Some points to consider.
The thread has been about the effectiviness of cluster rounds, in particular tube artillery ones.
The article in question on the other hand deals primarily with unitary rounds; in particular it deals with the effects against armored targets, arguing that they have been underestimated. While others issues are touched, included cluster ammo, it is only in very tangential manner.
I am pretty sure he makes good points even if I get a slight "artillery rules" vibe from the piece. But eventually what does it tell us about the effectiviness of cluster rounds? Not much.
What would be relevant would be an article which takes
this for example and analyzes performances in terms of area coverage, density/distribution and effects on target.
Quote:
The rounds are more advanced now then they were ten years ago.
|
To the best of my understanding no new model of cluster rounds have been introduced in widespread service in the US since then.
70s M483A1 and 80's M864 are still the mainstay AFAIK. Smart submunitions like SADARM were seen as the next step in the 90's but cost and lack of worthwhile targets have led to them being deleted or being produced in minimal quantities.
There should be a cluster variant of excalibur in development but precision unitary rounds are the priority now.