HIMARS and Storm Shadow: Ukraine's Once and Future MVPs

[@jonathanhines7733]

As a former HIMARS battery commander, I am so excited for this video!

[@eeyun5279]

Yea give us your impressions and analysis

[@veniceitalyvlog]

Compliment for your job

[@nullc0ntext]

So you have an inimate knowledge of just how rekt those orcs are getting. :D

[@u3dprint527]

Thank you for your service.

[@renekuipers4563]

Tell me how ore who give you these cordination ..

[@bobbobskin]

I work as a journalist, I specialise in reporting on corruption and in war zones. This is my wheel house. The situation is rather more complex. Storm shadow is approx £1m per shot, however as they are a jet engine, they are not "shelf stable" and require ongoing maintenance. For the purpose of calculating "gift value" the UK uses a very different economic calculation to that used by the US military. Effectively the UK uses a depreciated book value (meaning that the claimed "cost" to the British tax payer is artificially lowered, as they have claimed depreciation, and the upkeep costs against the "asset") whereas the US government, for the purpose of international military aid, uses a "new replacement value" to assess the value of items donated. This pattern can be seen across the board when it comes to valuations of donations, so for example when the UK sends a "UK army cammo pattern poncho 2000" manufactured in 2000, it says that it was worth £100 when manufactured, but had an expected depreciation rate of 10% per year, meaning after 23 years, the value is £100 *0.9 *0.9 .... 23 times, giving a calculated value for the gifting from the UK Treasury of £8.86. The US on the other hand uses "'like for like' new replacement value" so (say) the same item in "US digital cammo pattern poncho 2000" with an intitial purchase value of $150 in 2000 which was never used, will be accounted by the US government as a donation of "Cammo Poncho", and priced as the cost of the purchase of an "equivalent" replacement, so valued at what it costs the US Army in 2023 to purchase a Cammo Poncho new (say $220). This means that UK and US "donation size" calculations as reported publicly for 10 ponchos (using this example) will have the UK reporting a donation of £88.60 (approx $100) and the US government reporting to their public a donation of $2200. The UK have a stock of around 850 Storm Shadow remaining from an initial purchase of 1000, with these dating from around 2000, meaning much like the stock of Tomahawk's used in 1999 (which ran OS/2 and which the US was not 100% sure were Y2K safe) are at "end of life", and were already scheduled to be replaced, and France have a stock of around 450. The "book value" of the entire UK remaining stock at time of purchase was around £850m, but given depreciation, they are now valued around 8% of that by the UK Treasury, which is the depreciated value, given the MOD is considering that it will need to spend £300k per unit if it wishes to keep them in active inventory, to cover the cost of storage, ongoing maint, engine replacements, and warhead stabilisation etc. So, the reported gifted value of the 850 items of ordinance on the UK Treasury sheet, will be only around £74.8 million. Which is just 1/3rd of the cost the MOD would spend if it kept them and kept them "in commission" (around £255m). As such, the "cost per big bang" for using Storm Shadow according to the UK Treasury, works out at only around £88,000 (so about $100k). By comparison, the US Army will calculate the "cost" of their donation of a Javelin (launcher plus projectile) based on their 2023 budget for missile procurement cost of Javelin (where the cost for a single Javelin all-up round - that is, one missile and launcher is $197,884). The fact that the "replacement" for StormS might cost the UK £1m in todays money is irrelevant, that is increased military spending and towards the Nato spend cap. The Treasury (and arguably MOD) would prefer to give the majority of their stock to Ukraine and buy new, with it being accounted as a small gift and a large new investment, vs the US who due to "budget balancing" rules and alike, want to be seen as being extremely "generous" (ie. the biggest donor by far... because in America BIGGER is BETTER) with the size of the generosity guaranteeing the "future spend budget" on the replacement. When it comes to armour, guns and afv/apc/battle taxi's (Challenger 2, AS90 Self Propelled, and the UK MRAP "dogs of war") this is even more noticeable. The UK has effectively "lend leased" the Challenger 2 and AS90, with purchase at depreciation value upon destruction only, the "dogs of war" series (Mastiff, Ridgeback etc...) were gifted at scrap "writeoff" sale value, and the Scorpion, Striker, Scimitar, Samson, Samaritan series (the CVR(T) FV10x family) were gifted at write down "market value" (given they were produced 1971-1986 range) based on the price which the MOD normally auctions them to the British public. Prior to 2022, the CVR(T)FV10x family could be purchased "demilitarised" in the UK for between £7.5k to £15k, with them being quite common in places such as Paint Gun parks. In fact, the difference in price from this "base demil cost" when these have been purchased by individuals and organisations to then be sent to Ukraine, has been to remilitarise them, incorporating "off the shelf modern high end consumer technology" such as night vision, sensors and alike, along with the necessary repairs and service work needed to allow them to meet the reliability requirements necessary when someone is trusting the equipment with their life on the battlefield. Supply and demand means that might now be £15k to £25k for the base non-mil model, with around an extra £35k spent to get it from "just running" to "reliable" a further £5-10k shipping, transport, and say £25k spent on weapons and technology, bringing the per unit cost on the open market delivered to Ukraine in mil spec to say £85k ($100k USD). Remember, If a 50 year old CVR(T) retired from service 25 years ago, which is doing less than 100 miles a year at a paint gun park breaks down, it's not a problem. If it;s being used as a light recon tank however, it might be sprinting across a real battlefield scouting a front of 100 miles in a single day. If (for example) the radiator has a "minor leak" and needs filling every 2 miles, the pre-2022 purchased demil for £10k would need you to fill it once a week, doable. The same leak in a front line deployed vehicle doing 100 miles per day would need you to stop 50 times a day so twice an hour, putting extensive pressure on logistics, and making it pretty much inoperable, thus the difference in cost. The final point is that the UK has a habit of "putting down" platforms when they become expensive to maintain, train or operate, even if they are effective, and even after spending lots of money on modernising them. The budget is overall a lot smaller, and the effective cost of the "basic cost of a having a system" which is inherent in having any system, is a much greater burden as a % of manpower and resources, and so we have a long history of diggers chopping up and crushing military toys even after we have spent a lot on them recently, if it would be "long term" more burdensome to have it than the arguable strategic worth. This sometimes, but not always works out. Finally (I knew I would get a finally), having discussed the differences in financial reporting, driven by domestic political requirements, it should be noted that the UK, unlike the USA (for example) does not have a problem with UK weapons being fired at locations in Russia. The UK when asked has worded the restriction on use very carefully as "to be used *from* within Ukraine Soveriegn borders", which includes all of what was Ukraine pre 2014. This attitude was evidenced by the "prank call" on Ben Wallace the Defence Secretary (who was asked if the UK could help start a nuclear programme for Ukraine, and who said something along the lines of "Are you sure you have considered all the geopolitical consequences, I will have to talk to my PM, but our position in principle is that we will provide every possible assistance to back Ukraine whatever you decide to do). The UK - Ukraine relationship is clearly far stronger than the US-Ukraine relationship, which is something hinted at in Zelenski "off hand" comments about how Ukraine share ALL their information with the UK, because the UK is Ukraine's "best true ally". The US have frequently stated that Ukraine are keeping them "in the dark" regarding operational matters. (Excuse spell check not working, and my keyboard having run out of battery)

