Artillery Logistics Lessons.

[Halifax Tar]

The words are actually Conrad's and not mine. But I accept what he says. During my time in RegF regiments I dealt with a number of Regimental Quartermasters and Maintenance officers. I found all the MaintO I met to be great at their jobs. Loggies I found as a mixed bag on the small sample I knew. 1 was a plug, the rest really good folk. Strangely the further away they were from a unit position--like base staff--the less one had the impression that they were there to help you but more concerned about making their own life easier. I'm not sure if that's disdain but more like the typical we/them tribalism that's at the core of military structures. When you deal with battalions there's the battalion themselves and everyone else is just an enabler.

I know, I know, I'm showing my age again but IMHO it was a big mistake to create one overarching logistics system. Each service has different needs and needs specialists able to deal with those specifics. That applies to both supply and maintenance in a big way. Add to that the low priority for resources allocated to logistics because our experience base is peacetime where the role and need for logistics is significantly lower than for wartime and its easy to see where things go off the rails.

It's kind of funny actually (maybe not funny but sad). Artillery used to be classified a combat arm (along with Fd Engrs). When they were relegated to combat support I was pissed and felt devalued - and we probably were devalued. When there isn't a war going on a whole lot of people get shoved into the second and third tier category. People that I've interviewed for our book on Afghanistan are pretty universal in their views that the infantry battalions generally paid lip service to the gunners as a valuable asset but after the first danger close mission had a resounding change in attitude about their gunners.

I'm a bit that way about the logistics system. The Afghanistan NSE structure might have been PY efficient but wasn't an optimal logistics solution. It didn't endear itself to the end users and IMHO, while adequate for peacetime operations is unfit for purpose for real war. When I see what the Ukrainian log and main system are able to accomplish with the dog's breakfast of equipment and supplies they have to deal with, I'm flabbergasted. What really concerns me, and should concern every "operator" that we have, is whether or not our system is still capable of scaling up. If I was CDS that would be the one thing keeping me from sleeping at night.

At heart, I'm an optimist. I believe anything can be fixed but only if you put your mind to fixing it. Letting things drift is not a viable course of action.

In my days the supply system was made up of paper cards and stocktaking. In my mind I have troubles seeing why the supply system, with all the new warehousing concepts and computerization systems can't work like Amazon does. IMHO logistics is as due for a major transformation just like the ResF is.

The supply systems effectiveness depends 3 things:

1. The volume of stores being pumped into it; and
2. The quality of data entry going into; and
3. The distribution system.

Let me be the first to admit, we are making this way more complicated than it has to be.

My ALP paper argued for as a remedy; a massive budgetary and PY increase for spares and stores; and an increase in regional depots, moving away from our centralized depot method.

 

[MJP]

The supply systems effectiveness depends 3 things:

1. The volume of stores being pumped into it; and
2. The quality of data entry going into; and
3. The distribution system.

Let me be the first to admit, we are making this way more complicated than it has to be.

My ALP paper argued for as a remedy; a massive budgetary and PY increase for spares and stores; and an increase in regional depots, moving away from our centralized depot method.

I would argue the depots are not the true issue at all and adding more regional depots won't fix much. If stock exists, is released and is not pegged as Op/project/otherwise stock (so essentially in a MRP relevant SLoc for those Supply nerds out there) the depots on average have the material picked and issued within 3 days (most material is same/next day regardless of Pri). However, less Pri 1 material which will go commercial, it means that the material will sit on the floor awaiting distribution via the national freight run.

IMHO stock outs and distribution are the 2 largest contributors to material not in the right place at the right time. Distribution/NFR is going through a revamp as we speak to shore up some of those inefficiencies, so if anything we need to add more folks and/or stream line procurement side of the house so material is there for end operators.

Regional depots may alleviate some of the distribution issues but it is probably easier and less PY intensive to just create a better distribution network with a better mix of commercial & white fleet for routine distribution rather than the current reliance on majority white fleet.

