I hereby present a project of mine that I have designed in my spare time. Ideally, it is supposed to replace both mortars, light artillery and ATGM platoons. I tried not to go into the details I don't understand and include those that I do. Tell me what you think of it.


Technical Documentation:
Windir Design Bureau

April 15, 2011
Internal Memo

Subject:
2B3 Missile Launcher and 9K1 Multi Purpose Missile Launch System

Brief Description:
A relatively new project set forward by the Design Bureau Windir the Multi Purpose Missile Launch System 9K1 is a revolutionary if strange solution to the question of infantry fire support. Originally designed as a battalion level weapon the 9K1 system is intended to replace both automatic mortars, guided precision weapons and multiple missile launchers by combining them into a single weapon system.

The 9K1 system contains the fallowing capabilities:
- Rocket Artillery for saturation fire with Airburst capability
- Precise single shots similar to a heavy mortar
- Laser Guided missile for accurate HE delivery
- Laser and Command guided AT missiles
- Submunition delivery
- Smoke and Gas Deployment

At its core, the 9K1 is composed of a multi barreled launcher designated 2B3 and a set of various missiles designated 9M1 through 9M7 respectively. Each of these components is elaborated upon further in the document. The missiles them self are electronically ignited and tied into the central targeting computer located on the left hand side of the carriage. The computer allows the missiles to be fired separately all at once or in a programmed combination of selected barrels. This feature allows the launcher to be loaded with a variety of different projectiles that can be fired at different times giving it incredible levels of flexibility unmatched by any similar system currently operated by other armies.

The 9K1 system can operate either on a vehicle mount (designated 2B3V) or as a towed artillery piece (2B3T). Since both variants are nearly identical save for the carriage they will not be discussed separately.

Launcher 2B3
Length: 1'500mm (launcher) 2'786mm (deployed)
Width: (launcher) 3'218mm (deployed)
Height: 1'476mm
Weight: 750kg
Barrels: 8
Traverse: 360°
Elevation: 0 to +57°
Carriage: tripod
Caliber: 220mm
Barrel length: 1'500mm

The launcher is composed of three modules bound together by an artillery gun like carriage. The fire module composed of eight 220mm barrels packed together in two rows of four placed on top of one another and connected together within a box shaped container. The barrels are not rifled and each of them is connected separately to the command and control module with all the wiring being located on the inside of the container box.

The command and control module located to the left hand side of the carriage is the brain of the entire 9K1 system. It contains at its core a ballistic computer that is programmed for the various rounds and can control from start to finish the entire targeting and firing process. The computer takes input in terms of environmental factors and target data either from a console on the side or through a cable connection to an external source like a battery command vehicle and based on them calculates the required elevation and traverse angle required to hit the target. This data is returned to the output console from where it can be accessed and either stored for future use or immediately executed. Once a firing solution has been selected for execution the command and control module will automatically take over the system and direct a set of electric motors located in the power module to automatically traverse the launcher into the appropriate angle and elevation. Upon completion, the system will either ask for confirmation or immediately fire the selected rounds depending on the users preferred settings.

An interesting feature of the system is the already mentioned ability to store multiple ready firing solutions inside the systems memory. This allows the 9K1 to remain deployed in the field for long periods of time completely concealed only to be remotely fired from up to 250 meters away at an opportune moment or alternatively to function in the so called static-dynamic mode. In this mode, each launcher relegates a number of its tubes to guided and a number to standard dumb rounds for whom it retains a number of saved firing solutions. For example, a battery can load 6 tubes per launcher with the standard 9M1 HE rounds and 2 barrels per launcher with the 9M3 laser guided anti tank missiles. Using saved firing solutions the launch systems can operate dynamically to provide precision anti tank support all the while remaining prepared to open fire with the standard rounds on any number of pre designated beaten areas at a moments notice.

The launcher can be traversed either manually or automatically using a series of electric motors and eclectically controlled hydraulics linked to a computer and powered by a simple on board battery. Commonly referred to as the Power Module the system contains its own power source however should it be required the system is optimized so that it can be powered by just about any external power source be it a simple automobile battery, a vehicle or in some cases even a standard electrical socket.

To facilitate rotation the launcher is mounted on a 360 degrees traversable carriage derived from the soviet D-30 howitzer. The tripod design serves for rapid and stable deployment and can be rapidly packed up for towing. All in all, the system can go from deploying to firing in just 5 minutes for the towed and 2 minutes for the vehicle mounted version. Reloading is done by hand and can take as little as under 2 minutes total given a well trained crew.