[@michaeldy3157]

Smart to keep the u.s in the dark because of leaks from snowden type geeks

[@teorloges315]

sir you should ask for a raise but only if you get a proper wired keyboard 😂

[@LordVarkson]

This is great. Where can we see more of your work?

[@merhaba8]

It was on the news last night that the US has changed its valuation policy inline with the UKs so have “found” billions more to spend on Ukraine

[@steveharrigan7811]

You didnt mention that Victoria Nuland and her cohorts had a democratically elected government overthrown in a regime change in 2014.....Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire" is essential, and quite telling indeed......A genuine "eye opener".

[@Elkarlo77]

One thing about the Storm Shadow: The UK Export Version has 250km range. The FRENCH Export Version Scalp-E has 290km range and French is delivering. So the Kertsch Bridge is on the Menu.

[@atashgallagher5139]

Ya hear that. The Kertsch bridge is back on the menu boys, *GET EM*

[@biddyboy1570]

Yum

[@tremedar]

@@atashgallagher5139 *_bits of bridge go flying everywhere_*

[@unknowngod8221]

@@atashgallagher5139 damn that's hot

[@Butt_Slayer]

A French kilometre is longer than a British one. They technically have the same physical range.

[@corq]

This was exactly the kind of explainer I needed on the differences of these artillery tactics. I appreciate the level of detail you've provided. Amazing work.

[@Gametheory101]

Very generous, thanks!

[@NateMcQuade]

Props due for the Pitch Meeting reference and the devastating and delicious deployment of auspicious alliteration. Great artillery dissection video.

[@stepup898]

Avoiding using an acronym for Storm Shadow is a wise move.

[@justinz4809]

😂😂

[@nullc0ntext]

OH YOUSE

[@DerAlex86]

My dear friend Stosha.

[@zopEnglandzip]

Pretty normal with British military, small arms have gotten away from names but even the American gear with only a number normally gets a name

[@Eyes_of_Oryx]

🙄🙄🙄

[@geodkyt]

Logostics difficulties are exponential, not additive or even multiplicative. A 10% increase in length of supply routes in a combat zone are a *big deal* . Doubling them increases difficulties by *more* than a factor of four.

[@sebastianwendl603]

As a logistics major, this comment is underrated. Pull-based systems with predefined hubs are pretty smooth, whatever ruzzia is doing... is not. Soldiers win battles. Logistics wins wars.

[@lamwen03]

Yes. A 10% increase in distance is not just 10%. It's that much wear on trucks, roads, drivers, fuel, communications.

[@Thetarget1]

Why?

[@phantomsoldier497]

@@Thetarget1 because all the risks and costs add up exponentially. Let's say you go from 100km distance to 110km (10% more). Each truck has to cover 20kms more each trip, consuming more fuel, wearing out more, taking more time and exposing trucks to more risk of getting destroyed while on travel. This means that having 10 trucks travelling 10% more it's like consuming the resources of 11. If you sum up all the losses, you have lost invaliable resources to do the exact same job

[@pepe6666]

i think of it this way. 10% longer road means: 10% more fuel. then 10% more wear on tyres. Then 10% more danger of being shot. Every dimension to the war is increased 10%, so the sum increase is 1.1 * 1.1 * 1.1 * 1.1...... for each dimension.

[@cybershocked]

HIMARS being Ukraine's MVP - Most Valuable Projectile.

[@SamtheIrishexan]

Looks like it has been usurped by the storm shadow missiles albeit air launched

[@tyrliljesno9309]

Hahahaha loved that one

[@bonearrowgamingcommunity3380]

St Javelin begs to differ

[@josealvaro-bc7zv]

A tecnologia está no Ocidente . Tudo o que vem para a Ucrânia é avançado 10 anos em relação á sucata russa.Os novos Himars têm um long range de 240 quilómetros e margem de erro de 40 centímetros , natural para chegar aos portos Ucranianos na Crimeia e mandar a frota moskóvia toda ao fundo além de conseguir arrasar a ponte com rapidez que é o que vai acontecer assim que começar a contra ofensiva.

[@Tsagan]

Ukraine's MVP is Zelensky

[@margarettroche2594]

Thank you so much for clarifying things about HIMARS, ATACMS, and STORM SHADOW. I am an ordinary American who has been following the Ukrainian’s fight for survival. I’ve learned more on Twitter than I have from our mainstream media. Your channel explained things so clearly, figuratively and literally. I follow the DOD’s available information. I watch who visits the White House. I was a nervous wreck when President Biden visited Kyiv. I could go on but I’m sure you’re busy. I will check this channel to make sure I don’t miss your shows. Again, thank you. M

[@manipulatortrash]

Its a shame what the mainstream news is now, and i don't mean it based on just domestic political squabbles and whatnot. Its just not a good source of journalism anymore. Its just too safe and unwilling to do groundbreaking informative content now.

[@sethbartley2212]

22:00 love the pitch meeting reference haha I appreciate the large amount of subtle humor you put in your videos. (the habit of people to explain jokes or scream memes at the screen demanding laughs has very much worn on me)

[@divat10]

yeah same! why isn't anyone else talking about this?

[@martin_from_sweden]

A large amount of subtle humor is tight!

[@jaykay3784]

Subtly is the new champagne

[@AndreiMaguleanu]

Wow. Wow wow wow. wow.

[@FranktheDachshund]

​@@martin_from_sweden hahaha you read my mind.

