3 ms·

I've heard that the hit ratio of modern small-arms battle is very low. The railgun would be a much more assured strike than sending even many humans to do the j

I've heard that the hit ratio of modern small-arms battle is very low. The railgun would be a much more assured strike than sending even many humans to do the job. The railgun isn't just replacing rifles, bombs, and missiles, it is replacing humans! Think of how much a wounded soldier will cost a country over the course of their life, at least if the country gives a damn about vet benefits. Of course while likely quite precise (I'd guess 10 meter CEP), it is still a very powerful weapon that could cause a lot of collateral damage. Human soldiers still have applications.

ryanmarsh 10y ago
Artillery isn't typically used to do infantry jobs. We call that a "war crime". Unless it's us doing it, then we call it "collateral damage". You are correct, most bullets fired in an infantry engagement do not in fact hit their targets. Assuming a target can even be seen. Bullets are cheap and useful for all manner of things, such as keeping the enemy's head down long enough for you to get into position to use a few bullets and kill him. ;)