> A good example not having enough artillery ammunition.
US military doctrine doesn’t use much artillery anymore so why would it still spend a lot on artillery ammunition?
US uses maneuver warfare with air support and precision munitions. No one expected to provide a bunch of logistics support to a non-NATO ally that uses our Cold War enemy’s doctrine.
You can rephrase it all you like it doesn’t change the question: why would the US spend a bunch of money on artillery ammunition when it and its NATO allies don’t use artillery? Why waste money on something we don’t use?
The US armed forces make a lot of dumb choices with their funding but “underspending on artillery we don’t use” is not one of them. Even with hindsight it doesn’t make sense.
Plenty of M-777 M-119s and M-109s are still in use. The idea that the US doesn't have or use artillery is just factually wrong. The fact we didn't have substantially more ammunition stocks for those weapons is a mistake.
US military doctrine doesn’t use much artillery anymore so why would it still spend a lot on artillery ammunition?
US uses maneuver warfare with air support and precision munitions. No one expected to provide a bunch of logistics support to a non-NATO ally that uses our Cold War enemy’s doctrine.