Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Ukraine Targets Russia’s Most Important Weapon: Artillery || Peter Zeihan" video.

@ВалентинПузыня It just means Russia has internet commandos too. When was the last time you managed munitions logistics for a military unit? Imagine being told your whole life you're the biggest and the best, only to have to rely on a pissant state like North Korea for basic artillery munitions. That's a giant red flag even for the most blindly-loyal Russian serf.
12
@coala1980 Did you know Ukraine was one of the military industrial development and manufacturing states for many critical systems in the S-300 complex? Same for Russian Navy vessels (most were built in 13 Naval yards in Ukraine), Air-to-Air missiles like the R-77 & RVV-AE, thousands of APCs and IFVs, electronics, steel, transport aircraft (Antonov), and a wide range of advanced weapons that Russia could not make on its own.
10
@coala1980 You realize ATACMS has undergone multiple iterations of development over the past 40 years and will continue to do so? Storm Shadow and SCALPS are VLO cruise missiles. There isn't much you can do against them. Look at the utter failure of Pantsir-S1 and S2, for example. They're just targets.
7
@ВалентинПузыня One thing you haven’t learned is that explosive material can be loaded into a lot more things than artillery rounds. The US especially has shifted away from artillery focus to long-range fires from missiles like ATACMS, air-delivered munitions like JDAMs, LGBs, with precision-guided artillery at the bottom. Russians have a hard time understanding any of this because the Russian Army is still stuck in the 1800s mindset, and hasn’t incorporated air power even at a US 1960s-level. What Russia has done better is placing moles like Obama and Biden in high level places to handicap the war-fighters from above. That’s why you see a trickling of game-changing weapons to Ukraine being let out only a little at a time.
4
@Sp0tthed0gt A lot of the guys with more training were killed from 2022-2023. An interesting thing I haven't seen any of the even better channels discuss is the progressive reduction in conscript service from Tsarist times to the present. Conscripts in the Tsarist times were for life in the 1700s, then reduced to 22yrs for Infantry, 15 years for technical troops. It was later reduced to 6 years with 2 years of home leave, but could be recalled. In the 1800s, it was bumped back up to 22yrs after they lost the Crimean War, then later dropped. During the Soviet times, army conscription dropped, as did navy, with the Navy always being 1yr more than the army. This continued to drop through the end, and Putin dropped mandatory conscription years even lower so that almost all institutional knowledge has eroded.
3
@coala1980 If you look at US guidance systems, they are way ahead of Russia because we lead the way in microelectronics. We also have programmable signals processors so the IFF and targeting can be updated on the fly at the unit level. We've had that for generations. Russia is way behind in semiconductors and hardened electronics systems, has to import them from grey market. It's pathetic really. US has improved our rocket motor propellant over the years as well so we have better energy density and controlled burn rates. Fusing and sensors are dramatically superior as well with reliable circuits. All is not the same as you suggest. I've been in a position to know the workings under the hood of samples from both dating back to the 1970s.
3
@GlenKrog So now explain how Russia started with strategic encirclement of Ukraine, but is now on its heels having lost most territories taken in early 2022.
3
@GlenKrog Have you done the math on how many fighter sorties you would have to generate to drop 7000 FABs in a week? VVS couldn't sortie generate that in 3 months even. You need aircraft in a Mission Capable status flying multiple sorties per day. Only certain types of Sukhois are capable of carrying and delivering FABs in those weight classes.
3
@dr.williams5251 If you look at really old mil surplus items stored in whatever they were caked in, you can definitely see those protectant coatings turn into solids. I've seen it on items that have gone through multiple seasonal cycles in both extreme cold and hot weather environments. Smells nasty too. I don't have specific information on what the NorK trash is coated in, but North Korea is one of the most industrially-antiquated nations in the world. I'm one of the few people you'll ever meet who has actually been there twice, and studied their force structure as part of my job in the mid-late 1990s. They are heavily artillery-centric and airpower-poor, like Russia. I would be embarrassed to have to source anything from them.
2
@GlenKrog That would mean those 39 fighters would need to have flown about 4 sorties per day, with no down jets. Do you want to tell me you’ve never been around a fighter squadron before without telling me? US fighters are far more reliable than Russian fighters. The days of the MiG-21 are long-gone, once the Soviets tried to compete with the US with the MiG-23 (hangar queen), MiG-29, and Su-27/Flanker series. Russia/USSR departed from its proven single engine mass-produced fighter force and went to all twin-engined designs to try to match the thrust-to-weight ratios of US 4th Gen fighters, while adding pulse doppler Radars and threat warning systems, BVR missiles, IRSTs, with tons of wiring harnesses and federated systems that are prone to failure. Russian jet engines have always been low Mean Time Between Overhaul units that experience early core blade failure, often with catastrophic results. The US went through this with its early 4th Gen motors in the late 1960s-1980s until it developed single crystal turbine blades and more advanced fitment of parts, driven with FADEC. If you read the maintenance reports from India and China on their Flankers, they are hangars queens. Radars, Missiles, and IRSTs are not that good.
