Well the casualty rate is still very high. People using motors or artillery are a main land target in war. The enemy will through planes, bombers and there own artillery to kill you.
2007-03-21 11:22:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by My Lord . 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
This largely depends upon what the enemy is doing. For example, an artillery regiment could be targeted using guided weapons or other ordnance.
I recall something which the late Spike Milligan once said about an action he took part in somewhere in the Italian campaign WW2. His Royal Artillery regiment had what he described a point blank fight with a German Artillery regiment. When the shooting stopped and the Germans wanted to surrender, his troop commander began marching towards a German coming over with his hands up. Spike asked, "what the hell are you doing," ? of his officer. The Officer replied, "I'm not taking any prisoners, I'm going to fcuk him to death."
There was another incident which Millian recalled, when a six feet six inches tall German paratrooper wanted to surrender. Spike took the German paratrooper to his officer who was busy looking through his binoculars at some target or other. Spike said, "sir, this bloke wants to surrender." The officer, without even turning round and continuing to look through his binoculars, replied, "tell him to buzz off. We don't have any facilities for prisoners. Tell him to go to the Yanks."
2007-03-21 21:58:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Historically, more combat deaths have been caused by indirect fire weapons than by any other means, hence the designation of artillery as the King of Battle. Most casualties to troops in an indirect-fire attack are caused by the initial rounds. Best results are achieved by a short engagement at a high rate from as many weapons as possible.
2007-03-21 11:55:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends who you're fighting with.
A mobile mortar team is relatively close to the front
but not that close that you usually get direct small arms
fire...unless you have a bad position of course. With
heavey artillery it really depends on your enemy. You're
a prefered target and if the enemy has the option to
attack the place they will. And this won't be with small
arms fire.
2007-03-21 11:28:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Alex S 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, obviously, in general you are well behind the front line.
However, If you are fighting a sophisticated enemy like the British army with radar supported counter battry fire then you are on a hiding to nothing.
Ask the Argentians who fought the Brits in the Falklands.
Choose you enemy !
2007-03-21 13:01:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well you're likely to be a fair way from the front line in a conventional war, but we don't fight conventional wars much anymore. Even if we did, remember the enemy's aircraft and artillery will be looking for you.
2007-03-21 12:04:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No because you become a prime target for missiles and air strikes.
2007-03-21 20:27:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by frankturk50 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes the bigger and heavier the better unless you go off a bridge
2007-03-21 11:21:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by fuufingf 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not sure I understand the question or what you are getting at...rephrase it or explain it better!
2007-03-21 11:20:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
not really - if opposition has artillery of their own
2007-03-21 11:25:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by flowerpet56 5
·
1⤊
0⤋