All other forms of war is gay when you have those two weapons, you don’t even have to move or deploy soldiers and equipment, just stand around and rain missiles and bullets on the target until troops move into seize the targets and you win.
>>1229Yes I am aware that war is inherently political but I’m looking at artillery and air support as a means of conventional approaches to ordinary seize land with armed force kind of shit
Risking troops is stupid when you already have weapons that can hit shit from far fucking away
>>1230you didnt rebute
argument:
nooqs
>>1242Sorry not drones
Missiles or ordinary bombs
>>1233>What the fuck does nooqs mean?my guess is that the anon is referencing the theory that nukes (nooqs) or nuclear weapons prevent large scale conventional war.
>>1237>Drones are so cheap, you can bleed air defenses of missilesCheap drones can be downed with cheap air defenses. Really fancy drones that can fly at high altitude which requires pricey anti air missiles cost as much or more than jet fighters. The global hawk drone cost 220 million, a predator drone still costs 40 mil. The low cost drones are essentially light air-plains and could not stand up to WW2 prop-fighters or a simple proximity fuse flak. A modern laser guided homing flak cannon will pluck these out of the sky by the thousands with shells that cost 500 to 1500 bucks.
>Iron Dome was rumored to have run out of missiles at one point.yes it did, but that was against basic ballistic artillery missiles not drones.
>>1238>You are kind of on the money in that artillery and drones are a great force multiplier. They can both be mass produced by non state militaries with low resources to great effect. For example ISIS tards did a good job with converting factory lines for pipes to pump out mortar tubes and shit.you have to be careful with that tho because those simple improvised artillery is very vulnerable to counter-battery fire
>>1253>How are you generating an EMP without a nuclear explosion?You can make a emp by using a regular explosive to shove a magnet past induction coils that are connected to a spark gap antenna. You need to know how to do an analog tuned circuit, and take into account a lot of electricity physics effects, the tuning includes tuning the chemical parameters of the explosives. I guess it's easy to make but hard to design and the explosive will break the emp contraption after a single use.
It would only have a very small range. A weapon using the blast from the explosive is more effective 99% of the time. It could be worth it for rescue missions that require disabling something, or taking out swarms of small drones like those:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM >>1261>What kind of ranges are we talking about?You have to treat emp as the payload of a weapon like an explosive charge, you could put an emp device as payload into a artillery shell or a rocket. Emp devices explode, but a part of the energy from the explosion is converted into an electromagnetic impulse, that has an area effect. It's like a blast-wave except it's got electromagnetic interactions instead of a shock-wave. The biggest emp-bomb designs can take out an entire continent, those are the ones that use nukes detonated in the stratosphere, those work by stripping of electrons from ionized air. That's really hardcore stuff and will fry everything unless it has been hardened. You don't need that intensity to fry drones, Everything that flys is very vulnerable to emp because emp shielding is heavy. Swarms of small drones like the ones from that video can be neutralized by a weak emp so it might be usable as a defensive weapon that doesn't fry your own stuff, because you'd shoot small emp devices in the air near the drone swarm like a flak. EMP has never played a role in military so far but emp grenades could become relevant against weaponized bots, because humans are not vulnerable to emp, it's possible to take out combat-bots without harming civilians. I'm speculating a lot because i haven't seen practical designs, so i have no idea about the cost.
>>1265Fair enough, emp payloads on anti-air munitions are theoretically possible. Their real effectiveness will depend on how much their destructive radius can be increased and how cheaply they can be made relative to traditional anti-air munitions.
Not sure infantry emp munitions will ever be relevant in war though. Maybe they will be useful for police.
>>1227You need still needs boots to secure and hold terrain, this is an unchangeable fact of war.
That said, the proliferation of drones and real-time targeting is such that gun artillery is increasingly almost like a long-range, ultra heavy sniper rifle.
Not sure about rocket artillery though, their usage still seems very spammy.
>>1227>Drones and artillery are the best weapons >Ignoring importance of Air Defense Kek
YUGOSLAV DEFENSE GENIUS WORRIES U.S.
https://archive.ph/nXswJ This article ought to tell you how valuable it is against even a giant like NATO.
Unique IPs: 21