• Mon. Dec 11th, 2023

Why doesn’t Russia use artillery to destroy tanks like Ukraine does?

How artillery works: No combat footage was used. Russia tends to rely extensively on artillery …


26 thoughts on “Why doesn’t Russia use artillery to destroy tanks like Ukraine does?”
  1. How artillery works:


    No combat footage was used.

    Russia tends to rely extensively on artillery because in their doctrine, if artillery is used properly, the infantry don't need to be as well trained since the Artillery can do the job of smashing the enemy for the infantry.

    Russian artillery officers are professional and well-trained, but the process of using forward observers to "spot" artillery is very expensive and really only reserved for Russian special forces.

    Western/NATO trained nations tend to use artillery spotting and push artillery decision making down to the company or platoon level, with battalion oversight. Russia tends to use its artillery to support mass fires directly at the battalion level.

    For uncensored video, check out my substack at:


    Like my shirts? Get your own at:


    Watch all of my long form videos:








    Join the conversation:


    Want to send me something?

    Ryan McBeth Productions LLC

    8705 Colesville Rd.

    Suite 249

    Silver Spring, MD 20910


  2. Showing a class of Russian female officers whilst describing their artillery officer corps as half trained…bit sexist, ain't it? And if you feel the average dingbat can manage artillery, you're simply ignorant of the facts. And, Russian use of artillery is keeping them in the battle while killing lots of Ukrainians. Sad truth, but still the truth.

  3. My father was an isolated forward artillery observer in the Korean conflict of the 1950’s. He would establish aiming points in the area he was assigned to. That way, he could call in very precise strikes. He once told me that the naval artillery was much more precise than army artillery. Later, when I went into the Navy, I found out why. Naval ships have something called a stable element which means they know precisely where they are. The army batteries know less precisely where they are and as a result their accuracy is measured in yards, rather than inches. Nowadays, because of GPS, the army batteries also know exactly where they are.

    I suspect the Russian batteries not only do not know precisely where the target is but also do not know precisely where they are.

  4. Having an artillery-based army is cheap and usually effective. The problem is that it’s extremely outdated. Back in the day when big cannons were the most modern thing, this was the best way to lead wars, however with the introduction of mobile warfare, artillery becomes less effective. Most notably, Airforce-based armies like the US can raze hell on the enemy army, before their own ground forces even arrive (prime example being the Iraq war)

  5. with artillery, when u bracket its literally add/drop 400, add/drop 200, Add/drop 100 and then add/drop 50 fire for effect and you will always hit the target

  6. Why have forward observers when you have DRONES!? you're completely wrong at this point, not, the ruzzians don't do it because they simply cannot, they're not technologically sophisticated enough to do it.

  7. “Not adaptive”? Lol my friend you know little of Russian military doctrine. Or of military doctrine in general.

    The Russian operational combat is very adaptive and has been built on principles of adaptiveness from the early soviet times.

    What you’re misunderstanding is the style of war and the manpower situation. This is a conventional type war using drafted personnel. That changes the training and operational situation massively. There is and has been adaptation of the tactical fighting styles, a ton, on both sides. But when you have drafted personnel there is an entirely different factor that must be considered and affects the reality on the ground.

    This is not comparable to the volunteer forces of the western nations fighting against an unconventional enemy which necessitates adaptation – and, by the way, adaptation it took years for the US to implement properly. Only now after the withdrawal from both the conflicts that influenced the modern American doctrine in the 21st have they begun to readjust to a modern conventional type.

    If this war was fought by anyone else, the same thing would be happening.

    Even polish scholars were noting in and before 2014 the adaptive and defensive nature of the Russian doctrine, that clearly outlined the conditions that would be considered a threat to them. The west knew and knows this, and exploited the public ignorance of issues of military doctrine and strategic foreign policy statements to intentionally create the conditions that they knew had been laid out as conditions Russia would respond to. I’m not saying this justifies the war or suffering, but it does account for the west’s blatant escalation and intentional establishment of the conditions of this conflict.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *