Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1728947" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes.  But at the same time, a critical reader who remembers the "Star Wars" weapon debacles of the 1980s won't assume the technical details are as they really should be. Especially on high-end, expensive weapon systems.  They may be perfectly legit.  They may not be.  But you don't assume the better of the two, unless you like wasting a few billion dollars.Quite possibly.  Though under low-wind conditions the path of a mortar shell is pretty darned predictable.  Otherwise, the mortar would be unable to hit a chosen target.  In either case, it'd be even easier to hit the mortar if you know the launch location and expected flight path of the projectile beforehand.  I didn't call anyone a dufus.  Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Casual acceptance of incomplete reports on technical matters is an unfortunate habit of our society.  It has cost our nation a great deal in  money, time, and resources.  It will continue to do so if nobody ever points out the error.Note how my simple questioning of the incomplete report has brought up someone who apparently has some knowledge of the technology, and quickly yielded up more complete information?  You may call it rude.  I call it a cautionary note that seems to have had constructive results.</blockquote>