Silvaire wrote:
The same colleague was BTW enamored with the 122-mm Russian D-30, which is in current use on both sides.
I had a basic training on D-30 some 35 years ago. It’s very reliable and can still be used if the standard 6-strong crew is down to 3 or maybe even 2, but everything has to be done manually. In the current phase of the Ukrainian war with artillery duels, it’s essentially a sitting duck, as its firing range is only 15 km (or 22 km with rocket-assisted projectiles), and “shoot and scoot” is completely out of the question.
As I remember (it was a long time ago) he liked the tripod design, ability to fire 360 degrees, and simplicity of erection/trailering. His business was artillery design and thought there might be some lessons to be learned from the opposition 
There was some other UK-derived small howitzer design that the US Marines had bought in the 90s or so, and he used it as a counter example: if I recall correctly you had to take a wheel off and back on to configure the thing to be fired, and it needed a full time mechanic on the crew.
My involvement was in a specific technical area so I’m far from an expert on howitzer design, but it was an interesting period for me.
A lot of stuff “given” to Ukraine (much of which is “given but not actually shipped” due to delaying tactics in certain countries) is old junk from the 1970s which will just waste more Ukrainian soldiers
That’s one serious comment. I can be a bit anti EASA/EU at time, but this is something else entirely 
Ukraine gets exactly what they are asking for. Besides, a gun is a gun and if that gun fires 155 mm shells does not make this different. The main difference of modern stuff is analog vs digital and communications/networking. That technology is only now emerging for artillery. It’s been used for aircraft for some time, but not that long. SAM systems have used similar stuff for several years though. It’s what really sets the F-35 apart from anything else flying, even the F-22. Using that technology efficiently is not something you just pick up during a weekend of training. This is the main reason why no one is giving Ukraine what they really want: SAM systems and modern cruise missiles, sea and land, or F35s for that matter. They aren’t in a position to use any of it.
It’s because Russia’s method is just to shell places from afar – something approaching max artillery range. They have almost zero capability to mount any sort of conventional advance with infantry and/or armour, so they just shell places until there is absolutely nothing left and then walk in at their leisure.
Perhaps. Another reason may be that missiles and helicopters/planes can be shut down. Artillery cannot. But I guess lots of documentaries will be made in due time, and historians will dispute for ever
I don’t get the “anti EU” bit. Observe who is promising and who is delivering and what they are delivering.
There is truth in that Russian stuff is easy for Ukraine to use immediately, but you also need to ask yourself why Poland has F16s – a ~1978 design. Only now they are getting F35s. NATO would not want an F35 to fall into Russian hands, which it easily could in Ukraine. The pilot and ground support training also takes years. Ukraine has asked for F16s but they won’t be given them.
Ukraine is getting stuff from the US like this (M142/M270)
Clearly for less than complex weaponry, the training issue has been solved, by well managed accelerated training. NATO (the US, probably) trained up a load of Ukrainians in (probably) Poland on the 155mm stuff, and they went back to train a load of others – all while the stuff was being air freighted all the way from the UK to Poland and then shipped by rail+road to Ukraine, to the front line.
Artillery can be destroyed, if you have drones, or suitable radar systems. Then it is very vulnerable. Aircraft are a real problem due to SAMs and that’s why Russia dominates the skies – except that they do need to be quite careful, due to the British supplied Starstreak which unlike the S300 is easy to hide.
Peter wrote:
that’s why Russia dominates the skies
They do? My impression was that Russia does not have air superiority. (Which is a major problem for them.)
Yes, although it is a matter of definition. Ukraine cannot fly freely anywhere because they will get shot down. Russia apparently can and does, although they do get shot down fairly regularly (but they aren’t so bothered).
To supply food etc, aid cheaply and efficiently to the Ukraine border, would a “donate online” site with an agreement with relevant major supermarket chain(s) be possible? Ukraine agency to specify what’s needed.
The risk of bad publicity would ensure honesty.
I think that is an excellent idea.
