With the outdated Doctrine that “Artillery is the God of War”, Russia is losing the War

Military Doctrines such as “Air Land Battle” which was applied in the Gulf War 30 years earlier, but also the modern “Multi Domain Operations”, conducting military operations, have put the doctrine of massive use of artillery to achieve victory in the timeline of History.

Russia now spends 20,000 shells on Ukraine, but only in one day. At the same time the Americans happily announced that next spring they would increase the production of artillery shells to 20,000 per month. Now that number is 14,000 and by 2025, they will be able to increase production to 40,000 missiles per month.

It is obvious that American industry is in no way capable of sustaining the present pace of artillery warfare. The US can only empty the warehouses. Replenishment of them at the appropriate rate will not work.

In Europe, of course, the situation is even worse. After all, all this time, in a military sense, the Europeans lived under the American umbrella. In the hope that the United States will protect them.

Here is just a simple example. Germany has promised to provide Ukraine with two Skynex Rheinmetal air defense systems by 2024 (2024!) and now the Bundestag is seeking funds to finance this project.

The fact-problem is that the entire military power of the United States is built on a powerful fleet, including aircraft carriers.

The military strategy of the USA is based on ships, submarines, but also on aviation, but not on artillery, which is very logical for a country whose territory is “hidden” across the ocean.

In addition, the United States has long since lost the strong industry it once had. All production has been transferred mainly to other countries, such as China, Asian countries, Latin America.

So even if the US wants to ramp up production of tanks and artillery suddenly, it will take years.

But Russia’s military might rests squarely on land forces, including the God of War, artillery.

And this means that in everything related to land warfare, artillery, tanks, infantry, there is an unconditional advantage on the part of Russia. The US and the West, even if they set the right target right now, will only be able to cover us in years.

Therefore, it is simply incomprehensible how they make provocations, with the Poles completely willing to fight! For slaughter?

As for Ukraine, which currently produces 7,000 shells per day (three times less than us), these are already the remnants of former luxury…

So it turns out that in a ground war there is no one stronger than Russia in the world! And that means Russia’s borders are locked once they reach Ukraine’s desired borders.”

From the above it is clear that according to the Russians, the rate of production and consumption of artillery shells in their country far exceeds that of the USA, as well as that they boast that their land forces are the strongest in the world.

Of course, the question that easily arises is that since there is this superiority in ground forces on the part of Russia, over the Ukrainians, 10 months after the start of the war in Ukraine, the results are not the same on the battlefields.

In addition, the Russian army has suffered significant defeats at the beginning of the operation in Kyiv, from where it was forced to withdraw, solving its siege, but also in Kherson recently.

The reason is that long gone are the days when the army, navy and air force operated independently on the battlefield, which is now characterized by inter-branch and interoperability of means.

The notion that artillery is the God of war, as the Russians believe, has been debunked for several decades.

Air supremacy, electronic warfare, Drones, anti-aircraft defense and above all a modern C4ISR command and control system, are the most basic outcome parameters of military operations now.

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *