6 ms·
It's most certainly a miss. People have this weird perception due to all the modern propoganda with the tomahawk missile and such that military equipment is now
by tomatotomato37 4y ago
It's most certainly a miss. People have this weird perception due to all the modern propoganda with the tomahawk missile and such that military equipment is now 100% accurate and reliable. In reality these are still physical objects that are subject to mechanical failure/enemy action/entropy/whatever and the average failure rate is still such that you have to send a volley of 3 or 4 guided missiles downrange to absolutely guarantee a kill.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> this weird perception due to all the modern propoganda with the tomahawk missile and such that military equipment is now 100% accurate and reliable The accuracy of Russian munitions has been demonstrably lower than NATO standard [1]. They’re also running low on good munitions, leading e.g. to land strikes by surface-to-air S-300s [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-assesses-up-60-failure-rate-some-russian-missiles-officials-say-2022-03-24/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/britain-says-russia-has-increased-its-use-air-defence-missiles-2022-07-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/britain-says-russia-has...
- dragontamer 4y agoThese attacks in Ukraine _were_ the good Russian missiles. They're from a precious small stockpile of Russian precision weapons. And they wasted it on civilian targets. S300 cannot strike Kyiv, not from where the the frontline has moved.
- dekhn 4y agoThere was a whole article in the NY Times explaining how this is true for the Russians, but not the HIMARS being used by Ukraine.