The minimum required crew for the system to operate is only one person per battery as that is what it takes to operate the targeting computers and remotely fire the weapon system. However under realistic operating conditions the optimal firing crew consists of a trained gunner and three assistants per launcher.

As has been mentioned before the 9K1 system strives to provide both saturation and precision fire support and as such it requires a suitable assortment of different rounds. These range from simple fin stabilized rounds that provide accuracy and range similar to other rocket artillery to more accurate ones whose performance matches those of infantry mortars and even precision guided rounds for taking out single high priority targets. These will now be presented in greater detail.


Image: 2B3V Launcher with control and power components removed for visibility.

Projectile 9M1:
Type: High Explosive Fragmentation
Weight: 67kg
Maximum Range: 11'700m
Fusing: air burst, contact or time delayed
Guidance: none
Description:
A simple fin stabilized rocket the 9M1 is absolutely no different than its foreign counterparts. The warhead is composed of a simple high explosive mixture connected to a fusing system that can be set to either explode on contact or after the shell has traveled a certain distance.


Projectile 9M2:
Type: Thermobaric
Weight: 67kg
Maximum Range: 11'700m
Fusing: air burst, contact or time delayed
Guidance: none
Description:
A simple fin stabilized rocket with a thermobaric warhead. Otherwise identical to the 9M1.

Projectile 9M3:
Type: Tandem Charge HEAT
Weight: 63kg
Maximum Range: 15'000m
Fusing: contact
Guidance: laser
Penetration: 1'700mm RHA (after reactive armor effects) 3500 5000
Description:
The 9M3 is a long range laser guided projectile designed to penetrate the armor of modern armored vehicles. To achieve this the 9M3 is equipped with a tandem charge HEAT warhead designed to penetrate explosive reactive armor and active countermeasures and assure penetration sufficient to disable any vehicle on the market today.

The guidance system of the 9M3 is based on the cooperation between the projectile in flight and a designator on the ground. In order for a hit to be achieved, the target must be illuminated with a laser. Once the laser signal is detected, the on-board guidance system will operate the steering vanes to maneuver the projectile onto the target.

Ideally the weapon would be fired and guided so that the projectile impacts on the top armor of enemy vehicles however the warhead is powerful enough to assure penetration even if this does not occur.

Projectile 9M4:
Type: Incendiary
Weight: 67kg
Maximum Range: 11'700m
Fusing: air burst, contact or time delayed
Guidance: none
Description:
An incendiary derivative of the standard 9M1 shell.

Projectile 9M5:
Type: Smoke Delivery
Weight: 70
Maximum Range: 10'350m
Fusing: air burst, contact or time delayed
Guidance: none
Description:
A smoke delivery shell based on the 9M1 designed to deploy a white phosphorus based smoke screen.

Projectile 9M6:
Type: Chemical Delivery
Weight: 70
Maximum Range: 10'350m
Fusing: air burst, contact or time delayed
Guidance: none
Description:
A modified derivative of the 9M5 modified to deliver chemical weapons. The standard load is composed of either Sarin or VX nerve gas depending on the batch.

Projectile 9M7:
Type: Submunition Delivery
Weight: 68-72
Maximum Range: 11'500m
Fusing: air burst
Guidance: none
Description:
A derivative of the 9M1 designed to carry and deliver a payload of either anti personnel or anti armor submunitions designated 9M7P and 9M7V respectively. A mixed payload projectile also exists and is designated M97M.


Ok here it is. Be as harsh as I know you can be.

5m RHA penetration lol wut?

220*12*2=5280

So his missile is clearly using a pair of labratory-grade HEAT charges with gold cones.

YES.

This thing, is just pure win. Maybe I'd be interested in buying them too. Won't replace the true long-range rocket artillery, but would do little miracles in weapons squads and mounted on light APC's.

One more thing. Can it also be carried by a group of soldiers? Like, it disassembles, every component is carried by one soldier, and all can be re-assembled on the spot?

The range of your missiles is pretty impressive, although I am afraid it is somewhat exaggerated.

Is there also a self-guided version of the missile for anti-air purposes? I think that would be pretty useful too, especially considering the rather high elevation of this missile launcher.

Ups... one zero too much. I intended that to be 500. I will modify it to 3500, how does that sound?

Way too high?

It's a 220mm rocket, so ~2m would be on level with modern state of the art shaped charges. But shaped charges this large normally perform worse than would be expected because it's so much bigger than most designs which have been studied.

My thinking exactly.

I don't really think that disassembly would work. Keep in mind that each of the rounds alone is in the 70kg range so that means you will need a truck to transport the ammunition. And when you have a truck you can just hitch it and drive it behind the vehicle like normal artillery.

