• cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Yea, to hold ground

      Yes that’s part of it. Also storming positions is still done by dismounted infantry. You don’t need very fancy guns but you still need good ones. Also the role of sniper has not disappeared.

      Drones have not replaced infantry. They fulfill roles previously assigned to reconnaissance, sabotage, specialized anti-armor units, CAS, and partly artillery (though artillery has also not been obsoleted by drones, it just serves a slightly different purpose).

      Drones can neither take nor hold ground. Anyone who makes the mistake of overinvesting into drones at the expense of the traditional “basics” makes the same mistake as those who overinvest in airpower.

      • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        The US does not need this, as any war they could need it for would end on the day it’s started in nuclear hellfire. You don’t need this fancy shit to murder civilians and irregulars.

        • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          The US doesn’t need a military. It has two oceans and two weak neighbors. But that’s beside the point.

          Also, the US sells a lot of weapons to people who can use them without triggering WW3.

          • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days ago

            They need it to project their Empire. All those bases don’t staff themselves.

            Heck, I am happy that the US is wasting more and more money on the dumbest shit ever. this new gun will perform worse then existing ones in my opinion so let’s hope the military buys ten for every soldier.