The other argument against regional depots is as a whole the amount of material flowing in and out of our depots has been steadily decreasing over the last two decades. There was a Afghan blip but number swiftly dwindled post that time period. With the two coastal BLogs taking on limited 3rd line mostly for RCN material and the RCAF fleets using ISS models and leveraging distribution networks from the aircraft manufacturers it leaves only the CA using the depots as the main source for spare parts nationally.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would argue the depots are not the true issue at all and adding more regional depots won't fix much. If stock exists, is released and is not pegged as Op/project/otherwise stock (so essentially in a MRP relevant SLoc for those Supply nerds out there) the depots on average have the material picked and issued within 3 days (most material is same/next day regardless of Pri). However, less Pri 1 material which will go commercial, it means that the material will sit on the floor awaiting distribution via the national freight run.

IMHO stock outs and distribution are the 2 largest contributors to material not in the right place at the right time. Distribution/NFR is going through a revamp as we speak to shore up some of those inefficiencies, so if anything we need to add more folks and/or stream line procurement side of the house so material is there for end operators.

Regional depots may alleviate some of the distribution issues but it is probably easier and less PY intensive to just create a better distribution network with a better mix of commercial & white fleet for routine distribution rather than the current reliance on majority white fleet.

The other argument against regional depots is as a whole the amount of material flowing in and out of our depots has been steadily decreasing over the last two decades. There was a Afghan blip but number swiftly dwindled post that time period. With the two coastal BLogs taking on limited 3rd line mostly for RCN material and the RCAF fleets using ISS models and leveraging distribution networks from the aircraft manufacturers it leaves only the CA using the depots as the main source for spare parts nationally.

The current national depot's aren't a problem. They are doing the job as best they can. Having said that storing your spares geographically close to the end-user just makes sense.

This is the reason the RCN has and is trying to pull all its parts out of 25 and 7. There are only ships in two places, the spares should be in those two places.

I agree we need more PYs in procurement, that was meant to be included in my PYs in my statement.

A military can't survive on JIT logistics. I am of the belief we need lots of stores sitting around gathering dust, just in case. JIT is great when you want a ball glove. Not so great when you need a widget to make the thingy turn to make the ship go boom boom.

 

[MJP]

The current national depot's aren't a problem. They are doing the job as best they can. Having said that storing your spares geographically close to the end-user just makes sense.

This is the reason the RCN has and is trying to pull all its parts out of 25 and 7. There are only ships in two places, the spares should be in those two places.

I agree we need more PYs in procurement, that was meant to be included in my PYs in my statement.

A military can't survive on JIT logistics. I am of the belief we need lots of stores sitting around gathering dust, just in case. JIT is great when you want a ball glove. Not so great when you need a widget to make the thingy turn to make the ship go boom b

Having spares geographically close is what 2nd line is good for. You don't need a more 3rd line depots to make that happen, you need material in the system and proper replenishment levels set.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Having spares geographically close is what 2nd line is good for. You don't need a more 3rd line depots to make that happen, you need material in the system and proper replenishment levels set.

Just my opinion... And remember I'm skewed by the RCN.

3rd line depot's should be nothing but bulk clothing and long term storage/war stock. Along with the maintenance and associate work shop abilities.

Every major base should have a depot to support the local operations and trg. Or the 2nd line needs a major boost.

But this is all fictitious as you're correct first we need parts in the system.

 

[ueo]

Or, dare I say it, a train?

Nope, shear heraey

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just my opinion... And remember I'm skewed by the RCN.

3rd line depot's should be nothing but bulk clothing and long term storage/war stock. Along with the maintenance and associate work shop abilities.

Every major base should have a depot to support the local operations and trg. Or the 2nd line needs a major boost.

But this is all fictitious as you're correct first we need parts in the system.

