4 ms·

Artillery bombardment was widely used in Mosul. This article is puffery, and is (typically) oblique about how the artillery was used upon Mosul, but the title i

Artillery bombardment was widely used in Mosul. This article is puffery, and is (typically) oblique about how the artillery was used upon Mosul, but the title is illustrative: How U.S. Artillery in Iraq Regained Its Status as ‘King of Battle’. https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq > The various howitzers, mortars, and rockets that make up both light and heavy artillery are known in military jargon as “indirect fire.” Though targeting systems have become much more advanced than the days of old — allowing for both greater precision against the enemy and more careful targeting to avoid killing civilians — these weapons unleash incredibly destructive power wherever their munitions land. ... > The campaign to eject ISIS from Mosul and its surrounding towns was destructive — Iraqis are working to rebuild their homes as they continue to count their dead.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> artillery is not verboten in US military doctrine Nobody said it was. The US obviously has massive artillery firepower, both massed fires and precision fires, and using it is of course part of its doctrine. Who are you responding to that you think said it wasn't? Both light artillery and precision fires were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not remotely like in Ukraine where they are using massed fires. (By the way we can see you editing your comments after you post them.)
- dundarious 4y ago
  I edited shortly after posting because I realized that part was irrelevant, and I needed to make a better point, and it was easy to do so. So fair enough for you to respond to it when you saw it. I'm not editing for any other purpose than to make a slightly better point -- there's nothing dodgy about that. (Edit: I just saw you yourself edit to add a point about "light" artillery, and there's nothing wrong with making such an edit.) I can't see the flagged post you were responding to anymore, but for your post quoted below, the argument doesn't apply to Mosul (not that you were claiming it did, you were making a specific point not a general argument). > The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infantry and armour on the ground. It was still extremely destructive. Russia are conducting basically conventional warfare, so they're absolutely piling artillery rounds into these cities. The US and Iraqi forces used conventional warfare and were piling artillery rounds into Mosul, in a similar way to how Russia is using it in Ukraine.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term. I think this is a little unfair - as far as I understand 'surgical strike' is not a reall military term, and the terminology was used by pundits and politicians to put a spin on current events. I don't think anyone takes issue with generals using correct terminology, but usualy they aren't the ones giving interviews.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  The person I was replying to was the person who introduced that term to the thread! The first time it was used was them complaining about its use!
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Am I lost? I was trying to discuss the term as its used in popular media
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Your original reply to me quoted 'surgical strike', debating what that meant in the context of my reply, but that's not a term I used, so I don't know who you were quoting. You're debating a term I never used. If you don't like how someone else uses it, then you'll have to ask them about what they mean, because I didn't use it.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> artillery is not verboten in US military doctrine Nobody said it was. The US obviously has massive artillery firepower, both massed fires and precision fires, and using it is of course part of its doctrine. Who are you responding to that you think said it wasn't? Both light artillery and precision fires were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not remotely like in Ukraine where they are using massed fires. (By the way we can see you editing your comments after you post them.)

dundarious 4y ago
I edited shortly after posting because I realized that part was irrelevant, and I needed to make a better point, and it was easy to do so. So fair enough for you to respond to it when you saw it. I'm not editing for any other purpose than to make a slightly better point -- there's nothing dodgy about that. (Edit: I just saw you yourself edit to add a point about "light" artillery, and there's nothing wrong with making such an edit.) I can't see the flagged post you were responding to anymore, but for your post quoted below, the argument doesn't apply to Mosul (not that you were claiming it did, you were making a specific point not a general argument). > The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infantry and armour on the ground. It was still extremely destructive. Russia are conducting basically conventional warfare, so they're absolutely piling artillery rounds into these cities. The US and Iraqi forces used conventional warfare and were piling artillery rounds into Mosul, in a similar way to how Russia is using it in Ukraine.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term. I think this is a little unfair - as far as I understand 'surgical strike' is not a reall military term, and the terminology was used by pundits and politicians to put a spin on current events. I don't think anyone takes issue with generals using correct terminology, but usualy they aren't the ones giving interviews.

chrisseaton 4y ago
The person I was replying to was the person who introduced that term to the thread! The first time it was used was them complaining about its use!
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Am I lost? I was trying to discuss the term as its used in popular media
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Your original reply to me quoted 'surgical strike', debating what that meant in the context of my reply, but that's not a term I used, so I don't know who you were quoting. You're debating a term I never used. If you don't like how someone else uses it, then you'll have to ask them about what they mean, because I didn't use it.