4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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.