We used to send vehicles radios and small arms to CFB Chilliwack for repairs, replacements. They could do a lot of that on the base. They could also do some repairs on the 106mm RR's, mortars and C1 105mm Howitzers. Major repairs of those systems required shipping to 202 Workshops. We did first line maintenance and could swap out a few bits and pieces at the unit. Svc Battalion sometimes did extra maintenance for us on vehicles. When we were ops tasked, we had a 5/4 ton full of vehicle parts and tools and vehicle mechanic (who owned his own Damilar Dingo Scout Car) doing a lot of the maintenance on the trucks. We unofficially rebuilt the engine in our 3 ton stake truck to keep it from falling into the hands of Crown Assets as well. Not to mention building a flying kitchen into a Deuce and a CP into one as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile a couple of different logistics stories

Army to use Operation Pathways to test assumptions about 'contested logistics,' prepositioned stocks - Breaking Defense

“We're already learning a ton about what the future of army prepositioned stock should look like,” said the Army’s 8th Theater Sustainment Command Maj. Gen. Jered Helwig.

breakingdefense.com

SASC seapower chair Kaine: ‘All systems go’ to support Marines' 31 amphibs - Breaking Defense

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., also stated that he is “likely” to receive the Navy’s updated 30-year shipbuilding plan “in the next day or so.”

breakingdefense.com

Maritime Administration moving with 'all best speed' on sealift recap, no room for 'lapses' - Breaking Defense

Any more "lapses" or "hesitation" could cause a backslide in the progress the government has already made, the MARAD chiefs said.

breakingdefense.com

But no word yet on the Light Amphibious programme. I suspect that that is all entangled with the Army's watercraft programme and the Navy's Large Unmanned programme.

 

[Kirkhill]

Theatre Logistics

Poland,

Japan, Philippines, Australia - marries up with the proposal for 3 Marine Littoral Regiments.

The Philippines kind of surprises me. As does Indonesia and Vietnam. - my biases I guess - I can't see any of them as reliable partners - but would I have said that about Poland, or even France, 20 years ago.

Army readies for record-setting logistics exercise in Pacific

The US Army is preparing to conduct one of the largest logistics exercises in recent history at Talisman Sabre in Australia.

www.defensenews.com

New U.S. warehouse center in Poland to store tanks, Bradleys for future fights

American military troops responding to a future crisis in Eastern Europe will now have enough combat-ready equipment waiting for them in Poland to supply a U.S. armored brigade.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Kirkhill]

An argument for missiles over guns

Guns, and ammunition, are dependent on foundries and machine shops. Lots of energy. Lots of cooling. Lots of precision. They epitomize the crafts of the blacksmith.

Now we have a cardboard tube, a binary explosive and a microchip manufactured in sea cans by robots

Paper Planes? Ukraine Gets Flat-Packed Cardboard Drones From Australia (UPDATED)

As previously noted, Ukraine is massively enhancing its drone fleet with a variety of new models — but few of them are as unusual as the flatpack cardboard drones coming from Australia.

www.forbes.com

 

[CBH99]

Theatre Logistics

Poland,

Japan, Philippines, Australia - marries up with the proposal for 3 Marine Littoral Regiments.

The Philippines kind of surprises me. As does Indonesia and Vietnam. - my biases I guess - I can't see any of them as reliable partners - but would I have said that about Poland, or even France, 20 years ago.

Army readies for record-setting logistics exercise in Pacific

The US Army is preparing to conduct one of the largest logistics exercises in recent history at Talisman Sabre in Australia.

www.defensenews.com

New U.S. warehouse center in Poland to store tanks, Bradleys for future fights

American military troops responding to a future crisis in Eastern Europe will now have enough combat-ready equipment waiting for them in Poland to supply a U.S. armored brigade.

www.washingtontimes.com

My tenant is Filipino. Just going off of what he says, they feel stuck between a rock & a hard place...

They don't like China, for lots of good reasons.

They like America generally speaking, but worry it makes them a target for Chinese aggression when it comes to Taiwan.

But if they don't allow American forces there, they are worried China will essentially take over.


