Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Missed that, you're right. I wonder if the EU is getting a volume discount? They're getting them for 2000 Euros each if that's the total.
Yeah, I don't know how that calculation works. Perhaps not all of the shells are 155mm. Or maybe a different value is ascribed to a brand new shell vs. one that's been in storage for 40+ years. It may be a volume thing, or the 3300 euro figure wasn't accurate to begin with.
 
I think so too. If Ukraine gets what it needs to conduct an offensive this spring and summer they may not be able to take Crimea this year, but they will have Crimea isolated and starving if they don't.




Missed that, you're right. I wonder if the EU is getting a volume discount? They're getting them for 2000 Euros each if that's the total.



I would think they are probably not drones, but they are using extended range JDAMS or GLSDBs. The JDAMS ER are known to be in the stockpile of many NATO nations and they have been promised to Ukraine. It's unknown how many GLSDBs have been made to date, but they are manufactured mating a surplus rocket motor to a widely available and semi-surplus bomb.

The advantage of both JDAMS and GLSDBs are that they travel faster than a drone. They are traveling closer in velocity to an artillery shell than an aircraft. That makes them hard to intercept.
I have been leaning more towards GLSDBs. Some of these targets have been deep inside Ukrainian territory and pitchups at night would seem to me to be more difficult. Also there are multiple explosions. Seems more indicative of GLSDBs, a JDAM should leave a good sized crater as 500lb or larger bombs are wont to do.

FYI_ GLSDBs have been tested against ocean going ships. Did not know that..just read it was tested in 2019. Interesting. Moving targets up to 62 miles. Stationary up to 93 which gets you to most of the areas being targeted with the exception on the Rostov attacks.
 
Last edited:
I found this old WaPo article interesting- apparently conventional 155mm shells only cost the US military about $160 ($795 inflation adjusted) each when Jimmy Carter was president. I guess the cold war kept us on our toes.


The ammunition has changed too. The standard 155mm HE round in the 1980s was the M107. Production switched to the M795 in 1999.

After a devastating explosion from a suicide bomber in Lebanon in, I believe 1983, that was made worse by artillery ammunition exploding the US DoD set about developing an explosive that would not explode unless the fuze is set. ie it's intended to explode. I believe the M795 uses that explosive. Of course this makes the shells more expensive.
 
The ammunition has changed too. The standard 155mm HE round in the 1980s was the M107. Production switched to the M795 in 1999.

After a devastating explosion from a suicide bomber in Lebanon in, I believe 1983, that was made worse by artillery ammunition exploding the US DoD set about developing an explosive that would not explode unless the fuze is set. ie it's intended to explode. I believe the M795 uses that explosive. Of course this makes the shells more expensive.
I don't think either of the massive suicide truck bombs at the US marine barracks and the French paratrooper barracks in Beirut were exacerbated to any significant degree by munitions. The thermobaric truck bombs were extremely powerful- especially the one that leveled the marine barracks. At least I've never heard of munitions playing a role. Maybe you have a citation for that? Both bombings were tragic. Both the US and France should have pulled their troops from Lebanon as soon as the IDF withdrew.

The newer M795 shell is far superior to the older M107 155mm rounds, but I believe the M107 is still being produced. Probably mostly for training purposes. There are also likely a decent amount of the old M107 shells stored away in munition depots. The Ukrainians would be happy to have as many of those (and the M795 and Excalibur) as we can send them, I'm sure.
 
Last edited:

"Ben & Jerry’s Founder Is ‘Top Donor’ of Group Campaigning Against U.S. Military Support for Ukraine

Ben Cohen has donated more than $1 million to a group campaigning to turn the U.S. public against President Biden’s military support for Ukraine.

By: Anna Nemtsova

Published Mar. 20, 2023 4:30AM ET

A group funded by Ben & Jerry’s founder Ben Cohen is running a media campaign against U.S. military support for Ukraine.

The organization—Eisenhower Media Network (EMN)—has been reaching out to reporters to push claims that the U.S. is spending too much money trying to help Ukraine fight off Vladimir Putin’s invasion. [..."


As I understand it Ben&Jerry's is owned by Unilever... Here's their official statement about the International Criminal Court Arrest Warrant Fugitive/Dictator's War against Ukraine:

Credit goes to (in Swedish):
 
The EU is pledging to donate at least one million artillery shells to Ukraine over the next year.

"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. Do not forget your dogs of war, your big guns, which are the most-to-be respected arguments of the rights of kings."​
-- Frederick the Great​
E2TazMNWUAADWoT
 
I don't think either of the massive suicide truck bombs at the US marine barracks and the French paratrooper barracks in Beirut were exacerbated to any significant degree by munitions. The thermobaric truck bombs were extremely powerful- especially the one that leveled the marine barracks. At least I've never heard of munitions playing a role. Maybe you have a citation for that? Both bombings were tragic. Both the US and France should have pulled their troops from Lebanon as soon as the IDF withdrew.

The newer M795 shell is far superior to the older M107 155mm rounds, but I believe the M107 is still being produced. Probably mostly for training purposes. There are also likely a decent amount of the old M107 shells stored away in munition depots. The Ukrainians would be happy to have as many of those (and the M795 and Excalibur) as we can send them, I'm sure.

I read about it sometime in the last year. I tried finding it just now, but couldn't find the story I read. I did find this which is related.
Military is on a quest for bombs that won't accidentally explode

"Ben & Jerry’s Founder Is ‘Top Donor’ of Group Campaigning Against U.S. Military Support for Ukraine

Ben Cohen has donated more than $1 million to a group campaigning to turn the U.S. public against President Biden’s military support for Ukraine.

