3 ms·

> GPS artillery shells are also completely inferior to guided MLRS for every use case. Well, there's the "hidden" effect of suddenly making a random M777 gun o

> GPS artillery shells are also completely inferior to guided MLRS for every use case. Well, there's the "hidden" effect of suddenly making a random M777 gun on the battlefield suddenly a guided weapon. If Russia sees a battery (6x M777 guns) moving into 40km range of a battalion headquarters, or an airport with expensive helicopters... or some other important defense point, what does Russia do about it? (Assume the M777 guns are shooting-and-scooting, so there's a very low chance you actually hit them with any long-range guided munition) If the M777 guns have dumb shells (only 20km range), the threat can be ignored. But if the M777 guns have Excalibur rounds, then all your $million helicopters are about to be blown up ------- Ukraine doesn't need a lot of Excalibur rounds. They just need "enough" to demonstrate to Russia that they're on the battlefield, and that Russian commanders need to plan around them.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Sure, I agree. I just take issue with using Excalibur rounds for the range and comparing it to dumb rounds. If Russia sees a battery of M777 guns moving into range, they will simply blow them up with MLRS in "fuck that grid square" mode. There is no need to use long-range guided munitions - counter-battery fire is precisely what MLRS is great at. Also, for the scenarios you describe, an M777 with Excalibur rounds is not the weapon of choice. Again, that's another situation where MLRS is great at. Not only will you be able to destroy all of those helicopters, you'll be able to do some extra damage and kill more people, at an even greater range. The use of and M777 with Excalibur rounds instead of an MLRS is really in those situations where you have few, immobile, very small targets. Both of the situations you describe would require area fire. > Ukraine doesn't need a lot of Excalibur rounds. They just need "enough" to demonstrate to Russia that they're on the battlefield, and that Russian commanders need to plan around them. For all the situations you explained, they already have to worry about much longer-range MLRS fires. For other situations, they already had to worry about the Soviet Krasnopol shells that Ukraine has (and used). The situations in which they have an extra headache really are marginal. Essentially the only real situation where something like Excalibur will make a difference is if there is a very valuable enemy position in proximity to an allied position such that MLRS is not viable, where laser-guided artillery is not viable (too far or can't get a drone or other designator up there), but at the same time a mortar isn't enough. It for sure is valuable, but it is only a unique capability in very specific cases.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Sure, I agree. I just take issue with using Excalibur rounds for the range and comparing it to dumb rounds. If Russia sees a battery of M777 guns moving into range, they will simply blow them up with MLRS in "fuck that grid square" mode. There is no need to use long-range guided munitions - counter-battery fire is precisely what MLRS is great at. Also, for the scenarios you describe, an M777 with Excalibur rounds is not the weapon of choice. Again, that's another situation where MLRS is great at. Not only will you be able to destroy all of those helicopters, you'll be able to do some extra damage and kill more people, at an even greater range. The use of and M777 with Excalibur rounds instead of an MLRS is really in those situations where you have few, immobile, very small targets. Both of the situations you describe would require area fire. > Ukraine doesn't need a lot of Excalibur rounds. They just need "enough" to demonstrate to Russia that they're on the battlefield, and that Russian commanders need to plan around them. For all the situations you explained, they already have to worry about much longer-range MLRS fires. For other situations, they already had to worry about the Soviet Krasnopol shells that Ukraine has (and used). The situations in which they have an extra headache really are marginal. Essentially the only real situation where something like Excalibur will make a difference is if there is a very valuable enemy position in proximity to an allied position such that MLRS is not viable, where laser-guided artillery is not viable (too far or can't get a drone or other designator up there), but at the same time a mortar isn't enough. It for sure is valuable, but it is only a unique capability in very specific cases.