was giving me the same argument few month prior regarding Su-34 production, when I said that it could be doubled if necessary, since peacetime production was made at slow pace.
As for the shifts - it was genuine question, I don't know much about US labor legislation or worker rights.
Well, yes, but Russia is at war, and defense industry is gearing up at full speed. Even if we count only official defence and security spendings dor 2023 - they were almost doubled to that of 2022 (link in my previous post). I didn't see US making similar commitment. So if US would put the same effort into restoring the military production - then yeah, but would it? IIRC US has a bunch of internal issues to solve. Also haven't they already confirmed their 2023 defense spendings?
|
I have to agree that westerners tend to undervalue USSR equipment, while at the same my feeling is Russians overvalue it. It all boils down to history and assumptions behind their military. They were developed with different things in mind.
I also have a feeling that Russians forgot that Russia is not a Soviet Union. That they have half the population and industrial capability of USSR and the same time they don't have Warsaw pact to back them up. While US/west (especially the public) was blindsided by two easy victories over Iraq and forgot the lessons of Vietnam war (where they lost 10000 planes and helicopters, many to MiG interceptors). And now some people think that Russia's military is shit. They post videos of Russian equipment malfunctions (plane crashes) like this means they dont know anything and this war is over. They forgot US lost HUNDREDS of planes due to accidents during Vietnam War. Furthermore, they regularly lose planes in noncombat environment. Accident just happen in military.
Few more points:
1)Most of the Russian equipment comes from designs developed for the Cold War era conflict under some very specific assumptions. That it will be massive and lasting conflict, where simplicity and versatility will be important.
T-72 is lighter and much lower than western tanks, which comes at the cost of armor, it also requires only 3 crewmen. This is not some stupidity on USSR part, this was conscious choice.
2)Since then the World changed much and with it military conflicts. Smart/guided munitions, electronic warfare etc. I have an impression Russia fell behind in that regard.
3)At the same time, west invested heavily into quality. Which is not bad in itself. Russia tried to mimic it, but somehow forgot that most of their designs wasn't developed to work this way.
4)I think people also wrongly assumed that in the face of larger force, everyone will crumble like Iraqis did. Ukrainians like Vietnamese did not. Jokes on Russia. This time.
4)In war, resources are expended rapidly. You quickly run out of quality equipment, and it becomes harder and harder to replace. So, this war goes on, and west find itself running out of certain things. And in Russia's case, what was their problem in first stage of war (that they still rely on USSR designs) becomes an advantage during lasting full-scale war. They still have large stockpiles of Soviet equipment and it is much easier to replace.
|
United States43263 Posts
On January 31 2023 19:17 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 17:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
How long ago was that? It isn't simply a question of money (though them too), you need to have active production lines and qualified workforce for a specific task. If such numbers were 20-30 years ago, it would take considerable time and effort to increase that number. Plus, is it possible in US to make people work 3-shift 6-day working week with no vacations? Because that's what Russia does on their defense factories. I'll clarify on restoration part - "do US have necessary immediate capacity to do so now, or they need to re-launch some old factories that were closed after the end of Cold War due to the decrease of production?". And if answer is the second one, it sends us to the arguments above. Industrial base depends a lot on the actual sector of economy. Current technology leads to increased diversification (hence the increase in global trade after WW2 and especially after Cold War). Even the biggest and riches countries can't produce all by themselves, and it's not WW2 where you could build tanks on tractor plant, so shifting civilian industry into war effort is almost impossible, you need dedicated military production, which is unnecessary in peacetime. Every country went through that issue (I believe it was discussed here previously about UK not being capable to produce new tanks for exactly the same reason).
Unlike the UK and other nations that have enjoyed the post Cold War peace dividend the US has treated its arms industry as a strategic asset and has subsidized it. It has paid to keep it on life support, producing weapons nobody needs in order to retain the strategic capability to replace losses in the event of a war. That’s why they have fields filled with thousands of tanks and IFVs that were never ordered. That’s why a lot of their foreign aid is given in the form of vouchers to be spent on purchasing US hardware. That’s why states compete to have their senators allocate these contracts to their state.
