A weapon that crosses artillery and steering seems promising

[BackAgain]

Military Tests New Bomb That Is Terrifying To America's Enemies, Details Are Insane

The military might be getting a powerful new bomb.

www.outkick.com

I am not someone with a military background. But this piece caught my eye.

If we are going to continue to be a species that puts our younger folks on the front lines, I am pleased we have this freakin’ weapon.

 

[JGalt]

 

[1srelluc]

So, a Arty-launched kinda-sorta cruise missile.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Probably won't last very long until a drone knocks out the artillery piece. Then you have a bunch of expensive useless toys.

Send them to the Ukrainians and have them test them for us.

 

[BackAgain]

Probably won't last very long until a drone knocks out the artillery piece. Then you have a bunch of expensive useless toys.

Send them to the Ukrainians and have them test them for us.

I assume that any and every piece of weaponry on the field ceases to be useful once it is knocked out by a drone.

 

[alang1216]

Military Tests New Bomb That Is Terrifying To America's Enemies, Details Are Insane

The military might be getting a powerful new bomb.

www.outkick.com

I am not someone with a military background. But this piece caught my eye.

If we are going to continue to be a species that puts our younger folks on the front lines, I am pleased we have this freakin’ weapon.

Don't be too impressed, we've had the the M982 Excalibur for 20 years. They seem very similar.

 

[whitehall]

Isn't anything classified anymore? During WW2 you would have gotten a visit from the FBI for blabbing about developing weapons.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Ringo]

I assume that any and every piece of weaponry on the field ceases to be useful once it is knocked out by a drone.

A simple question: what is the density of fire from drones per 1 km of the front line in Ukraine? About 20 per hour?

And is it seriously being discussed that this will stop 7,667 soldiers, 45 machine guns, 109 mortars, and 53 artillery pieces per 1 km in World War II? The figures are taken from data on the 2nd Volkhov Front on January 19, 1943, during operation "Iskra". Or will it be able to inflict any damage other than that which these troops received in the offensive without any drones present?

Drone enthusiasts confuse cause and effect. Low troop density in a positional confrontation gives drones a field day, but it was not drones that led to low troop density.
In conditions where a stronghold with five riflemen is being stormed with the same troop formation, it is foolish to expect serious artillery preparation, tank regiments, and squadrons to support the attackers.

 

[BackAgain]

I

A simple question: what is the density of fire from drones per 1 km of the front line in Ukraine? About 20 per hour?

And is it seriously being discussed that this will stop 7,667 soldiers, 45 machine guns, 109 mortars, and 53 artillery pieces per 1 km in World War II? The figures are taken from data on the 2nd Volkhov Front on January 19, 1943, during operation "Iskra". Or will it be able to inflict any damage other than that which these troops received in the offensive without any drones present?

Drone enthusiasts confuse cause and effect. Low troop density in a positional confrontation gives drones a field day, but it was not drones that led to low troop density.
In conditions where a stronghold with five riflemen is being stormed with the same troop formation, it is foolish to expect serious artillery preparation, tank regiments, and squadrons to support the attackers.

I don’t think “density” is measured in miles per hour. And drones also help more distant weaponry by guiding them to the targets.

Also, I addressed the artillery. For other targets, other weapons may be more useful.

 

[Ringo]

I don’t think “density” is measured in miles per hour.

This is not miles per hour, but the number of sorties per hour. The drone must take off, find the target, strike it, and sometimes return for recharge if it not a kamikaze one.

That's 20 sorties/strikes per hour per kilometer of front line.

If we compare this to artillery, in some operations during World War II, the Soviet side concentrated up to 200 guns per kilometer of the front line. If we imagine how many shells all these guns could fire per hour, the russians had a saying: “With 200 guns per kilometer of the front line, you don't ask how enemy is doing.”
In other words, if a real war breaks out, drones will have a slightly different significance, similar to sniper fire, for example —accurate, but unable to stop an offensive.

 

[AZrailwhale]

This is not miles per hour, but the number of sorties per hour. The drone must take off, find the target, strike it, and sometimes return for recharge if it not a kamikaze one.

That's 20 sorties/strikes per hour per kilometer of front line.

