How the Ukrainian Conflict reveals that the United States is not fully ready for World War III

The United States is the world's leading military force, with modern weaponry and better doctrine that no other country can match- but if World War III broke out today, the US would be out of combat equipment within months. Read this new spectacular narrative to learn exactly how unprepared the US is for World War 3. ❗😤😷🤒🤕❗

The US is the world's top military power, fielding cutting-edge weapons and doctrine that no other country can hope to match, but if World War III broke out right now, the US would run out of combat gear within months. The Department of Defense has learned this lesson from Russia's invasion of Ukraine: our stockpiles are inadequate, and all that cutting-edge gear quickly becomes a huge liability in a protracted conflict. After half a year of high-intensity combat operations, Russia and Ukraine are both feeling the pinch. Russia has lost hundreds of vehicles, and it will likely take ten years to replace all of the heavy equipment lost so far. Russian artillery shell usage is estimated at 20,000 per day, while Ukraine consumes 3,000 shells every day.

The initial supply stocks for both sides have already been depleted. NATO nations have given Ukraine 500,000 shells to supplement their stockpiles, but Russia has had to draw from reserves that were not intended or anticipated to be used in this conflict, putting it in danger and forcing it to turn to North Korea for resupply. However, the hermit kingdom is unlikely to provide more than a few weeks' worth of supply because it also needs a lot of artillery because that is the only thing it can use to seriously threaten South Korea and its American allies. Particularly when peer or near-peer adversaries are engaged in combat with one another, modern war consumes equipment and ammunition at truly frightening rates. Israel lost 400 of its 1700 tanks in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, losing an average of 1.

Every day of battle, it sends out one of its entire tank forces. The performance of the Arab forces was much worse; in just 20 days of combat, they lost up to 2300 tanks, or 63 percent of their entire tank force. In the course of the two-week battle of Kursk in World War 2, Germany lost 14% of its tank forces every single day, forcing it to call in reserves and ultimately losing 10% more than the initial force. The typical infantry battalion suffered two casualties on the American side, 6 percent of its men each day, necessitating constant and intense resupply. However, replacing personnel is far less expensive in a contemporary world war than replacing equipment.

There are currently 11 armored brigade combat teams in the US Army, each with about 87 Abrams, the majority of which have been upgraded to the newest model. Considering a loss of only 1, there would be 9. 57 Abrams would be lost, left behind, sustain enough battle damage to need repair at home, or be taken prisoner by the enemy. By the second month of high-intensity combat operations, the US Army's tank forces would be reduced by half, necessitating a drawdown of its reserve of 2300 Abrams. Even though the majority of these tanks are very old models from the late Cold War, it may sound like that number will be sufficient to see the US through a protracted conflict.

These Abrams wouldn't be as effective as more modern versions because of their less powerful cannons, outdated fire controls, and inadequate armor. The enemy would probably be experiencing significant attrition as well, so these old Abrams would likely be facing equally old threats like the T-72s, leveling the playing field a little. Currently, the US Army only intends to manufacture 22 brand new tanks during the fiscal year 2023, followed by 30 units in 2024, and 53 units in 2025. These depressing numbers have two causes. To begin, the US Army is still hard at work updating active Abrams to the most recent SEP package. Second, the Army is being forced to weigh funding new technologies against producing new hardware in order to maintain America's unmatched competitive advantage.

When it comes to modern warfare, there is nothing worse than showing up to the battle in yesterday's tank because the rate of technological advancement vastly outpaces our capacity to produce hardware. Ask the Russians, who are currently required to arrive in a tank from last month rather than one from yesterday. However, the issue with technology is not just how quickly it advances, but also how expensive it all is. The M48 Patton, one of America's first-generation main battle tanks, cost two dollars after inflation and 8,000,000 to produce during World War II. A fully updated Abrams, however, costs $9 million, which is almost four times as much. A fully equipped armored brigade combat team in the Second World War would have cost 252 million dollars, while doing so today would cost 810 million.

Even the enormous defense budget of the United States cannot sustain that level of expenditure for an extended period of time. Additionally, this only refers to tanks; in order for the US Army to continue to maintain its undisputed dominance of the battlefield, a number of other expensive items are also required. Even the average infantry soldier now carries between $10,000 and $8,000 worth of high-tech equipment, and the lauded Apache attack helicopter costs over $30 million per unit. The Army must make sacrifices in order to fund new technologies if it wants to maintain its position as the most technologically sophisticated force in the world. This means drastically reducing hardware production in favor of spending money on R&D for future conflicts.

But as a result, there is a real danger that the United States won't have enough weapons to fight the current conflict. According to the Department of Defense, if necessary, it could increase modern Abrams production to about 20 per month, which would be a vast improvement over the dreadful annual figures currently in place. Because of this, it can only replace about two days' worth of combat losses each month. It doesn't take long to realize that after three to four months of grueling combat, the US Army's main mode of transportation won't be tanks but rather gun trucks and other less expensive options.

Certified. You're definitely going to miss out.

Make sure to always be updated. Possibly Daily. 😁