The US, alone in the world, is ready to fight WW3 because the US didn’t balk at the cost of maintaining their readiness through 8 decades of peace. It would be a mistake to think that the one nation that wasted enough money to buy and sell Russia many times over just to maintain the capability of wartime production can’t do wartime production.
|
On February 01 2023 00:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 19:17 Ardias wrote:On January 31 2023 17:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
How long ago was that? It isn't simply a question of money (though them too), you need to have active production lines and qualified workforce for a specific task. If such numbers were 20-30 years ago, it would take considerable time and effort to increase that number. Plus, is it possible in US to make people work 3-shift 6-day working week with no vacations? Because that's what Russia does on their defense factories. I'll clarify on restoration part - "do US have necessary immediate capacity to do so now, or they need to re-launch some old factories that were closed after the end of Cold War due to the decrease of production?". And if answer is the second one, it sends us to the arguments above. Industrial base depends a lot on the actual sector of economy. Current technology leads to increased diversification (hence the increase in global trade after WW2 and especially after Cold War). Even the biggest and riches countries can't produce all by themselves, and it's not WW2 where you could build tanks on tractor plant, so shifting civilian industry into war effort is almost impossible, you need dedicated military production, which is unnecessary in peacetime. Every country went through that issue (I believe it was discussed here previously about UK not being capable to produce new tanks for exactly the same reason). Unlike the UK and other nations that have enjoyed the post Cold War peace dividend the US has treated its arms industry as a strategic asset and has subsidized it. It has paid to keep it on life support, producing weapons nobody needs in order to retain the strategic capability to replace losses in the event of a war. That’s why they have fields filled with thousands of tanks and IFVs that were never ordered. That’s why a lot of their foreign aid is given in the form of vouchers to be spent on purchasing US hardware. That’s why states compete to have their senators allocate these contracts to their state. The US, alone in the world, is ready to fight WW3 because the US didn’t balk at the cost of maintaining their readiness through 8 decades of peace. It would be a mistake to think that the one nation that wasted enough money to buy and sell Russia many times over just to maintain the capability of wartime production can’t do wartime production.
I think this is a bit too simplistic. There is a difference between making sure you retain knowledge and some production capabilities and the ability to scale up to wartime production. One example for this would be US military shipbuilding capabilities, where their current capacities are very well utilised, but they would be unable to scale it up to a production needed for wartime as related industries (commercial shipbuilding like tankers) have left the country for the most part. So there would be a severe shortage of facilities and skills to recreate something even close to US shipbuilding capabilities of ww2. I don't know what the related fields are for other arms productions, but just because you kept the lights on does not automatically mean you can quickly upscale if needed. However it does ensure that the US would start from a much better spot than germany for example.
|
France to consider training Ukrainian pilots. Also being said that France has agreed to send more Howitzers.
PARIS — France is considering Ukraine’s request for fighter-jet pilot training, according to an aide to French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu.
The French and Ukrainian defense ministers are due to discuss the request during a call this week, the aide told POLITICO on Monday.
This follows renewed requests from Kyiv for fighter jets last week after its European allies agreed to supply battle tanks. In an interview with the daily French newspaper Le Figaro on Friday, the Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov called on Paris to help train its pilots on French planes.
“I’ve heard many experts speak highly of French planes and their pilots. I would naturally be very happy if Ukrainian pilots can be trained to fly French planes and put this expertise towards securing victory,” he said.
After securing Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks from Germany and the U.S., Ukraine has renewed calls to obtain long-range missiles and Western fighter jets, in particular the U.S. F-16s, as both Russia and Ukraine prepare for bigger offensives in the spring. Such weaponry has long been on Ukraine’s wish list but was deemed off limits by Western allies.
