Taurus would be used more or less like Storm Shadow against high value strategic targets. The big difference is that Germany would have to default to allow its use on targets inside Russia, since activly being part of the targeting might very well be unconstitutional. So what could be expected are a bunch of Russian jets, ammunition stockpiles and maybe the Kerch Bridge being blown up. Ukrainian drones are not stealthy, so they are much easier to intercept or to warn against. Hence something like Taurus can make a difference.

So it is usefull, but it is not going to change the war fundamentally.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I understand exactly what it is. What I'm saying is that Germany does not have the volume on hand, or the manufacturing capacity to produce such a volume, where it could generate the effect the candidate is implying it can.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The point was more that there are not many strategic targets, which Taurus could hit inside Russia, which can not be hit by a cheaper Ukrainian made drone due to air defence. So if Germany would send thousands of them, it would still not make that much of a difference. The main value is that Russia has to move assets further back.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

Operational targets can't all just simply be moved further and further back from the front lines of a conflict, to say nothing of high value tactical targets.

Supplying several hundred low observable air launched cruise missiles per month would absolutely make a significant difference on the battlefield, that's not even a question.

But that doesn't mean I believe that would enough to cause Putin to reverse course, or to deliver a strategic defeat to the Russian army.

Regardless, Germany doesn't have that manufacturing capacity to begin with, nor do I believe they have the political will to do that, even if it were possible, but again, it is not.