German industry is changing a lot loosing against China, so they have been moving to war related stuff for the past years. Personally, I know a bunch of people who were offered get transferred from VW to a military drone company.
On one side I understand that manufacturing a lot of weapons could be somehow a protection for the future, but also Germany provides a lot of ammunition to Israel that is killing thousands of innocents in Gaza and Lebanon. Germany is friend of Israel despite many people disliking it in Germany (they are still waving Israeli flags in many official places).
Also, weapons will lead to more weapons, more violence and more war, specially if you have investors behind willing to see their shares going up...
Because those are very capital intensive and don’t skew towards germanys existing competitive advantage in diesel engines and high precision heavy engineering. Same reason most places don’t try to compete, it’s cost prohibitive to do so.
Presumably because those markets are difficult to break into whereas Germany can sell defense equipment to allied countries pretty easily (they don’t need to compete with China because Germany’s allies largely don’t want to be dependent on China militarily for geopolitical reasons).
I always wonder about these production numbers in the military. The US has a large military complex and Germany is an industrial power and North Korea is a small military autocracy suffering from raw material shortages, but Googling around I see[0]:
> The expert also said that the North’s annual production estimate of 2 million 152-millimeter artillery shells is premised on peacetime manufacturing rates.
But here Germany is the largest ammunition producer and they're making 1.1 million (presumably both are per-year rates).
This link[1] says the US makes 672k/year (I'm annualizing their per-month number) so definitely Germany is making more than the US.
I get the impression a lot of these things need some contextualization. Are the rates per month or per year, is production dispatchable, do some countries have stockpiles or refurbish shells? Because just looking at raw numbers here results in strange results like North Korea being way larger than Germany at this.
The US doesn't use that much artillery as a matter of tactics. A significant portion of their capacity exists to support other countries.
Artillery is suited for combat with clear lines of confrontation. US doctrine actively tilts the battlefield so that these lines don't form, which plays to their strengths.
Maybe the article is counting the “medium-caliber ammunition” as well; Germany seems to have boosted that quite significantly.
> medium-caliber ammunition from 800,000 to 4,000,000, and artillery shells from 70,000 to 1,100,000
Of course it isn’t really obvious that this would be an apples-to-apples comparison (I suspect it isn’t). Then again it isn’t obvious that a NK artillery shell is an apples-to-apples comparison to a German one (I’d hope the German ones are a bit more modern).
Context is needed but I suspect the full context is complicated—the US doesn’t shoot as many artillery shells just because of the way we do war, so it isn’t obvious that in-context this is a meaningful metric anyway.
The US spends much of its defense budget on building expensive high-tech toys and maintaining 11 carrier strike groups, because it's military priorities are, in decreasing priority:
* Making sure everyone loses a MAD nuclear war
* Maintaining undisputed naval dominance in five oceans.
* Bombing people on its imperial adventures all around the world.
* Offering security and protection in exchange for military and economic and political obeisance from its vassals and client states. [1]
North Korea spends much of theirs on artillery shells, because it's military priorities are, in decreasing priority:
* Make themselves unattackable due to its small nuclear arsenal.
* Make themselves unprofitable to attack, due to holding a conventional-artillery Sword of Damocles over South Korea's cities.
* Being able to resist a ground invasion along a clearly-defined border.
It doesn't maintain more than a mothball air force, and a rag-tag brown-water navy, because both will be blown out of the sky, or the water within days of a shooting war breaking out.
It turns out that air forces and navies are very expensive to operate. Artillery, not so much, any asshole with a basic understanding of a lathe and undergrad chemistry knowledge could conceivably run a munitions plant.
---
[1] The promise of security and protection turns out to have been written on tissue paper, because it can't even defend its own assets in a shooting war with a bankrupt regional power.
The actual risks of modern day Germany going on a hegemonic rampage across Europe are extremely low. Their interests these days are much more aligned with maintaining proper democratic institutions, the EU, and being a voice for the free non-russia-aligned world.
