True story, the US Army did casualty analyses of WW1 and determined that artillery barrages have a diminishing returns effect as survivors get into cover. It's what governed the development of time-on-target missions, to maximize the amount of metal falling in the opening seconds.
Time-on-target: Rather than assigning a battery to shell a target for a period of time, a central HQ directs ALL available batteries to put a couple shells on target, synchronized so that all shells arrive at the same time regardless of travel distance. MRSI (multiple-round-simultaneous-impact) takes the same concept and uses different powder charges and elevations in the same gun to get even more rounds to arrive at the same time
So if you were to, say, bomb a city to kill certain leaders, it would be totally pointless to continue for months? Especially if you knew they had a vast network of underground tunnels?
Oh I don't question the reality of what you are saying, I just have enough bitterness that even if they surrendered I'm going to say 'continue the barrage' till there's only a hole in the ground..
I do question it, because it ignores the purpose of artillery as suppression, morale killer and area denial. I mean for God's sakes we have a modern day trench warfare situation right now as plain as day as an example to draw from.
True story, the US Army did casualty analyses of WW1 and determined that artillery barrages have a diminishing returns effect as survivors get into cover. It's what governed the development of time-on-target missions, to maximize the amount of metal falling in the opening seconds.
Time-on-target: Rather than assigning a battery to shell a target for a period of time, a central HQ directs ALL available batteries to put a couple shells on target, synchronized so that all shells arrive at the same time regardless of travel distance. MRSI (multiple-round-simultaneous-impact) takes the same concept and uses different powder charges and elevations in the same gun to get even more rounds to arrive at the same time
Interesting.
So if you were to, say, bomb a city to kill certain leaders, it would be totally pointless to continue for months? Especially if you knew they had a vast network of underground tunnels?
Maybe. But if someone else is paying for all the bombs, is there really a reason to stop dropping them?
Oh I don't question the reality of what you are saying, I just have enough bitterness that even if they surrendered I'm going to say 'continue the barrage' till there's only a hole in the ground..
I do question it, because it ignores the purpose of artillery as suppression, morale killer and area denial. I mean for God's sakes we have a modern day trench warfare situation right now as plain as day as an example to draw from.