On the two air forces, the problem Ukraine has is that its missiles have to be aimed until reaching the target, while Russia has “fire and forget” ones. That is what they stated recently. That makes the Ukrainian air force ineffective against the Russian ones in airborne engagements, because the Ukrainian plane is a sitting duck for that bit of time. I don’t know if there is an easy solution but probably not; they would need at least the F16 type of hardware to get the latest missiles. And that is not a quick solution. No doubt Ukraine will get this once they have driven Putin back out.
A lot of Ukrainian planes were shot down, mostly by SAMs I think (S300) in the early days of the conflict, including losing a bunch of their top pilots, and they aren’t keen to waste either. Russia has a lot more planes plus they are much less bothered about losing pilots; still at present attrition rate even Russia would not have any air force left after perhaps a few more months of this conflict if they flew a fair bit.
Things are shifting fairly fast right now. In the north, the front line is almost at the border.
I am convinced that this conflict will end properly only when Russia has been pretty well completely destroyed as a military force (apart from nukes).
Peter wrote:
Observe who is promising and who is delivering and what they are delivering
I still don’t get it. 155mm artillery is as standard as it gets, and it is what every army has. No one can give away stuff they don’t have, so standard artillery it is. One could of course argue that the armies would be better off with better artillery that can match the Russian artillery, but no one has it, not yet anyway, not in any sorts of numbers, and that is also standard 155 mm artillery. Ukraine can still use what they got. Maybe they also got some new and fancy “experimental” ammo, we don’t know. If NATO got involved, it would be 90% air, not a WW1 style artillery war. The Russian artillery would be plucked down one by one in a day or two. This isn’t “our war” anyway, we have simply picked a side to cheer for and help with the stuff we can help with, stuff that Ukraine can use right now, while carefully making sure it doesn’t become “our war”.
There was a time when Zelenskyy begged for NATO to create a “no-fly zone”. That would have solved Ukraine’s problem in a heartbeat, but it would also create another small problem, a full out war between NATO and Russia. Something the west has tried to prevent for the last 70 years, and successfully so, even now. How will this war end? The Ukraine army has by now a steady stream of weapons, ammunition and equipment from the west. What we see in the news is bits and pieces. We see the “controversial” stuff (or what the media makes out to be “controversial”, too “new”, too “old”, too “inefficient”, too “efficient” and whatnot). We also see the nationalistic colored, “we send better stuff than you” – nonsense. None of this matters. The only thing that matters is to keep on sending stuff. The stuff that really matters for the Ukrainians to not give up is food, fuel, personal military equipment as assault rifles, wests, helmets, clothes, M-72s, ammo, medical equipment. Bread and butter for each individual soldier to survive in the field. The other thing that matters is that NATO stands together, which it does, more than in any time in the entire history of NATO. This is needed to coordinate the supplies and training. Then, gradually Ukraine will get more advanced stuff. This won’t stop until the war is over. IMO anything could happen, but what do I know.
The other thing is that no one knows what is really going on. At least none of us. With the bits and pieces we get of information and propaganda, we can spin any story we want. What really has happened, is happening, and will happen is for historians to argue over. But as long as Russia exists in it’s present form, lots of what really has been going on will perhaps never be known.
Peter wrote:
History of war is history of technology, and history repeats itself…
I think it is a history of technology AND logistics. Maybe it is leaning towards logistics.
Think about Operation Barbarossa or Grande Armée. I think the defeated were technologically and from organizational point of view more advanced.
I am not an expert on this, but its not only about ammunition, but spare parts, lubrication, training, tools, etc.
I guess, it is easier to find a person able to fix a T-72 than a Leopard 1.
You have one minor issue with the weapon and you can throw it away. Or you can send it back to Europe for fixing. But transportation is difficult in Ukraine nowadays – not enough fuel, roads are few and historically in bad condition, railroads are being attacked.
I think it would be even better to buy T-55/T-72 etc. from current third world operators and deliver them. (although I am against delivering weaponry to a conflict zone, but I do not wish to sidetrack this conversation)
