20.000

prior to this ukranian caper

the west (nato countries ?) were manufacturing approx' 30.000 artillary shells a month cost approx' 740 million £ a year

the Ukraine require 180,000 shels a month at the present usage at a cost 4 of billion a year

plus alll the other equipment they will need , tanks , ammo , missiles air defences ect ect
A bit late but some more context might help here

How many shells a month do you need to produce in peacetime?

The answer is enough to cover your training needs and enough to replace any shells that are reaching the end of their storage lifespan. Bonus points are awarded for using the old shells for training. You might manufacture a bit more if you're replenishing after a war or upgrading to newer shells.

Building more than you're using to build an infinite amunition mountain is obviously pointless. The USSR did it because they were expecting the Americans to invade, or vice versa. Russia builds a lot of shells but thats because they're in an ongoing expansionistic phase and need shells for the next scheduled war. But no one else builds shells without end (well, maybe north Korea).

The interesting question isn't how the historic production rates compare to daily usage, but how the current production rates have scaled up against desired usage.

Its also a lot more complex as a 152mm HE shell is a very different beast to a 155mm Excalibur round. Both in cost to produce and in effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
If you substitute that for 13 years of tory rule and brexit, you could say the same about the UK...

More subtle means of course, but the same outcome!

More nonsense from the forum fruit cake
 
A bit late but some more context might help here

How many shells a month do you need to produce in peacetime?

The answer is enough to cover your training needs and enough to replace any shells that are reaching the end of their storage lifespan. Bonus points are awarded for using the old shells for training. You might manufacturer a bit more if you're replenishing after a war or upgrading to newer shells.

Building more than you're using to build an infinite amunition mountain is obviously pointless. The USSR did it because they were expecting the Americans to invade, or vice versa. Russia builds a lot of shells but thats because they're in an ongoing expansionistic phase and need shells for the next scheduled war. But no one else builds shells without end (well, maybe north Korea).

The interesting question isn't how the historic production rates compare to daily usage, but how the current production rates have scaled up against desired usage.

Its also a lot more complex as a 152mm HE shell is a very different beast to a 155mm Excalibur round. Both in cost to produce and in effectiveness.

It was also stated that if nato / the west are at some type of proxy war / conflict ?? With Russia

It’s finacially cheaper to channel the costs through the Ukraine
 
Putin will probably be dead by early next year ?????

That’s when the ***t May hit the fan in Russia

Power struggle ???

That Wagner fruit cake is getting increasingly vocal with his descent ??
 
Sponsored Links
Don't be silly, stealing land doesn't make it Russian.
If they have the will and ability to defend it, then it is their territory. So, do you accept russia has won if in the final settlement those territories are part of russia?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top