It is not the least strange.

It is so that this war is bigger and more intensive than anything fought since the times of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Moreover, while…

It is not the least strange.

It is so that this war is bigger and more intensive than anything fought since the times of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Moreover, while the Iran-Iraq War was fought in 'episodes' - each of which lasted 1-2 months, after which both sides were completely exhausted and took months to rest, reorganise and replenish - this war is fought continuously, with the same, high intensity for 7 months already.

This is something nobody has experienced since 1945 (actually, even in the WWII fighting would often stop for 2-3 months between campaigns, sometimes longer).

Therefore: there were not enough experiences for the planners and logisticians to develop related requirements. ....and, due to both the Western and Soviet arrogance and racism, nobody listened to the Iranians and Iraqis when they were demanding artillery tubes capable of surviving the firing of 2000 shells, back in the 1980s....just like nobody listened to the Iraqis when they demanded the development of what we know as 'loitering PGMs', nowadays... at least not before they came in touch with South Africans, in the late 1980s.

If nobody listened back then, why should have anybody listened ever since?

Such experiences like those of Iran and Iraq of the 1980s were simply ignored by Western and Soviet/Russian weapons designers, the last 30 years.

Now, in the 1990s, the European part of NATO quickly disarmed and continued disarming until this year. Their stocks of heavy arms are thin. BUT, there are still enough heavy arms stored in reserve in certain countries: there are Leo 2 MBTs, there are Marders, there are M109s etc: they just wouldn't deliver them. At most, they are overhauling them and pressing them into own service.

USA did disarm do a degree in the 1990s, but then re-armed - though for COIN, in the 2000s. As a result, USA have huge stocks of M1s and M109s, but wouldn't deliver these. Instead, they are delivering stuff that's in production - like M142 and M777 - because that's making sure that the production is going to increase and to went on for years longer.

I.e. because this is securing profit, and tying Ukraine to the USA for years in advance. That's where France (Caesar) and Germany (Panzerhaubitze) are following in fashion, even if to a much lesser degree.

Re. 155mm ammo: there are few manufacturers, but stocks are low. They've not only been spent in 1991 and 2002, or in Iraq and Afghanistan ever since, but also sold out, while production was downsized. 155mm is not really 'intensivelly' needed in COIN warfare the West fought in the Middle Eat and Africa of the last 30 years.

Now it's taking time to ramp up production: alone lead-in items - even steel casings for Bull-designed ammo - are taking 'months'.

Bottom line: yes, there are lots of specific heavy weapons around, but no, Ukraine is not going to get them. Ukraine is going to get what's safeguarding profit and tying of Ukraine to specific manufacturers for years in advance.

And no, there are no endless stocks of ammo: its production has already been ramped up, but it's taking time to expand sufficiently.