Nearly half of the air-to-ground munitions that Israel has used in Gaza in its war with Hamas since October 7 have been unguided, otherwise known as “dumb bombs,” according to a new US intelligence assessment.
Nearly half of the air-to-ground munitions that Israel has used in Gaza in its war with Hamas since October 7 have been unguided, otherwise known as “dumb bombs,” according to a new US intelligence assessment.
Lol no it fucking isn’t as precise as guided ammo.
No, no, what you should read is that their use of guided ammo is no more accurate than dive-bombing. That is, either the “guided” munitions aren’t that accurate, or the targeting data used is of that quality.
At what point do you care if you hit exactly where you aimed at or 1 meter to the left? The bomb explodes on the target either way.
Why do you think that? Dive bombing hits generally within a few meters, even during WW2 where it was used against tanks. Why would a guided rocket be that much better? Where would it get the target data from if it doesn’t have a human to guide it?
Obviously, there exist guided munitions with higher accuracy (<1m) but that’s not the majority.
When you gotta hit dozens of metres underground I think you’ll need more than a few metres accuracy error.
Dive bombers sunk ships (most of them taking evasive action at the time as well) regularly in WW2 using completely dumb bombs.
Yeah, so? Still doesn’t make it “as accurate as laser guided bombs”.
I never claimed that they were? I was only pointing out that dropping dumb bombs with precision is something that was perfected 80 years ago.
That’s literally the claim we are talking about in this thread - that dumb bombs dropped while dive bombing aren’t as accurate as laser guided bombs - which was claimed in the comment I was replying to
Says it right in the article.
It says “US official says” that, it doesn’t say it is indeed so (you know, as proven scientifically or by analysis by an independent source).
An individual belonging to a government that supports another government saying something that spins in a positive way the actions of the later government isn’t in even the same universe as the standard of proof for something to be widely accepted as true.
Given the US’ continued support of Israel in this, militarilly and diplomatically, statements of US officials justifying Israeli military choices aren’t at all trustworthy, quite the contrary.
I choose to belive the experienced officials over the dumb lemmy users making baseless accusations against them.
How exactly do you know the never once named person, who is only and ever refered to as “US Official” and who made that comment, is “experienced”?!
Plenty of people in that article who put their name on the line along with their words say the exact opposite of the anonymous “US Official”.
Clearly you just liked that statement (no doubt because it aligns with your political beliefs) and went backwards from there to assuming the anonymous person quoted making that statement is “experienced”, which is fine amongst people who already believe the same politics as you but won’t convince anybody with 2 brain cells.
Nah, I just don’t believe you who provides no proof for your claim.
If that was a thinking posture you would have the same proof requirement for quotes from “US Officials” who want to remainn unnamed as you do for the person whose only claim is that you can’t outright trust without further proof what’s said by unnamed “US Officials”.
It’s quite funny that your counter to my point is to demand that I prove my claim that you should demand proof from anonymous sources.
I personally have never flown a fighter in combat, only seen it. But, a nefarious conspiracy theory doesn’t make too much sense.
If you think politicians lying to make what they defend sound good is a “conspiracy theory”, then you’re just the right person to purchase this piece of really cheap river-crossing realestate I have for sale in New York!
I don’t think a DoD official is going to lie for anyone, He’ll just stay silent.
The only person in the article who said the words you quoted (that basically mean “it’s all the same”) is an anonymous official whilst every single one of the persons who are actually named there said the opposite.
Anonymous sources in the kind of positions in the state aparatus were they’re authorized to talk to the press will absolutelly say whatever helps the message of “the boss” including outright lying about “what we think”.
Have you been under a rock for the past 3 decades to still believe that when an anonymous source is quoted on the press what they say is generally way less trustworthy than when it’s a named somebody???!
Must be true
Well if that paragraph isn’t true, why would the rest of them be?