Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 5:30 by autogun
Latest 3:13 by stancrist
Latest 3:06 by stancrist
Latest 0:58 by Farmplinker
Latest 27-Mar by gatnerd
Latest 27-Mar by smg762
Latest 26-Mar by EmericD
Latest 26-Mar by stancrist
Latest 25-Mar by nincomp
Latest 24-Mar by stancrist
Latest 23-Mar by graylion
Latest 23-Mar by mpopenker
Latest 21-Mar by ZailC
Latest 21-Mar by graylion
Latest 21-Mar by graylion
Latest 19-Mar by mpopenker
Latest 18-Mar by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Mar by JPeelen
Latest 13-Mar by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 13-Mar by schnuersi
Latest 13-Mar by Jeff (Jefffar)
Latest 13-Mar by Refleks
Latest 12-Mar by graylion
Latest 11-Mar by graylion
Latest 10-Mar by graylion
Latest 10-Mar by Farmplinker
Latest 9-Mar by graylion
Latest 7-Mar by schnuersi
Latest 6-Mar by graylion
Latest 6-Mar by Farmplinker
Latest 5-Mar by gatnerd
Latest 5-Mar by Farmplinker
Latest 3-Mar by Farmplinker
Latest 3-Mar by Farmplinker
There are several faulty assumptions in your reasoning.
Yes of course the US industry will try increase their market share. As do the defense industries of other countries. Rheinmetall for example had a record year. That is what companies do: try to seize an opportunity.
But its not as simple as you make it sound. For starters the old Soviet style equipment or old German equipment is or has been in use because it is cheap. The US might replace it with cheap or free (curently its mostly free) suplus of their own. This does not mean they will get any contract though. Because the countries in question either don't have any money to spend on weapons or do not want to. In some cases both. If they would need to replace US surplus they would not automatically buy US stuff. They would go for the cheapest they can get. Which most likely would not be US. ITAR also is a thing. Most European countries try to avoid it whenever possible. There also is the possibility of bad experience when using surplus equipment and avoiding this source in the future.
The US also doesn't have infinite production capacity. Their defense industry is book for the years if not decade to come as well. The US industry faces more or less the same problems as the European industry trying to increase capacity. Which BTW the Europeans are doing as well. German defense firms are hiring like crazy and start to set up new plants and production. But they are still doing it in a controlled maner not to overstrain themself should the war suddenly end and the funding disappear again.
What we allready can say is that Korea is definetly a winner of this war. Because they have capacity can deliver on short notice and provide decent quality at acceptable prices with allmost no strings attached. We will have to wait and see if the European and US defense industry can deliver comparable products to comparable prices. Or most smaller european countries will buy the budget package from Asia.
There is no free lunch iarms no matter who suplies it ,our neigbour Croatia has taken some (89 includin some as spare parts donours) of these 'free' Bradleys , ended up with half a 757mio$ in upgrades and servicing by BAE contractors for 76Bradelys so while these 'nearly free' Bradleys cost cca 150mio$ with US subsidizing 50mio$,, all up they are looking at 850mio $ and change for 76 updated ones .
Its only free if you let it rust in a yard. All these ringtausch Leopards will eventually get modernized 5-10mio s a pop and most of the $ will ultimately get paid to German firms that make stuff for Leopard. If these countries are not first forced to ship these Leopards to Ukraine.
What you suggest in regards of ITAR is true but you are now looking at countries that are completely disarmed in some areas and no supplier able to fill the needs in short term, i imagine ROK is maxed out with Norwegian and Polish orders. Indeed US industry similarly to European has no capacity but you can bet your money will be magnitudes faster to ramp up, but the difference is stocks, It was relatively easy to ''make'' Leopards as long as there were stocks of them in the parking lot.
When the decision comes M1 will be sent and no one will be bothered with fuel consumption. Ukraine operates T80 with similar fuel burn.
this company alone cut up cca 19.000 armored vehicles
Bayonets don't seem to find use in Ukraine at all i dont remember seeing them mounted by anyone.
Rare and impressive video of BMP Terminator - high ROF:
M1 Abrams and Leopard 2's to be sent to Ukraine:
Well, the T-72 hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. So giving yours to Ukraine and replacing them with M1Ax, K2, or Leopard seems like a good idea.
And most Europeans would prefer being under the American thumb than the Russian one.
FPV drone + RPG7 warhead = poor mans ATGM
The deed of a gloomy unknown ukrainian genius. UAV loitering munition with PG-7 destroyed RF BMP-1. Follow my tg... https://t.co/UlvVDGU4DARead more from Twitter
It seems a larger Lancet 10 with more range and payload apeared
Chicken wire seems to be somewhat of counter to suicidedrones
Note grenades from two grenade launchers hitting the trees very close in due to a higher trajectory in comparison to the 30mm
“Chicken wire seems to be somewhat of counter to suicidedrones“
Nyet Net > Cope Cage
Its funny, I had thought months ago nets would be a possible counter to the smaller drones. I had envisioned the nets used in baseball stadiums and Golf driving ranges to catch stray balls. However using chain link fence seems like a fine DIY option.
More BMPT Terminator action. This thing would be really scary