Excalibur Use Rises In Afghanistan

Excalibur Use Rises In Afghanistan

Since the GPS-guided Excalibur artillery round first made it to Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly 200 rounds have been fired. In the last week or so, use of that round has pulsed. Army artillerymen have fired 20 rounds or 10 percent of the total in Afghanistan, according to James Riley, Raytheon Missile System’s vice president for land systems. We don’t have similar numbers for the Marines, who have been using the shell as well.

Excalibur has been at the center of debate in the Army as the service grapples with the tradeoffs of cost, capability and logistics. Army Vice Chief of Staff Chiarelli has singled out Excalibur as an example of a weapon that would be nice to have lots of if only it didn’t cost so much compared to alternatives such as PGK (Precision Guidance Kit), a GPS setup that can be put on a $600 shell.

There are significant differences in accuracy between Excalibur and the PGK. Excalibur’s circular error of probability (CEP) is 2.86 meters at 40 kilometers, Riley said. PGK’s CEP requirement is better than 50 meters at that range, according to a briefing on the system. Excalibur’s greater accuracy has several effects beyond the obvious one of destroying the target with greater certainty. It allows artillerymen to operate a much lighter logistics tail. More accurate shells means far fewer shells are needed and fewer artillery pieces. Given the enormous costs of moving materiel to Afghanistan Excalibur could have a significant cost effect on the Army and Marine’s resupply efforts.

The services have changed the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) governing Excalibur use. When it was first deployed, artillerymen were required to use two rounds for each target, Riley said. That has been changed to one shell, clear testament to the system’s accuracy.

The Army apparently plans to cut the number of Excalibur shells it buys from 30,000 to 6,264. That, of course, will drive up the politically sensitive unit cost. The unit cost ranges roughly from $47,000 to $99,000 per shell, depending on how many are bought. A Raytheon program official said the Army could save 30 percent of the unit cost if it buys the shells at full production rates of roughly 1,500 per year.

What does the enemy think of the weapon? As our own Christian Lowe reported from Afghanistan this summer, the Excalibur is fondly known by the Taliban as the Finger of Death.

Join the Conversation

It doesn’t need flight training, doesn’t collect flight pay, doesn’t need a big logistical tail associated with development, fielding and sustaining aircraft and arrives quickly.

And, the guy on the ground doesn’t care where the fire support comes from as long as it helps. Link all this with networked Army helicopters, other small manned special aircraft, UAVs/UCAVs and you have a pretty good setup.

Part 1 / 4

To the poster “@E_L_P”

You wrote: “… (the Excalibur shell) … doesn’t need a big logistical tail…”


Did the Talibans’ sophisticated military-industrial complex EVER buy, produce or form a single target in its whole history ( = 3 defeated Super-Powers in 100 years) that costs as much as A SINGLE Excalibur shell ( ~ 100.000 $ ), or did the Taliban already win the matériel war against the U.S.A.?

What good is a millimeter-hitting shell, if you could

1) buy another M198 howitzer ( = duplicate your firepower!! ) for the price of only 5 – 6 Excalibur shells, duds included ( SIMPLY CRIMINAL ),


2) fire ~ 130 dumb 15,5 cm shells for the price of EACH SINGLE smart Excalibur shell, too?


Part 2 / 4

No moronic artillerist even needs 130 shells to zero in on his target in the first place, and at 40 kilometers distance even limping enemies still have over a minute to hump out of the G.P.S.-guided Excalibur’s destruction radius of ~ 150 meters! All they have to do is to hobble on erratically until they hit U.S. American trenches! (Some hi-tech armies are also rumoured to have overcome static warfare)

Now that the winter is arriving at the Himalayas, are you sure that any forward artillery observers can even spot Talibans burying I.E.D.s at night, during blizzards, or is the billionaire Excalibur purchase a clear-sky-only weapon program?


Part 3 / 4

Worse: Would you believe me that even a$-shell could only hit targets on a mountain side facing the artillery, never on its back side? No, of course not, you weren’t in the Artillery, you don’t know how a cannon ball flies. But the Talibans can fire back at you (and at your nice pile of Excalibur shells) with rusty World War One mortars from the lee side of the mountain right in front of you, at far steeper angles than any cannon can elevate its barrel! It will happen.

All of which makes me wonder: Is the Excalibur shell a spin-off of the glorious (never-ending) F-35 program?