The image shows the V version designed for mounting on vehicles. The T version for towing has a set of wheels on the side that can be elevated similar to the D-30 howitzer.
image

Well the ranges are not purely random. I analised several comparable artillery pieces like the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 and the modern BM-27 Uragan .

The former has projectiles similar in size and scale to my own and a range of approximately 8'000 meters. The later presumably has much larger projectiles but the same diameter and a range of 35'000 meters.

Based on that and the growth of range between say the BM-13 (WW2 vintage) and the BM-21 (modern) I assumed that the adaptation of modern propellants and lighter materials would allow me to take a guess and say that my missiles would get about 40% more range than the WW2 German counterpart. And that is it really, the increase is about 40%.

But I am open to suggestions as to what percentage would be better suited as a measure.

I could probably develop a missile like that but it would require a separate vehicle to provide guidance. And at that point you might as well get a dedicated light AA platform.

Ok, how does 1700 mm sound?

I'm afraid your image isn't working. Could just be my computer though.

The range seems justified now. I'm sorry, I always compare those kind of missiles to tank guns.

Maybe something more like a Stinger's guidance system would be light enough for this. Not a true SAM, but a good anti-air system nonetheless.

I edited the image to be a link to the image instead. I forgot that Wikipedia gives trouble when linking like that for some reason.

I will definitively consider that as soon as all the bugs are ironed out by you guys here.

Also, what are your feelings on a larger truck mounted 30 barrels variant?

You can't detach a section of these and send it on a foot patrol like you can with mortars. The point of mortars is that they can go anywhere the infantry can. Same with ATGM platoons. They are split into sections or squads and send out with the infantry to deal with enemy armor.

The problem with rocket artillery is that you can't keep up sustained fire. With howitzers or mortars, you can keep the enemy pinned down, with rockets, you have to fire in bursts.

Reload times under 2 minutes sounds ridiculous. Rockets produce some nasty exhaust, which means the crew will have to put some distance between them and the launcher during and shortly after firing. The exhaust also makes it a huge target for counter-battery fire, which means you have to shoot and scoot, and reposition your launchers after every few salvos.

Product Defense Department:

Ergo, for company and above level support. In essence this is meant to replace things like light artillery and 120mm mortar vehicles and supplement the infantry on the company level by providing a long range fire support option. It does not have enough barrels to be a full rocket artillery but it does provide guided missile capacity.

And besides considering that any sane IFV will have ATGM capacity the ATGM platoon is obsolete anyway. This is supposed to be a top down tank killer.

Well this thing can be programed to fire automatically and with a time delay. So you can fire say 8 rounds per minute or 8 rounds in 8 minutes simply by programing it. And the explosive power of the rounds means that it can do a lot more damage than a mortar shell. Because of this it will not only keep the enemy pined down, it will keep them dead.

Bonus points if you deploy 2 units together and have one fire while the other reloads.

I knew that was true for WW2 vintage rockets but is it still true today? If yes, the crew can just jump into an APC and wait it out.

Also, according to Wikipedia the BM-21 can be reloaded in 10 minutes by hand for 40 missiles that will be larger nad heavier than mine. I admit that all I did was divide 10 by (40/8 = 5) and get 2. So the number is probably suspect.

What reload time do you think is appropriate?

On the rockets them selves 60-70kg does seem a bit light, personally i would be shooting at about 80kg depending on warhead weight, which would be a ncie stat to have.

Range is probabaly doable.

To help firm things up i would be looking more at the Soviet BM-24 and its derivatives like the isrealli MARS launcher rather than much much bigger long range systems like BM-27 or M270.

Again its personal thing but i wouldn;t even bother detailign peentration perfroamnce of the AT version, I don;t think anyone woudl doubt the ability of a 220mm HEAT warhead to fuck thier tanks over.

The standard fuse used on most of these rockets could probabaly also do with an airburst setting. A SALH rockets with a straight HE warhead would also be a nice thing to have for hard point busting.

Capacity of a truck mount version woudl depend on the truck. A 12 round launcher would be doable for a light two or three axle job (like the Zils of russian rockety artillery fame), with 30 rounds youa r elooking at HEMETT or other big ass 4 axle job. Proabably I would just stick with 12 on a unimog style chassis.

Why you're giving something with 15km range to the company level, I don't know.

Seems like a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none without enough versatility compared to what it replaces to be worth it.

I know, but honestly speaking that would require me to actually design the individual projectiles. And since I am not a rocket scientist that is not likely to happen any time soon. My knowledge of how rockets work is limited at best.