[@Goman693]

22:01 Ryan George reference... Nice!

[@Gametheory101]

Ryan George references are tight.

[@nullc0ntext]

You make amazing content man. Thank you. Ukraine is gonna have to hold an international media coverage awards ceremony and give recognition to so many quality KZbinrs postwar. I hope you get recognized for your fine analysis and positive coverage. Cheers from Florida.

[@Salocinfalcon]

I love the Ryan George reference 21:58 “Super easy barely an inconvenience”

[@Prophetofcthulhu]

Oh really?

[@IvanToshkov]

Ryan George references are tight!

[@alecausderbeek5918]

Maybe my new favorite video on this channel. So much crucial information packed in a smart light but not superficial format!

[@reti7959]

The UK has said the Storm Shadows came from it's own stocks. It's own stocks won't be the export version, it'll be the ultra-long range domestic version.

[@eduwino151]

they can tweak it to limit its range basically geo fence where the missile can fly to

[@laars0001]

It matters not if they send the 290Km version, Russia is in range of the 250's from an infinite number of locations.

[@reti7959]

@@laars0001 and the planes launching them take a much lower risk by remaining well away from air defence when launching the longer range. It matters a lot. The further away you can launch them the better it is for the pilot.

[@eduwino151]

@@laars0001 the kerch bridge is the main target for storm shadow , ukraine is a bit far off to be able to hit it safely

[@reti7959]

@@eduwino151 This is where the UK's domestic stock of Storm shadow comes in. Hitting that bridge will be much more difficult with the export version

[@marcelloastori9739]

I loved the quote from “pitch meeting”. We watch the same stuff

[@ZontarDow]

It had been fascinating seeing decades of military theory put into practice. Tragic why but the war has shown which ideas where right and which like hypersonics where wrong.

[@EvMund]

Im not sure it's early enough to say that hypersonics are a bust, just that the muscovians couldnt pull it off.

[@YOURDADSDILDO]

​@@EvMund or that the tech isn't advanced as the anti hypersonic tech (yet/maybe)

[@ParagonGoetia]

​@@EvMund its a case of the hypersonic weapons, not actually being so because of well... corruption.

[@Taskarnin]

The fact of the matter is that systems designed to defend against ballistic missiles (which fly at extreme speeds, much higher than hypersonic missiles) can defend against the hypersonic missiles as well…

[@preserveourpbfs7128]

@@Taskarnin that’s cause Russia’s up until recently much-vaunted Khinzhal is merely an air launched ballistic missile.

[@Stepica]

Kudos for the Pitch Meeting refference : Its gonna be super easy. Barely an inconvenience :D 10/10

[@mm650]

There's an effort to adapt the small diameter bomb to be launched from a HIMARS launcher as something very like Storm Shadow, but ground based. This, combined with other advances in the Small Diameter Bomb, and switch blade mortar launched drones, really is demonstrating the merging of the concept of the drone, artillery and cruse-missile into a single multi-use platform. I predict that it is the beginning of a new combined arms paradigm,

[@Destroyer_V0]

the GLSDM is less a drone and more a glide bomb. Normally such things are dropped by aircraft, but rocket works just as well to get it to altitude.

[@mm650]

@@Destroyer_V0 You are absolutely correct, but the rocket deployed version is being advertised as having some terrain following and avoidance capability... so from a capability point of view, it's not THAT far off from a cruise missile: long range, terrain aware trajectory... just unpowered on final approach. And of course Iran has demonstrated that drones and cruise missiles can bleed into one another. That's the point I'm making: there seems to be a an increasingly fuzzy distinction between these previously quite different platforms. We may eventually come to think of them all as just variants of one concept: "Semi-Autonomous Precision Artilery" SAPA.

[@newone-gd9sk]

HIMARS failed even its demonstration hahaha

[@Chuck_Hooks]

According to Russia, 44 HIMARS launchers were "destroyed" even though only 20 had been sent. As a bonus, Russia claimed 4 Bradleys were "destroyed" even though none had been sent yet.

[@darrenneven8533]

Forrest Gump said it best, " Stupid is, as stupid does"

[@maciek_k.cichon]

Strange, I was always taught that Russian works of fiction were of high standard.

[@DerAlex86]

I see at least four reasons for these numbers: 1) Ukraine using inflatable targets to draw fire that could otherwise destroy valuable real targets. 2) Local Russian commanders, having more stuff on their plate than just counting destroyed enemy equipment, are overestimating their kills and/or outright lying to look better to their superiors. 3) Each level of the intermediate Russian command chain that has to aggregate the numbers reported by the lower level, could be "rounding up generously" and/or outright falsifying the numbers to look better to their superiors. 4) The Russian MoD and/or Kremlin as the last two levels level in the Russian command chain, falsifying the received results before publishing. We will probably never know how much of the difference is caused by which reason, but some of the bad choices made by the Russian high command seem to indicate to me that it's not only (4), but that the MoD is internally working with wrong numbers already.

[@AndresRamirez-fi5uw]

The muscovites already destroyed the undelivered F-16's

[@JamesBideaux]

in their defense, there is a bunch of vehicles that operate on the chame chassis and a bunch of decoys.

[@gagaplex]

This is really simplistic, but I kind of love that the _smaller_ system with less weaponry and armour (HIMARS versus MLRS) is more useful. It makes perfect sense with weapons whose point is to never get hit, but we are - or at least I am - still prone to think the weapon with "better stats" might be more useful. But reality isn't a videogame.

[@BigRedDragonFan]

Logistics is the god of war. Pallets is a major reason why nato logistics is smooth while Russian is terrible(also push vs pull systems)

[@hungrymusicwolf]

Dodge / hit chance are also a stat in many games, don't forget that.

[@emilsinclair4190]

You can not truly say that it is more useful. Mlrs gas also been send to ukraien and also shows great performances but bc it was send later the media hype is smaller. Humans basically has the advantage when you have roads. Mars has the advantage in destroyed infrastructure and when you need more firepower.

[@geodkyt]

​@@emilsinclair4190 and MLRS was *expressly* designed to survive and be fully capable in a full on NBC environment. HIMARS wasn't built for a late Cold War Fulda Gap scenario.

[@gagaplex]

@@geodkyt I just read up on the Fulda Gap and atomic mines. Woah.

[@sirthomas9835]

For over a year I have been following the war on several KZbin channels. Your channel is FAR and AWAY the BEST! Your logic, analysis and graphics are both entertaining and informative. I look forward to your future presentations...

