No lol. For one actual foot soldiers are incredibly important when you can't just kill everything that moves to "win".
It takes far longer to train infantry build guns equipment and infrastructure for healthcare and other shit than it does to mass produce missiles and drones that can hit their targets from hundreds of kilometres away in a matter of a few hours
Yes 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
you didnt rebute
What the fuck does nooqs mean?
Artillery is very important, but is most effective as part of a cohesive unit, drones today are still not gamechangers, they're just novel enough to exploit small weakpoints of conventional military in specific situations, not all, this got discussed in the military history thread currently on /hobby/.
Drones are so cheap, you can bleed air defenses of missiles. Iron Dome was rumored to have run out of missiles at one point. It probably ran out of missiles in certain areas.
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.
Doubt it considering drones can be mass produced within the millions for a single factory
Sorry 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 missiles
Cheap 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
>>1237>you can bleed air defenses of missiles
you don't need missiles to drop drones unless they are the extra espensive types and even those need good countermeassures to not be dropped by fairly simple antiair weapons
>>1227>Drones <EMP blast takes out any drone that isn't large and hardened<electronic interference and hacking take over the enemy weapon.
How are you generating an EMP without a nuclear explosion?
Electronic weaponry, EMP grenades (I can't find the doc in my files but it can be made).
>>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
What kind of ranges are we talking about? Artillery has a range of 10 to 20km, small anti-tank missiles have a range of ~5km. If the EMP range is measured in hundreds of meters instead of kilometers it won't be useful as a defensive weapon.
>>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.
Fair 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.
Drones aren't that useful agianst an opponet with a real air force, they are very eassy to shot down and unlike fighter jets, posses no countermeasures, if you have to chose between drones or real planes, chose real planes, if your going up against someone with planes and you don't have any, your best best is to use those resources on building/buying as many manpads and SAMs as possible
You need infantry and armor to hold territory, if you just have nothing but artillery batteries your 'target' will move closer and closer until you find that your artillery crews are getting shot to death
Literal SAM fodder.
They are upgrading them with LASERs. Either way SAMs are a nonfactor when dealing with enemy with out SAMs.
what lasers? Sounds impractical
Sounds like unfeasible arms contractor gibs to me
Research it. LASERS are trivial to destroy missiles with. No recoil, near instantaneous trajectory to target, no weight to the armature, etc. Of course this will lead to missiles being armored against LASERs but current missiles will be shit on by LASERs. Which will develop faster, LASERs or LASER armor will remain to be seen.
The US military announces this shit all the time, then it gets shelved.
You 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.
Then don't use a missile, shoot down the gunship with a laser.
Unique IPs: 17