I looked at all of them really. From the WW2 vintage ones to the more modern designs and even the BM-30. I merely linked to that one by well chance.

I thought that was what time delayed meant. Correct me if I am wrong but from what I understand of airburst rounds they are simply normal munitions set to detonate after a certain flight time has passed. And the flight time to set the fuse to so that it blows up on a certain point along the path is calculated based on ballistics.

Well ideally I am looking at a family of designs ranging from a 8 barrel light model to a 30 barrel heavy model like the BM-21 but mounted on a tracked APC as a base.

When you mention delay in terms of artillery and bomb fuses it means that the round is set to detonate after impact. You have the rest of it right its just that that fucntion is called air burst or variable time. Air burst cna also be achived by using proximity and altitude based fuses but thats not really in the scope of a standard multi purpose fuse

Thanks for that. I really did not think of it like that.
I have corrected the fusing settings accordingly (check and tell me if it is ok now).

That has also been my main point of critique to the Purpelian army, but it's still his ORBAT...

Well for several reasons. The first can be described with an adage from my country.
"If the church is big, that does not mean you have to pray a lot inside."

In other words, if the weapon has a large maximum range that does not mean you have to fire it at that range.

Secondly, this system is meant to be universal for both company (1-2 launchers) and battalion (a 6-8 launcher battery) as well as provide long range firepower for airborne and naval units that can't be expected to lug around heavier artillery. And it is in those roles in particular that this weapon will shine. An army with only light vehicles and light IFV's will greatly benefit of having these instead of standard heavy gun mortars. This system could easily be fitted onto a vehicle like the BMPD making it both fully airborne and fully amphibious. The relatively light mass and size mean that the only limit is your imagination.


Finally, there is my doctrine. You see, my doctrine in terms of infantry units is that small formations should be expected to operate independently in a highly mobile maneuver warfare. Rather than having divisions engage one another with division level support being thrown around I intend to use battalions as my maneuver units.

Traditionally, the disadvantage of rocket artillery is that it can be easily detected but this is no longer the case today. This is not because rockets have gotten any more stealth but because any battalion level formation will have its own mortar battery meaning it will have its own battery command vehicle meaning it will have a counter battery radar. What this means is that now regular artillery is just as easy to spot and fire on as rocket artillery.

The advantage of rocket artillery however is that it offers superior range to any sort of battalion level artillery the enemy can hope to bring to the table. So what ever artillery I use the enemy will be able to counter fire on me rather quickly but with the 9K1 the enemy simply won't have any weapon bellow the division level that can match my range. Thus I am free to pick off their command and support forces at my impunity while the enemy will be forced to abandon his fortified positions and advance on me if he wishes to silence my artillery much like bees being smoked out into the open. And just like bugs, they will be annihilated by my other units.

In essence more than anything what this weapon does is hand me the initiative on how and when to engage the enemy.

Except the L118 light gun, for instance, can outrange it, with a 30 second deployment time and a much faster reload. Should be able to be available at regimental level.

AMOS has up to 10km range, more than enough, and weighs 4 tons, that can be mounted on a fairly light chassis.

And ATGM's such as the Spike have long ranges and are man portable.


My point is that you'll get better results from using specialised weaponry to acheive an aim than using a multipurpose system.

Unless of course the command vehicle is parked a decent distance from the battery, as makes sense.

Again, at the regiment level. Last time I checked a regiment is a formation in the range of divisions.

If the enemy has to pull out divisional level artillery to counter my company level support than that means I am doing things right. After all, he only has so many division level guns to go around compared to my company level ones. If I can get him to focus those to hunting down a single target as elusive as this is going to be that only means his other fronts are unsupported.

Still less than mine and not guided missile capacity last time I checked. Meaning that it can only do about half the tasks this thing can. Plus, last time I checked you could not hitch an AMOS system on a tow truck or a universal carrier and be done with it. Those things require stabilized platforms and expensive vehicles to be effective.

As said before, if your units have any sense at all you will have both short range (several km) ATGM's and medium range gun launched ones from your IFV's on to supplement them on the infantry squad level. What this does is provide the final part of the combination. A medium to long ranged indirect fire weapon that is designed to hit targets from the top down.

It does not and can not replace hand held projectiles, it simply supplements them (especially on the battalion level and above).

Perhaps, but for the number in men and material that you will have to lug around to achieve that you will be able to get a much better deal on the overall package by using the 9K1. After all, you can issue each infantry man with a bolt action rifle for sniping, a submachine gun for short range fire and a light machine gun for suppression. But cost and logistics demand that you instead use an assault rifle. The concept is the same here.