Germany is producing weapons to fight the last war.
WWIII will be fought with drones, not artillery. They should invest part of this money into becoming the leader in drone manufacturing, not this.
Since it's Germany, the money for this manufacturing ramp-up was probably allocated around 2023-2024, when older artillery was needed and before drone superiority was obvious. So maybe this is the expected outcome. If the money was allocated today, we might see it distributed differently.
Both China and the US have moved on to drones. China has purchased 1 million kamikaze strike drones to hit targets across Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan [0]; and the US is trying to invest $55 billion into drone procurement [1].
It's going to be both, and it's because of physics.
At this moment, the best way to put kinetic energy into an enemy is sticking some quantity of explosive on them.
You have a few ways of going about this. Two we consider today: 1) a chemical charge launches a block of explosive ballistically at a closing range of mach 2-5, 2) a complex assembly of plastic/rare earths/silicon/PCBAs flies over to the enemy at somewhere around "fast bicycle" or "leisurely highway" speeds.
By weight, 1 is cheaper, and all you lose is the explosive. 2 is more accurate, but that whole flying assembly is a loss.
Now, when you do something cute like take one little chunk of electronics and stick it on your block of explosive, and then orbit your doodad at a nice safe distance so it beams a homing dot on the target - your ballistic explosive sees the dot and steers toward it. See what I'm getting at? Cheap as 1, accurate as 2.
This is a really, really winning combo when you can pull it off, but lately, UAS ops has gotten a universe more difficult with the dirty dirty EW and now with all sorts of countermeasures.
Even better reason for our little flying widgets to keep their frickin' distance. Even if they get swatted down, they can cue in shot after shot after shot, with much more bang.
You haven't seen the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones? Or the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland from the necessitated by the massive amount of drone jamming and crowding of RF channels?
Artillery is still queen of the battlefield regardless of what highlight reels from r/CombatFootage would have you believe.
> the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones
No, Ukraine does not drop artillery shells from drones. They typically drop VOG-17/25 grenade launcher rounds or RGD-5/F-1 fragmentation grenades, neither of which are considered artillery shells.
> the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland
That's massive evidence for using drones over artillery. Why do we see fields filled with thousands of fiber optic wires, instead of fields littered with thousands of artillery craters like WWII? It's very clear what's happening.
I'd have a look at the latest Ukraine military procurement data. Over 50% of Ukraine's military procurement budget is going into drones. Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition. That's a clear signal of which technology is more effective.
We can also look at statements by Ukrainian military officials, currently 95%(!!) of Russian casualties are caused by drones.
> Artillery is still queen of the battlefield
That was true in 2023, but we are now in 2026, and drones are clearly superior.
The same pre war consensus also thought that war with Russia was unthinkable, it is Russia that focused on artillery tactics so the two assumptions went hand in hand.
It’s my opinion that artillery is out of date and by the end of the Ukraine war they will be even more out of date. It’s hard to make artillery more cost effective than it already is yet still many more opportunities to increase drone effectiveness.
This is more of a doctrine issue. Ukraine was given mountains of artillery by western nations, so naturally they were going to use it. But artillery has lower RoI than drones, drones are cheaper, more accurate, more versatile, and have longer range. It makes the most sense to heavily invest in the better technology drones, not artillery. If we look at what Ukraine spends its military budget on, >50% of its military spending goes towards drones. Only 15% is going towards artillery & ammunition.
We can also look at present wars to view where the trend is going. I'd estimate that during the latest conflict between Israel/Iran/US + gulf states, approximately zero artillery shells were fired*.
During a hypothetical US/China/Taiwan + Korean/Japan conflict, I'd expect this number to be similar.
It’s rare for military technology to completely “move on” to other things. Typically, the new just gets added to the old. So, yea, drones are new, but drones don’t cause artillery to become completely obsolete, in the same way that aerial bombs didn’t cause artillery to become obsolete. You’ll end up spending on both.