If we compare this to artillery, in some operations during World War II, the Soviet side concentrated up to 200 guns per kilometer of the front line. If we imagine how many shells all these guns could fire per hour, the russians had a saying: “With 200 guns per kilometer of the front line, you don't ask how enemy is doing.”
In other words, if a real war breaks out, drones will have a slightly different significance, similar to sniper fire, for example —accurate, but unable to stop an offensive.

Actually the drones would be going for the massive artillery ammo dumps. Destroy those dumps and the guns would be worthless. The Red Army could only mass artillery like that because the Heer couldn’t produce effective counter battery fire. Those Soviet guns were all towed and mostly horse drawn before the flood of American Studebaker trucks in 1944. In other words sitting ducks for counter-battery fire and TACAIR.

 

[Ringo]

Actually the drones would be going for the massive artillery ammo dumps. Destroy those dumps and the guns would be worthless. The Red Army could only mass artillery like that because the Heer couldn’t produce effective counter battery fire. Those Soviet guns were all towed and mostly horse drawn before the flood of American Studebaker trucks in 1944. In other words sitting ducks for counter-battery fire and TACAIR.

I never said that drones would be useless in a major war, but drones fly within the range of long-range artillery guns and they need to fly from somewhere. So the goal will be to destroy the places where the drones are launched from. There is a russian saying: “The best air defense is your tanks on enemy airfields.”

 

[AZrailwhale]

I never said that drones would be useless in a major war, but drones fly within the range of long-range artillery guns and they need to fly from somewhere. So the goal will be to destroy the places where the drones are launched from. There is a russian saying: “The best air defense is your tanks on enemy airfields.”

Something the Russians have never been able to do on their own.

 

[Zavulon]

I never said that drones would be useless in a major war, but drones fly within the range of long-range artillery guns and they need to fly from somewhere. So the goal will be to destroy the places where the drones are launched from. There is a russian saying: “The best air defense is your tanks on enemy airfields.”

Who said that the self-propelled artillery can't be unmanned either? When I just started to study American culture I watched a nice movie - "Terminator" (1984), and I was really annoyed and irritated by its demonstration of the "future war" (AKA "Beautiful tomorrow")


"What the freaking show it is? What are all those bums hiding in ruines from robots? Where are all big battalions? Where are all people?" But now I see it was almost realistic demonstration of what is actually happens in the ruins of Volnovakha or Mirnograd.
So, who said, that Los Angeles, 2029 can't become something like it? You know - America did something extremely provokative, and Russia nuked their nuclear forces and suggested another peace terms. America refused peace, tried retaliate and got their main cities destroyed, too. Russia suggested them unconditional surrender, but they refused it again. "Give me freedom or give me death" they said. "Ok, as you wish", said world majority and send a lot of unmanned systems to eliminate the rest of "resistance" (aka "wild gangs of American radicals"). And most of people just live their ordinary lives and just donate money for "our steel boys in America" and watch snuff video from America.

 

[Zavulon]

I never said that drones would be useless in a major war, but drones fly within the range of long-range artillery guns and they need to fly from somewhere. So the goal will be to destroy the places where the drones are launched from. There is a russian saying: “The best air defense is your tanks on enemy airfields.”

What if American industrial centers and agricultural territories are devastated, but there are still some fifty millions of American radicals who don't want to surrender? What would you prefer in 2029 - go in person to America and search for local guerillas and leftovers personally (with a real chance to get a bullet) or just buy a remote controlled Skynet drone and enjoy real but safe killings?

"If you are watching this commercial - you are a potential customer of Skynet!"

 

[Ringo]

 

[toobfreak]

Isn't anything classified anymore? During WW2 you would have gotten a visit from the FBI for blabbing about developing weapons.

Seriously. The greatest weapon in combat is surprise.

 

[hadit]

This is not miles per hour, but the number of sorties per hour. The drone must take off, find the target, strike it, and sometimes return for recharge if it not a kamikaze one.

That's 20 sorties/strikes per hour per kilometer of front line.

If we compare this to artillery, in some operations during World War II, the Soviet side concentrated up to 200 guns per kilometer of the front line. If we imagine how many shells all these guns could fire per hour, the russians had a saying: “With 200 guns per kilometer of the front line, you don't ask how enemy is doing.”
In other words, if a real war breaks out, drones will have a slightly different significance, similar to sniper fire, for example —accurate, but unable to stop an offensive.

Launch thousands of drones.