56
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I kind of don’t even understand how, in the age of missles, we still have tanks and soldiers at all. I guess I don’t understand how missles work. My assumption is that they’re able to just erase anything that is in a spot you indicate in some kind of Google maps interface. If they’re not that smart, I don’t understand why not. How do armies still march and drive around in tanks when the enemy can just push a button on their phone and cause explosions where they are?

[-] Rogue_General@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because anti-air deletes missiles. Also you can't hold territory with just missiles. You need land presence, and for that you need soldiers. And since soldiers are more useful alive than dead, we built thick metal boxes that can roll around the battlefield so they can be protected while being transported to important locations. The metal boxes themselves also have big ass cannons attached that will utterly destroy any other vehicle or building an enemy might be using as cover. These are just some of the reasons soldiers and tanks are still used.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

How does anti-air work? Just fill the sky with flak? How do you know when and where the missle will be? Just radar?

[-] rook@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the missile is coming and radar computer guy sees it and does some calculus to figure out where the missile will be in X minutes and then tells another computer to shoot a missile at where the first missile will be in X minutes. and this second missile (the anti air missile) is specially designed to sort of shotgun a bunch of metal at the first missile to make sure it gets the hit. yep.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Patriot directly hits enemy missiles actually. Its more impressive than you might think.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. Because missiles cost $1+ million each.

  2. Because long-range missiles flying at 500mph will take 3 or 4 minutes to hit their target. The target can move, hide, or otherwise escape the missile

  3. Because bullets near instantly hit their target (within 5 seconds) in battlefield conditions. Tanks in particular fire hypersonic 3000mph shells, you're dead in 2 seconds (at 3000m range), though the soundwave hits you at the 10-second mark.

  4. Because bullets are extremely cheap. Artillery shells, such as the 155m are famously like ~$500

  5. Tank shells are likely under $2000 IIRC. So you can fire lots of tank-bullet for the same price as missile. More accurately (due to speed an information). And firepower: 40 shots of a tank can affect a battlefield more immediately than a missile. A tank can fire and near instantly kill targets it can see out to 3km ranges (~2 second travel time). A missile or rocket taking 60, 90, 120+ seconds to reach long-range targets just cannot affect the battlefield in the same manner.> How do armies still march and drive around in tanks when the enemy can just push a button on their phone and cause explosions where they are?


How do armies still march and drive around in tanks when the enemy can just push a button on their phone and cause explosions where they are?

Because missiles take a long time to fly. Even at modest 50km ranges, you ain't affecting the battlefield in time (~500mph missile will take over 3 minutes to reach 50km).

[-] SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

If you shoot a missile costing millions to hundreds of millions at everything, your country will be bankrupt very quickly.

Long range missiles roughly do work the way you described, but if you press the "erase this spot" button and then the tank or soldier moves, you just wasted a missile. You also first need to find the tank, and your missile can be shot down.

Of course there are missiles that are able to track moving targets, but that gets even more expensive, less reliable, etc.

Missiles also have a hard time dealing with heavily reinforced/underground targets, and missiles can't occupy territory.

Who will win: a country that has 100 long range missiles, or a country that has 10000 soldiers spread out in more than 100 groups, with rifles and a couple hundred short range missiles (think Javelin) for good measure?

this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
56 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38894 readers
2280 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS