Alright first the disclaimer; I like arty as demonstrated in IMP's (Johns) thread on the topic where I hopefully showed with the military documents I submitted arty in the game is not quite there but, I feel effective enough to counter the argument it was too effective in the game. Not going to rehash that again go back and read it for yourselves. But I bring it up to say there might be useful info in the thread for this topic and an earlier thread of the same topic that proceeded IMP'S by about three years as I recall. I know the field manuals I submitted got into the effectiveness of arty on various target protected and unprotected positions. The results are deadly, but see for yourself it's all there. Field Manuals (FM) ARE CALLED THAT FOR A REASON, they represent the results of extensive testing involving hundreds to thousands of rounds expended and results on post battle investigative analysis for any country. Those posts included conventional round comparisons as well another reason I brought this up. To the topic fuze of this thread this is from the people that make it happen, it is in PDF format, I invite you to look it all over but pgs. 3-6 & 11 are the most relevant:
http://proceedings.ndia.org/5560/Wed...II-B/Mohan.pdf
Gotta call Mom to wish her a Happy New Years, we sailors always have a soft spot for "Mum".
Regards,
Pat
From that CM thread; Of note look to tables C2 and C3, for more detail like I did then just read it. Note the coverage areas in meters on table C3. SOMETIMES SOMETHING "OLD" CAN BE SOMETHING "NEW" AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY A COUPLE OF OTHERS IN THE PAST. Oh yes this is from USA FM 6-40 Appendix C. Second thought see all tables in article are targets used for testing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../6-40/Appc.htm