Pentagon Stockpiles "Uncomfortably Low" Amid Ukraine Transfers, Officials Admit

[alang1216]

Your thinking in this era was different than that one. Americans were more levelheaded and responsible in a very bad time. Promises by politicians to not go to war were lies. WW 1 and WW 2.

People are people. Always have been, always will be.

 

[alang1216]

I say go fuck yourself, and let Europe fight for Europe.

I say let the West fight for the West.

And since it’s my money, and not yours; eat shit, and die slow…

Ahh, I see the cause of your anger, hatred of our democracy and love of an autocrat.

 

[Vastator]

I say let the West fight for the West.


Ahh, I see the cause of your anger, hatred of our democracy and love of an autocrat.

Go fuck yourself. If I lived in a democracy I would have voted yea, or nay, on sending my money to the shithole of Ukraine. Who is ruled by an autocrat, who outlawed all competing political parties.

 

[alang1216]

Go fuck yourself. If I lived in a democracy I would have voted yea, or nay, on sending my money to the shithole of Ukraine. Who is ruled by an autocrat, who outlawed all competing political parties.

Essentially, Ukraine is in the middle of the pack of former Soviet republics. It ranks much higher on the Democracy Index than Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan — all considered authoritarian regimes. But it is much lower than Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — now members of the European Union that are considered full democracies.

 

[para bellum]

What we're sending Ukraine are not WW2-era "stockpiles." We're sending them the newest military technology we have, much of which has never been used on the battlefield.

We have given them 126 M777 towed howitzers and 16 M142 GMRLS launchers. No tanks, no self-propelled guns, no Bradleys, no planes, no air defense systems (yet), no high-end drones.

We've given them a few HARM missiles and a few Harpoons, some small drones and counter battery radars. none of which is cutting edge or unproven in combat.

We've given them some Javelins and Stingers. When was the last time a US soldier used a Javelin or a Stinger in combat?

The M119's we recently provided should not be viewed as we are dragging out obsolete systems due to depleted inventories- they are modern A3's with digital fire control systems and GPS/INS position-navigation system. They are lighter and more mobile than a M777 (can be towed with a Humvee), faster to place, and have a higher rate of fire. They don't have the range of the M777 but they are appropriate for the role they are tasked with, which is to support the UA infantry advance in the south, which is more open country that around Kharkiv. It will be harder to hide and evade counterbattery fire, so mobility has a higher priority.

I do not think the provision of the 105's means the US 155 stockpiles are "dangerously low". I don't know how much we have, but I don't think we've used an unguided artillery shell for at least the last 15 years, and the number of guided 155 shells given to Ukraine is not very large- this latest pledge of 1000 M982's is the most they've ever received.

We've provided a lot of APC's and MRAPS and Humvees, but not much in the way of real weapons, and nothing that has been provided is particularly exotic or cutting edge or untested.

Answering The Call: Heavy Weaponry Supplied To Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

 

[para bellum]

I read the WSJ Op-Ed in full, and the General (Kimmett?) that penned it gave 4 options. The first 3 were escalations, and the 4th was negotiations. The 4th option is the only one that ever gets mentioned- that's when he speculated about the 105's, and shortages, etc.

RT and a bunch of other sites wrote articles based on that part of the WSJ piece, but they always leave out the rest.

Ukraine's big ask (and biggest need) right now is more air defenses to take down the cruise and other missiles. There is one side in D.C. that says give them longer range rockets to strike back at Russia, but that side isn't winning the argument with Biden.

More air defenses are coming, but those are not simple systems to operate and maintain, and the logistics and training requirements are not trivial.

Things like Abrams tanks and F-16's are a long way down the road if ever. Ukraine has enough logistical headaches with all the disparate NATO artillery it already has.

They did something I thought was not possible when they integrated HARM missiles in their MiG-29's and SU-27's, and I'm pretty sure they have more Russian tanks and IFV's than they have crews for.

They can accomplish their objectives this fall with what they have, but we still need to help them shoot down the missiles raining down on the urban areas.

 

[Likkmee]

Joe Biden: Making America Weak Again. First he auctions off our Strategic Oil Reserves, and now this.

"It is not at the level we would like to go into combat," a US defense official told The Wall Street Journal of the Pentagon's fast depleting stockpiles due to unprecedented defense aid to Ukraine, and stressed in particular that artillery ammunition is now "uncomfortably low".

What's more is that the shortfall will likely last into the future, given the norm is for new purchases and then manufacturers supplying the weapons to take a process of years.

"The U.S. has during the past six months supplied Ukraine with 16 U.S. rocket launchers, known as Himars, thousands of guns, drones, missiles and other equipment. Much of that, including ammunition, has come directly from U.S. inventory, depleting stockpiles intended for unexpected threats, defense officials say," the report spells out."

Pentagon Stockpiles "Uncomfortably Low" Amid Ukraine Transfers, Officials Admit | ZeroHedge

Hell. MS13-14-22-23 gots more launchers than the pantagram. Offer them shitenzshit and a free Osama fone to go fuck'em up