[@Phlosioneer]

A million times this. The analysis is more reliable and makes its limitations, caveats, and alternative interpretations extremely clear.

[@bloodlustshiva1]

I like this channel a good deal, but Perun is still my favorite covering these sorts of topics.

[@joseolmedo4580]

Thanks!

[@wesleytownsend8214]

I liked the alliteration “frantically fortifying facilities for a fortnight”. Maybe I’m just an old nerd but I liked the writing. I wish you all the very best!

[@jeffcurrey8765]

This excellent video clarified the reluctance of the USA to provide ATCAMs in a way I had not heard- ever. Thank you!

[@NightOwlinNewOrleans]

I wish people would understand the many reasons for our “hesitations”.

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

​@@NightOwlinNewOrleans russian bluffs that and you don't have anything to replace atcms yet the second reason is the actual reason for reluctance

[@lamwen03]

Stretching this conflict out to attain maximum effect on the Russian people is the way to go.

[@jonbeckham6463]

What was not touched on was the number produced. If they can only make say 300 a year and we have 600 total and we give half of them to be used we cannot resupply ourselves quickly. So Ukraine pulls off a spasm of firings and they will run out fast with no more to give. Similar to how they fried 32 Patriot missiles in two minutes representing over a month of production of a missile we are already short on.

[@theemperorofmankind3739]

​@@jonbeckham6463 You bring up an excellent point. It is probably down to shortsightedness and economics. But rate of production limiting what is actually needed in a war has always been an issue. The caveat being is due to how complex modern weapons are we cannot spin up production like we used to. Which puts greater strain on pre-war stockpiles. I doubt even this conflict will change this but I do hope this leads to more forward thinking when it comes to munitions and other consumables.

[@DaweSMF]

I don't know why, but the mention of Pythagoras reminded me of a scene from Red Dwarf. The crew is on a planet of wax figures, where a war rages between the good characters of history and the bad ones. A final attack is planned and Pythagoras appears with his plan, but he is immediately shouted at that "not every problem can be solved with the help of triangles".

[@Iacedrom54]

"Someone's being brought out... they're tying him to a stake... it's Winnie the Pooh!"

[@ydderynnad]

That's like the opposite of the The Tick episode in which George Washington Carver appeared and every problem they faced he'd have some peanut-intensive invention that would save the day.

[@hedgehog3180]

Actually if you ever do ever do any higher level math or science it turns out that a surprising ammount of problems can be solved with triangles. In 3D design it's actually every problem.

[@emilsinclair4190]

Wheels generally have advantages when the ground is okay. When the ground isn't Tricks are better.

[@HAXRLITSXY]

no tricks are for kids.

[@thorwaldjohanson2526]

Huge advantage of wheeled systems is the low maintenance cost and re-deployment speed. It can drive itself.

[@BosonCollider]

@@thorwaldjohanson2526 Right, they have pros and cons once on the field, but they have a huge logistical advantage before that and are more likely to be where you need them in time

[@travelinman70]

@@thorwaldjohanson2526 doesn't matter if it's stuck in the mud.

[@hedgehog3180]

This is why every US soldier is equipped with a skateboard as this allows them to do sick kickflips over enemy trenches and mud. Tony Hawk is the US' greatest national security asset.

[@brucemckean2848]

Thanks

[@scottriemenschneider9305]

Great videos, William. Stumbled across a few of your videos previously, but have watched a number them this weekend. Remind me of the Poli-Sci and History courses that I really enjoyed in college. Thanks!

[@Ponen77]

I was feeling tired and didnt know of I would be able watch the whole presentation, turns out it was super easy, barely an inconvenience.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

Watching the whole presentation while tired is tight!

[@StanislavBlok]

Oh, really?

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoeI just tweeted Ryan George to let him know that his catchphrases have made their way into analyses of Ukrainian artillery systems.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

@@grahamstrouse1165 I really believe Ryan George is one of the great comedy geniuses of our time. I can't think of anyone else who can so reliably make me laugh.

[@chrissmith2114]

Another problem with Russian logistics is that they do not have many trucks for transport, they rely on railways, and railways are easy to damage because they are hard to protect... and they are inflexible as well so unlike a damaged road where you can make a detour, a damaged railway section will stop all traffic...

[@acephantom903]

On the flip side, Russia has a lot of rail workers and can repair railways faster than most countries. And trains are harder to derail than many people think -- don't look at the US, that is a different issue. The main real weakness would be rail bridges as those can't easily be replaced.

[@eduwino151]

also ukrainian special forces operating behind the lines hitting supply trucks with ATGMs are a huge headache to Russian logisitics

[@nvelsen1975]

@@acephantom903 That requires specialised gear. Specialised gear that Russia is desperately short off as machine tooling and chips have been sanctioned.

[@acephantom903]

@@nvelsen1975 Russia will not have an issue making rails. You can make rails with machinery from the 1800s -- right up their alley as that is mostly all they have left. They have railway equipment to spare unless suddenly all their rail workers sabotage everything in defiance. To maintain railways all you need is the ability to make steel, lumber, and man power. Making new locomotives is a different story.

[@nvelsen1975]

@@acephantom903 Yep, and it just takes an eternity compared to overnight fixes. And track replacer train can do a stretch of hundreds of meters in hours. By hand that takes weeks. So the ability to keep those operating with machine tools? Very very necessary for Russia. They can't afford to lose a railhead for a week.

[@chrissmith2114]

At last count UK had just under 1000 storm shadow, France has the same missile called SCALP-G about 500, but storm shadow was also sold outside UK, so there are other places to get them, and Storm Shadow and SCALP are superseded by newer missiles....

[@hedgehog3180]

I cannot believe that there are literally going to be countries scalping the SCALP missile.

[@davegrr2571]

Loved the "Pitch Meeting" reference at 22:03

[@vincentlemire8703]

I caught that Ryan George / Pitch Meeting reference. Good to know you are a fan, tells me you have good taste and now I can trust what else you have to say. Also, nice segue to plug your book at the end, got a laugh out of me.

[@perihelion7798]

One thing not mentioned by Spaniel is the shortage of trucks that Russia is suffering. Russia's deployment and supply are dependent on rail transport, but they can't get very close to the front with rail, as tracks are very vulnerable to destruction. The Ukrainians have been hitting the Russian rail system pretty hard lately. You can knock a truck out with an RPG, or even a grenade dropped from a drone, so the few that remain are pretty exposed. There also seems to be something going on within Russia itself in a destructive manner.

