Can an M270 MLRS really take out a square kilometer?

Can an M270 MLRS really take out a square kilometer?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 36.6%
  • No

    Votes: 6 14.6%
  • It depends

    Votes: 20 48.8%

  • Total voters
    41
The Soviet...ahem...Russians used the TOS-1 in Chechnya and also in Syria in urban warfare. The collateral damage must be astronomical.

There was/is also an MLRS rocket variant loaded with AT2 mines, so yes.

The MLRS and other weapons like it (the MW-1 and JP233 come to mind) were actually considered to be "the little man's nuke". The destruction wrought would have been tremendous, albeit not radioactive.
and and MLRS was a;so used by the russian mercenaries in the donbass
 
If the infantry are moving, either advancing or retreating, then probably yes. Some will not be hit no matter how much you throw at them, while some will be hit no matter how little. Exposed Infantry are horribly open to bombardment, but give them time to dig in and get some overhead cover above their fighting positions, and you will start to see the effectiveness reduced in direct proportion to the strength of their fortifications.

Terrain makes a big difference, for instance, if the targeted formations are in a ruined city, many can find shelter in buildings that retain structural integrity and/or have a basement, and even woods will likely reduce losses a small amount.
 
and and MLRS was a;so used by the russian mercenaries in the donbass

Both sides in Donbass were using MLRS like no tomorrow. The Soviets produced the Grad rocket system in such numbers that every piddling barrack unit in a one-cow-town had a few Grad trucks and enough reloads. These were the first things the rebels grabbed, and if you are an Ukrainian unit under MLRS fire and can't call for an air stirke, all you do is MLRS back.
 
If the infantry are moving, either advancing or retreating, then probably yes. Some will not be hit no matter how much you throw at them, while some will be hit no matter how little. Exposed Infantry are horribly open to bombardment, but give them time to dig in and get some overhead cover above their fighting positions, and you will start to see the effectiveness reduced in direct proportion to the strength of their fortifications.

Terrain makes a big difference, for instance, if the targeted formations are in a ruined city, many can find shelter in buildings that retain structural integrity and/or have a basement, and even woods will likely reduce losses a small amount.

And that's why the whole MLRS concept was in parts a spinoff of the Assault Breaker program. It is DESIGNED to attack massed enemy forces in the open. For everything else, there is MasterCard :p
 
Well, having seen this particular system firing and also the hits, it's quite difficult to see how anyone could survive a salvo - the same goes for regular artillery as well. That being said, MLRS is a sort of specialist weapon with couple of uses where it excels. It would probably do pretty well raining down HEAT submunitions on mechanized formations, lay mines and destroy point targets, with the appropriate payloads.

The grid square removal mechanic probably wouldn't work as well unless you used an excessive amount of rockets or were in a desert or other such flat ground, and the opponent wouldn't be fortified. The submunitions don't spread completely evenly, not to mention the exuberant cost of the rockets. Also, given that the exact position and geometry of the target formation is unlikely to be known, many of the strikes would probably miss.

The squabble in Donbass, as mentioned,is a good example on how MLRS is used in imperfect conditions by combatants with developing tactics and training, and it still gets some good results.

I.e. works well in paper, but real life conditions rarely are that optimal. For prolonged battles, regular artillery is more maintainable.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I guess a salvo or two of these used against a city would effectively a WMD... Is it possible to mine a comparable area with M270s?

I wonder what would have been left of central Europe after even a conventional WWIII with such systems (probably on both sides)
The expectation back during the recent unpleasantness, was that both the BRD & DDR would be largely destroyed, at least to June 1945 levels, if not worse (keep in mind that most scenarios called for CW, if not tactical nukes, as a basic element of any WP attack, although bio-weapons were unlikely until/unless a strategic exchange occurred). So blown all to hell with tons of "V" agents and probably a few dozen 5-15kT NUDET.

