Talk:Rocket artillery

message: Ok, some stupid stuff here. rocket artillery system is not defined by what it can shoot, but by rocekts themselves. To write rocket artillery can shoot ballistic missiles is moronic. I am deleting the funny piece. ALso, we could post some more pictures of rocekt artillery, some russian maybe? Since russians are pioneers.99.231.63.253 (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: "It is also the only practicable system for counter-battery fire."
This statement seems a bit out of place and tacked on to me. In the types of massed combat seen on the Eastern Front during WW2 Katyusha's were used to great effect for counter battery fire as they were able to move to a point within range and return fire on their less mobile tube brethren rapidly before scooting away without being fired upon themselves. This combined with the massed fire means they were often capable of taking out large batteries without the operators having the chance to get to cover. This has become an influence on modern tactics and has led to the development of numerous modern rocket artillery systems, designed specifically to have a longer range then the tube artillery, so that in a conflict they can reduce enemy artillery positions to rubble before their own tubed artillery is put into play.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning a statement 

message: "Hyder Ali's son, Tippu Sultan, continued to develop and expand the use of rocket weapons, reportedly increasing the number of rocket troops from 1,200 to a corps of 5,000. In battles at Seringapatam in 1792 and 1799 these rockets were used with considerable effect against the British."[1]
After Tipu's eventual defeat"
Anyone know the accepted spelling of his name?  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tipu or Tippu? 

message: From a physicist's view, how do rocket (self proppelled?) artillery and canon (cf. Cartridge (firearms)) artillery differ? Is the latter more energy efficient? E.g. you want to "deliver" a warhead of 100kg at a distance of 40km. Which propellant (rocket or cartridge) is more energy effective? Echinacin35 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical view 

message: There is a section in the article that might need further definition, because at first blush it seems to contradict the information from the rest of the article.
Quote:
"The accuracy of gun artillery and its ability to be rapidly laid to engage targets makes it the system of choice for the engagement of moving targets and to deliver counter-battery fire."
The rest of the article makes great note of the comparative speed of deployment of MLRS systems. Is "Laid" some kind of technical term that is obscure to the common person? If so, it might need additional definition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahlzun (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rapidly Laid"..? 

message: I have seen various accounts of D-Day in Normandy showing a rocket bombardment by a naval vessel. Was that the same system as the article states was used in the Pasific War?
I came to this page having wahached the first 50 seconds of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tT0ob3cHPmE about "Battle of Hürtgen Forest" hoping to glean more information about the rocket system (also 2:39). What was the rocket system the American were using, or is the clip from some other battle? The first rocket battery looks something like that used by the Soviets from Studebaker trucks. The second shows a row of rocket launchers in clusters of about 10 to a frame, but not  mounted on vehicles. 
If someone knows the answers to these questions please add them to the aticle if the information is relevant.-- PBS (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westen Allies in Europe