2
@Stephenvguerra How many US assembly lines for missiles? They're all over the States and range from theater-level down to APKWS Laser-guided kits for old mini rockets. Russia is still in the 1800s-1900s with its mentality on long range fires. US is in the 21st Century with an unmatched industrial base.
2
@Stephenvguerra I've been in the US MIC since the 1970s. We have more missile lines open, more fighter lines open than anyone, a next gen Stealth bomber in production, drones from space down to micro level, rocket motors, warheads, superior streamlined guidance systems, and an extensive OT&E infrastructure that's unparalleled. The systems all work better than the legacy ones from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. The amount of explosive material and sorties or fires we expended for effects back then exceeded what we can do now with one sortie or one fire mission. The other thing most people don't realize is that as the Europeans cut production capacity across the board, the US became the default arms supplier for them and a lot of their former customers. So any statements about reduced capacity in the US don't align with the actual deliveries I've witnessed over the past 50 years. I track FMS contracts regularly for aerospace and missiles primarily. It's the opposite of what you're portraying.
2
@SuperDrake85 FABs with glide kits provide some stand-off with huge warheads. You would need intermediate range missiles to deliver that type of payload, so when you combine the stand-off, warhead, and precision, they are extremely effective weapons that MRLS and artillery just can't compete with.
1
@ВалентинПузыня The US pioneered Laser-Guided Bombs in Vietnam, then slowly made more and more of them until they were a significant % of the air-dropped munitions by Desert Storm. We were working on JDAM around the same time (1989-1992) before it was even called JDAM. The USAF, USN, and USMC now carry primarily precision-guided munitions. Russia is just barely being forced to step into the latter 1990s after generations of rocket fire and dumb bombs. Iskander is ancient, and ATACMS is originally from the 1980s. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the video of what ATACMS does to mobniks, but if you think Russian trash weapons are better, you’re blind. US weapons embarrass Russian weapons as a rule and always have. Russia is decades behind in every weapon system development and production cycle, will never catch up. You guys need to stop believing your own propaganda, because it’s going to get millions of you erased.
1
@JAMESJJEFFERS The US tests its weapons extensively at any number of dozens of test ranges across the Country, to include extreme climate, NBC, high dust/sand, and Arctic conditions. The systems sent to Ukraine are old stock that was scheduled for destruction because it eventually would exceed its shelf life. Russia's "SMO" has provided a 2.5 year display of how they mobilize, equip, stage, and invade their neighbors, and it isn't impressive. Biden WH has really been slow-rolling and delaying delivery of the outdated munitions at an intermittent trickle. The political excuse of partisanship is just that, since you can transfer everything needed through FMS to NATO nations. That's what has really been going on anyway mostly.
1
@hyhhy How much experience in aerospace and missile defence do you have, if you don’t mind me asking?
1
@Gridlocked Of the 16 nations that operate or have ordered ATACMS, I’m seeing FMS contract dates from 2018-2023, several of whom are still waiting or taking delivery of the system. That doesn’t look like EOL to me.
1
@MarcosElMalo2 The US bought Swedish Bofors steel barrels for some 40mm weapons systems on the AC-130 Gunship, but we also make our 155mm and 105mm howitzers, 40mm,30mm, 25mm, 20mm, .50 Cal, .338, .30 Cal, and .224 Cal barrels at scale that no other nation can match. Instead of relying heavily on those types of weapons, our primary methods for delivering explosive munitions is via air, sea, and ground-launched missiles with bigger warheads. Why drive a tank when you can fire missiles and drop Precision-Guided weapons? We've shifted far away from WWII thinking with an emphasis on air power. Russia has an artillery-based land component forces, with motorized Infantry to follow the echelons of fire and pour through the rubble. US echelons of fire start with coordinated air power strikes and air dominance sweeps, to include bombers, strike fighters, Stealth Fighters, Wild Weasels, light multirole fighters, armed UAS, then move into ground-launched missiles, long-range PGM artillery, then mobility-based armored & mechanized forces who all use precision-guided weapons as well. Explosive material delivery is much more efficient and lightning-fast with the execution of combat operations, which reduces losses of life on both sides due to the overwhelming speed of the campaign in full spectrum warfare. Russia thinks differently, but imagined they could execute a blitzkrieg on Ukraine without having these critical systems, training, and doctrines.
1