The damage to the rest of Western Europe was expected to be limited to ports and airbases, possibly with CW, almost certainly no nuclear deployments. There was a lot of concern that the French, who had a REAL independent deterrent, to the point that NATO would not even be consulted prior to use, would not allow a WMD strike on its territory without retaliation, and any attack with nukes on the UK was likely to provoke not just the British, but the U.S. as well.

How much damage with take place in the WP states, Norway, Spain, and the rest of Europe varies a lot, based on the scenario and when one of the two major powers decided that they were facing an existential threat, and made clear that things were going to stop or everyone was going to lose (a majority of later, open source, studies are big on escalation being almost unstoppable one the first NUDET occurred, however opinions vary).

If everything stayed conventional, any area where combat took place would require complete reconstruction, from the sewer lines up.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
My understanding is that in a western military unit 10 to 20 % is considered out of commission and in Soviet terms it was fight until none left .
That was the theory. The Soviets, in Afghanistan, discovered that the fight until wiped out model wasn't nearly as effective as had been the case in the Great Patriotic War.

Fight to the last man works less well when you do not have two sociopaths (Stalin and Beria) holding the reins.
 
That was the theory. The Soviets, in Afghanistan, discovered that the fight until wiped out model wasn't nearly as effective as had been the case in the Great Patriotic War.

Fight to the last man works less well when you do not have two sociopaths (Stalin and Beria) holding the reins.

And no NKVD Blocking Troops, or threat of Gulag if not shot on whim of the Commissar

Also, repelling Fascists from your country is different than being in somebody elses country, where you aren't wanted.
 
There are several parts to the "how much of a unit can be trashed before it stops fighting" question. The key question is effectiveness. If you kill/injure enough and disrupt the command structure at least to the company level or lower, then the unit will degenerate in to isolated clumps that will (probably) fight in place but other than that not much. The Japanese, for example, typically fought to the last man but while they could cause casualties, especially where terrain and time to create major defenses helped them, the ratio was horribly against them. Also, if the "enemy" is known to kill prisoners or mistreat them, even a severely trashed unit will fight to the end - Sun Tzu advised never pput your enemy in a position where his only option is fight to the death.

So, for units on the defense with well prepared positions, they can take a high level of casualties and still be reasonably effective. If defenses are not major, the unit falls apart sooner. The big hit comes with a unit on the attack, here coordination is essential so when command is severely disrupted as well as large numbers of casualties effectiveness drops off quickly. If you have forces behind the attacking units that will shoot them if they go back, they'll move up but just as bullet sponges - works only if you have large numbers of expendable troops.
 
What can really make a difference to the outcome of a battle is the elimination of multipliers . My definition of a multiplier is for example a platoon sergeant or a company commander . A Machine gun crew or mortar crew are also major multipliers at the small unit level . As you go into larger battles the removal of logistics takes away options from the commander . Taking away a senior commander may not always remove effectiveness as rapidly as removing the linchpin of a unit , and that is usually the senior NCO's .
 
What can really make a difference to the outcome of a battle is the elimination of multipliers . My definition of a multiplier is for example a platoon sergeant or a company commander . A Machine gun crew or mortar crew are also major multipliers at the small unit level . As you go into larger battles the removal of logistics takes away options from the commander . Taking away a senior commander may not always remove effectiveness as rapidly as removing the linchpin of a unit , and that is usually the senior NCO's .

This always depends on the military whose unit cohesion and immediate command and control you are sniping or bombing or whatever. NATO forces trained for practically the complete duration of the Cold War to go for the head honchos in the attacking Red Hordes(tm)(r)(c) as the Read Army and its subject militaries were organized along an extremely strict top-down, purely order-based commad structure, with the ideal the robot-like 101% following of any order. Personal initiative below, oh, the position of divsion commander was extremely discouraged, so removing the commanders from the scene would in all likelihood reduced the effectiveness of the attacking force. Likewise, the institutional knowledge and immediate linchpins were NOT the sergeants but rather the Warant Officers.
 
Top