Comments on: Excalibur and Civilian Casualties

By: Miguel

Miguel — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:22:43 +0000

This $150K shell is like using a sledge hammer to swat a fly. It’s a complete waste of money in what is esssentially an insurgency-type war. What ever happened to closing with the enemy.?Well-trained 81mm mortar-men is all we need.

By: Simon

Simon — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:40:11 +0000

This was on the discovery channel about a year ago. I think it was future weapons. Look cool.

By: -tba

-tba — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:54:15 +0000

Also, artillery is generally a lot more available than airstrikes. A shell with the same accuracy as a JDAM will probably arrive in about 20min, depending on how close the firebase is, whereas an airstrike can take a couple hours. Timely engagement will do a lot to improve combat effectiveness and cause fewer unintended casualties.

By: Byron

Byron — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:20:40 +0000

Basically this more accurate shell will provide commanders in the field with greater flexibility in choosing how to attack targets. The targets will be hit no matter what. Civilian casualties are something to avoid and any munition that gives the military a better chance to do that is a good thing.

By: Born2kill

Born2kill — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:42:31 +0000

Higher accuracy means more efficient killing. Civilian casualties are a liberal fantasy. The more people we can kill in one given moment, the more people we can potentially kill in the future. That’s why I joined the Marines.

By: David

David — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:44:35 +0000

I agree with anticitizen, James Hardy is pathetic

By: Anticitizen

Anticitizen — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:17:55 +0000

James Hardy, you suck. “I don’t care about civilian casualties”? My, what a great manly man you are.

By: James Hardy

James Hardy — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:06:48 +0000

I don’t care about civilian casualties but I like that this shell is more accurate and able to take out the target quicker.

By: Chris Albon

Chris Albon — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:54:08 +0000

Good catch Dave!

Regarding the cost. It would be interesting to see what someone more knowledgeable about artillery than myself (I don’t know anything) thinks about the Excalibur. Specifically, how many “normal” rounds would it take on average to hit a target compared to the Excalibur.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:47:43 +0000

I think you mean “introducing _un_exploded ordinance into an area”, aka “UXO”.

One of the problems of saturation barrage artillery is that you’ll inevitably get a few duds. Those then lie dormant for some poor soul (generally not the intended recipient of said barrage) to find later when they finally get around to going off. This significantly increases both collateral civilian as well as “friendly” casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance

This is an interesting technology you write about, however. I still think it’s too expensive – $150k a shell? Too much money, in my opinion.