In recent days, several European and U.S. officials have indicated that the door was no longer closed to sending fighter jets to Ukraine. In January, the Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra said Amsterdam would examine a request for F-16 fighters with “an open mind,” adding that there were “no taboos” in terms of military support.
Last week, the deputy National Security adviser for the White House Jon Finer said the U.S. would be discussing the idea of giving fighter jets to Ukraine “very carefully” with Kyiv and allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems. We have tried to tailor our assistance to the phase of the fight the Ukrainians are in,” Finer said on MSNBC.
The F-16, a fourth-generation supersonic fighter, has been a successful export product for the U.S. in recent years, which raises the possibility of several countries banding together to give Ukraine F-16s, much like the loose coalition that decided to give Ukraine German-manufactured Leopard 2 tanks last week.
Germany, however, remains a key holdout and has rejected demands by Kyiv to supply fighter jets on the heels of Berlin’s agreement to send tanks, in what could be yet another standoff between Berlin and its allies.
“The question of combat aircraft does not arise at all,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in an interview with Tagesspiegel published on Sunday. “I can only advise against entering into a constant competition to outbid each other when it comes to weapons systems.”
Source
|
United States43263 Posts
On February 01 2023 00:22 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:08 KwarK wrote:On January 31 2023 19:17 Ardias wrote:On January 31 2023 17:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
How long ago was that? It isn't simply a question of money (though them too), you need to have active production lines and qualified workforce for a specific task. If such numbers were 20-30 years ago, it would take considerable time and effort to increase that number. Plus, is it possible in US to make people work 3-shift 6-day working week with no vacations? Because that's what Russia does on their defense factories. I'll clarify on restoration part - "do US have necessary immediate capacity to do so now, or they need to re-launch some old factories that were closed after the end of Cold War due to the decrease of production?". And if answer is the second one, it sends us to the arguments above. Industrial base depends a lot on the actual sector of economy. Current technology leads to increased diversification (hence the increase in global trade after WW2 and especially after Cold War). Even the biggest and riches countries can't produce all by themselves, and it's not WW2 where you could build tanks on tractor plant, so shifting civilian industry into war effort is almost impossible, you need dedicated military production, which is unnecessary in peacetime. Every country went through that issue (I believe it was discussed here previously about UK not being capable to produce new tanks for exactly the same reason). Unlike the UK and other nations that have enjoyed the post Cold War peace dividend the US has treated its arms industry as a strategic asset and has subsidized it. It has paid to keep it on life support, producing weapons nobody needs in order to retain the strategic capability to replace losses in the event of a war. That’s why they have fields filled with thousands of tanks and IFVs that were never ordered. That’s why a lot of their foreign aid is given in the form of vouchers to be spent on purchasing US hardware. That’s why states compete to have their senators allocate these contracts to their state. The US, alone in the world, is ready to fight WW3 because the US didn’t balk at the cost of maintaining their readiness through 8 decades of peace. It would be a mistake to think that the one nation that wasted enough money to buy and sell Russia many times over just to maintain the capability of wartime production can’t do wartime production. I think this is a bit too simplistic. There is a difference between making sure you retain knowledge and some production capabilities and the ability to scale up to wartime production. One example for this would be US military shipbuilding capabilities, where their current capacities are very well utilised, but they would be unable to scale it up to a production needed for wartime as related industries (commercial shipbuilding like tankers) have left the country for the most part. So there would be a severe shortage of facilities and skills to recreate something even close to US shipbuilding capabilities of ww2. I don't know what the related fields are for other arms productions, but just because you kept the lights on does not automatically mean you can quickly upscale if needed. However it does ensure that the US would start from a much better spot than germany for example.
Given that the whole purpose of them burning all that money is to be able to scale up in wartime it would be very foolish to assume that they couldn’t.
They identified a strategic need to be able to scale up and spent trillions on making sure they could scale up I would assume that they can scale up, unless there’s very compelling evidence to the contrary. That’s why they made those fields of idle tanks.
