XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: kludge@panix.com   
      
   Paul S Person   wrote:   
   >Modern indirect fire, which does indeed require some form of spotting.   
   >   
   >But the ancients shot arrows up and over the enemy, not because they   
   >could not see them, but because they wanted to wound/kill /all/ of   
   >them, not just those in the front line. The ones behind the front line   
   >were, not hidden, but covered.   
      
   You know, I never thought about the longbow as being a case of indirect   
   fire, but I suppose it is.  Interestingly, though, the plan is to spread   
   the fire out rather than concentrate it (which is where so much of the   
   effort in modern artillery work comes from).   
      
   >Siege engines could reduce the walls of a fortress/city (if they   
   >actually hit them instead of falling before them) but could also go   
   >over the walls and fall inside. This did not requre a spotter:   
   >anywhere they fell, they would cause damage to someone and/or   
   >something.   
   >   
   >In modern war, is of course, things are somewhat different.   
      
   Maybe, although the whole "saturate the area with low-precision   
   projectiles" thing worked pretty well with the V-1.  I had not   
   thought about that either.   
   --scott   
   --   
   "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)