War economy vs consumer economy. You may need to give up some iphones and other luxury things if you want to hammer those 3.5m shells in that short time frame. 😁
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
239 points (96.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6579 readers
198 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not a problem to consume that amount of ammunition, you just need 'a few' barrels and men to operate them but I'm pretty sure they didn't produce 700 000 shells per hour.
But yeah, the manufacturing capabilities of whole Europe is a poor joke right now.
What the previous poster was pointing out is that the manufacturing capabilities of Europe would be more than capable of handling this task, if any significant percentage were applied to it. As it is, ammunition for 155mm artillery pieces is not something that there's usually a heck of a lot of demand for, so it makes up a vanishingly small percentage of overall production. And modern factories, because of how things are built now, are much, much harder to just switch over to making a different product. Even if they wanted to, Germany could not easily give over a significant portion of their national manufacturing capacity to shells without it taking years to do so.
You want butter or bullets?
-some German guy
What caliber were those shells though? Obviously a 155mm has a lot more boom than most of what would have been fired back then.
Back then 13 cm, 15 cm, 17 cm and 21 cm artillery cannons were in use, so the shells were not necessarily significantly smaller. However, modern artillery shells surely are more complex involving microelectronics or even rocket propulsion and the use of modern explosives makes the 'boom' also bigger.
In terms of modern shells being more complex in general: yes and no. modern shells pretty much always use some kind of electronic fusing, sometimes multiple kinds of electronic fuses. back then they had bombs, mines and grenades with literal clockwork inside and electronics was still very rare. also fuses and primary charges were not easy to produce reliably.
And were they guided shells so you only need one or two instead of 20?
Well, before artillery shells were bombs fired from a big rifle, now they are smart and more complex.
They were nice enough to give us enough unexploded ordnance for farmers in West-Vlaanderen to keep digging up more than a century later!
Yeah but how many of them worked?