One way or another, it seems they accept that whether they like it or not, they have to pony up to one superpower or the other

 

[daftandbarmy]

My tenant is Filipino. Just going off of what he says, they feel stuck between a rock & a hard place...

They don't like China, for lots of good reasons.

They like America generally speaking, but worry it makes them a target for Chinese aggression when it comes to Taiwan.

But if they don't allow American forces there, they are worried China will essentially take over.


One way or another, it seems they accept that whether they like it or not, they have to pony up to one superpower or the other

Kind of like Canada, but warmer, then right?

 

[Kirkhill]

Good News! France is tripling their production of 155mm ammunition.
Bad News! In a years time their enlarged production will produce in a month what the Ukrainians can fire in half a day.

French firms to triple 155mm ammo production, boost weapons output

French defense firms have reportedly boosted production of self-propelled guns, artillery shells, fighter jets and anti-air missiles.

www.defensenews.com

France plans to increase its monthly deliveries of 155mm shells, from 1,000 per month in January 2023 to 3,000 per month in January 2024, Lecornu said.

But fortunately they have company

BAE is upping their rate in the UK 8-fold.

Britain places new BAE order for battlefield munitions

Britain handed BAE Systems , the country's biggest defence company, a 280 million pound ($361 million) order for munitions, seeking to ramp up production to replenish its stockpiles and ensure supply for Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

BAE will increase UK production capacity for 155mm artillery ammunition eightfold as a result of the new order, allowing a jump in output of what is NATO standard munitions.

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall has booked a further order for artillery ammunition under a framework agreement with the German Bundeswehr.

www.rheinmetall.com

Tens of thousands of rounds are to be delivered in 2023, with the remainder due to ship in 2024, according to a statement from Rheinmetall, the world's biggest ammunition producer.

Rheinmetall

The German Bundeswehr has just issued a large-volume order for service and practice artillery ammunition worth around €1.3 billion.

www.rheinmetall.com

• Framework contracts signed for 155mm artillery ammunition
• Several hundred thousand shells, fuses and propelling charges, potentially worth around €1.3 billion (incl. VAT)

U.S. aims to make 100,000 artillery shells per month in 2025, US official says

The U.S. plans to increase monthly production of 155 millimeter artillery shells over the coming years to 100,000 in 2025, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

"We're going to be at 100,000 per month in 2025. We were at 14,000 per month 6 or 8 months ago, we are now at 28,000 a month today," Bill LaPlante, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer said at a conference on Friday.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2023-09-06/asap-eu-support-ammunition-production-member-states

Do we add in South Korea as well? Or should they be stockpiling locally?

 

[KevinB]

Keep in mind with the US production that is just US Army contract production, several companies are producing more currently just because it’s prudent to.

WRT SK, they don’t announce their production outside of high side means. I suspect they are probably the largest Western producers outside of the US, (perhaps even more than the US) but I have zero data to back that up, other than RoK officers comments at NDIA symposiums over the last 2 decades that we where not even in a maintenance production schedule.

 

[Kirkhill]

NAMMO - can't build bombs fast enough.

Needs more contracts, more money, more energy and more help trying to spend the money.

And lots more R&D support now that the Russians and Chinese are catching enough western hardware to figure out how things are done.

Høringsinnspill fra: Statsbudsjettet 2024 (kapitler fordelt til utenriks- og forsvarskomiteen - Forsvar)

Høringsinnspill fra Nammo AS i forbindelse med Utenriks- og forsvarskomiteen høring om Statsbudsjettet 2024 (kapitler fordelt til utenriks- og forsvarskomiteen - Forsvar)

www-stortinget-no.translate.goog

Google translate works well on this one.

 

[Kirkhill]

Where governments might be stumbling the private sector seems to be supportive.

