The Utility of Tactical Ballistic Missiles

[LostCosmonaut]

For the purposes of things, we'll be talking about things with a range of <300km.

 

To my untrained eye, it seems that TBMs could be highly useful, especially for somebody who lacks air superiority. They have the capability to strike targets well outside the range of conventional artillery, while being relatively difficult to intercept (although this is becoming less true as things like Patriot PAC-3 and S-300/400 become more widespread. The cost is an issue, but it appears that if they were fitted with cluster warheads, or used against area targets (such as an airbase), it looks like they could be useful. This, and their utility even in environments with contested air superiority, means that they should be useful for somebody like the Soviet Union in the 80s (probably explains whey they invested so much in things like the OTR-21).

 

Does this seem reasonable, or am I talking out my ass?

[Belesarius]

A hot non-nuclear theater ballistic missile would still be a non-trivial target.  Especially with a cluster type warhead that separated at altitude.

[LoooSeR]

Ukraine used a lot of Tochka-U TBM against rebels and population - up to 60 missiles in total, AFAIK. They used both cluster munitions warhead and HE.

 

Engine blocks

 

 

 

 

 

 

Possibly results of Tochka-U hit.