It was not. That's a savory reason. OTOH, to plop it in just because it is semi-surgical when there is a less firepower intensive (to include no Arty at all...) option borders on the unsavory. To call for one on no more than a suspicion that it might get some unsociable characters is even less savory; to use one to cover other er, uhm, errors is unsavory.Totally agree on both of those statements; the cost of the round is not IMO an issue. In fact, that cost will be a factor in eliminating some of my (very minor) concerns about overuse because the criteria for use will be tightened and, as long as we don't go overboard, that's a good thing.One of the many things that suck about war is that it happens to be expensive. The effects of inflicting collateral damage on the population will be much more expensive in the long run than an artillery round that costs $38K.
Your second concern mirrors mine also on the overuse possibility -- and it is no more than a human nature based possibility; it is not a fact. I merely was making a cautionary statement, no more. That and noting that our penchant for tech solutions to training problems (another discussion, as said) is, IMO, problematic; no intent to pick on the round per se; just sniping at sometimes excess capability
Also, I think most Artillerymen would agree with your opening statement on a battery volley. Grunts and Tankers OTOH can influence what's called for, thus the slight possibility of misuse I cited...
ADDED: I also agree with your edit. All the above was based on the original posting.
Bookmarks