Just using this forum for this since ArmA1 is practiclly dead anyways, but I saw the most interesting Taliban video I've seen yet on live leak today (
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=319_1248806092 ) and it had me wondering for awhile.
For all those who have actually been in Iraq/Afghanistan and on FOBs and all that how effective do you feel mortar fire actually is?
I mean to me it seems like it'd be like 5% chance that the mortar will actually find its way to the target (also video contradicting myself
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df5_1214926978), different terrain will of course change the chances but besides for the pros of blowing enemy cover and disorienting the enemy it just seems like a sniper or marksman would be much more efficient. Which brings me to my next question:
How much do you feel that friendly snipers placed in FOBs helped prevent/deter attacks? Snipers are probably the biggest cause of morales drop for soldiers, there can't be anything that will set you into an adrenaline rush than going from talking with your buddy to a civillian to your buddys body going limp and brief chaos happening every couple of seconds.
Also I know there have been numerous times where insurgents have been hunted and killed when they were trying to plant IEDs but if IEDs are #1 killer of troops (dont know if true but either way IEDs gotta be accounting for a high percentage of the deaths) then why not set up either random sniper outposts looking over prime spots for places where IEDs would be planted or having UAVs indefinitely(ish) hovering over the vehicle pathways? Even though it might cost a lot of money in the end it would seem like it'd be worth it (blown humvees, less loss of life, less destroyed equipment) and that the IED setters would eventually change tactic due to natural selection..
