3 ms·
Yes. I think we are actually agreeing? Still, even with those observations, it's still true that artillery (true artillery, not just rockets/missiles, but actu
by the_af 5y ago
Yes. I think we are actually agreeing?
Still, even with those observations, it's still true that artillery (true artillery, not just rockets/missiles, but actual dumb shells raining over your enemy) is a devastating all-weather weapon, the only true all-weather weapon. I guess it's also comparatively cheap. If the Russians don't care about casualties (either civilians or their own troops), and they are in no rush to gain air superiority, they can continue raining semi-accurate shells on their enemies, inaccurate intel be damned. Eventually they'll hit something.
I think it's unrealistic to think this strategy will win in a war against NATO though, even without nukes being involved.
- dragontamer 5y ago> Yes. I think we are actually agreeing? Yeah. It wasn't my intent to disagree with you. Just chiming in with my own $0.02. > they can continue raining semi-accurate shells on their enemies, inaccurate intel be damned. Eventually they'll hit something. I dunno. Every "bang" can be triangulated using microphones and a bit of math, especially because artillery is just so loud when it goes off. I'm sure the Russians are doing shoot-and-scoot when possible, but its not like you can rain down artillery for more than 1 or 2 minutes at a time on the modern battlefield. As soon as your shell hits, you have a limited window before the enemy returns fire. You want to be running away from your location at that point. ------- USA's "counter-artillery radar", which can detect 1500mph shells flying through the air, can triangulate where shells came from before they even strike the ground. So the "timer" may start even before the enemy gets hit by your first shell.