You compare it to WW2 production but in 1940 the US had very little defence production capacity. What it had was the largest industrial output in the world and, after Pearl Harbor, the will to fight. The US is still the leader in industry, American industrial output has never been higher, and unlike 1940 America is already the biggest arms manufacturer in the world.
|
On February 01 2023 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:22 Artesimo wrote:On February 01 2023 00:08 KwarK wrote:On January 31 2023 19:17 Ardias wrote:On January 31 2023 17:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
How long ago was that? It isn't simply a question of money (though them too), you need to have active production lines and qualified workforce for a specific task. If such numbers were 20-30 years ago, it would take considerable time and effort to increase that number. Plus, is it possible in US to make people work 3-shift 6-day working week with no vacations? Because that's what Russia does on their defense factories. I'll clarify on restoration part - "do US have necessary immediate capacity to do so now, or they need to re-launch some old factories that were closed after the end of Cold War due to the decrease of production?". And if answer is the second one, it sends us to the arguments above. Industrial base depends a lot on the actual sector of economy. Current technology leads to increased diversification (hence the increase in global trade after WW2 and especially after Cold War). Even the biggest and riches countries can't produce all by themselves, and it's not WW2 where you could build tanks on tractor plant, so shifting civilian industry into war effort is almost impossible, you need dedicated military production, which is unnecessary in peacetime. Every country went through that issue (I believe it was discussed here previously about UK not being capable to produce new tanks for exactly the same reason). Unlike the UK and other nations that have enjoyed the post Cold War peace dividend the US has treated its arms industry as a strategic asset and has subsidized it. It has paid to keep it on life support, producing weapons nobody needs in order to retain the strategic capability to replace losses in the event of a war. That’s why they have fields filled with thousands of tanks and IFVs that were never ordered. That’s why a lot of their foreign aid is given in the form of vouchers to be spent on purchasing US hardware. That’s why states compete to have their senators allocate these contracts to their state. The US, alone in the world, is ready to fight WW3 because the US didn’t balk at the cost of maintaining their readiness through 8 decades of peace. It would be a mistake to think that the one nation that wasted enough money to buy and sell Russia many times over just to maintain the capability of wartime production can’t do wartime production. I think this is a bit too simplistic. There is a difference between making sure you retain knowledge and some production capabilities and the ability to scale up to wartime production. One example for this would be US military shipbuilding capabilities, where their current capacities are very well utilised, but they would be unable to scale it up to a production needed for wartime as related industries (commercial shipbuilding like tankers) have left the country for the most part. So there would be a severe shortage of facilities and skills to recreate something even close to US shipbuilding capabilities of ww2. I don't know what the related fields are for other arms productions, but just because you kept the lights on does not automatically mean you can quickly upscale if needed. However it does ensure that the US would start from a much better spot than germany for example. Given that the whole purpose of them burning all that money is to be able to scale up in wartime it would be very foolish to assume that they couldn’t. They identified a strategic need to be able to scale up and spent trillions on making sure they could scale up I would assume that they can scale up, unless there’s very compelling evidence to the contrary. That’s why they made those fields of idle tanks. You compare it to WW2 production but in 1940 the US had very little defence production capacity. What it had was the largest industrial output in the world and, after Pearl Harbor, the will to fight. The US is still the leader in industry, American industrial output has never been higher, and unlike 1940 America is already the biggest arms manufacturer in the world.
I was under the impression that the purpose was to prevent the loss of the knowledge base and production costs at a reasonable price. When it comes to the abrahams production, it is to keep it alive at all. Not to be able to scale up, but to produce at all at a reasonable rate. I might misremember things here though.