The shot in the arm for Britain’s weapons industry​

Conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine has created a surge in demand for weapons

ByHoward Mustoe28 October 2023 • 12:00pm


As Israeli troops gather on the Gaza border ahead of a potential ground invasion, military officials are busy behind the scenes stockpiling much-needed ammunition.
The revival of conflict in the Middle East, combined with Russia’s war in Ukraine, has created a race for countries to secure as many bullets and artillery shells as possible.
Unsurprisingly, the key beneficiaries of this surge in demand are defence companies, which have seen their valuations surge in recent weeks.
In the UK, shares in leading weapons maker BAE Systems have risen 12pc since Hamas terrorists launched their attack on Israeli civilians earlier this month, boosting its value to £33bn.

German rival Rheinmetall is also up 16pc, while Italy’s maker Leonardo has jumped 9pc.
Sash Tusa, an analyst at research house Agency Partners, says investors are beginning to see that demand, kickstarted by the war in Ukraine, is not disappearing any time soon.
“This is a pretty fundamental European rearmament,” he says.
But as well as flattering companies’ share prices, and ultimately their profits, the war has also thrown the spotlight back on the UK’s arms trade with Israel – which has long been subject to criticism from campaigners.
Last year, the UK waved through £34m of military exports to Israel, which was up £23m a year prior.
This includes orders for equipment such as submarine components, radio gear and armour-piercing ammunition, according to figures gathered by the Department for Business and Trade.
Campaign Against the Arms Trade estimates that Britain has signed off on £472m of military exports to Israel since 2015.
A large part of the UK’s sales to Israel relates to work for the F-35, a US-designed jet that BAE produces.
It is understood BAE has delivered up to 15pc of Israel’s orders for 75 F-35s, which have been partly funded by the US government.
Campaigners estimate the value of components supplied by Britain’s BAE Systems to Israel could be worth more than £300m since 2016. This figure has been contested by industry insiders.
However, while protestors have scrutinised BAE, there has recently been a greater focus on Israeli weapons factories here in the UK.

Two of Israel’s biggest defence firms, Elbit and Rafael, both have operations in the UK and their work includes producing missile defence systems for Israel’s Iron Dome network.
Last week, activists protested against the bombing of Gaza at the entrance of an Elbit-owned factory in Sandwich, Kent, blocking suppliers from reaching the plant which makes sensor equipment.
A string of protests also led to Elbit ditching a site near Manchester last year, as it responded to calls for it to be shut down.
These UK factories are a key part of the supply chain aiding Ukrainian efforts in its war against Russia and Lord Walney says any protests could have the unintended consequence of interrupting supplies.
The Labour peer previously served as an MP in Barrow and Furness, which is where BAE builds its submarines.
“The Ukraine supply chain in Britain has been working in overdrive since Russia invaded to ensure that Ukrainian troops on the front line have got the kit they need,” he says. “There is the potential to disrupt the Ukrainian supply chain, which would be absolutely inexcusable.”

