Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Major,
Are you not asking too much of tube artillery? It would seems from your description that separate systems of mortars, tube artillery, and rocket artillery would do the job much better.
|
Sir, my assumption is not for or against any particular system, whether towed...SP...etc etc. I am more concerned about mobility performance prediction for towed and self-propelled artillery and related vehicles for several terrain and weather conditions using the Army mobility model (AMM) and a simple model for making GO/NOGO predictions termed the JIFFY mobility model. Performance predictions are in terms of (a) percentage of a country with a given 'probability of GO'; (b) speed profile and statistical diagnostics for primary roads, secondary roads, trails, and off-road; (c) performance index; (d) average speed for supply network; (e) selected mobility level rating speed; (f) vehicle group performance; and (g) time to complete special artillery missions. Though I have been trying to study methods or parameters which are considered as best for comparing the relative mobility of (i) the prime movers, (ii) the prime mover-towed artillery and self-propelled artillery, and (iii) group performance of selected vehicles
Quote:
|
Also, just effective was Pak counter-battery? From the reports that I have read, you were experiencing 20-30 rounds an hour (I would like to know if this was wrong). Hardly a test for true battery and counter-battery operations.
|
I wouldn't suggest their battery to be super effective but again it seems 20-30 rounds an hour is a skewed stat.