[@handmadehearts]

Slava Partisans!! Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦♥

[@JohnMeacham]

Have they been able to commandeer civilian vehicles in captured territory to make up the shortage or are they not acceptable for some reason?

[@perihelion7798]

@@JohnMeacham In fact they have been using 'civilian' trucks, but those are even more easy to knock out.

[@petrichor3797]

Honestly you can destroy a civilian truck with something as basic as a rifle or a molotov, no point in wasting limited explosives. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[@snegglepuss6669]

Railway tracks are easy to destroy, but remember you're hitting a long, thin set of two steel bars, so they're fairly trivial to replace relative to what you're spending to hit them. Railyards, through, they're easier to hit. They're tricky to entirely disable even if you're planning out nuclear strikes, but you can cut the throughput substantially. 4 railyards running at 75% capacity isn't the same as one running at 0, but it all helps

[@ZontarDow]

You know the part about the possible crossing of the Russian border is somewhat ironic given hours ago the Free Russian Legion did just that and claims to occupy multiple settlements.

[@benbroocks5831]

I thought Legion Svoboda was inside Russia to begin with? Is that not correct?

[@gagaplex]

Freedom for the Belgorod People's Republic! 😂 Genuinely, though, I wish them great success.

[@bobeyes3284]

These people need protecting when this is over. They fight to try to keep some honour in Russia. True patriots.

[@ALMAZ157]

And they all died! (Except those who got captured)

[@ALMAZ157]

@@bobeyes3284 they are traitors and will die like traitors

[@jackwebb5917]

“My precious freedom units”, I love it! 😊

[@jameswilson1363]

William , its refreshing to hear you clarify the UK`s actual Prime Minister. I`ve enjoyed your "video series" Materiel, is a real word, by the way. Take care.

[@galewosten2010]

The distance value of pushing supply lines is more than double the movement because of round trip requirements and with increased miles per convoy comes with increased maintenance and down time of vehicles. Additional requirements on supply lines requires more supplies themselves. Finally the longer supply lines gives drones I create opportunity to shadow trucks to hubs and give them locations of new supply depot's.

[@ZiggyBoon]

A pattern in Western support for Ukraine til now has been for the British to send something first, then gauge Russia’s response, then the US sends stuff based on Russia’s weak response. So it’s possible this could be the pattern with Storm Shadow-wait to see what Russia does, then start sending ATACMS, but with the usage stipulations mentioned in the video, perhaps stipulating certain targets only.

[@ApusApus]

Could be UA names a target, US agrees, gives an ATACM, UA shoots it kind of deal

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The USMC has retired a lot of tube artillery and focused on rocket artillery. They tested the firing of HIMARS off the deck of one of their amphibious assault ships. Most likely ATAMCS are earmarked for a potential naval fight due to its greater range vs GMLRS.

[@blueskiestrevor5200]

I think this is simply a lack of spine by the U.S. and not a coherent strategy by NATO. The U.S. has been one step behind Europe on every arms shipment since the war began. Classic Democrat leading from behind foreign policy.

[@HaydenLau.]

US weapons have a technical acronym. The British just call their weapon Storm Shadow. Epic. The UK has a long history of naming their weapons cool names Swordfish, Challenger, Firefly

[@hjmuhdfirdaus3038]

It sounds more menacing as well.

[@jaykay3784]

It all started with Excalibur (the sword)

[@dualtronix4438]

HMS Vengeance is the most badass name for a second strike nuclear submarine

[@HaydenLau.]

@@jaykay3784 The americans have an artillery round called Excalibur

[@HaydenLau.]

@@dualtronix4438 HMS dreadnought?

[@kvendev]

great video, thanks for all these in-depth war theory analysis! (or whatever it's called, you got it mate)

[@120136pie]

Love the Pitch Meeting reference. Keep up the great content

[@jeffroberts8246]

It has one more counter to enemy artillery and that is when it comes out of the rocket pod it does not fly straight at the target. It flies at a different angle initially, straightens out and then angles back towards the target.

[@TammoKorsai]

HIMARS is love. HIMARS is life.

[@catalindeluxus8545]

Shrek has entered the chat

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@catalindeluxus8545It’s not the only thing Shrek has entered…

[@MkVenner1975]

Not for the Russians, at least not for long.

[@Brit_81]

MLRS has been just as good

[@newone-gd9sk]

HIMARS failed even its demonstration hahaha

[@awgates85]

While it shouldn't come as a surprise, the Pitch Meeting quote was unexpected and had me laughing. I like it when things I like are also fans of things I like 😆

[@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT]

WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW...WOW!

[@youtuber6193]

I’m gonna need you to get alllllll the way off my back on this one.

[@aurorapaisley7453]

​@@CAPSLOCKPUNDITWHERE

[@susansprague7304]

I don't recognize the HiMARS without that toothy, evil grin drawn on the front. Thanks, as always, for the incisive commentary.

[@tahko3956]

Are You in r/noncredibledefense?

[@ChipHead0110]

18:14 Bear in mind that the M-270 (MLRS) theoretically can fire ATACMS, and if they could, they have twice the rocket capacity of the HIMARS. Using the M-270s with ATACMS and the HIMARS still mostly with GMLRS would make good sense, not sacrificing the strategic advantages of both platforms.

[@FirstPassOfficial]

Was not expecting a Pitch Meeting reference at 22:02 😂

[@samwamm85]

I just realized the HIMARS truck is basically a repurposed Aardvark mine clearance unit. That means as long as you can transport the rocket bay and ammunition, you can refit this to any IFOR associated nations with active mine clearance units. Estonia has tons of these vehicles around and from it's location St Petersburg is screwed.

[@morejulo]

Appreciation for using the line "super easy, barely an inconvenience" 😊😊😅

[@TyroneJackson313]

So intelligently informative loving it keep doing what you're doing

[@catface101]

They're gonna make a weapon called A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. next, aren't they?

[@DerAlex86]

"TLA", which is the acronym for "three-letter acronym".

[@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881]

@@DerAlex86 That's perfect! first time I ever felt like spreading fake news. If my fingers weren't so bad at typing, I'd totally do it, but sadly my hands are suffering with TBA.