Part 4 / 4

You wrote: “And, the guy on the ground doesn’t care where the fire support comes from as long as it helps.”

Please, do 100 anxious “guys on the ground” a favour and buy them 100 HK, FN or AK 7,62 mm rifles for the price of each single “networked, interactive, satellite-guided Excalibur” shell, since the U.S.A. obviously can’t even produce decent rifles for them!!!

Good Evening Folks,

Excalibur is going into its next generation with the variant 1B. The first order was place on Oct. 2 with Raytheon and the 1B’s are expected to be fielded in 2010. The difference from 1A to the 1B is a simpler unit with fewer parts and cheaper to produce and extended range.

While I doubt that the $600.00 per round wish price of the Army will be meet Raytheon has told the Army that they can expect a significant price reductions in the Excalibur 1B’s.

Both variants of the M-982 “Excalibur” have a shelf life of 20+ years. The big problem in Afghanistan for the M-982 is finding targets of significant enough value to justify the use of a $47,000.00 to $100,000.00, with an average price of $80,000.00 +/-.


Byron Skinner

YOU make no sense

People need to remember basic economics. All expenditures already paid are sunk costs. That means things like R&D, training development, etc. You will never ever get them back. So, the real question to ask is what is the marginal cost of Excaliber? Not that would make for an informed debate.

They are using them up to get rid of them — too expensive — no benefit — cant use in overcast or bad weather — the GPS system sucks, The govt does not want them period after 3 program restarts and no progress made.
Raytheon is trying to get the govt to come back to the table but no luck thus far.

Who said you can’t use gps in overcast weather. You can’t use laser guided weapons in bad weather not gps. Damn man think.

Ah yes, the old clouds break GPS argument. You sir, are clearly an expert in the field. Quick somebody hire this man! Also we have to tell OnStar it doesn’t work on cloudy days.

Thank you, good citizen, for exposing this terrible, horrible, no-good lie of this so-called GPS.

To Greg & Rick, I’ve been on the test range with this system more than once during R&D and limitted production, I even commented once before on another post how I used my personal magelan to verify that the gps on the fire control system was worthless and my partner backed it up with his garmin. It is bigger –heavier– way morew expensive than any commercial GPS, less accurate and prone to the elements, humidity, and shock. In other words it flat out sucks.

to freefalling — Because i know you would not to stay ignorant and rather use fact based argument

EXCALIBUR works 24/7, in rain, sheet and snow, no weather minimum grounds it

Yes, It can hit targets on the back side of the mountain, it isnt like ballistic artillery (or PGK)

PGK would cost $5000 plus the shell

EXCALIBUR works when PGK can’t

EXCALIBUR at $50,000 isnt cheap, but a $20,000 JDAM arriving in 30 minutes from a $50,000,000 airplane (@$20,000 per flight hour) isnt much cheaper

BTW The object of PGM is to save some $250,000 privates lives (training investment, life is too precious to set a cost on), if it was the most cost effective way to kill, we would throw rocks

Sorry guy but I observed the excaliber program for the govt on more than one occasion (PQM @ ARDEC< Picatiny Arsenal) and it doesnt work all the time, it doesnt save or have the capability to save lives any more than regular arty period. It is a waste of storage space and tax payers money, nothing more. It is like trying to argue that a scoped rifle at 100 yds will save more lives than an iron sight rifle at 100 yds — It really depends on the training of the guy firing the weapon and the proper training of personnel makes a difference with arty as well, the govt was just looking for a way to reduce training cost and make up for lack of training with PGM but found better training is what saves lives and money.

I’m not arguing with your logic in any way — the original intent was to replace all, then reduced down to special targets (high prob collat type). But the GPS currently used is garbage and there are still issues with the rounds accuracy reliability. get it to work with a magellan hand held and better guidance and you may have something, Luckily they gave up trying to do this with 120mm mortars as well. It was another of those get it there now systems that needs to go back to the drawing board and get done correctly.

Well boomer, some folks like rocks, and more power to them. And sometimes a guy throwing rocks can kill a man with a rifle. But it usually goes the other way.

I heard the same arguments from various acquisition guys on Paveway, on Javelin, on Sidewinder, on Harpoon and a 1/2 dozen other developments. They have validity, but ultimately all fall into the catagory of “what use is a new baby”. And in combat experience, they were all proven wrong. The combat guys all come and rave about EXCALIBUR

And that is what keeps me going — all the pilots, sailors, and soldiers telling me “I would have died except for your weapon”.

That is all fine, we need stuff that works well. but at the moment just like Harpoon, excalibur is not all its cracked up to be and why we got rid of the poon a long time ago. ( we dont even carry the 109 B’s that replaced it either due to similar faults). Keep going foward though, like I said we need improved weapons systems, but the firecontrols and guidance have to be just as good as the warhead or there is no improvement.

It is an INS round that after being given a really tight fix uses GPS as an update if it acquires it in flight (with GPS anti-spoofing)
As for cost.
Add up what it takes to get a pilot through training and recurrent training, an F-16 operating cost per hour along with air-refueling support and all the other tail. That is a lot of money to drop one GBU-12 on a dirt insurgent. Certainly Excalibur isn’t a total answer but it is a nice gap-filler between traditional arty (which is still needed) and a one shot precision hit which is still needed. Also, if Excalibur ever matures properly, think of how many more targets an artillery tube can kill with one shot with in the supply system which has to bring up a lot of rounds to get to the shooter.

Excalibur isnt going to replace air cover at any point where arty isnt already avail because it will take longer to get a arty unit in range and set up to fire so that argument will never fly ( although I believe your intent was to be informative and not argumentive). Some folks tend to forget a lot of our troops, especialy operators tend to be in areas out of arty range and air cover is there only backup.

To the poster “designed it”

Part 1 / 2

You wrote: “EXCALIBUR works 24/7, in rain, sheet and snow, no weather minimum grounds”

I never said that any precipitation forms or “week-ends” stop shells in the air (you don’t sound like a genuine weapons designer to me, despite your nick-name). I asked (quote) : “Now that the winter is arriving at the Himalayas, are you sure that any forward artillery observers can even spot Talibans burying I.E.D.s at night, during blizzards (…) ?” That’s the Excalibur’s Achilles Heel. So, bring them back next spring!


Part 2 / 2

You wrote: “Yes, It can hit targets on the back side of the mountain…”

I think you’re confusing “hills” with “mountains”, pal. I wasn’t talking about hitting the backside of your typical Kansas hill with a high trajectory shot, I was talking about kilometers tall mountains with almost vertical faces. Just for your information: “…the world’s 100+ highest mountains per height above sea level (>7,200 metres / 23,622 feet) … are located in central and southern Asia.”
(First phrase! Guess what “central and southern Asia” has to do with “Afghanistan”, o weapons designer?)

Maybe the Excalibur flies in loops? At least have the courage to say yes.

yep it can, we looked at just those requirements

LOL well boomer if you dont like 982, I hate to imagine how you will feel about PGK

The particular scenarios are sensitive, but what you are worried about is childs play

Troll alert. Prepare Excalibur.

To the poster “@E_L_P”

Part 1 / 3

You wrote: “Add up what it takes to get a pilot through training and recurrent training, an F-16 operating cost per hour along with air-refueling support and all the other tail. That is a lot of money to drop one GBU-12 on a dirt insurgent.”

It took me longer to wage whether I should actually go through the annoying trouble of debunking your strawman argument than to write my answer.

1) Let’s say – just for conversation’s sake – that the complete INSTRUCTION of an U.S. American military pilot costs 1 million dollars (you U.S. Americans are sooo expensive… Can you at least defeat those “dirt insurgents”, as you just called them?). Divide that instruction cost by a 1.000 days long war ( = ~ 2,7 years), and that pilot’s instruction costs you ~ 1.000 dollars per day. (Obviously he’s still at your service after 2,7 years, so the daily cost of his instruction sinks to even less than 100 $ )


Part 2 / 3

2) Let’s say – just for conversation’s sake – that a military pilot’s MONTHLY SALARY is 60.000 $ . Divide that by 30 days, and that pilot costs you 2.000 dollars per day. (You must admit: I’m giving your pro-Excalibur reasoning a really generous head start!)

3) In 1994, an A-10 Thunderbolt II cost 11,8 million $ . Therefore, let’s say – just for conversation’s sake – that today, 16 years later, an A-10 costs 30 million $ . Divide that by 30 years of life-time = 1 million $ per year, and then again by 365 days, and that brand-new A-10 costs you 2.739,73 $ per day.

4) Let’s say – just for conversation’s sake – that an A-10’s maintenance, during its entire life-time, also costs as much as the plane itself. Ergo, another 2.739,73 $ per day on the tab! That’s the equivalent of 13,6 plane mechanics’ salaries of 6.000 $ per month / 200 $ per day – fair enough?


Part 3 / 3

5) Let’s say – just for conversation’s sake – that an A-10 spends 20.000 $ of jet fuel per flight (no idea, this time I’m really guessing wildly).

6) A “really cute little” GBU-38 weighs “only” 250 kg ( = more than 5 Excaliburs together!) and costs only 35.000 $ (formerly: Only 18.000 $ ).

Did I forget anything?

Sooo, if you sum all that together, you have to pay 63.479,46 $ each day to get your A-10 pilot airborne once, armed with only one (completely oversized) smart GBU-38.


Part 4 / 3 (Nice Mr. Colin Clark)

Now compare those 63.479,46 $ to each Excalibur’s unit price of ~ 80.000 $ to 100.000 $ … And an A-10 also destroys “a little bit” more targets than a single artillery shell, with “a little bit” more than 50 kg of explosives, too, and also “a little bit” more distant than 40 km away… And you know what would have happened to this comparison between Excaliburs and A-10 airstrikes had I used realistic ( = much lower) costs for the airstrikes!

Conclusion: If THAT’s Artillery, then long live the Airforce (and I’m a proud ex-canonnier myself) !

I think it’s highly unlikely that you have been anyway near e testrange. You make no sense, stop smoking whatever you are smoking dude!
For your reference, commercial gps units are not made to be integrated into artillery shells hence their lower cost ;)

To the poster “Bronco46”

You wrote: “Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish.”


Part 1 / 11


1) an A-10’s combat range of 460 km with an Excalibur’s maximum firing range of ~ 40 km


2) an A-10’s external weapons load of 7.260 kg with an Excalibur’s weight of (presumably) ~ 40 kg – 55 kg


3) an A-10’s sortie’s CERTAINLY LOWER TOTAL cost with each individual Excalibur’s CERTAINLY HIGHER cost (unit price) of 80.000 $ (or even 50.000 $ … ) – 100.000 $

is not exactly being “penny wise”, it’s calling the ox by its name.


Part 2 / 11

You may interpose that ground strafing aircraft need too much time to reach targets of opportunity, because their bases are too far away.


But with 24/7 loitering aircraft, too, one per “kill box” ? Shall I make some quick, simple cost estimates for 24/7 “kill boxes” ? (Okay, no)

It takes an Excalibur also a bit over 1 minute to fly to its maximum range of 40 km, but in exactly 1 minute a 1.000 km/h fast plane flies 16 km far, in ANY direction ( = that’s still a circle DIAMETER GROWING at the rate of an ADDITIONAL 32 KM PER MINUTE !!!).
And why did the U.S.A.F. STILL NOT field truly dedicated = INFINITELY CHEAPER COIN planes than A-10s, F-16s, F-18s or even… “B-1s” ?? Even World War II fighter-bombers like
1) the British Hawker Tempests
2) de Havilland Mosquitoes (688 km/h + fully acrobatic + a range of 2.400 km WITH a full weapons load of 1.800 kg, but… wooden)



Part 3 / 11

3) the U.S. American Vought F4U Corsairs
4) Lockheed P-38 Lightnings (give up, Lockheed: Remakes are never as successful as the first ones!),

or even

5) the HEAVILY ARMOURED Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmoviks, at 42.330 built units the MOST PRODUCED warplanes of all times, and according to “Wikipedia” also THE BEST ground attack aircraft EVER MADE !!,
6) (precision-bombing, 3,7-cm-machine-cannon-armed, tank-busting Stukas, under entirely new management?)
would STILL BE all the rage in today’s A-A-less, medieval Afghanistan, like they were over the Normandy, honestly, so why the sudden, unexplainable paralysis, 70 years later? Probably these legendary old planes even spend less fuel in their whole life-times than the bare unit price of the smallest modern jet!!! Not to mention their short, rough landing strips, tents as “hangars” and ease of maintenance, etc. etc. etc. !

How many Excaliburs does a record-mass-produced Shturmovik cost?


