|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
 |

July 25th, 2010, 03:53 PM
|
 |
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England
Posts: 120
Thanks: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
CBU-97's were used in OIF with some success and AFAIK are still in production and USAF inventory. The biggest problem these days is a lack of appropriate targets worth expending a CBU-97 on.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SGTGunn For This Useful Post:
|
|

July 26th, 2010, 02:51 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGTGunn
CBU-97's were used in OIF with some success and AFAIK are still in production and USAF inventory. The biggest problem these days is a lack of appropriate targets worth expending a CBU-97 on.
|
That would make some sense, as noted if the **** really hits the fan a bomber can be armed with them, take off from the USA and drop them in Iran, Korea or whatever. This way the most can be made of a limited stockpile of specialized weapons.
On the other hand artillery rounds would need to be stored ready at hands, which would require a larger number of them to cover all possible fronts or limit them only to campaigns like OIF.
SADARM worked too, by the accounts; nevertheless it was cut in 2001. Lack of urgent threat is certainly the primary issue, but cost and technical reasons may have played a role.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|