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 r

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.