Originally Posted by
NutLoose
True, I also see some people going on about about the cost of the HIMARS and their ammunition they are receiving, true they are expensive, but when you put it into perspective they are cheap, if you can take out and hit target with 6 rounds avoiding collateral damage, where the Russians expend 60 or 70 rounds often missing the targets by a long way, then you are onto a winner.
For one, you do not need all the launchers, ammo and the supply chain the Russians need to get those to the launch / firing point, often to be wasted constructing new duck ponds around the farmland of Ukraine, and two, you in effect negate the ten to one advantage in firepower, as you achieve your military objective with fewer weapons and rounds....
Aviation related response: When one is using, for air dropped munitions, guided bombs such as JDAM or a GBU-12 LGB, it takes a lot fewer bombs to hit/neutralize/destroy a target...but each bomb is more expensive.
There used to be a Copperhead artillery round that could be lased to the target, not sure if our folks still use those.
Originally Posted by
Beamr
Regarding NATO forces uplift and deployment, I heard that the plan is eg for Estonia to create a new, permanent NATO led division in Estonia with up to 25000 troops. It would consist of 10000 locals and rest would be on rotation from bigger NATO countries. It would be a big leap from current situation of approx 2000 troops.
A division sized unit can't be stood up, nor become combat effective, in a short time. I'd love to see the proposed ToE for that unit.