I pulled the ww2 comparison because shipbuilding is an example that both comes up frequently when it comes to point out the power of US arms industry, as well as it not being controversial at all that the US would not be able to repeat it at the moment. The way that a quick upscaling of war industry is usually done, is by taking factories and workforce from related fields and retrain them, which is possible in much shorter amount of time. The creation of completely new factories and training of a workforce without related skills takes much longer. Without being able to convert existing factories, you are limited to what you got right now and how far you can stretch it in the short and mid term. That is why I brought up related industries, unless you got them in your country, I believe the ability to upscale is severely limited.
|
On February 01 2023 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:22 Artesimo wrote:On February 01 2023 00:08 KwarK wrote:On January 31 2023 19:17 Ardias wrote:On January 31 2023 17:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
How long ago was that? It isn't simply a question of money (though them too), you need to have active production lines and qualified workforce for a specific task. If such numbers were 20-30 years ago, it would take considerable time and effort to increase that number. Plus, is it possible in US to make people work 3-shift 6-day working week with no vacations? Because that's what Russia does on their defense factories. I'll clarify on restoration part - "do US have necessary immediate capacity to do so now, or they need to re-launch some old factories that were closed after the end of Cold War due to the decrease of production?". And if answer is the second one, it sends us to the arguments above. Industrial base depends a lot on the actual sector of economy. Current technology leads to increased diversification (hence the increase in global trade after WW2 and especially after Cold War). Even the biggest and riches countries can't produce all by themselves, and it's not WW2 where you could build tanks on tractor plant, so shifting civilian industry into war effort is almost impossible, you need dedicated military production, which is unnecessary in peacetime. Every country went through that issue (I believe it was discussed here previously about UK not being capable to produce new tanks for exactly the same reason). Unlike the UK and other nations that have enjoyed the post Cold War peace dividend the US has treated its arms industry as a strategic asset and has subsidized it. It has paid to keep it on life support, producing weapons nobody needs in order to retain the strategic capability to replace losses in the event of a war. That’s why they have fields filled with thousands of tanks and IFVs that were never ordered. That’s why a lot of their foreign aid is given in the form of vouchers to be spent on purchasing US hardware. That’s why states compete to have their senators allocate these contracts to their state. The US, alone in the world, is ready to fight WW3 because the US didn’t balk at the cost of maintaining their readiness through 8 decades of peace. It would be a mistake to think that the one nation that wasted enough money to buy and sell Russia many times over just to maintain the capability of wartime production can’t do wartime production. I think this is a bit too simplistic. There is a difference between making sure you retain knowledge and some production capabilities and the ability to scale up to wartime production. One example for this would be US military shipbuilding capabilities, where their current capacities are very well utilised, but they would be unable to scale it up to a production needed for wartime as related industries (commercial shipbuilding like tankers) have left the country for the most part. So there would be a severe shortage of facilities and skills to recreate something even close to US shipbuilding capabilities of ww2. I don't know what the related fields are for other arms productions, but just because you kept the lights on does not automatically mean you can quickly upscale if needed. However it does ensure that the US would start from a much better spot than germany for example. Given that the whole purpose of them burning all that money is to be able to scale up in wartime it would be very foolish to assume that they couldn’t. They identified a strategic need to be able to scale up and spent trillions on making sure they could scale up I would assume that they can scale up, unless there’s very compelling evidence to the contrary. That’s why they made those fields of idle tanks. You compare it to WW2 production but in 1940 the US had very little defence production capacity. What it had was the largest industrial output in the world and, after Pearl Harbor, the will to fight. The US is still the leader in industry, American industrial output has never been higher, and unlike 1940 America is already the biggest arms manufacturer in the world.
It's definitely not the "whole purpose" of them burning all that money. It's a capitalist system where you have to feed the profits of the MIC (they weren't doing it for preparedness, though it's a powerful rationalization) and Senators need to get elected so even people like Bernie Sanders support boondoggles like the f-35. Not because he thinks it's necessary for war preparedness, but because the economy is dependent on it. So when weapons manufacturers make changes to improve profitability at the cost of war preparedness, no one really objects (or at least the complaints are ignored/shrugged off). People forget it took years before the US military provided basic armored Humvees to its own soldiers when it knew going in that roadside bombs were so bad that one of the biggest sign up bonuses you could get at the time was to be a truck driver (the biggest was EOD specialist iirc).
