The
U.S. Air Force has announced that it is ordering AMRAAM missiles worth $1.15
billion from Raytheon Missiles and Defense to supply to Ukraine, the U.S. Department of Defense reported on June 20.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Because bullets are extremely cheap. Artillery shells, such as the 155m are famously like ~$500
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).
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?
I’ve learned a lot by these replies so thank you. I really can’t answer that scenario you laid out though. We’d need to define “win” and “lose.” The side with only a conventional army is going to take a lot of casualties, while the side with missles only spends money. Really I don’t think missles only was ever in my head but just having them in the mix.
Because military people got really good at not dying unless they are hit directly. You can nuclear nuke an entrenched frontline and you and you only create a couple of kilometers of breach in the front. You advance and very angry mobile reserves cut you off and destroy your ass.
That’s one of the reasons tactical nukes are no longer a thing.
That and the fact that AA systems got really good - even against hypersonic maneuvering missiles.
So you realistically you now only use them on poorly protected targets of strategic importants (open air weapons stockpiles, command centers, troop concentrations, …). But you still need infantry and tanks to take and hold terrain.
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?
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.
How does anti-air work? Just fill the sky with flak? How do you know when and where the missle will be? Just radar?
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.
Patriot directly hits enemy missiles actually. Its more impressive than you might think.
What he described is old tech, russian BUK missile systems (built in 1980) work like that.
Because missiles cost $1+ million each.
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
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.
Because bullets are extremely cheap. Artillery shells, such as the 155m are famously like ~$500
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?
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).
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?
I’ve learned a lot by these replies so thank you. I really can’t answer that scenario you laid out though. We’d need to define “win” and “lose.” The side with only a conventional army is going to take a lot of casualties, while the side with missles only spends money. Really I don’t think missles only was ever in my head but just having them in the mix.
Because military people got really good at not dying unless they are hit directly. You can nuclear nuke an entrenched frontline and you and you only create a couple of kilometers of breach in the front. You advance and very angry mobile reserves cut you off and destroy your ass.
That’s one of the reasons tactical nukes are no longer a thing.
That and the fact that AA systems got really good - even against hypersonic maneuvering missiles.
So you realistically you now only use them on poorly protected targets of strategic importants (open air weapons stockpiles, command centers, troop concentrations, …). But you still need infantry and tanks to take and hold terrain.