Ukraine has essentially moved-on from artillery to drones, just last month (March 2026) drones caused 96% of Russian casualties. Artillery and small arms fire accounted for the rest.
Artillery and drones do different things. An artillery shell costs ~$2k and provides a much bigger bang (and faster speed, totally non-jammable) than a $2k drone (a shahed is ~$20k and much more intercept-able). Drones are 100% useful, but so is artillery.
Germany (currently) isn't even in the top 5 for military drone manufacturing.
The ranking of number of military drones produced per year goes Ukraine (millions), China (millions), Russia (hundreds of thousands), Iran (hundreds of thousands), then the US (tens of thousands), followed by Turkey and Israel (mid-thousands).
German manufacturing is in the low thousands per year. This is a major national security issue, Germany is currently behind many other nations in this technology.
On one side I understand that manufacturing a lot of weapons could be somehow a protection for the future, but also Germany provides a lot of ammunition to Israel that is killing thousands of innocents in Gaza and Lebanon. Germany is friend of Israel despite many people disliking it in Germany (they are still waving Israeli flags in many official places).
Also, weapons will lead to more weapons, more violence and more war, specially if you have investors behind willing to see their shares going up...
Amping up military production is basically a reaction to certain countries electing maniacal pedos as presidents instead of jailing them.
Not being able to trust US protection as much as in the past is evidently a terrible state of affairs, but this isn't the root of the problem.
Making a car and tank has way more in common than making a car and a CPU.
Even moreso than cellphones.
> The expert also said that the North’s annual production estimate of 2 million 152-millimeter artillery shells is premised on peacetime manufacturing rates.
But here Germany is the largest ammunition producer and they're making 1.1 million (presumably both are per-year rates).
This link[1] says the US makes 672k/year (I'm annualizing their per-month number) so definitely Germany is making more than the US.
I get the impression a lot of these things need some contextualization. Are the rates per month or per year, is production dispatchable, do some countries have stockpiles or refurbish shells? Because just looking at raw numbers here results in strange results like North Korea being way larger than Germany at this.
0: https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2023-11-06/nationa...
1: https://breakingdefense.com/2026/02/army-official-not-happy-...
Artillery is suited for combat with clear lines of confrontation. US doctrine actively tilts the battlefield so that these lines don't form, which plays to their strengths.
> medium-caliber ammunition from 800,000 to 4,000,000, and artillery shells from 70,000 to 1,100,000
Of course it isn’t really obvious that this would be an apples-to-apples comparison (I suspect it isn’t). Then again it isn’t obvious that a NK artillery shell is an apples-to-apples comparison to a German one (I’d hope the German ones are a bit more modern).
Context is needed but I suspect the full context is complicated—the US doesn’t shoot as many artillery shells just because of the way we do war, so it isn’t obvious that in-context this is a meaningful metric anyway.
North Korea is a dictatorship, which one of its main deterrents is to shell soul to oblivion.
* Making sure everyone loses a MAD nuclear war
* Maintaining undisputed naval dominance in five oceans.
* Bombing people on its imperial adventures all around the world.
* Offering security and protection in exchange for military and economic and political obeisance from its vassals and client states. [1]
North Korea spends much of theirs on artillery shells, because it's military priorities are, in decreasing priority:
* Make themselves unattackable due to its small nuclear arsenal.
* Make themselves unprofitable to attack, due to holding a conventional-artillery Sword of Damocles over South Korea's cities.
* Being able to resist a ground invasion along a clearly-defined border.
It doesn't maintain more than a mothball air force, and a rag-tag brown-water navy, because both will be blown out of the sky, or the water within days of a shooting war breaking out.
It turns out that air forces and navies are very expensive to operate. Artillery, not so much, any asshole with a basic understanding of a lathe and undergrad chemistry knowledge could conceivably run a munitions plant.
---
[1] The promise of security and protection turns out to have been written on tissue paper, because it can't even defend its own assets in a shooting war with a bankrupt regional power.
