XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips   
   From: petertrei@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/19/2025 9:55 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   I've heard the term 'accuracy by volume of fire' used.   
      
   pt   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)