this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2308 readers
15 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
See, my layman ass thought much the same, but then AFU began reporting issues with using nato shells with nato guns, despite calibre being standardised.
This I would be more inclined to believe. However this implies:
That DPRK is confident enough in their ability to either replenish their stocks or obtain new weapons quick enough so as it doesn't become a problem
That Russian military has either ran out of their own soviet made shells or can't replenish them quick enough (the latter I could believe tbh, given how much damage has been and is still being done to our industrial capacity)
Those shells and weapons, despite being 30+ years old, are still not only functional, but quite effective
There are just so many factors here that if it somehow turns out to be true, I'll have no choice but to eat my hat. Because boi!
I think explanations do exist for point 1 and 3. The DPRK has quite strong military production. It wouldn't surprise me if they think sending over military surplus they don't need right now (the US is tied up) in exchange for oil is worthwhile. As for the 30+ year old weapons, even old societ tanks, when well maintained could be used on the battlefield. I imagine that the DPRK of all countries would have the incentive to maintain their shells in good condition