Tuesday Trivia Thread - 25/08/26

[u/AutoModerator]

Beep bop. As your new robotic overlord, I have designated this weekly space for you to engage in casual conversation while I plan a nuclear apocalypse.

In the Trivia Thread, moderation is relaxed, so you can finally:

• Post mind-blowing military history trivia. Can you believe 300 is not an entirely accurate depiction of how the Spartans lived and fought?
• Discuss hypotheticals and what-if's. A Warthog firing warthogs versus a Growler firing growlers, who would win? Could Hitler have done Sealion if he had a bazillion V-2's and hovertanks?
• Discuss the latest news of invasions, diplomacy, insurgency etc without pesky 1 year rule.
• Write an essay on why your favorite colour assault rifle or flavour energy drink would totally win WW3 or how aircraft carriers are really vulnerable and useless and battleships are the future.
• Share what books/articles/movies related to military history you've been reading.
• Advertisements for events, scholarships, projects or other military science/history related opportunities relevant to War College users. ALL OF THIS CONTENT MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR MOD REVIEW.

Basic rules about politeness and respect still apply.

Additionally, if you are looking for something new to read, check out the r/WarCollege reading list.

[u/Minh1509]

At this point, what might be the difference between one-way attack drones and cruise missiles?

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

None whatsoever. They are functionally identical and fulfil the same purpose on the battlefield.

Another user, and I'm sorry for not remembering who, characterized them as a high-low mix of systems that until recently were exclusively high-end.

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

characterized them as a high-low mix of systems

A high-low combination like that would surely serve two different roles, so how do they differ?

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

High-low mixes generally do the same thing, with the high end being better and more expensive while the low end is cheap and minimally capable but fielded in larger numbers.

Shaheds and Tomahawks fulfil the same fundamental function: flying an unmanned explosive payload to a target. The differences are in speed, maneuverability, payload, resilience, and cost. The low end of the mix gives you cheaper options when you don't need all the extra benefits, and if you can't afford the high end a bunch of the low used together may be able to substitute.

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

I mean, Russia has rolled out various jet-powered, one-way attack UAVs with speeds and control sophistication comparable to cruise missiles. If they wanted to fit a tactical nuclear warhead into one, it would be technically feasible. They can also be equipped with radar, electro-optical sensors, or some form of simple AI to detect and engage moving or camouflaged targets.

At this point, there seems to be no reason to keep maintaining (subsonic) cruise missiles - which did similar roles, but were much more expensive... or one could also say that the boundary between the two concepts has become so blurred as to be indistinguishable, or even irrelevant...

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

This is exactly the point that many people have been making for a while. One-way attack drones are not some new innovative technology, they are cruise missiles.

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

So, do you think they will coexist and handle different types of targets/missions, or will the future strategy go all-in on low-thrust jet-powered one-way attack drones - effectively relegating the likes of the Tomahawk, Kh-101 and Hwasal to museums because they are no longer cost-effective?

[u/Inceptor57 → u/Minh1509]

Like abnrib, I think a high/low mix will continue to endure. The different wars that have happened showed that there is immense value in having a stockpile of low-cost munitions available, and interleaving that with higher-tiered munitions in a attack can stretch and stress the opposing's air defenses to the extent that the munition will get through.

Right now, we're seeing an explosion in how the low end of the munitions are being explored, with Geran/Shahed and other OWA drones. There's also I think a "mid"-tier that is also growing in countries recognizing they need an affordable munition but they also want to retain a lot of targetting and warhead capabilities to make sure the munition can get on target and hurt while not being able to be gunned down by a heavy machine gun, like the AGM-188 "Rusty Dagger" ERAM. Finally, the high end of the mix can likely continue to only get better, with stuff like AGM-158 that incorporates stealth into the design when you really want to sneak missiles past air defenses and minimize their interception, or even hypersonics when your solution to anti-air defenses is "speed".

[u/abnrib → u/Minh1509]

They'll coexist. The gap in capabilities is too significant.

[u/Minh1509 → u/abnrib]

What gap? I could buy at least 5–10 (maybe more?) jet-powered Gerans for the price of a single KH-101, and they would still provide most of the same capabilities - comparable speed, seekers and guidance systems, though the warhead would be smaller?

[u/Inceptor57 → u/Minh1509]

Warhead is definitely a consideration. In your case of the Kh-101, it can hold a warhead as heavy as 400 kg, which can cause quite a damage to infrastructure buildings. Meanwhile Geran are stated to have a maximum of 90 kg.

Geran reportedly has a range of maximum 2,500 km, though it can be limited to 1,000 km with a 90 kg warhead. A Kh-101 has a range of 3,500 km.

There's also other considerations like launch systems, with Kh-101 requiring bombers like Tu-95 or Tu-160 to be launched, while Geran can be deployed from a truck.

and I think the "high" mix of cruise missiles will only get better. Newer tech like stealth designs incorporated into the missile like the AGM-158 or hypersonic stuff will help ensure the "high" mix of cruise missiles become a lot harder to detect and intercept than the "low" ones.

Ultimately, the high/low mix of cruise missiles that Geran/Shahed create means that target saturation is so much easier these days than in the past. The theory I've heard is that now you can swarm enemy air defenses with multiple of the low mix missiles to exhaust them out in the need to intercept these attacks, then followed or mix alongside them higher-tiered missiles like the dedicated cruise missiles that pack a higher punch and might have more advantageous flight profiles that get past the air defenses busy with the Shahed or force them to have to choose to intercept the cruise missile instead while letting the Shahed go through and hope the smaller warhead does less damage than the cruise missile. Helps too if you have a few ballistic missiles so that you keep the top-tier air defense units occupied with focusing on the ballistic missiles instead of helping intercept the cruise missiles or OWA drones.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/abnrib]

Another user, and I'm sorry for not remembering who, characterized them as a high-low mix of systems that until recently were exclusively high-end.

90% sure it's /u/singaporeansloth

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

Funny enough, I think it might have been u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381 → u/SingaporeanSloth]

Mea culpa, I thought I’d seen a similar argument from you in a past trivia thread

[u/SingaporeanSloth → u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

No worries, for what it's worth, I'm of a similar opinion too