Re: GMS vs Infantry

You refute your own argument in the same paragraph. The GMS's you
mention are exceptionally effective
against bunkers and buildings. Those are point targets as opposed to say
an infantry squad which is an
area target. I don't think anyone is arguing that GMS in SG2 or
elsewhere are not effective against
bunkers or other point targets. The question is firing against infantry
per se. You don't fire a TOW at
infantry say in a  woodline  which is a staggeringly ineffective way to
use an $8000 dollar round
(the're probably twice that nowadays), of which you usually are only
carrying a few of. (and if you
waste them all on foolsigh tagrets then you're don't have them when you
need them against the stuff
your supposed to kill, thanks. Though sure against a bunker it's a
perfectly good target.

Los

Scott Uecker wrote:

> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>				  I hate to confuse the issue even more;
however, in REAL LIFE guided
> missiles (everything from as small as a Milan to as large as the
Imp.TOW)
> are EXCEPTIONALLY effective at engaging infantry.  There are well
documented
> examples from the invasion of Lebanon in '82(ISDF), Falkland's
'82(UK),
> Beruit '83(USMC), Grenada '83(USMC), Gulf'91(just about everyone),
> Somalia'93(USMC) and probably a heck of alot more that I'm not aware
of.  I
> will personally testify for their effectiveness in the last two above.
> Granted the overall effectiveness was not as impressive when we shot
at
> infantry in the open or dug in(still effective, read= deadly), but for
> buildings and bunkers it was absolutely AWESOME.  As far as being able
to
> track the infantry with a guided missile, no sweat.  Unless perhaps
you are
> trying to perform a chest shot on a sprinting/dodging horribly
frightened
> 'bad-guy', then it's alittle more of a challenge.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
> Captain, Uncle Sam's Mis-guided Children