Germany Overtakes US in Ammunition Production Capacity
141 points, 163 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47944924
WWIII will be fought with drones, not artillery. They should invest part of this money into becoming the leader in drone manufacturing, not this.
Since it's Germany, the money for this manufacturing ramp-up was probably allocated around 2023-2024, when older artillery was needed and before drone superiority was obvious. So maybe this is the expected outcome. If the money was allocated today, we might see it distributed differently.
Both China and the US have moved on to drones. China has purchased 1 million kamikaze strike drones to hit targets across Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan [0]; and the US is trying to invest $55 billion into drone procurement [1].
[0] https://www.warquants.com/p/one-million-suicide-drones-with-...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953787
At this moment, the best way to put kinetic energy into an enemy is sticking some quantity of explosive on them.
You have a few ways of going about this. Two we consider today: 1) a chemical charge launches a block of explosive ballistically at a closing range of mach 2-5, 2) a complex assembly of plastic/rare earths/silicon/PCBAs flies over to the enemy at somewhere around "fast bicycle" or "leisurely highway" speeds.
By weight, 1 is cheaper, and all you lose is the explosive. 2 is more accurate, but that whole flying assembly is a loss.
Now, when you do something cute like take one little chunk of electronics and stick it on your block of explosive, and then orbit your doodad at a nice safe distance so it beams a homing dot on the target - your ballistic explosive sees the dot and steers toward it. See what I'm getting at? Cheap as 1, accurate as 2.
This is a really, really winning combo when you can pull it off, but lately, UAS ops has gotten a universe more difficult with the dirty dirty EW and now with all sorts of countermeasures.
Even better reason for our little flying widgets to keep their frickin' distance. Even if they get swatted down, they can cue in shot after shot after shot, with much more bang.
Artillery is still queen of the battlefield regardless of what highlight reels from r/CombatFootage would have you believe.
No, Ukraine does not drop artillery shells from drones. They typically drop VOG-17/25 grenade launcher rounds or RGD-5/F-1 fragmentation grenades, neither of which are considered artillery shells.
> the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland
That's massive evidence for using drones over artillery. Why do we see fields filled with thousands of fiber optic wires, instead of fields littered with thousands of artillery craters like WWII? It's very clear what's happening.
I'd have a look at the latest Ukraine military procurement data. Over 50% of Ukraine's military procurement budget is going into drones. Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition. That's a clear signal of which technology is more effective.
We can also look at statements by Ukrainian military officials, currently 95%(!!) of Russian casualties are caused by drones.
> Artillery is still queen of the battlefield
That was true in 2023, but we are now in 2026, and drones are clearly superior.
The drones make the news but can’t be the only weapon you bring
It’s my opinion that artillery is out of date and by the end of the Ukraine war they will be even more out of date. It’s hard to make artillery more cost effective than it already is yet still many more opportunities to increase drone effectiveness.
We can also look at present wars to view where the trend is going. I'd estimate that during the latest conflict between Israel/Iran/US + gulf states, approximately zero artillery shells were fired*.
During a hypothetical US/China/Taiwan + Korean/Japan conflict, I'd expect this number to be similar.
*excluding rocket artillery such as HIMARS
Ukraine's massive use of them has drained the stocks of the European powers, from my understanding.
So, no, the answer is unfortunately they need to do both. Though after the war I suspect Ukraine will take the lead on drone development.
Are they just producing ammunition types that aren't suitable for drone weaponry or something?
Artillery has a relatively short range of ~30km, while modern drones are reaching hundreds of km.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/14/ukraine-strikes-dro...
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-germany-drone-production/337...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/02/26/once-re...
https://defencematters.eu/germany-ukraine-drone-factory/
The ranking of number of military drones produced per year goes Ukraine (millions), China (millions), Russia (hundreds of thousands), Iran (hundreds of thousands), then the US (tens of thousands), followed by Turkey and Israel (mid-thousands).
German manufacturing is in the low thousands per year. This is a major national security issue, Germany is currently behind many other nations in this technology.