Part 4 / 11


But you HAVEN’T covered Afghanistan completely with artillery radii in the first place, to compare airstrikes fairly with the Excalibur:

1) Area of Afghanistan: 647.500 km&sup2;
2) Area covered by each 360º , 40 km far shooting howitzer: (40 km x times π [ π = 3,14159265] = ) 125,663706 km&sup2;
Ergo, you need (647.500 km&sup2; : 125,663706 km&sup2; = ) 5.152,6412884878629952231394480758 howitzers, equally spaced, to cover ALL of Afghanistan completely with artillery guns (firing smart OR dumb ammunition).


Part 5 / 11

Therefore, since

1) you D-O-N-’-T have 5.152 cannons in Afghanistan (or anywhere else),


2) even I—F YOU THEORETICALLY ACQUIRED (for example) 5.152 towed ( = cheap) M777 howitzers ( x times ~ 4,4 million $ a piece = only 22,7 billion $ ) , this MAY look much cheaper than a decade-long air campaign at FIRST glance, but ONLY if you completely ignore the costs of building, permanently sustaining and defending 5.152 gun hills everywhere, even in the most inaccessible parts of Afghanistan!!!!!! Would YOU like to be the responsible Artillery General for that??

Just drop this “omnipresent Artillery” theory.


Part 6 / 11


3) on the night of the 13.7.2008, when the Talibans nearly overran the Wanat artillery observation post, killing everybody except half an U.S. American, the four M777 howitzers nearby, in Camp Blessing, didn’t even fire a single illuminating grenade IN FEAR OF THE TALIBANS’ WRATH !!!,

so ONLY an aircraft can strike ANYWHERE with relative impunity, and get into firing range infinitely faster than ANY towed or tracked howitzer in the World, too (especially in EXTREMELY tall, steep, snowy, ROADLESS , ROCK-LITTERED , I.E.D.-LITTERED Afghan mountains – show some vestiges of Geostrategy, please).


Part 7 / 11


Worse: The Excalibur round can ONLY be fired against at least MOMENTARILY STATIC targets – and how many fixed targets come into firing range in any hi-tech or no-tech war? (Hey Byron: How “static” were the Vietcong which you killed? Can you still see them?)

THEORETICALLY , I-F the U.S.A. one day invaded a technologically advanced country (don’t laugh), it will indeed have countless valuable, STATIC targets scattered everywhere – at the beginning. But will any 15,5 cm howitzers lead the charge to make good of the Excaliburs’ precision, or will the Airforce and missile force, allowing the enemy to secure all surviving static targets LONG before the first U.S. howitzers even get close?


Part 8 / 11


I never said that airstrikes are cheap, but I had really absolutely no idea that airstrikes were THAT MUCH cheaper than Excalibur rounds, until “@E_L_P” titillated my curiosity with such DIVISIBLE = obviously fallacious costs / details as “pilot instruction costs”, “unit costs”, “aerial refueling”, etc. …
But even at 50 cents a round, an Excalibur still has LESS USEFULNESS than (for example) a M712 Copperhead round (unit price: 30.000 $ ) with the SAME 15,5 cm calibre, whose terminal guidance allows you to aim it at – slow or fast – MOBILE targets!!! (The forward observer is the same)


Part 9 / 11

For example the Excalibur is impotent against pedestrians! NOOO, I’m NOT kidding! In case of doubt, chain iron balls to the ankles of death row inmates and set them loose in some artillery polygon, or TRY to hit a sloth in the rain forest: At 40 km distance it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a 100.000-$-Excalibur round to hit a pedestrian, a three-legged dog or even a blind granny in a wheelchair, because



M–O–O–O–O–V–E !!!

But with sufficient “sunk” R & D funding, 30 years of D.A.R.P.A. development, intensive lobbying and rigged demonstrations, a highly improved, “Joint”, Anglo-American 300.000-$-Excalibur II should theoretically be able to hit a granny in a wheelchair.


Part 10 / 11

If you’re an “@E_L_P”-type of single-track-thinking sheeple with blinkers and brain-chip, then you must be convinced that I didn’t inform you truthfully or accurately about the braindead Excalibur round. In this case, turn to your Holy Provident System for answers and go through “D.o.D. Buzz”‘s article above again, or search even “Wikipedia”‘s SUSPICIOUSLY FORMAL AND LACONIC article about the Excalibur for “the Truth” (here’s the link : )

and then tell me who gave you more insight into Excalibur, its severe tactical limitations and its appalling cost-efficiency ratio: These two “professional”, “plain truths speaking” articles or me.


Part 11 / 11

This ex-artillerist’s final two cents?