[@ApusApus]

​@@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881 is the cause of TBA TBD?

[@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881]

@@ApusApus Indeed it is! Just lucky it's not full-blown BCWYWF of the lungs.

[@Sharkamfss]

Assisted Controlled Radio-based Object Nullifying Yankee Missile

[@SkepticalChris]

This whole fear of escalation has been just Russia crying wolf: Russia's responses: Feb 2022 - "If you help Ukraine, we will nuke you!" Apr 2022 - "If you send artillery, we will nuke you!" Jun 2022 - "If you send HIMARS, we will nuke you!" Sep 2022 - "If you send long range missiles, we will nuke you!" Dec 2022 - "If you sent Patriot system, we will nuke you!" Feb 2023 - "If you send moder ntanks, we will nuke you!" May 2023 - "If you send F-16s, we will nuke you!"

[@SupernaturalPowerz]

Yeah Putin has never mentioned nukes but I get what you're trying to do,, Russia bad yeah yeah

[@Vulcano7965]

Now Russia proper is even invaded and still no nuke.

[@X1Darknite]

@Коп Kirsch Nukey nukes get the US directly involved though, literally more trouble than it would be worth.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

@@X1Darknite Not to mention even the likes of India and China would turn against Russia if they used nukes.

[@jamesmelcher7241]

Jake broe

[@tdb7992]

I'm glad Perun introduced you Americans to the humorous name we call the imperial system - freedom units. I'm an Australian currently in the UK and dealing with miles, feet and other measurements is confusing as we adopted metric in the seventies, only old people really understand and still use it.

[@raidermaxx2324]

have you tried our "freedom fries" ?

[@BubberTubber]

Loved the pitch meeting reference. Way to work it in there.

[@impostervt]

So much great information on this channel. Thanks!

[@armandoventura9043]

the HIMARS have been to the Russians what the Katyusha were to the Germans, although the HIMARS are more accurate and the Katyusha were more terrifying

[@riograndedosulball248]

I don't know chief, the chance of everything exploding, out of nowhere, at any given time, seems more terrifying to me than the very very loud rockets - that at least give me time to take cover

[@hjmuhdfirdaus3038]

​@@riograndedosulball248 Its very loud only when you are at the firing end. At the receiving end you wont hear it coming.

[@nvelsen1975]

That's Russian mythology. The katyusha was not that effective. Most casualties from artillery occur within the first 30 seconds. So a long barrage of short-range dumb-fire doesn't do all that much. I refer you to the video Military History Visualised did on that where he included primary sources.

[@Weissenschenkel]

@@nvelsen1975 the only effective Katyushas are made of skin, flesh and bones. Or is it?

[@PripyatTourist]

I understand your point but I don't think you're correct, friend. Himars can be aimed, accurately so, thus being more dangerous. The Katyusha were simply terrifying en mass. Give and take 🤷

[@teashea1]

very articulate and organized presentation with excellent production values

[@Randomstuffs261]

26:22 Everything flies in Russia nowadays - tank turrets, the Moskva's commander, their troops... very impressive stuff from the Russians

[@archaeologistify]

They fly now!?

[@johnkieth4537]

​@@archaeologistify They fly now

[@KapitainZino]

Do not forget the Marlboro cigaretts, they fly too, as we see, all over Russia. Smoking (especially on forbidden places 😅) is dangerous for the health.

[@johnstreet797]

don't forget pootlers friends flying out of windows

[@newone-gd9sk]

cringe

[@NightSkyNyx]

22:02 Catching that Ryan George reference was actually super easy! Barely an inconvenience!

[@jeffreyelliott713]

William spaniel using Ryan George's catchphrase "super ease barely an inconvenience" is tight.

[@jonnyboy8781]

Hats off to Ukraine for using HIMARS tactically with precision strikes against command posts & ammunition depots for example. Compare that strategy with Russia’s pulverisation of civilian areas & scattergun deployment of its artillery. It’s one of the key weapons in this war & thankfully on the right side.

[@CMY187]

The Ukrainians have been focusing on attacking Russian logistics (supplies and communications) from the very start of the war, and in my opinion it seems to be the correct choice. Russia keeps bragging about its wonder-weapons when in my opinion it should be putting more priority on improving its logistics. The Russians could also mobilise even more people, but there is little point in doing so if they cannot supply them. The main reason that the Germans did not send more troops to reinforce Rommel (who only had a total of three divisions in the entire North African theater) was because they could barely supply the troops that were already there.

[@hedgehog3180]

Two of the main reasons for this is that Russia lacks precision weaponry, most of their missiles have a CEP 50 of about 50 meters since they are from the cold war and designed to carry nuclear weapons and that Russia lacks good intelligence, they only get new satellite images of any one spot in Ukraine every two days. This limits them to hitting stationary targets, which they often miss and hit civilian targets instead and then they claim that was totally the intention all along and those civilians were all nazis or something, and even if they hit those stationary targets are usually hardened against such attacks and the strike has little effect so in frustration Russia hits civilian infrastructure instead since it is rarely hardened and it lets them satisfy their domestic audience. Attacking civilian targets simply isn't a good idea, there's a reason why the bombing campaigns during WWII are largely seen as military failures or at best limited successes. It famously just hardens the resolve of the civilian population but it also doesn't really achieve anything. Destroying a military depot takes a lot of equipment out of the war, destroying an appartment block “just” kills those who lived there but ultimately it has basically no impact on a country's ability to fight. Like the west didn't develop precision weapons out of humanitarian concern, they were developed because they're simply better weapons, the humanitarian aspect is purely secondary.

[@3yearsago_GameMaster]

"Super easy, barely an inconvenience!" "Oh really?" Wow, this under the radar surprise attack caught me off guard, lol

[@andytroo]

just the existence of something long range - lets say only 20 rockets - means you have to decentralize, otherwise in the lead up to an attack the 10 nearest supply depots will just go up in smoke leaving a huge area of the front without equipment for a short while. Partial decentralization in response to a few rockets being sent just makes the high value targets for them very clear.

[@cbrun1482]

I like how you covered the difference between the different precision strike platforms lately transferred to Ukraine. 1. Corruption 2. Lack of Motivation 3. Centralized Command Structure

[@robertvanark1800]

Love the pitch meeting reference.

