• vegai@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I, as a prominent couch strategist, would think it’s more probable that they’re gonna use them as they are, to make offensive actions against dug in enemy more effective. They have apparently been experiencing problems in that area.

    I wonder if the failure rates quoted by the bbc article are correct. They claim that US cluster bombs have a dud rate of 2.5% whereas the Russian munitions have 30-40% duds. That seems a bit … propagandish.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine 1/3rd of the shells you fire at the enemy didn’t do anything. This was woulda been over a long time ago

    • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given the way that Russian made weapons seem to work I’d agree that the dud rate is probably not what’s described. It’s probably closer to 5% US did rate and 60% for Russian made garbage. I mean, I remember the start of the war when they had videos all over of cluster munitions that were unexploded.

      If there’s one thing the US values it’s value-per-dollar, and dud bombs not working would be bad business.

      Also, to the OPs question about using them to make drone bombs. They would be crazy to do that. Especially when the battlefield as it’s described talks about trenches with mines on top making it difficult to run Bradley’s and Challengers over. My guess is they’ll use the cluster munitions to carpet an area, detonate any mines underground and clear out trenches, and then push forward through the newly opened line.