"Depleted-uranium ammo to Ukraine capable of piercing Russian tank armor?", While I understand the intentions, F 16 fighters would be as effective

The decision to send DU to Ukraine, in one sense makes sense, but here is the problem

In the 1970s I remember the stink created as to the deployment of Neutron bombs to nullify Warsaw pact tank army superiority. I.e. in the late 1970s the active measures intended to demonize the deployment of the Neutron bomb and not mention the deployment of the "Satan missile" armed with multiple nuclear warheads blindsided Jimmy Carter's presidency, and created a set of optics which are still with us.

Only the decision to enlist the Saudi Monarchy in oil price warfare bankrupted the USSR, and caused its (even then) oil based economy to collapse. That collapse undid the strategic fiasco of the Carter years as far as force structure balances in central Europe especially in the area of the Fulda gap, i.e. which was to be if there was a NATO-Warsaw Pact war, the starting gate for all out war on the ground.

Needless to state, residue of the Neutron bomb Active measures campaign are still with us

For this reason, I really think from the standpoint of PUBLIC relations, we are setting ourselves up for trouble if the DU is implemented without a nod to F 16s

But that is hardly the ONLY problem/ I.e. munitions shortages are going to be felt, and soon

quote

"You don't have to be a great military analyst to realize that European countries making major investments into artillery production 13 months into the war are a little bit late," said Michael Kofman, director of the Russia Studies program at the Center for Naval Analyses, to the Post.?

In recent months, allies have pledged to send more weaponry as Ukraine blows through its Soviet-made stockpile.

Germany offered the fast and lethal?Leopard tanks?to Ukraine in January, followed by?US Abrams tanks?that have a record of shattering Soviet-era armor.

But the decisions were made reluctantly after both Germany and the US repeatedly rejected Kyiv's requests for the weapons. And they'll take months — if not closer to a year — to arrive on the battlefield.?

end of quote

I.e. we have looming munitions shortages about to hit, in a never ending GROUND warfare scenario.

Wouldn't it be more effective if the F 16s were delivered without all this delay as to hopefully establish conditions for stomping Russian attacks, rather than invest in a years long campaign ?

quote

The US is sending depleted-uranium ammo to Ukraine capable of piercing Russian tank armour, report says

Tom Porter?Jun 13, 2023, 8:46 AM EDT

• The US is set to approve depleted-uranium tank shells for Ukraine, the WSJ said.?
• The shells are capable of blowing up Russian tank armor.?
• There were doubts over providing the shells for environmental and health reasons.

The US is sending depleted-uranium shells to Ukraine that are capable of penetrating Russian tank armor,?the Wall Street Journal reported.?

For several months the Biden administration has been debating whether to provide the shells to Ukraine following concerns over their environmental and health impacts, the outlet reported.?

But an administration official said that there were now no major obstacles to providing the ammunition.?

Insider has contacted the White House for comment.?

Depleted uranium, a by-product of the nuclear enrichment process, is used because it is extremely dense.?When used in tank shells, the material is effective because its bulk can penetrate through enemy armor.?

As Insider's?Jake Epstein?previous?reported, uranium shells also heat up and may catch fire, potentially causing fuel or ammunition explosions.

The weapons could hand Ukraine an advantage in tank battles as it launches its campaign to drive Russian forces back from territory they occupy in south and eastern Ukraine.?

The material is considered by?the US EPA?as a radiation health hazard when inhaled as dust or shrapnel, but it does not emit enough radiation to penetrate the skin from outside.

According to United Nations Environment Program?the metal's "chemical toxicity" is the biggest danger, and "it can cause skin irritation, kidney failure and increase the risks of cancer."

The UK was the first of Ukraine's allies to provide the country with the ammunition, which is used in the Challenger tanks it provided to Ukraine.?

The decision by the UK to provide Ukraine with the weapons was denounced by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the time,?who said?the weapons have a nuclear component and that Russia would be forced to react.?

US officials, the WSJ reported, believe its vital for Ukraine to make decisive gains in its counteroffensive while bipartisan support for the country remains high.

Putin has lost at least two-thirds of his tanks since the invasion began, Oryx,?a Netherlands-based open source intelligence website, said?in May.

Russia has been "reactivating" tanks from the 4-5,000 it has in reserve to be deployed to the front line. Many of these tanks are from the Soviet-era.

end of quote

Also

quote

Ukraine's Western partners are short on weapons and can't churn them out fast enough to fuel a counterpunch for long, defense experts say

Chris Panella?May 18, 2023, 4:56 PM EDT

• Ukraine's Western partners are short on weapons and can't make them fast enough to meet Kyiv's needs.
• Experts told The Washington Post that NATO countries have been too slow to manufacture munitions.
• They've also depleted their own stockpiles in the process, hurting the longer war effort in Ukraine.

Ukraine's Western friends have an ammo problem.

Countries are facing dwindling stockpiles and can't manufacture weapons fast enough to support Kyiv's ambitions to launch a counteroffensive against Russian forces,?according to the Washington Post.?

Defense experts told the Washington Post that many of Ukraine's NATO partners — especially European nations — haven't mobilized their defense industries to meet battlefield needs for artillery, tanks, air defense systems, and ammunition.

Now, their efforts to quickly increase production might be futile.?

"You don't have to be a great military analyst to realize that European countries making major investments into artillery production 13 months into the war are a little bit late," said Michael Kofman, director of the Russia Studies program at the Center for Naval Analyses, to the Post.?

In recent months, allies have pledged to send more weaponry as Ukraine blows through its Soviet-made stockpile.

Germany offered the fast and lethal?Leopard tanks?to Ukraine in January, followed by?US Abrams tanks?that have a record of shattering Soviet-era armor.

But the decisions were made reluctantly after both Germany and the US repeatedly rejected Kyiv's requests for the weapons. And they'll take months — if not closer to a year — to arrive on the battlefield.?

Some experts told the Post that it was clear early during Russia's invasion that this war would last longer than anyone originally anticipated; that realization, they said, should've prompted Western leaders to begin investing in increasing manufacturing efforts rather than depleting their own stockpiles.?

"The penny has dropped that this might go on longer and that you have to invest in your industry if we are going to make this sustainable," Jack Watling, senior research fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute, told the Post. "The fact of the matter is that this was obvious in April last year, but people sat on their hands."

Now, as Ukraine continues to weigh when to launch its?highly-anticipated counteroffensive, it's unclear how successful it'll be. But Kyiv's use of Western armor will likely mark the start of a larger counterpunch, as it'll signal that Ukraine has more of the artillery it was promised by friendly nations.?

End of quote

Looming artillery shell shortages, a drip drip drip delivery of strategic weapons, and the outsized influence of F 16s as to at least dominating tactical air space in Ukraine negating all that should at least be seriously considered.

Andrew Beckwith, PhD