By: Anna Nemtsova

Published Mar. 20, 2023 4:30AM ET

A group funded by Ben & Jerry’s founder Ben Cohen is running a media campaign against U.S. military support for Ukraine.

The organization—Eisenhower Media Network (EMN)—has been reaching out to reporters to push claims that the U.S. is spending too much money trying to help Ukraine fight off Vladimir Putin’s invasion. [..."


As I understand it Ben&Jerry's is owned by Unilever... Here's their official statement about the International Criminal Court Arrest Warrant Fugitive/Dictator's War against Ukraine:

Credit goes to (in Swedish):

Ben and Jerry's was a separate company originally, but they sold out over 10 years ago. I think Jerry died and I don't think Ben Cohen has anything to do with the company anymore.

There are plenty of people out there who either have a hidden agenda (they're really allied with Putin) or they just don't understand the big picture who are against the war. I'm pretty sure Ben Cohen is among the latter. I haven't paid much attention to him for years, but I believe his politics is pretty far to the left and he's never shown any signs of throwing his lot in with authoritarians as far as I recall. I think he's campaigned for Bernie Sanders.
 
This is an interesting piece of news...


...which seems to have only just come to light following a question in the commons on March 6th.


No doubt Russia will call them 'dirty bombs' and make more threats.

Of course, there's two sides to the story when it comes to the contamination of Ukraine.

 
I read about it sometime in the last year. I tried finding it just now, but couldn't find the story I read. I did find this which is related.
Military is on a quest for bombs that won't accidentally explode



Ben and Jerry's was a separate company originally, but they sold out over 10 years ago. I think Jerry died and I don't think Ben Cohen has anything to do with the company anymore.

There are plenty of people out there who either have a hidden agenda (they're really allied with Putin) or they just don't understand the big picture who are against the war. I'm pretty sure Ben Cohen is among the latter. I haven't paid much attention to him for years, but I believe his politics is pretty far to the left and he's never shown any signs of throwing his lot in with authoritarians as far as I recall. I think he's campaigned for Bernie Sanders.
His politics was far left until Unilever raised their offer
 
As wdolson pointed out, Ben and Jerry's (when they were a separate company years ago) were known for their far left political views and advocacy. This seems to be one of the areas where they go full circle and meet up with the far right.
So that's what you find when you go a tad beyond the fringes.... From the left, MAGA right. From the MAGA right, Bernie boys?

I learn so many interesting things from this thread :)
 
As posted elsewhere on this topic today:

Hmmmm.... perhaps the Russians could do their famous retreats again. Keep the hopes up and thus the money flowing, you know, away from the failing banks so that problem doesn't get fixed.


One could disagree with details but the overall picture at this point is very clear -- Russia and China are playing a tag team game against the US, one fights militarily and the other economically/politically. Both complement each other's moves.
 
This is an interesting piece of news...


...which seems to have only just come to light following a question in the commons on March 6th.


No doubt Russia will call them 'dirty bombs' and make more threats.

Of course, there's two sides to the story when it comes to the contamination of Ukraine.


I think depleted uranium is too toxic a substance to use for anything. Especially anything that's going to break apart and become airborne dust. Depleted uranium is not all that radioactive, but it does break down into more radioactive elements and chemically uranium is very toxic. Even if you don't get a serious dose of radiation, you don't want to ingest or inhale uranium.

The armor of western tanks has been designed to defeat HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) ammunition and depleted uranium ammunition may be necessary to kill one, but Russian tanks have proven very vulnerably to HEAT. Anti-tank missiles usually use HEAT warheads. HEAT ammunition is probably cheaper than depleted uranium and it's safer for the environment.

So that's what you find when you go a tad beyond the fringes.... From the left, MAGA right. From the MAGA right, Bernie boys?

I learn so many interesting things from this thread :)

I've observed that extreme politics tends to meet around the back side. Nazi Germany and the USSR's Soviets had completely opposite political views on paper. The former was an very extreme form of nationalism rooted in conservatism gone nuts and the latter an extreme liberal government rooted in the most liberal of ideologies. In practice both governments behaved very similarly with only fairly minor differences.

Politics is usually much healthier when the people in power are close to the center, either center-left or center-right. Things get out of balance when radicals with extreme ideas start to get power. It isn't a bad thing for the radicals to have a voice on the outside. Many good changes have come about because ideas that started in the fringes ended up becoming a thing. Most of the social changes of the last 120 years started as fringe ideas that moderated as they became mainstream ideas and finally just part of the culture. For example women's suffrage was a radical idea in the 1890s, and it was controversial in the democracies as it became legal in the democracies in the early 20th century, but today it's considered an unalienable right and people in those democracies get upset with countries that don't have women's suffrage, even if their election system is a corrupt joke.

There are good ideas out on the fringes, but they are usually unworkable in their initial form. The process of moving towards the center forces people who think about how to make things work look at them and tweak them to make them more workable. Some ideas like women's suffrage didn't need a lot of tweaking, but just needed to marinate in the consciousness of the population for a while.

The radicals on the fringes, if they get power, think the world will be a better place if everyone just sees their ideas in action and they try to force it on their population. Between the ideas often being half baked or the population just not being ready, the ideas usually fall flat. Then they decide if they just push harder, utopia will result and people start getting hurt as those who resist the changes the most get sent off to concentration camps and prisons. The thought police take over and the country falls into an authoritarian hell.

With things like stopping US support for Ukraine, the ideals driving it come from a very different place, but in the end the behaviors are similar. And neither side is really thinking through the implications of letting Russia get away with taking part of Ukraine.