docb said:
AGS-R-TUFF said:
74OA said:
GarryowenAg said:
Very detailed and accurate assessment of the artillery the Ukes are requesting.
Subsequent correction:
Additionally, a lot of Army artillery is resident elsewhere than in the divisions. Most rocket artillery is held at corps level, for example. Wiki isn't authoritative of course, but it can't be that far off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_States_Army#Artillery
Definitely requesting significant additional artillery systems. Of course, the more effective path with less arty units is to nut up and provide the long range MLRS rockets. Ukes could hit Russian artillery from greater distance, hit Crimean airfields and wreck Sevastopol.
But we wouldn't want to reduce Putin's ability to slaughter civilians and level cities.
Makes sense to me. Should have been done already.
Commentators increasingly seem to assume it is entirely on the US to support Ukraine.
This administration has already committed to over $40B in aid, including billions provided well
before the war started while so many were dismissing the US as alarmist.
The Europeans are Ukraine's next-door neighbors and are equally responsible for coming to its rescue and some of them have delivered operationally significant aid that often seems be overlooked in the handwringing over what more the US should do.
So when tallying up what Ukraine wants versus what it has received, people's mental spreadsheet needs to broaden beyond the US and take into account the considerable amount of materiel sent by Europeans as well.
Does Ukraine need more support? Yes it does, and while it might not get it in the vast quantities it demands and on the timeline it insists upon, much more is enroute.
But if there's finger-pointing to be done in the meantime, it should be aimed at the wealthy western European countries who, outside of the UK, have contributed comparatively little.