Missiles

[slapout9]

Here is a Special Forces option. Small Drone/Small Misile.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...-missile-gulp/

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Fuchs

I understand you dislike artillery profoundly?

Depends if I'm on the receiving end or sending end. Point taken, but I'm referring to my visceral dislike of technology eroding the warrior ethos. I realize that won't be reversed, but simply expressing an opinion.

Since you opened this can of worms though, none of this technology replaces the suppressive fire aspect of artillery. Close Air Support, Air Support, drones, etc. are good at taking at targets they can acquire, but that doesn't give the ground commander they capability to rapidly and persistently direct suppressive fire to enable movement. I wasn' there and I hope the infantry folks that were comment (agree or disagree), but I can't help but think we would have taken fewer casualties in the war of movement phase in 2001/2002 if they had artillery. GEN Franks and Rumfield made the decision not to send it, a decision on par with Les Aspen not approving the deployment of armored vehicles to Somalia.

[Fuchs]

Posted by Fuchs



Depends if I'm on the receiving end or sending end. Point taken, but I'm referring to my visceral dislike of technology eroding the warrior ethos. I realize that won't be reversed, but simply expressing an opinion.

Since you opened this can of worms though, none of this technology replaces the suppressive fire aspect of artillery. Close Air Support, Air Support, drones, etc. are good at taking at targets they can acquire, but that doesn't give the ground commander they capability to rapidly and persistently direct suppressive fire to enable movement. I wasn' there and I hope the infantry folks that were comment (agree or disagree), but I can't help but think we would have taken fewer casualties in the war of movement phase in 2001/2002 if they had artillery. GEN Franks and Rumfield made the decision not to send it, a decision on par with Les Aspen not approving the deployment of armored vehicles to Somalia.

(1) I have no use for a warrior ethos. Soldier ethos - fine. Warriors are primitive and ill-disciplined.

(2) The high lethality of PGMs does suppress, albeit not in the same way as HE or machine gun salvoes do. More like snipers suppress.
The suppression effect restricts first and foremost exposure; especially movement without concealment.

Counterfires will be suppressed less effectively than by the more brute force HE or machine gun salvo counterparts, but let's face the fact that their suppressive fires effect is bought at a hefty price: Own exposure, volume/weight/cost of ammo.

I suspect that suppressive fires are very often the dumber bigger brother of the red-headed stepchild "smoke".