However, while Ukraine remains heavily reliant on UK ammunition, Israel’s military is largely built on orders from the US.
Since 1946, the US has furnished Israel with $158bn of aid, $114bn of which has been military assistance and $9bn for missile defence. This year, $3.8bn of arms and missile help was promised.
Israel’s air force is overwhelmingly American-made, consisting of McDonnell Douglas F-15s, General Dynamics F-16s and Lockheed Martin F-35s. Its army is also made up of US-made rifles and tanks.
However, Germany’s Thyssenkrupp has also served as a recent supplier to Israel, having provided Sa’ar 6-class warships to protect the country’s shipping lanes and oil assets. Israel has also bought submarines from Germany.
Given the lack of big-ticket items at stake for BAE in Israel, Sasha Tusa says its recent share price rally is down to a growing realisation that more weaponry and munitions will be needed in the long term.
“Defence stocks are up because of the squeeze on defence production that is already occurring as a consequence of Ukraine,” he says.
Separately, Tusa says the worrying increase in global conflict will increase pressure on America’s ammunition reserves – therefore restricting its ability to sell goods to allies in Europe.
“At the moment, neither Europe nor the US can keep up with Ukrainian munitions requirements, let alone rebuild stocks, which have been run down in the last 30 years,” Tusa added.
Calls for a halt in exports to Israel have largely come from campaign groups, though they have so far gone unheeded.
Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, says: “Amnesty International is issuing an urgent call for an immediate ceasefire by all parties in the occupied Gaza Strip and Israel and for a comprehensive arms embargo on all sides amidst an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe.”
Bob Blackman, co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Israel says: “The Government’s position is to support Israel to prevent any further attacks from Hamas or any other party. Everyone is looking to see the next step Israel takes.”
Exports have been halted before. In 2009, sales were curbed following an Israeli offensive in Gaza which the UK decried as “disproportionate”.
In 2014, the Coalition Government threatened to suspend 12 export licences to Israel “as a precautionary measure” if a ceasefire in Gaza ended.
However, a Department for Business and Trade spokesman says no similar plans were being drawn up at present: “There are no immediate plans to stop arms export licences to Israel. All export licences are kept under continual review, with applications assessed on a case-by-case basis against strict criteria.”
From a business perspective, this will be a boon to BAE and its supplier network in the UK, as global demand for ammunition is unlikely to fall any time soon.
Sash Tusa says: “We are in probably a decade-long defence upcycle and we haven’t had one of those in the last 30 years.”

The shot in the arm for Britain’s weapons industry

Conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine has created a surge in demand for weapons

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

For now, he is intent on winning the war on Ukrainian terms, and he is shifting tactics to achieve that. Aware that the flow of Western arms could dry up over time, the Ukrainians have ramped up production of drones and missiles, which they have used to attack Russian supply routes, command centers, and ammunition depots far behind enemy lines.

Inside Volodymyr Zelensky’s Struggle to Keep Ukraine in the Fight

“Nobody believes in our victory like I do. Nobody,” Zelensky told TIME in an interview after his trip to Washington, D.C.

time.com

This line stood out. I suggest that it bolsters my argument that drones and missiles are becoming easier to procure than shells and cannons.

 

[Kirkhill]

And this video calls for making shells into a commodity rather than a sovereign capability.

Apparently the Ukrainians are having to weigh their 155 shells because NATO standard shells are not standard.
Procedure is to weigh the shell
Check weight and NSN against Ukrainian spreadsheet
Calculate charge.
French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Swedish, UK, US, Canadian and SK 155 bullets not only have different shell weights but different fillings, differen shapes and some times different dimensions. The available round may or may not work in the available gun.

 

[FJAG]

To put it simply, that going against innovation and the free enterprise system.

Let's start at square one. Every western country has a form of national enterprises. We try to buy Canadian and therefore look to Canadian manufacturers to provide us with commodities including ammunition. NATO creates standards, but the standards are based on calibre so that one nation's 155mm shell will fire out of another country's 155mm gun. And they do.

But within that is the constant development of both guns and ammunitions. Basically as we seek longer ranges, we move to longer barrels and greater propelling charges and thus stronger gun chambers etc. Each gun and each round and charge has firing tables that are created both mathematically and by test firing. A given round behaves a given way within a given gun using a given propellant. And it's an easy calculation within a given firing computer system to select the right firing tables for any particular situation. Weighing shells is unnecessary as each type has a given weight and manufacturing deviations from standard are marked on the projectile - firing tables provide the required adjustments.

The situation, however, is that when we buy lots of ammunition for our guns, we have the firing tables for them. But if we're suddenly provided in the field with something new then we must make arrangements for the relevant firing tables to be provided as well - either tabular or digitally. This is not as difficult as the video makes out. We had times in Afghanistan where the battery was provided with novel ammunition and firing tables weren't the issue. Unfamiliarity with the ammunition did create a few minor problems - for example that not knowing that the A1 variant of a specific propellent made a several hundreds of metres fall of shot difference and that the ammo on the platform was A1 while the computer was set to standard. In that case we had the firing tables but didn't realize that the A1 variant behaved differently. It only happened once - we learned quickly to check what the model number of the propellent was that was on the position and to use the correct firing table.