[@awesomehpt8938]

Ukraine needs those GLSDBs, US needs to hurry up and send them

[@goldbullet50]

US should be driven out of Europe with their occupation forces that have been here for the last 80 years. They are fighting a proxy war in Europe, at the expense of Europeans, with zero interest to pursue peace and cooperation.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Ayup!

[@urbaraskpraetor3316]

"A wizard is never late, nor is he early. He arrives exactly when he needs to." Same logic for gsdb

[@handmadehearts]

[@MrTwoHigh]

USA has already sent over more than enough shit, if anything they are obligated to take their time. 3 billion dollars is not good enough for you?

[@Krasbin]

Please bear in mind, 80 km distance from depot to front is not 80 km total driving distance. That is 160 km. If a truck goes 60 kph including unloading, it takes 160/60=2.7 hours of travel total time for delivery of supplies. If you include 10 % service time for the trucks, that becomes 3 hours. These distances are incredibly important to maximize, in particular since the Russian appear to have a strained truck supply anyway.

[@dylandarnell3657]

"Easy solution, comrade! Simply do not include 10% service time. But say you did so get paid."

[@hedgehog3180]

Also just the time it takes matters because that's the time it takes to get reinforcements to any particular point. If the fastest your reinforcements can arrive is after 1,5 hours that is 1,5 hours of unimpeded operations for the attacker, or 1,5 hours for the defenders to prepare for the next wave.

[@octagonPerfectionist]

i honestly think the reason ATACMS hasn't been sent is largely because not many exist in the first place. the number manufactured has been incredibly low and they don't really wanna signal this to the whole world

[@Bradleyscience]

Articulated nicely, succinctly and well thought out. Thank you, Cheers

[@makatlehomafube1774]

I will check the book later. Thanks you!!!!!!!

[@JohnDlugosz]

You really should make a Russian translation of your book, and make it available for free as a PDF file. (Leave it to others to donate hard-copy printouts)

[@ZergrushEddie]

I was, and still am, torn between two possibilities in regards to "HIMARS is Ukraine's new super weapon!" The first involves an old Eddie Murphy joke: "if you are starving and someone throws you a cracker, that will be the most delicious thing you have ever eaten." Ukraine is likely in a fight for their sovereignty against a superpower, Petro is going to be happy with any system that can throw something more effective than harsh language and HIMARS is "what they got." The other involves a... certain song from Team America; it is America being America and shouting "lawl, 12 launchers has turned the tide of an entire war, U-S-A! U-S-A!" As with all things, it is probably a bit of both.

[@newone-gd9sk]

HIMARS failed even its demonstration hahaha

[@unfixablegop]

I'm being followed by a Storm Shadow. Storm Shadow, Storm Shadow.

[@frankmiller95]

@K Well done.

[@fusilier3029]

I love the Pitch Meeting reference at 22:02!

[@brettblades9320]

Great video, I have a bit of a counter to your idea comparing costs of GMLRS to ATACMS. You state possible cost limitations restricting acquisition of ATACMS. The cost per rocket is compared at $168k/per or $1.008 million/magazine versus roughly

[@crismaster7498]

Currently waiting for the Belgorod rebellion video.

[@knietiefimdispo2458]

21:31 An adequate response from Russia could mean that they reduce their investment into Londongrad. Or worse, they stop funding the tories.

[@gavinringland1362]

North west coast club. About your. Add A. Few things that need help for. Ringland. App

[@handmadehearts]

HIMARS rocket system - A Poem: HIMARS, a rocket so fierce Fires from land with such power and force It can strike targets from near or far With precision and accuracy, it's a star In the sky, it leaves a trail As it soars through the air, never to fail Protected by brave soldiers on the ground HIMARS is a weapon that can't be found With its advanced technology and might HIMARS is a force to be reckoned with in a fight It is the ultimate defense Against any enemy, it makes no sense To mess with HIMARS, the rocket supreme For it will strike with the greatest of ease HIMARS, a name to be remembered For its power and strength, it will never be surrendered. Enjoy! By me & ChatGPT

[@karenjanusch7978]

Cool how you did that!

[@handmadehearts]

@@karenjanusch7978 Thank you. It was fun!

[@kingace6186]

Nice!

[@handmadehearts]

@@kingace6186 Thank you 😎

[@newone-gd9sk]

HIMARS failed even its demonstration hahaha

[@JaveyEL6369]

Clear, concise and easily understood by ordinary people like myself. Thank you.

[@moonasha]

9:11 don't GMLRs use internal navigation assisted by GPS? It merely uses GPS to update error in the inertial navigation system. Once the GPS goes offline, likely near the target, the time of flight is so short that error probably won't really build up. Maybe it increases the CEP by a few meters? I don't know, I don't see how GPS jamming hurts HIMARS, especially if you're trying to hit a building sized target

[@robertginsburg8113]

It would hard to over estimate how important motivation and organization are to the success of any endeavor. Ukraine has all the motivation it needs to win this war. The West just needs to be more organized and decisive and this war will end sooner rather than later.

[@GaryH-pw9cm]

Yes but you have to keep the Ukraine hungry for victory. If you make it too easy the hunger will wane, and the results won't be so good. America found this out in Vietnam. The south Vietnamese developed a tendency to sit back and let the Americans do the heavy lifting after a while. It did not work out very well.

[@hallep9]

We drove MLRS at 40 mph in 3 feet of snow in the norwegian mountains…hardly what i would call slow.

[@thinking6307]

Thanks! Maybe not 60mph downhill..but that track can scoot.

[@calsalitra4689]

Hardly slow, but still 30% slower than HIMARS and more expensive to maintain.

[@zane___k7333]

People think hyper sonics are undetectable or unstoppable. These two things are both myths. Because true hypersonic give of a really large infared signature which can be easily detected by satellite. And secondly, they create a plasma around them which makes them unable to communicate with the ground station. Meaning most hypersonic today as just really fast projectiles. When the whole fear of hypersonic are their unpredictability.

[@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT]

The Kinzhal was far from a revolutionary advance. No stealth technology. No scramjet propulsion. No mid course maneuvering capability. It's basically an air launched ballistic missile, just the kind of weapon that Patriot was designed to intercept. First is not always best.

[@kiancuratolo903]

I wasn't expecting the Ryan George reference but I'm very happy with it

[@mtm101designs9]

A really well done and informative video. Thanks

[@kellenhietpas7349]

I believe the reason US isnt supplying ATACMS is to prevent Russia and Chinese forces from learning the ballistic trajectory of these missiles. This will be one of the most important first strike missile systems to be used against Chinese forces and if they have already received targeting data from the Russians it may greatly reduce affects on target. And we have already provided Ukraine with weapons that can hit Russian soil so that argument doesn't make sense. What do you you guys think of my theory?

