Which piece of artillery would you like to see most upon possible conflict in the middle east.??
That is the role of the guns to dig out the infantry correct but to abuse an arty system being a grunt, get out of my board. Bwahhhhh2clicksleft said:"God has a hard-on for MLRS because we kill everything we see"
Out of sheer interest I had a good mooch around most of the targets "engaged" by MLRS (ours) during Gulf 1 and found the results on the ground pretty poor. Dug in Defensive positions were barely scratched and I can only assume the enemy infantry (if there were any) were pretty safe other that soiled underpants. Damage to AA and other Arty was minimal and most of the guns could be manned as they were.
Targets in the open...
Found/drove through/fell over, many areas of empty sand and enemy witdrawl routes littered with MLRS strike debris, and nothing else.
Looked like moving tagets had been engaged (convoys?), and by the time rounds had arrived, the tanks/convoys had moved on.
Read with great interest all the hype after the war on this new weapon system, and wondered where all these claims of mass destruction came from as I had visited most of the targets engaged.
Speaking as an infantryman, not too bothered what Arty system is used to batter anything that I am about to assault, but troops dug in, give me the light gun any day or anything else that bungs a shell.