Given all these horrendously expensive alternatives, the best =
1) most precise-firing
2) most cost-efficient solution (on the long run)
which I recommend to ANY country’s Artillery is a combination of
1) dumb = cheap ammunition
2) fast-computing field artillery radars (that plot and back-plot all outgoing AND incoming rocket, artillery and mortar trajectories, respectively). This technology exists for over 30 years now, but STILL NOT as a STANDARD ACCESSORY for A-L-L U.S. guns, rocket launchers and mechanized mortars, just for a very few. I don’t know why: These radars allow you to fine-tune your fire even before the first round flew 30 % to its target! This way they also dispense any forward observer immediately and permanently behind enemy lines, which makes my suggestion especially REALISTIC – something extremely rare about all modern military U.S. inventions.


Part 1 / 3

Folks… I think all of you just missed a RARE opportunity for lambasting me, NO : FOR BLASTING ME INTO SPACE for a truly catastrophic scientific mistake which I made yesterday (but only for 12 hours = less than you took to discover that your nuclear missiles’ igniter cords were broken) : The area of a circle isn’t

π times radius,


π times radius&sup2;

I forgot the little extra “&sup2;”… Where was I with my head… HUH , “Orbital Mechanics” expert Charles Houston???? (You’re a BLUFF )

Therefore, the TRUE area covered by each 360º , 40 km far shooting howitzer is

(this time it’s 40 km&sup2; [ &sup2; !!! ] times π [ π = 3,14159265] = ) 5.026,54824 km&sup2;

So, if you divide Afghanistan’s national area of 647.500 km&sup2; by that, you obtain:

647.500 km&sup2; : 5.026,54824 km&sup2; = 128,8160322121965748805784862019, or a minimum of

128 howitzers ( NOT 5.152, as I wrote yesterday).


Part 2 / 3

I don’t know if the U.S.A. actually took 128 howitzers to Afghanistan
but now I concede that this way an omnipresent artillery strategy looks FAR more feasible again, at least in theory.

Think: Right now you’ve got 90.000 troops in Afghanistan. If you distributed them across 128 gun emplacements, that makes 703 men per post ( = almost a complete Artillery regiment! Although you really don’t need tens of cannons per hilltop, but lots of Infantry to defend it, and to make colonialistic excursions).


Part 3 / 3

And if you really need to hit something with the very first round ( = with surgical precision), you could even stash a pile of Copperheads somewhere, too.
Or, if you need to hit it in BAD weather (when the flying Copperheads can’t see the laser-light reflected off the targets), even a few thrice as expensive Excaliburs. With all their pilloried limitations…
But the Logistics of 90.000 men on 100+ gun hills, deep in hostile territory, is still daunting!

My sincere apologies to everybody for this mistake. It WILL happen again ~ once every millenium or so!

Uh — I know commercial GPS cannot be hooked into military units but the fact remains while on range (and I have numerous range hours while working for ARDEC) but the fact remains the contractor kept having issue with GPS and claimed it was do to cloud cover which I debunked having no issue getting a signal with my personal unit, as was the case with a couple of other ARDEC personnel on site that used thier GPS units as well to confirm they could get a signal.

Mil GPS Recievers when tied into the Excalibur FIre Control System use a different GPS Signal than that used by your Garmin or Magellan. I suspect some Govt moron gave the Raytheon Guys the wrong “Fill” .

.… no benefit …

hmmmm i guess that depends.
if you need a hot one sent to an enemy site or force NOW without
all the time delays to reroute air support, no benefit tends to
become BIG BENEFIT when these shells play Finger of Death.

soldiers know artillery has a benefit.

and i 2nd the bad weather comments.
hell, you can use them in ANY weather.

put the 128 on the highest moutain peaks, and load them up with
shells and when someone needs a quicki, fire away.

someone said …it doesn’t ‘work’ everytime.
i’d respond… shoot more when that happens.

we forgive the math experts. just keep recalculating.
…besides… who comes up with 90,000 men for 100+ gun hills? http://​cdn​.wn​.com/​p​d​/​1​1​/​2​5​/​6​0​d​7​a​d​8​f​1​5​b​f​a​d​e​b​7​5​0​44a… i see maybe 8 direct supports on this photo. so that’s 800+ do you think 89,200 are needed to
huff shells over hill and dale to the fireposts?
when you have the accurate overlapping fire, it’s not hostile to YOU is it?


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.