It's also more expensive (which I guess is our problem, not the Ukrainian's) and if covering area is the goal normal high explosive shells work pretty well.

I'm pretty sure there's more to say than that. Bigger isn't necessarily better.

[–] SaltMeadow@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s also more expensive (which I guess is our problem, not the Ukrainian’s)

The US is expected to provide Dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) which, according to the Wikipedia article

as of 2014 many were reaching the end of their useful life and required disposal

So like many weapon donations (see Storm Shaddow) they are already paid for, end of life weapons that were unlikely to be used in anger.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Okay, yeah, so definitely not an issue here.

[–] SaltMeadow@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

if covering area is the goal normal high explosive shells work pretty well.

For example, the typical howitzer-launched cluster munition, the most numerous and, arguably, most important of U.S. cluster munitions, can equal the lethal effectiveness of 15 high-explosive (HE) howitzer shells. The advantages of such a munition are obvious.

That website also has a set of images showing cluster vs. HE vs. airburst.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

That's helpful, thanks!