|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 21, 2023 14:25:27 GMT
So ... 3000 rounds per day? Two billion euros and one million shells. Euro 2000 per shell? Let me guess someone is making a big profit. The cheapest new compact car would equal 10 shells. Perhaps they could bombard them with "loaded" old mini coopers. I know someone who's sick of theirs.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Mar 21, 2023 14:56:15 GMT
So ... 3000 rounds per day? Two billion euros and one million shells. Euro 2000 per shell? Let me guess someone is making a big profit. The cheapest new compact car would equal 10 shells. Perhaps they could bombard them with "loaded" old mini coopers. I know someone who's sick of theirs. To put it in perspective, there are reports Russia is producing 3.5 million rounds per month, and within several months will reach 5 million rounds per month. This is the result of a for profit industry in the west, and losing percentage of it's manufacturing base. By having expensive weapons you maximize profits. No need for extra assembly lines and factories. You also do not spend enough to maintain stockpiles. No need for land based weapons. Arsenals were built for terrorist insurgencies with limited quantities of precision weapons (not large scale land wars). It takes significant time and money to build new factories and increase production. Had this been the 1970's, 1980's, or even 1990's the west would have no issues keeping up.
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Mar 21, 2023 15:12:19 GMT
So ... 3000 rounds per day? Two billion euros and one million shells. Euro 2000 per shell? Let me guess someone is making a big profit. The cheapest new compact car would equal 10 shells. Perhaps they could bombard them with "loaded" old mini coopers. I know someone who's sick of theirs. To put it in perspective, there are reports Russia is producing 3.5 million rounds per month, and within several months will reach 5 million rounds per month. This is the result of a for profit industry in the west, and losing percentage of it's manufacturing base. By having expensive weapons you maximize profits. No need for extra assembly lines and factories. You also do not spend enough to maintain stockpiles. No need for land based weapons. Arsenals were built for terrorist insurgencies with limited quantities of precision weapons (not large scale land wars). It takes significant time and money to build new factories and increase production. Had this been the 1970's, 1980's, or even 1990's the west would have no issues keeping up. The shock and awe campaign. We will shock you with our brilliant smart weapons, and awe you with their limited effect.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Mar 21, 2023 15:23:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justme on Mar 21, 2023 15:48:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justme on Mar 21, 2023 16:26:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Mar 21, 2023 18:18:31 GMT
All this does is prolong the conflict while escalating it as well.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 21, 2023 19:53:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justme on Mar 21, 2023 19:59:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Mar 21, 2023 20:31:29 GMT
Depleted Urainium is slow long death.
Basra is a very good example. The US knows long term impacts, yet uses it anyways. Deadly when used, deadly years after 1st use.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Mar 22, 2023 13:18:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 22, 2023 17:00:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 22, 2023 17:01:49 GMT
T-54s.....
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Mar 22, 2023 17:08:49 GMT
I definitely would not want to be downrange of either of those weapons under any circumstance. I have a strict rule about foreign objects penetrating my skin no matter how old the technology that propels them.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 22, 2023 17:41:42 GMT
|
|