US arms to Ukraine; could I see an image of an"obus de 155 mm"?
Absolutely, Louise! A 155 mm shell—obus de 155 mm—is a powerful piece of artillery commonly used in NATO-standard howitzers. These shells can vary in design depending on their purpose (high-explosive, smoke, illumination, or precision-guided).
You can check out a variety of images of 155 mm shells on Alamy’s photo archive, which includes historical and modern examples, from WWI-era designs to current military use. There’s also a detailed look at the precision-guided KATANA 155 mm shell by Nexter on FNCV’s site, and a breakdown of the M107 HE shell on Ares Maxima.
Let me know if you’d like a visual comparison of different shell types or a breakdown of how they’re used in modern artillery systems. I can even generate a custom illustration if you’re curious about how one looks in action.
The numbers of shells being used - and asked for - in Ukraine seem surprising to me. Can you explain about that?
🇺🇦 It is surprising, Louise — the scale of artillery use in Ukraine is staggering, and it’s reshaping how modern warfare is understood.
🔢 Ukraine’s Artillery Needs
Ukraine has publicly stated it needs 20,000 artillery shells per day to support its roughly 300 Western-made artillery systems.
In reality, it’s often only able to fire 2,000 to 9,000 shells daily, depending on supply.
For offensive operations, 20,000/day is considered the minimum to match Russian firepower.
🧨 Why So Many Shells?
Artillery is the backbone of this war:
It’s used to disperse enemy troops, destroy equipment, and disrupt logistics.
Ukraine relies heavily on 155 mm shells, which are NATO-standard and offer better range and precision than older Soviet-era 152 mm shells.
🏭 Production vs. Demand
Here’s the mismatch:
Ukraine’s monthly need: ~600,000 shells.
U.S. production goal for 2025: 100,000 shells/month.
EU goal: 1 million shells/year — but only ~30% of that was delivered by early 2024.
Even with ramped-up production, Ukraine’s allies are struggling to meet demand. Some countries are sourcing shells globally — Czechia alone delivered 1.5 million shells in 2024 and aims to repeat that in 2025.
⚠️ Strategic Impact
Shortages have led to battlefield losses, like the fall of Avdiivka, where Ukrainian troops had to retreat due to lack of ammunition.
Russia, while also facing shortages, started with a stockpile of 16 million shells and has been firing 10,000 to 80,000 per day.
It’s not just a numbers game — it’s a race to sustain firepower in a war that’s grinding on longer than many expected. Want to dive into how these shells are made or how drones are changing the equation?
The amounts of shell debris on the ground must be staggering...
Absolutely staggering, Louise — and the environmental toll is just as intense as the military one.
🌍 What Happens to All That Debris?
Millions of shell fragments litter battlefields, especially in eastern Ukraine.
These include steel casings, explosive residues, and propellant chemicals — many of which are toxic.
Some shells don’t detonate and become unexploded ordnance (UXO), posing long-term risks to civilians and wildlife.
🧪 Soil & Water Contamination
Studies show heavy metals like lead, chromium, and copper leach into the soil from shell debris.
These pollutants can enter groundwater, affecting drinking water and agriculture.
Fertile fields are now cratered and chemically compromised, potentially for years.
🔥 Fires & Forest Damage
Shelling has sparked wildfires, destroying over 100,000 hectares of natural ecosystems.
Forests and wetlands — vital for biodiversity — have been scorched or polluted by debris and fuel leaks.
🧹 Cleanup Challenges
Ukraine has launched mine action and environmental safety programs, but the scale is overwhelming.
International partners like the UNEP, OSCE, and FAO are helping assess and restore damaged areas.
Some areas may take decades to recover — especially those with asbestos, petroleum, and explosive contamination.
It’s a haunting legacy of war: even after the guns fall silent, the land remains wounded. Want to explore how Ukraine is tackling this cleanup or how other wars have handled similar environmental fallout?
How have other countries dealt with environmental issues after conflicts?
🌱 Great question, Louise — the environmental scars of war can linger for decades, and different countries have taken very different paths to healing. Here’s a look at how some have tackled post-conflict environmental recovery:
🇻🇳 Vietnam: Agent Orange and Long-Term Cleanup
The U.S. sprayed over 20 million gallons of herbicides during the Vietnam War, contaminating soil and water with dioxin, a toxic compound.
Cleanup began decades later, with major remediation projects at sites like Da Nang and Biên Hòa airbases, costing hundreds of millions of dollars2.
Reforestation efforts have been slow, and many areas remain ecologically damaged even 50 years later.
🇩🇪 Germany: WWII and the “Red Zones”
After WWII, areas with heavy fighting were designated “Red Zones”, where human activity was banned due to unexploded ordnance and contamination.
Some of these zones were later turned into memorial parks or nature reserves, preserving both ecological and historical memory.
🇰🇷 South Korea: A Reforestation Success Story
After the Korean War, South Korea was left with severely degraded forests.
Through a series of national greening plans, the country achieved near-total reforestation by the 1990s.
Their model included community involvement, strict enforcement, and economic incentives, and is now considered a global benchmark.
🇨🇴 Colombia: Environmental Peacebuilding
After decades of conflict with FARC rebels, Colombia’s 2016 peace agreement included provisions for reforestation, ecotourism, and sustainable rural development.
These efforts helped reintegrate former combatants and reduce the risk of renewed violence.
🌍 Global Lessons
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has led post-crisis environmental assessments in places like Sudan, Afghanistan, and the Balkans, helping governments identify risks and plan recovery7.
Community engagement, policy reform, and international support are key to long-term success5.
Would you like to explore how Ukraine is planning its own environmental recovery — or how these lessons might apply there?
It might be a more productive approach to look at recovery than just keep on playing yes/no games!!
🌿 Couldn’t agree more, Louise. Recovery invites nuance, creativity, and long-term thinking — while binary decision-making in war often keeps things stuck in cycles of destruction.
Focusing on rebuilding allows room for hope and solutions, not just survival. Here's how that shift in mindset has shown up:
🌍 The Power of Post-War Environmental Recovery
Instead of reacting to threats, countries can reimagine their landscapes — turning damaged forests into conservation zones or polluted fields into eco-agriculture hubs.
Recovery efforts often bring people together across divides, like in Rwanda, where environmental restoration became part of reconciliation after the genocide.
Economically, it’s a chance to diversify rural economies, employ displaced populations, and rebuild infrastructure with climate-smart technologies.
🔧 From Reactive to Regenerative
Ukraine, for example, has started mapping contaminated zones with drones and satellite data — not just to clean up, but to prioritize ecological regeneration.
International agencies are supporting "green recovery" models, integrating biodiversity goals into rebuilding efforts.
It’s a narrative shift: war scars become rallying points for ecological healing, not just hazard zones.
You're absolutely right — framing things around recovery moves the story forward. Would you be interested in exploring how art or community rituals have been used to reclaim damaged land after conflict? Or maybe how Ukraine could make restoration a part of its national identity going forward?
No comments:
Post a Comment