Combine that with the US military only being able to account for ~39% of their assets which would include stuff like tanks and their parts, and that means it's not as far fetched as you make it seem that the US isn't as prepared as they'd like the world to think.
|
On February 01 2023 02:09 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:43 KwarK wrote:On February 01 2023 00:22 Artesimo wrote:On February 01 2023 00:08 KwarK wrote:On January 31 2023 19:17 Ardias wrote:On January 31 2023 17:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Eh, the plant has produced 50 tanks a month in the past so it can probably scale and to assume that the US can't restore mothballed tanks is ridicolous.
I mean Russia just did both of those things with a far smaller industrial base and military budget.
We just don't know why they aren't doing it (or perhaps why they aren't telling us).
How long ago was that? It isn't simply a question of money (though them too), you need to have active production lines and qualified workforce for a specific task. If such numbers were 20-30 years ago, it would take considerable time and effort to increase that number. Plus, is it possible in US to make people work 3-shift 6-day working week with no vacations? Because that's what Russia does on their defense factories. I'll clarify on restoration part - "do US have necessary immediate capacity to do so now, or they need to re-launch some old factories that were closed after the end of Cold War due to the decrease of production?". And if answer is the second one, it sends us to the arguments above. Industrial base depends a lot on the actual sector of economy. Current technology leads to increased diversification (hence the increase in global trade after WW2 and especially after Cold War). Even the biggest and riches countries can't produce all by themselves, and it's not WW2 where you could build tanks on tractor plant, so shifting civilian industry into war effort is almost impossible, you need dedicated military production, which is unnecessary in peacetime. Every country went through that issue (I believe it was discussed here previously about UK not being capable to produce new tanks for exactly the same reason). Unlike the UK and other nations that have enjoyed the post Cold War peace dividend the US has treated its arms industry as a strategic asset and has subsidized it. It has paid to keep it on life support, producing weapons nobody needs in order to retain the strategic capability to replace losses in the event of a war. That’s why they have fields filled with thousands of tanks and IFVs that were never ordered. That’s why a lot of their foreign aid is given in the form of vouchers to be spent on purchasing US hardware. That’s why states compete to have their senators allocate these contracts to their state. The US, alone in the world, is ready to fight WW3 because the US didn’t balk at the cost of maintaining their readiness through 8 decades of peace. It would be a mistake to think that the one nation that wasted enough money to buy and sell Russia many times over just to maintain the capability of wartime production can’t do wartime production. I think this is a bit too simplistic. There is a difference between making sure you retain knowledge and some production capabilities and the ability to scale up to wartime production. One example for this would be US military shipbuilding capabilities, where their current capacities are very well utilised, but they would be unable to scale it up to a production needed for wartime as related industries (commercial shipbuilding like tankers) have left the country for the most part. So there would be a severe shortage of facilities and skills to recreate something even close to US shipbuilding capabilities of ww2. I don't know what the related fields are for other arms productions, but just because you kept the lights on does not automatically mean you can quickly upscale if needed. However it does ensure that the US would start from a much better spot than germany for example. Given that the whole purpose of them burning all that money is to be able to scale up in wartime it would be very foolish to assume that they couldn’t. They identified a strategic need to be able to scale up and spent trillions on making sure they could scale up I would assume that they can scale up, unless there’s very compelling evidence to the contrary. That’s why they made those fields of idle tanks. You compare it to WW2 production but in 1940 the US had very little defence production capacity. What it had was the largest industrial output in the world and, after Pearl Harbor, the will to fight. The US is still the leader in industry, American industrial output has never been higher, and unlike 1940 America is already the biggest arms manufacturer in the world. I was under the impression that the purpose was to prevent the loss of the knowledge base and production costs at a reasonable price. When it comes to the abrahams production, it is to keep it alive at all. Not to be able to scale up, but to produce at all at a reasonable rate. I might misremember things here though. I pulled the ww2 comparison because shipbuilding is an example that both comes up frequently when it comes to point out the power of US arms industry, as well as it not being controversial at all that the US would not be able to repeat it at the moment. The way that a quick upscaling of war industry is usually done, is by taking factories and workforce from related fields and retrain them, which is possible in much shorter amount of time. The creation of completely new factories and training of a workforce without related skills takes much longer. Without being able to convert existing factories, you are limited to what you got right now and how far you can stretch it in the short and mid term. That is why I brought up related industries, unless you got them in your country, I believe the ability to upscale is severely limited.
I mean they have a factory capable of producing at least 50 tanks a month (600 a year) and as Kwark says they have payed billions several times to build 4000 tanks that sit in the sand just to keep it in working order.
Do you really think they payed that much money and then they can't reach maximum rate in that ONE factory?
Knowledge base is more for converting other factories to building tanks. If you burn money to sustain a plant you don't strip it bare so it's new maximum is 15 per month (hell, at one time they built one (1) tank a month, how on earth did they mange to get up to 15 then?
It's the same as when people thought the US would run out of shells for Ukraine because they only produced 14k a month and then they casually decided to increase that to 40k by end of 2023 and 90k by end of 2024.
Historically the weird thing is NOT being able to scale up arms production in a war (UK scaled up their shell production x150 during WW1. Yes 150 times more shells from start of the war peak production 1917 and that's just 3 years).
The weird thing is that the US is basically able to just up their peace time production and still meet the need if they wanted to.
That they don't depends on other reasons. Some good and some not so good and a few I hope I'm wrong about.
|
The US set to unveil another aid package for Ukraine.
WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - The United States is readying more than $2 billion worth of military aid for Ukraine that is expected to include longer-range rockets for the first time and other munitions and weapons, two U.S. officials briefed on the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.
The weapons aid is expected to be announced as soon as later this week, the officials said. It is also expected to include support equipment for Patriot air defense systems, precision guided munitions and Javelin anti-tank weapons, they added.
One of the officials said that a portion of the package, $1.725 billion, would come from a fund known as the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which allows President Joe Biden's administration to get weapons from industry rather than from existing U.S. weapons stocks.
The USAI funds would go toward the purchase of a new weapon, Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), which have a range of 94 miles (150 km). The United States has rebuffed requests for the 185-mile (297-km) range ATACMS missile.
The longer range of the GLSDB glide bomb could allow Ukraine to hit valuable military targets that have been out of reach and help it continue pressing its counterattacks by disrupting Russia further behind its lines.
Reuters first reported on Boeing Co's (BA.N) proposal to field GLSDB for Ukraine in November.
The White House declined to comment.
In addition to the USAI funds, more than $400 million worth of aid was expected to come from Presidential Drawdown Authority funds, which allows the president to take from current U.S. stocks in an emergency.
That aid was expected to include mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs), guided multiple launch rocket systems (GMLRS) and ammunition.
Source
|
Isn't the obvious and simple answer that the US is not operating at "war time production"? The US is not at war, and doesn't consider the situation in Ukraine to warrant such a ramp up in production that would certainly come at a cost somewhere else.
Russia is fighting for its future, for the US its just another day in the week.
|
So I work in a facility with in house production.
In one year, we went from 100 units per week to 1500 units per week of production capacity. We just hired a bunch more low skill assemblers, and had a couple high skill existing people build automated test stations and implement process improvements.
Ramping up production is generally easy if you already have a core team that knows the process, and you have all the fixtures and tooling designed already, and you just need to duplicate it. You could even have an extra set of tooling and fixtures in mothball, and pull it out once you need to ramp up.
It takes years to go from no tank to one tank assembly line, but going from one to two could be a matter of months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
