The expanding kill zone along Ukraine’s front line has left much of the country’s existing artillery ammunition unable to reach its targets, driving up demand for costlier extended-range rounds that funding has struggled to keep pace with, a senior NATO military officer has said.
On the sidelines of the NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting, the UK Defence Journal was told that the officer had explained the dynamic behind what is known on the front as the “killing zone”, the stretch of no-man’s-land separating Ukrainian and Russian forces that has grown so wide that neither side can easily bring forward equipment or systems without exposing them to drones and other strikes, pushing logistics, command posts and the launch points for those drones further back from the line, beyond the roughly 20km range of standard artillery ammunition.
That shift means Ukraine, despite now holding sufficient stocks of conventional short-range artillery shells, often has nothing within range to hit with them, the officer said, leaving it dependent on ammunition with a range of 30km or more to strike the logistics nodes, command and control elements and drone launch sites that have moved back out of reach of older stocks.
The difficulty, the officer said, is that the extended-range ammunition is significantly more expensive, meaning that allied funding under the Czech initiative, the scheme coordinating the procurement of artillery ammunition for Ukraine, buys less of it than it once did when shorter-range shells were sufficient. The officer said “I cannot confirm that there is a total drop down of willingness of nations to provide funding”, but acknowledged the requirement for extended-range rounds keeps rising faster than budgets allow.
Artillery remains a vital tool despite the proliferation of drones, the officer argued, saying simply that “artillery still matters” because it can strike logistics and command targets that other systems cannot reach as efficiently, which is why the requirement for extended-range rounds keeps rising even as overall artillery use evolves, with NATO continuing to seek additional funding to maximise what the scheme can deliver.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting…
following website—.,.,.,.,.,.,.—>>> PAYAtHOME1.COM
This is one of those things that really needs to be considers, what artillery looks like in a drone infested battle space and for the British army what is the use of a 105mm gun in the drone infested battlefield with its 17-20km range.
105mm seems pointless in modern battlefield conditions.
And yet L119 is one of the most survivable artillery pieces in Ukraine….
Easy to dig in, easy to protect, easy to camouflage….more survivable than an SPG…and routinely used at the hardest parts of the front.
Honestly whenever I see comments like this I can only assume that the people making them have not read any of the reports from the Ukrainian artillery units….
I have watched the same videos you have. If you’re digging it in on a fixed front line basically putting it under ground then it can still be used.
However we have 105mm so they are easily transportable. If you have to bring a bulldozer to dig it in then it’s pointless. The 105 doesn’t have much of the modern ammunition or extended range rounds Ukraine desperately needs and it’s far to short ranged to conduct counter battery fire so I stand by my comments that’s 105 is largely useless now.
Sooo… Let’s take stock here. Would you rather, more RCH-155mm guns OR many more recon drones that could direct attack drones from a front line position that not only have the ability to change target after firing and if you lose the launcher, well, you can “buy” another for much less than a Boxer or a 155mm Gun.
We need unmanned tunnel boring artillery drones that can pop up behind enemy lines or deposit huge amounts of explosives right under the enemy.
It’s another one of my cunning plans.
Both? Horses for courses as they say. Drones might be good for hunting no mans land and in the enemies rear, for example, but it is tough to call in a quick drone strike at very short notice in a fluid and moving battlefield.
“Both” is the correct answer.
We need new artillery and new drones.
It’s a question of timing. At the moment drones have the advantage, in a year or two’s time who’s to say. If systems such as the Thales Thundershield and RapidDestroyer prove as good in service as the do on a test range. Perhaps the swingometer will be more balanced? There’s also the kill all electronic devices options, where you use a non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NN_EMP). Russia has shown and tested these devices in trials, but have yet to field them.
At some point combined arms manoeuvre will incorporate both drones and counter-drone measures as part of their operating procedures. The Nation that manages to coordinate an armoured fighting brigade, air assets and counter-drone capabilities, will be on to a winner.
Both. With the effort that’s going in to counter drone systems don’t bank on drones reigning supreme forever. Not one of the weapons systems that has been claimed to render all before it obsolete has ever maintained that level of advantage, counters have always leveled the playing field.
Both the Ukranians and Russians have moved valuable assets out of Artillery range. Even with the really expensive long range stuff there comes a point where you have to accept the fact the enemy is out of range. At that point you utilize your really, really expensive long range stuff judiciously.
Sounds like WW1 but with a bigger no mans land 🤔
Soo.. tanks, with anti-drone shotguns on the roof..
Some technology will come along to break the deadlock. Some kind of drone death ray.
One needs three things.
Lots of Artillery.
Lots of Drones.
And, lot’s of Artillery Shells.
I read a very interesting account on X from British Army Review, by a serving officer.
By the looks of things, the RA is stuffed.
It seems to have given away it’s UCLs – Unit Load Containers, that package 155mm shells securely and ready for distribution by DROPS.
So a fancy RCH155, with only 3 men, not the 9 used by an AS90 fire Det, too few to do the tasks needed ( discussed here before ) including loading ammunition into said guns.
Too few RLC assets allocated to move the ammunition to the guns.
Ammunition stocks minimal.
So much for ten times more lethal.
Another telling note.
A shell can be used 24/7, all weathers.
A shell is almost impossible to intercept.
A shell cannot be spoofed or jammed.
I think we are too obsessed with Drones, they supplement, not replace.