Ukraine's problem is unique in that they are suddenly flooded with a major logistics issue with small numbers of numerous different types of guns and numerous types of shells and propellants (all different from what they are used to) and keeping up with that is undoubtedly an issue. Within NATO countries themselves its less of an issue because the supply of ammunition is not as chaotic as what Ukraine is facing.

Incidentally, gunners have a procedure called "registration" which identifies non standard conditions (everything from worn barrels to meteorological conditions to varying propellants etc) by shooting. It's fast and accurate. With all the high tech aids we had in Afghanistan, the guns routinely fired registration missions to improve their accuracy.

It's one of those things - you just can't stop progress. Various manufacturers are out to invent better mousetraps and sell them widely. I started life with a guns that fired 11 - 14,500 metres. The same calibre guns are now firing three and more times as far. Innovation and competition in both guns and ammunition manufacturing has done that.

 

[Kirkhill]

To put it simply, that going against innovation and the free enterprise system.

Let's start at square one. Every western country has a form of national enterprises. We try to buy Canadian and therefore look to Canadian manufacturers to provide us with commodities including ammunition. NATO creates standards, but the standards are based on calibre so that one nation's 155mm shell will fire out of another country's 155mm gun. And they do.

But within that is the constant development of both guns and ammunitions. Basically as we seek longer ranges, we move to longer barrels and greater propelling charges and thus stronger gun chambers etc. Each gun and each round and charge has firing tables that are created both mathematically and by test firing. A given round behaves a given way within a given gun using a given propellant. And it's an easy calculation within a given firing computer system to select the right firing tables for any particular situation. Weighing shells is unnecessary as each type has a given weight and manufacturing deviations from standard are marked on the projectile - firing tables provide the required adjustments.

The situation, however, is that when we buy lots of ammunition for our guns, we have the firing tables for them. But if we're suddenly provided in the field with something new then we must make arrangements for the relevant firing tables to be provided as well - either tabular or digitally. This is not as difficult as the video makes out. We had times in Afghanistan where the battery was provided with novel ammunition and firing tables weren't the issue. Unfamiliarity with the ammunition did create a few minor problems - for example that not knowing that the A1 variant of a specific propellent made a several hundreds of metres fall of shot difference and that the ammo on the platform was A1 while the computer was set to standard. In that case we had the firing tables but didn't realize that the A1 variant behaved differently. It only happened once - we learned quickly to check what the model number of the propellent was that was on the position and to use the correct firing table.

Ukraine's problem is unique in that they are suddenly flooded with a major logistics issue with small numbers of numerous different types of guns and numerous types of shells and propellants (all different from what they are used to) and keeping up with that is undoubtedly an issue. Within NATO countries themselves its less of an issue because the supply of ammunition is not as chaotic as what Ukraine is facing.

Incidentally, gunners have a procedure called "registration" which identifies non standard conditions (everything from worn barrels to meteorological conditions to varying propellants etc) by shooting. It's fast and accurate. With all the high tech aids we had in Afghanistan, the guns routinely fired registration missions to improve their accuracy.

It's one of those things - you just can't stop progress. Various manufacturers are out to invent better mousetraps and sell them widely. I started life with a guns that fired 11 - 14,500 metres. The same calibre guns are now firing three and more times as far. Innovation and competition in both guns and ammunition manufacturing has done that.

On the other hand you have Germany's constant improvement of its Panzers vs America's standardized Shermans. Time and place?

Is there anything wrong with supplying a standardized round on the open market while at the same time permitting people to innovate with new designs?

GDOTS Canada would welcome a large standard order that kept the lines open. There is no reason why they couldn't do what NAMMO is doing and spend some of the profits generated from that standard line to develop innovations like the ramjet projectile.