People were wondering where the MLRS are?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-30 04:41am

Not in the region. The Army doesn't need MLRS- the Air Force can do it.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ne ... 500294.htm

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-30 05:21am

*groans* Sometimes Rumsfeld makes me extremely angry.

Oh well; we probably should consolidate and wait for 4ID to arrive and deploy, but we'll just have to see about that.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-03-30 05:38am

Hmm, I remember the MLRS from the original Command and Conquer. Nothing like the RL equivalent though.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-30 05:45am

3rd Impact wrote:Hmm, I remember the MLRS from the original Command and Conquer. Nothing like the RL equivalent though.

Understatement of the history of the universe

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-03-30 05:48am

Vympel wrote:
3rd Impact wrote:Hmm, I remember the MLRS from the original Command and Conquer. Nothing like the RL equivalent though.
Understatement of the history of the universe

Still scared the shit out of me when I first had to fight the things...

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-30 11:50am

Wowser!

Polititians giving orders to the Generals on matters of timing, yeah because that worked *so* well in the past.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-30 01:22pm

The wide damage path of M270 make it useless for urban fighting, unless you want to Grozny the place, though bomblets don't do much to buildings anyway. I'm not seeing what people have to complain about, leaving behind vehicles which don't have much of anything to shoot at and have high maintenance and fuel requirements makes sense.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-03-30 03:22pm

Suuuuuuuuuure and all this from unknown military commanders and generals that don't want to be identified. I'm not questioning the validaty of the story entirely, but I smell reporters just searching for a story and trying to find a problem where no substance can be found.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-30 10:25pm

David wrote:Suuuuuuuuuure and all this from unknown military commanders and generals that don't want to be identified. I'm not questioning the validaty of the story entirely, but I smell reporters just searching for a story and trying to find a problem where no substance can be found.

There is none. Aircraft bombs are far better for support in urban operations then a salvo of rockets which will kill everyone exposed over 200,000 square meters, but leave the threats inside of buildings untouched.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-03-31 01:10am

As has been said before, MLRS is better used over open terrain than in a built up area. Heck, your not even supposed to drop the rounds within a kilometer of your own position. A 'dirty weapon', so to speak...

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-03-31 01:16am

And Rumsfeld needs to sit down, shut up and let the Military handle the situation as they have been trained to.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-31 01:53am

He also said the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and V Corps were forced to leave behind most of their long-range Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. Rumsfeld told them that air power would do the job. ``But it is not doing the job so far. It is focused elsewhere.''

I hate being reminded why I fucking hate Rumsfeld.

He's a typical civie Washington suit who fucks the military.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-03-31 03:59am

At least bring the tube artillery with them...

We might not need MLRS now, but later. Still should have brought them.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-03-31 04:17am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

He's a typical civie Washington suit who fucks the military.

IIRC, the military hates him almost as much as they hate Clinton.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 07:24am

MLRS would be great use against the Republican Guard divisions surrounding, but not inside, Baghdad, and furthermore, were consistently used in preference to the M109 155mm SPGs back in 91- they were utterly devastating.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-31 08:48am

I actually saw a picture in the newspaper the other day with what looked to be an SSM firing from behind Allied lines? The shape of it was indistinct at that range, but it didn't look like a Patriot to me (too fat).

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 08:50am

phongn wrote:I actually saw a picture in the newspaper the other day with what looked to be an SSM firing from behind Allied lines? The shape of it was indistinct at that range, but it didn't look like a Patriot to me (too fat).

Must've been an ATACMS.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-31 09:50am

Vympel wrote:
phongn wrote:I actually saw a picture in the newspaper the other day with what looked to be an SSM firing from behind Allied lines? The shape of it was indistinct at that range, but it didn't look like a Patriot to me (too fat).
Must've been an ATACMS.

I thought that too, but IIRC they're launched from MLRS only?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 09:55am

Vympel wrote:MLRS would be great use against the Republican Guard divisions surrounding, but not inside, Baghdad, and furthermore, were consistently used in preference to the M109 155mm SPGs back in 91- they were utterly devastating.

If there in a position that MLRS could be used, which is unlikely, There are many towns in the area. Then its a simple matter to call for a flight or three of B-1's to hit them with several hundred Mk.82's and CBU's. Thats sounds like the plan.

Back in 1991 the Iraqi army was deployed in the open desert. This time around there in urban areas. Tube artillery might inflict less damage, but it can be used far more readily. It can also do many mission which rocket artillery cannot because they require sustained bombardment.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 09:56am

phongn wrote:
Vympel wrote:
phongn wrote:I actually saw a picture in the newspaper the other day with what looked to be an SSM firing from behind Allied lines? The shape of it was indistinct at that range, but it didn't look like a Patriot to me (too fat).
Must've been an ATACMS.
I thought that too, but IIRC they're launched from MLRS only?

MLRS can hold two, the undeployed XM-142 can hold one. There was a plan to fire them from the Mk41 VLS system or even submarines but neither happened/

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 09:58am

phongn wrote:I thought that too, but IIRC they're launched from MLRS only?

They are- there are MLRS in the region- just not nearly as many as there normally is- it's in the article.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-31 10:04am

Vympel wrote:
phongn wrote:I thought that too, but IIRC they're launched from MLRS only?
They are- there are MLRS in the region- just not nearly as many as there normally is- it's in the article.

Ohh, okay. I only skimmed it the first time. Sorry 'bout that.