[Goose]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's 22 including the M270s right? I've seen footage of at least one in use.

You are probably about as close to "right" as one can be given the understandably opaque public announcements. What I THINK I know is that the US has promised and delivered 12 HIMARS. The US promised an additional 4 more HIMARS on July 25, but AFAIK, they are not there yet. The UK has promised and delivered 3 M270s. Germany has promised and (finally) delivered 3 MARS II systems. The German systems were promised June 19 and delivered July 26. So that is 12 + 4 + 3 +3 or 22 launchers.

UPDATE: The 4 HIMARS promised on July 25 arrived today, August 1.

I agree more launchers would be good, I'm thinking ~40 is reasonable and feasible.

I agree that something on that order would be a "good thing". We really need to quit drib and drabing them though. It can't be lack of Ukrainian operators, as they teach these systems to relatively large groups, not 12 people at a time.

UPDATE:
https://english.nv.ua/nation/us-already-...57934.html
Plenty of trained folks for 40 HIMARS, maybe for a bit more. More in the pipeline. The people are not the problem.

Four a month gets them to 40 in November/December, when the weather sucks and probably the war has slowed down anyway. They need these weapons now in Kherson and in the Donbas. As Patton said, "A violent plan well executed today always beats a perfect plan executed next week". It is even more true of a plan executed in three or four months.

The Ukraine has at various times indicated they wanted 100 MLRS systems. While I am not against that as such, I think it is important that Ukraine realizes it can't fight Russia like Russians using NATO weapons. I kind of got the idea they wanted to use the MLRS to bang away head to head with the 1000 or so Russian artillery pieces in the Dombas. That won't work, and to their credit the Ukrainians seem to be using these systems to good advantage in mostly appropriate ways. That may be partly due to the fact they don't have enough systems to do otherwise. It is important however that they don't "revert" to Russian tactical doctrine.

[Goose]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's 22 including the M270s right? I've seen footage of at least one in use.

You are probably about as close to "right" as one can be given the understandably opaque public announcements. What I THINK I know is that the US has promised and delivered 12 HIMARS. The US promised an additional 4 more HIMARS on July 25, but AFAIK, they are not there yet. The UK has promised and delivered 3 M270s. Germany has promised and (finally) delivered 3 MARS II systems. The German systems were promised June 19 and delivered July 26. So that is 12 + 4 + 3 +3 or 22 launchers.

UPDATE: The 4 HIMARS promised on July 25 arrived today, August 1.

I agree more launchers would be good, I'm thinking ~40 is reasonable and feasible.

I agree that something on that order would be a "good thing". We really need to quit drib and drabing them though. It can't be lack of Ukrainian operators, as they teach these systems to relatively large groups, not 12 people at a time.

UPDATE:
https://english.nv.ua/nation/us-already-...57934.html
Plenty of trained folks for 40 HIMARS, maybe for a bit more. More in the pipeline. The people are not the problem.

Four a month gets them to 40 in November/December, when the weather sucks and probably the war has slowed down anyway. They need these weapons now in Kherson and in the Donbas. As Patton said, "A violent plan well executed today always beats a perfect plan executed next week". It is even more true of a plan executed in three or four months.

The Ukraine has at various times indicated they wanted 100 MLRS systems. While I am not against that as such, I think it is important that Ukraine realizes it can't fight Russia like Russians using NATO weapons. I kind of got the idea they wanted to use the MLRS to bang away head to head with the 1000 or so Russian artillery pieces in the Dombas. That won't work, and to their credit the Ukrainians seem to be using these systems to good advantage in mostly appropriate ways. That may be partly due to the fact they don't have enough systems to do otherwise. It is important however that they don't "revert" to Russian tactical doctrine.