Come on dude, now dont teach me ballistics!
i was concerned about your claim as regards to "frequency of screw ups"
You talked as if we are living in the stone age where 100 catapults throw 1000 stones and 10 actually makes to the target and out those 10, 2 manage to so some damage at the target end!
Yes screw ups do happen, but it will not happen that a round would land like a 1000 m away from its intended to land.
As for the "windspeed, drag, drafts" there is something known as meteorology which every modern artillery make use of. You must have heard (as you are a militarily trained doc) about electronic met computation and its application.
They are not fighting Siachen where the met effect is exaggerated.
And the guns that you and we have a quite accurate. Rather i must say very accurate!
As for your "zero error probability", the 'probable error' (both the range PE and the deflection PE) in any gun actually helps the aim of any fire support rather than hindering it.
If your gunners sleep and smoke hash while shooting and load projectiles with wrong fuze and pump in a few extra charge bags inside the breach block and 'lay' the gun (the panoramic telescopes)on a passerby's (who happens to be a beautiful South indian) instead of the Aiming Posts, then i can assume the high 'frequency of screw ups' at your end, but 'unfortunately' our gunners don't do that
And yes, before i forget, in mountainous terrain what else would you like to employ to kick the militants out from there? i hope you dont recommend using Armour where tanks are getting stuck in defiles!
Artillery and Airforce are the suitable (though not the best) resources available currently!
Chill!
Enigma
I stress ....
1. dynamic and fluid nature of the engagement area
2. urban area with significant local populance in loc.
1000m you have quoted is a bit of exaggeration. and even 2 meters deviation does play a havoc in a CI grid as it exponentially increases collateral damage/civillian casualty in a built up area.
its upto you to appreciate the fact.
as for the met data and computed fire solutions being utilised, mountains, IMO are still tricky to be able to be sufficiently accurate in your fire. the reason primarily is again the shifting nature of met conditions, wherein the latest data may be valid for a very short span of time.
in addition the topography of the region invariably increases the dead space in any fire mission. its further compounded if the targets are on reverse slope as the line of sight is considerably reduced (your RADARs become useless in it).
further, effectiveness in a mountainous terrain is found in utilisation of HE/DPICMs something which has effectiveness in a linear engagement but has tendency to increase the casualty rate amongst non-combatants manifolds.
as for armor, you shall find that its PA who is employing armor for whatever reasons. my contention is on employment of adequate infantry assets with full complement of BSWs. RL has been found to be quite accurate for localised fire support as also the Bn Mortar Platoon.
IMO you are out fishing and I refuse to further take your bait. You know exactly what I mean .... but being your enigmatic self as usual ........
Last edited: