Someone please teach these people to shoot straight.

[EternalOptimist]

The artilery shell hit on a civilian target sounds like a regrettable mistake AtW.

Only an idiot of a military commander practices for the last war, and so any artillery officer worth his salt will practice 'brain bomb' shells, blind fire, interdiction fire, barrage fire, chemical fire etc etc etc.

A number of these exercises require firing to a map-grid position.
Mistakes are made.


we are all sad

[AtW]

Do you concede to that even under your definition of shooting straight (ie at directly visible target), this was not the case in this regrettable incident?

[EternalOptimist]

Do you concede to that even under your definition of shooting straight (ie at directly visible target), this was not the case in this regrettable incident?

Concede ????? bl00dy heck AtW I did not intend to take any position on this incident at all. If you asked my opinion I would speculate that this was an indirect firing excercise that went wrong.
If you asked me how certain I was I would say 'not very'

[AtW]

If you asked my opinion I would speculate that this was an indirect firing excercise that went wrong.

So, give the info that is available:
1) its a 155 mm howitzer
2) target hit was around 15 km from shooting point
3) flat desert's line of horison for man on ground is less than 5 km

Therefore it was indirect fire and thus it was not shooting straight, do you agree, yes or no please?

[The Master]

I watched Kelly's Heroes on BBC1 last night and Mulligan's artillery fire was notoriously inaccurate, although the prospect of a payment of several bars of Nazi gold bullion improved the accurancy of his batteries no end.

So perhaps if the Yanks paid their artillery officers more their accuracy would improve?

[EternalOptimist]

So, give the info that is available:
1) its a 155 mm howitzer
2) target hit was around 15 km from shooting point
3) flat desert's line of horison for man on ground is less than 5 km

Therefore it was indirect fire and thus it was not shooting straight, do you agree, yes or no please?

if all your facts are right then
1 this could be an indirect fire exercise that went horribly wrong
2 this could be a deliberate indirect attack with an unknown motive 'aimed in' by an obbo or satelite surveillance
3 this could be something wierd and wonderful

Now that you push me, I go for number 1

[AtW]

So, we agree that it was indirect fire, which can also be called as "not straight fire" due to distance of impact with target that could not have been visible, something not suprising as howitzers are designed to do just that - hit targets far away while vulnerable guns are kept in safe place behind front line.

[threaded]

Sometimes you might get up on top of a building, even a step ladder, and with a good pair of binoculars have a bit of a look.

[AtW]

Sometimes you might get up on top of a building, even a step ladder, and with a good pair of binoculars have a bit of a look.

That would make it indirect fire then ...

[AtW]

I'd say that smoke on the picture is raising from an indirect or non-straight shot from howitzer, any other views?