Rheinmetall intends to increase their annual production to 750k by 2025 and the US is aiming for 1 million annually by 2025. That's still much less than Russia and that's before considering they have access to the significant reserves and the factories in North Korea.
> Since August, Pyongyang has shipped about 6,700 containers to Russia, which could accommodate more than 3 million rounds of artillery shells or more than 500,000 rounds for multiple rocket launchers, according to the South Korean Defense Ministry.
https://news.sky.com/story/russia-is-producing-artillery-she...
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/07/asia/north-korea-artiller...
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/news-watch/news/2024/02...
https://www.army.mil/article/274905/munitions_for_ukraine_ob...
Where the problem is, is Ukraine is trained on the Soviet war doctrine but are getting backing from NATO - but without all the airplanes NATO would use (and it isn't clear if they could train pilots/crew fast enough if given, but they haven't been given much) they need something to fight with.
Are we able to produce millions of air to ground missiles if we cannot produce enough simple artillery shells?
Can we replace losses of aircraft in a timely manner?
this argument would work if we could produce missiles in 1:1 parity with shells. However, for any reasonable ratio (say 1 missile for 10 shells) the situations with missiles is even worse! British government has ordered more NLAWs, and they will take 2 years to deliver.
> soviet doctrine underperfomed
That's exactly the scary part - Russian military is a mess, and even in these conditions our military industrial complex is barely holding it together. Mind you we spend 10x what Russia spends. NLAW costs more than a Tesla, takes longer to produce than a Tesla, and uses 90's technology. There is huge graft in the military complex!
Now what will happen if there is a conflict with an opponent that is competent, and is able to outproduce Russia 5 to 1? It will end in massive humiliation.
Hence why Russia has advanced very little since the initial invasion, even with the number of men they are willing to send to their death.
Ukraine has a problem taking their territory back as well, but for different reasons. They don't want to/can't send so many to their death, and have to rely on a large coalition of allies giving them weapons -- who have their own things to worry about domestically, so half-arse or delay support.
Whether this is due to the impotence/utter incompetence of the Russian military or the inherent advantages of defensive fighting, I'm not sure Ukraine _can lose_ this war as long as NATO continues to the supply them with the tools.
That phrase sounds about right.
Though my impression is that shell production is still a "meh, I guess we probably should do something..." priority in the great majority of NATO countries.