To: Bilow who wrote (31937 ) 6/9/2002 6:27:24 AM From: D. Long Read Replies (1) | Respond to 1. We're outnumbered by several developed or quickly developing nations. We may need additional advantages All the more reason to put the money into leapfrog technology.Desert storm was 10 years ago. The military wanted Paladin for 10 years after Desert Storm. If Desert Storm had shown that heavy artillery wasn't useful, the military would have figured it out a long time ago. I'm not arguing that we should do away with the role of artillery. I'm arguing for a revolutionary change in a weapon concept that hasn't changed since Napoleon. More vehicle kills were recorded by US artillery and armor (each) in Kuwait than by the air force. But only 7% of the munitions dropped in the Gulf War were smart weapons. I'm awaiting the figures from Gulf War II due shortly. :PIf what you're saying here is that a 155mm howitzer is useful against guerillas (and it was used quite a lot in Vietnam), you're right, but that also means that a 155mm long barrelled artillery piece, which has considerably more range and accuracy, is even more useful. Which would be most effective depends on the terrain. Agreed - but if you're arguing for the use of artillery against guerrillas, you don't need a 100 ton self propelled weapon. The Paladin will fill the role nicely. My point was I seem to be getting conflicting arguments here. You complain that you think the military is retooling for fighting terrorists, but then argue that we should be looking to the very sort of warfare that entails - guerrilla war. We might be talking past each other here...