[@senatorjosephmccarthy2720]

Your theory sounds logical. And speaking of the the chinese, as soon as, or if, NATO does the right thing and besieges russia into such loss, they never rise as a single country again, china should be immediately dealt with the same. The world economy needs the loss of china far more than it needs anything else from the monsters.

[@laars0001]

My pet theory is that none of the published range and capability specs of any weapon except export versions are correct. You want customers happy with their numbers but why give the enemy your own numbers? Make 'em guess up to nn% 🫵🏻😎

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

​@@laars0001ofcourse they aren't correct. Or more acuratly, they probably are correct but under very specific circumstances. At least for american stuff. The difference is that you should subtract 25% of what is claimed by russia and should probably add 25% to the specs listed by american arms manufacturers.

[@kmonsen]

Yeah most people think the reason ATACMS is off is in addition to what you say that (a) they are lot more expensive and (b) that they are easier to defend against. It it believe that Russia can shoot down ATACMS but not GMLRS.

[@SealFredy5]

I will point out that the US DOD costs are generally not just the cost of a munition. The US DOD likes to publish "total cost of ownership" into those per-unit figures. It honestly does a better job at understanind where tax dollars go, but does artificially inflate the value comopared to companies or other governments that like to undersell the costs of their weapons.

[@iainawatson]

Always thought it was nice that we let Games Workshop name the missiles.

[@Smithsj82]

William always hits it out of the park. Great!

[@chrisdunford2346]

Thanks for shining a light through the fog of misinformation and explaining the realities so clearly.

[@stilgar2007]

When it comes to putting warheads on foreheads, knowledgeable professionals and amateurs choose American hardware. Our military's decades long improvements being on-time and target, and the exceptional collaboration between manufacturers and warfighters, means our weapons are user friendly, reliable and lethal. Accept no substitute when you need to turn somebody miles away into charred hamburger scattered in a horrifying radius.

[@newone-gd9sk]

HIMARS failed even its demonstration hahaha

[@farkon00]

Imagine being this guy with a channel about lines on maps and the day you scheduled a video release the "Freedom to Russian" battalion crosses the border into Belgorod.

[@snegglepuss6669]

About flying under the radar, it's my understanding that that isn't really a thing any more, except when it is. Flying low doesn't stop radar seeing you, it's just trickier to see you amongst everything else at ground level. Modern radar systems with well trained operatives can basically let you track anything down as far as you want, though cars on the road might be tricky. But this requires coverage in terms of units with high enough resolution, computer assistance and highly trained operatives, so with good intelligence or reconnaissance by fire along a front as long as in Ukraine, you can figure out where Russia can't pull that off

[@mosescyrussolomon-wo6pu]

I learnt a lot here than I’ve ever learnt in other videos thrown together. Thanks man.

[@robk8463]

Excellent analysis as usual!

[@4doorsdoubletheoes]

The best thing about this war is that you finally get to see what people are to their core, many mysteries of the past gain light with the current reactions of the current events unfolding, and it is all televised like a gladiator arena. I love it! How could Rome fall?.

[@GatorInVirtual]

Hey, Will you're a lot smarter than most of us about the war itself, so I'm curious. How do you think the financials will work out after the war? I am all for Ukraine receiving the military and financial aid. However, if ukraine wins, who do you think k will have to pay back the borrowed money? Do you think it will all fall on Ukraine's shoulders, or do you think the price will be rolled into Russia's reparations? If that did happen, how do you think Russia would retaliate? Edit: This AI is getting really good at human references! References are tight!

[@grahamstrouse1165]

I’m going have to ask you to get all the way off my back on that one!

[@marcopalazzo9349]

EU is slowly working on Russian money to be used on the rebuild. It takes time tho to change laws.

[@dogcarman]

Well, as it said: super easy, barely an inconvenience! 😂

[@laars0001]

Russia has only about $300B foreign assets, about $2T is needed for rebuild and victim restitutions, change your laws, include whatever Russia seizes on their own lands then make the laws fit, easy peasy barely an inconvenience just paper and ink and digital transfers, don't overthink it bean counters, Russia's not going to be a trade partner again in your lifetimes plus.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Most of the stuff given to ukraine are donations. Ukraine also has been given extremely favorable loans to keep the country running. Like 40 year maturity and interest free for the first 10 years. By the time they are due they have largly been consumed by inflation. And then indeed the russian assets that can be put to work rebuilding ukraine, then there will be investment packages by other countries and the eu when this is over and probably favorable economic advantages for a while. Plus the economic boom and foreign investment that will follow when this is over because of closer ties to western europe, especially when they do become eu members. Ukraines future looks bright now it has broken away from russia.

[@streaky81]

Yeah, no, Russia hasn't shot down any storm shadow missiles. Also there are huge stores of Storm Shadow and the French have a fair few also - they're basically an antiquated weapon system that will never be mounted to the F-35 so they're almost no use. They'll either be given to Ukraine or blown up by army/raf EOD guys in a few years - also I don't think we have tight confirmation of export version - they're the same weapon with software nerfs and I can't think of a good reason why the version supplied to Ukraine wouldn't be full-fat: maybe with some discussions about targets but otherwise.. You can fit a lot of Storm Shadows on a C-17 and the UK has 8 C-17's, I think their supplies are fine - it's just a standard good target selection problem.

[@gavinringland1362]

Ringland. Cops

[@1arritechno]

Antiquated is not the right term ; Storm Shadow is far from obsolete.! There are people that also "think" the F1 Saturn V Rockets that took Apollo Man Missions to the Moon & back between 1969 -1972 are also obsolete.? Storm Shadow , is proven to be fit for purpose and is better than some of the so called "new developments".

[@streaky81]

@@1arritechno in the sense of you could be effective with it in war in 40 years, sure. Wasn't quite what I meant - obsolete as in better and more effective tools for what you want to do exist, probably for cheaper and yes like your Saturn V example, sure, but like that safer too. The Challenger 2 probably has another 40 years of effective combat in it, doesn't mean a modern western military wants just effective combat - you want total battlespace domination with the tools you have. Else you're just Russia.