It’s almost like I realize that I live in a for-profit driven country. But again, at the same time is almost like our specialized hyper expensive tools actually get the job done versus praying that the artillery round connects with the right target over the horizon.
If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?. The missile can be fired by one dude. Several thousand miles away sitting on his ass in a cargo container. The towed artillery will require minimum five guns and 10 men per gun.
You need to understand we live in a disposable razor society. We don’t care about straight razor economics.
If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?
Shells are way easier to produce than guided missiles, this comparison is asinine. Why are you comparing just the “price” of the two options? Have you also considered that artillery is not just for destroying things but also to deny control of an area or send support fire to a position? Good luck doing that with one fucking missile, I’ll take the 200 shells.
Liberals shouldn’t speak about things they don’t know at all, they shouldn’t speak ever
I love how you think I’m a liberal. I’m not a conservative either. If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn’t be doing so poorly. There is a reason that we don’t use carpet bombing anymore and moved to precision guided munitions.
And that’s why it’s prioritized over artillery shell production, this way the MIC gets to launder more money. You’re almost self-aware.
It’s almost like I realize that I live in a for-profit driven country. But again, at the same time is almost like our specialized hyper expensive tools actually get the job done versus praying that the artillery round connects with the right target over the horizon.
If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?. The missile can be fired by one dude. Several thousand miles away sitting on his ass in a cargo container. The towed artillery will require minimum five guns and 10 men per gun.
You need to understand we live in a disposable razor society. We don’t care about straight razor economics.
Shells are way easier to produce than guided missiles, this comparison is asinine. Why are you comparing just the “price” of the two options? Have you also considered that artillery is not just for destroying things but also to deny control of an area or send support fire to a position? Good luck doing that with one fucking missile, I’ll take the 200 shells.
Liberals shouldn’t speak
about things they don’t knowat all, they shouldn’t speak everI love how you think I’m a liberal. I’m not a conservative either. If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn’t be doing so poorly. There is a reason that we don’t use carpet bombing anymore and moved to precision guided munitions.
It wasn’t the price. It was the effectivity rate.
Russia is only doing poorly in your cope fantasies, Russia won the war.
The vast majority of casualties in this war (just like in WW1) have been due to artillery.
But you literally do.
This never happened, it’s just propaganda to pretend that America’s wars are “more humane”.