Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: counterbattery (was: 50 Years Ago)
Message-ID: <1991Feb4.044710.9877@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Feb 91 04:47:10 GMT
References: <1991Jan24.045358.27401@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan28.035331.7516@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)

>   Alas, it only helps if your artillery has the same range as the other
> guy's.  In the Gulf the Iraqui artillery has between 10km and 10mi extra
> range over ``ours''. They're using Gerald Bull's ``base bleed'' shells.
> We're not.

At least 10 or 12 years ago, the South Africans were modifying their
artillery with rocket shells to obtain a large increase in range. They
did this after being pasted with long range Russian guns in Angola, and
were determined that it wouldn't happen again. Are we so stupid as to
have no rocket assisted capability for our artillery? This is hardly
new technology, yet the only talk of using rocket shells was as a 
potential augmentation for 16 inch shells on the Iowa, Wisconsin
etc. As I recall, however, this was never done. 

                                                  Larry Mayo