Skip to comments.
Hitting the target in Iraq
STAR-TELEGRAM ^
| Nov. 05, 2006
| BOB COX
Posted on 11/05/2006 4:48:29 PM PST by Dubya
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
1
posted on
11/05/2006 4:48:29 PM PST
by
Dubya
To: Lil'freeper
Rove ain't the only magnificent bastard (or b*tch).. *wink*
2
posted on
11/05/2006 4:49:44 PM PST
by
big'ol_freeper
(It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
To: Dubya
I love the smell of rent rugheads in the morning.
3
posted on
11/05/2006 4:50:41 PM PST
by
Panzerlied
("We shall never surrender!")
To: big'ol_freeper
How dare they fight to win?
They should consult with Kerry, who won three Purple Hearts.
4
posted on
11/05/2006 4:51:05 PM PST
by
sine_nomine
(Vote for the Democrats? - the party of Studds, Frank, Webb, Clinton? - the new family values party?)
To: Dubya; Cannoneer No. 4
Kinda puts a whole new meaning to indirect fires.
5
posted on
11/05/2006 4:51:17 PM PST
by
TADSLOS
(Mohammed was the L. Ron Hubbard of his time.)
To: Dubya
To: Dubya
7
posted on
11/05/2006 4:53:09 PM PST
by
Incorrigible
(If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
To: sauropod; g'nad
8
posted on
11/05/2006 4:55:59 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(You do not have the plug-in required to view this tagline.)
To: Dubya
9
posted on
11/05/2006 4:57:09 PM PST
by
SIDENET
(Is it too early for flapjacks?)
To: Dubya
It's a satellite-guided weapon that, launched from more than 40 miles away, can deliver a lethal 196-pound, highly explosive warhead within a 16-foot-wide circle. GPS-guided, to be precise. It's interesting to recall the fact that development of the GPS system was almost cancelled back in the late '70s, because nobody could see what would be so useful for being able to do navigation anywhere and everywhere.
The story goes that the GPS program was saved by its secondary payload -- the Nuclear Detection SUbsystem, designed to detect and pinpoint nuclear blasts. The so-called Vela Incident in 1979 was possibly a nuclear blast (perhaps an Israeli/South African nuclear test). It was the uncertainty about this event, and the promise of global coverage, that put the GPS system back on the funding track.
Filed under "you never can tell...."
10
posted on
11/05/2006 4:58:58 PM PST
by
r9etb
To: TADSLOS
indirect fires Yeah... precision fires.
11
posted on
11/05/2006 5:02:50 PM PST
by
Lil'freeper
(You do not have the plug-in required to view this tagline.)
To: Dubya
Ok, someone please explain the advantage over the Abrams. The Abrams can surely put a large explosive shell in the same location.
I'm puzzled why the Abrams failed here.
The advantage I see is that the missile can be steered anywhere within its range on a second's notice and get there fast whereas the Abrams has to travel to the target at vehicle speeds, hence the terrorists are gone.
Have I answered my own question? The terrorists can see/hear the Abrams coming and clear the area before the Abrams fires. The missile is a total surprise that hits them before they run off.
Yeah that's it.
So all that is needed is a close proximity decoy locator.
12
posted on
11/05/2006 5:06:02 PM PST
by
Hostage
To: Lil'freeper
*sniff*... thatsjestbeautiful...
13
posted on
11/05/2006 5:08:46 PM PST
by
g'nad
To: Dubya
Isn't something that so many of these "insurgents" don't even get an "ahhh sheet" moment?
I mean these things end quicker than you can say Allahoo Akbar or anything else for that matter.
14
posted on
11/05/2006 5:11:22 PM PST
by
Positive
(Nothing is sadder than to see a beautiful theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts.)
To: Dubya
15
posted on
11/05/2006 5:23:33 PM PST
by
The Louiswu
(Never Forget!)
To: Hostage; Lil'freeper
It has to do with a big badaboom (rocket) vs. a much less big badaboom (tank round) as well as the precision nature of the threat/target interaction with the bigger badaboom.
16
posted on
11/05/2006 5:30:17 PM PST
by
big'ol_freeper
(It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
To: Hostage
...not to mention the difference in the angle of attack.
17
posted on
11/05/2006 5:31:38 PM PST
by
big'ol_freeper
(It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
To: Hostage
you answered most of your question... the Abrams round is 120MM smooth bore super high velocity...and direct fire line of sight...thus a tank vs a howitzers' indirect fire...
the 43 mile range is much greater than a M1 Tank line of sight, and as you noted, comes out of nowhere to rain death on the enemy...as well as greatly reducing collatteral damage and fratricide
To: Dubya
From "steel rain" to "instant pain", all from the MLRS.
When are these DUMA$$RATS learn that we are AmeriCANS, and WILL WIN this war against these camel jockeys!!!!
Providing the libs will let the military do it's job....
19
posted on
11/05/2006 6:14:42 PM PST
by
dirtbiker
(I've tried to see the liberal point of view, but I couldn't get my head that far up my a$$....)
To: Dubya
Great article.
Those sad assed goons never new what hit em. And it sure looks like a military project well worth the cost. It shall lead to ever more sophisticated systems in GP to ground artillery control. Anything that keeps our soldiers and Marines safer in combat conditions has my thumbs up.
20
posted on
11/05/2006 6:20:24 PM PST
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
