Whats with all this hype around cluster munitions. Are they really really as powerful/deadly as people claim.
Whats with all this hype around cluster munitions. Are they really really as powerful/deadly as people claim.
Whats with all this hype around cluster munitions. Are they really really as powerful/deadly as people claim.
imagine instead of making one fart in a concert venue you made lots of farts, and those farts were spread over a bigger area. you'd be affecting more of the room with a more potent delivery of fart, whereas with your one big fart it would only really affect the people near ground zero and the people farther away wouldn't even realize you farted.
Huh... makes sense I think.
Would this have the same effect against armored vehicles, IVF, and tanks? Because it just looks like a bunch of grenades jammed into that one shell. I can’t really imagine this being effective against anything else other than soft targets
Ukraine already has a lot of shit for killing armoured vehicles. This is for shredding truly apocalyptic amounts of third-world muscovite subhumans and completing Adolf Hitler's holy work.
They are HEDP with about 50mm RHA pen on a direct hit.
There’s a wide variety of cluster munitions. My favorite by far is the BLU 108. They deploy a rocket to slow down midair, spin to acquire targets, and blast a combined drag/EFP warhead at a detected target.
Pic related: ant version
There are different types of cluster munitions. You're right that the ones in the OP are pretty much hand grenades, but there are also other types, like the modern DPICM, that are combination shaped charge and fragmentation.
Ukraine is getting DPICM munitions as far as I know. The submunitions look like picrel.
I resent people saying "Depickems" instead to saying D.P.I.C.M.
A good rule is only to pronounce acronyms when they actually spell something.
Some are good for vehicles are some are basically just an anti-infantry load. That being said there's a world of difference between a lightly armored vehicle and an IFV
DPICM is a reliable anti-everything round. The bomblets generate a good amount of frag, can set things on fire and the HEAT on it is enough to go through ~80mm RHA which is more than adequate to go through the roof or engine deck of an MBT or IFV and score a mission kill
How many rounds does america plan on supplying to Ukraine? Is it enough to make a difference vs depleted numbers of 155?
The US has a total stock of over 3 million, so probably ~1 million at least.
congrats you made it
Visualise a drone video, then multiple the amount of drones by 2000.
You cannot outrun it, only hide in a deep hole.
Well years ago Christians went to factories to make cluster bombs and now we're here.
I think the issue many people take with them is that their submunitions can fail to detonate properly and can remain dangerous far after the conflict ends.
What about using chemical artillery shells? You wouldn’t have to worry about one of your troops/civilians stepping over an unexplored ordnance and most of the residue from chemical weapons dissipate within about a month. The only thing I feel like you have to worry about is the wind blowing your direction but that can most be solved by getting an analysis of the wind direction of the day before striking
>getting buttfricked by an international coalition speedrun
Pray tell, what international coalition is gonna invade Ukraine to help Russia in stopping use of chemical shells? If anything the US is more likely to give ukraine chemical weapons (Which is of course, very very unlikely)
I don’t believe any amount of psyop and propaganda could convince citizens that sending chemical weapons to a moronic shithole country in order for said country to fight another moronic shithole is a good idea, especially when both shitholes are known for extreme corruption.
I don't think the US would supply ukraine chemical weapons, which is why I said it was very very unlikely.
With that being said, nobody is going to invade Ukraine for using chemical weapons.
There'd be a full-court press in every media org to justify or at the very least explain it as a "last desperate attempt to stem the tide of russia's brutal invasion" or some such journo drivel.
Pols all over the western world would denounce the use of chemical weapons; say they were gravely concerned; that it was terrible, but then they would make excuses and otherwise do anything but mount an invasion.
Are you fricking moronic?
The last time this justification (WMD) was trotted out, the US was the organizer. Who would do it now?
Explain which countries would invade Ukraine for using chemical weapons.
Besides the international coalition buttfricking, all types of munitions will have a dud rate. A 50 year old cluster mine bomblet could pop a leg off and be treatable with first aid. Most civilians don’t carry Atropine or the variety of other nerve/chemical weapon antidotes in their first aid kit.
Basically it’s just extra indiscriminate if it’s a dud, and it’s already going to get your country embargo’d faster than the chemical agent could dissipate.
Chemical weapons also don’t destroy equipment unless you’re using nightmare chemicals
USG has written agreements from Maidan coup government to clean up all the unexploded munitions.
They're fairly effective
Problem is they have a failure rate per bomblet of something like 1%
This leaves lots of UXO laying around, which is a problem if you ever intend to re-occupy land after the war
We will soon find out when Russian carpet bombs Kiev with them!