This system after all performs the duties or rocket artillery, tank destroyer, heavy mortar and in the future perhaps even light AA unit. The cost savings in using one instead of all these are massive, especially in terms of the logistics footprint.

What does that have to do with anything?
On one hand their command vehicle can track my batteries what ever I use regardless of where it is and the same goes the other way so that can't be it.

On the other hand I can use reconnaissance or a light UAV to find and target their command vehicles again regardless of where they are parked. And I somehow don't believe a company or battalion level unit will deploy its mortar support several kilometers in front of their main force.


But at this point this has gone way to far into the semantics of how to utilize and deploy the weapon. Right now, all I care about is suggestions to make sure it works at all and any corrections on how to improve it.

We can discus deployment later once I am sure it actually works as advertised.

Divisions are a step up form regiment.

It's like comparing a fireteam to a squad.

Might as well use proper artillery for this.

No, but you specialise you're infantryman, not jack-of-all-trades them. The US tried something similar with the M14. Didn't work.

I remain unconvinced that this outweighs the loss of capability inherent in using this system.

What I meant was they can wait till your rockets are fired, work out where from, and scoot in the longer time needed for rockets to impact. In the meantime, their mortars can fire several rounds around the area where your rockets were fired from before moving themselves, as they now have at least two minutes (for your reloading and relocation, plus the time taken for rockets to travel) to relocate.


And I think that you cannot design something properly without taking deployment into consideration.

And that is a step up from battalions who are in turn a step up from companies. See where this is going?

Again, can a conventional artillery unit be easily transported like this can? Keep in mind that even fully loaded the entire system would weigh in just barely over a ton making it capable of being fitted to all sorts of light vehicles and thus ideal for a fast and mobile force. Vehicle mounted the 9K1 would be no slower to deploy and use than a conventional mobile artillery unit. All the while providing capabilities that normal light artillery and heavy mortars simply don't.

An airborne unit could take this and hitch it to any truck they find on the battlefield even civilian vehicles. A mountain division could manhandle it up a mountain and mechanized infantry could put it on APC's for rapid fire support.

Even your example the L118 weighs without ammunition almost twice as much as the 9K1 would loaded.

I prefer to cite the AK series as a successful model of how it can work when you don't waste your time with a plastic gun firing a puny 5.56 round. (referring to the Vietnam era first generation of the rifles)

What loss would that be?

I don't really think rockets are that slow to allow you to dodge like that. This is not WW2. And in order for the enemy to fire upon my battery they have to be in range, meaning they have to close range to me and be detected and destroyed. Your logic seems to wind down to saying that counter battery fire makes artillery obsolete.

They can also detect you.
Artillery is by no means obsolete. It is however both more vulnerable and deadly than ever before.

Exactly what you can achieve with an L118, or in the case of the APC a TOW/autocannon.
The ammunition for an L118/mortar/ATGM system is also considerably lighter and more portable, ie doesn't weigh as much as the soldier does.

I was referring to the M14 which attempted to replace all of the squads weapons with one system.

Well yes, but that hardly changes the fact that missile systems like this one are too.

Even thou the former is almost 2 times as heavy as the 9K1 is fully loaded? Not to mention much larger physically.

And an autocanon is supposedly only a direct fire weapon. That hardly puts it into competition with an artillery piece.

And again, this is not supposed to compete with regimental or divisional artillery but with battalion level artillery. Yes it will lose if faced with a regiments worth of long range guns. But if your enemy has to focus his regimental guns to destroying company level fire support that only means that the other 10 or so of your companies are free to wreak havoc on his unsupported forces on the other side of the front.

Anything bellow the regimental level simply won't be able to handle a strike from these units. And you will have your own regimental level guns to counter his anyway. That gives me an advantage. All it takes is a little intelligence and tactics to see how having these can be a great addition to your armed force.

I always get the two mixed up sorry.

In infantry battalions, the only real artillery at battalion level is medium mortars, and maybe a very small number of assault guns or other SPGs. Adding these to battalions only increases the size of your battalions and adds extra strain the your supply system, which at battalion level ishould be used to bring up as much food, small arms ammo, and medical supplies as possible.

Rocket artillery can still be detected more easily than conventional artillery. Rockets are larger and have a larger RCS, and the visual/infrared/acoustic signature of rocket barrages is still huge.

I absolutely cannot see how this is any better, at all, than existing company-level support on any basis of intelligent economy or usage.

Like all rocket artillery it will also have lol minimum range. This should not be forgotten.

Why is this so? I mean, I can point this horizontally so there should be no minimal range to it.

Except you won't hit anything?

Ideally, you'll want the missile to actually leave the launcher before it can go "Boom."

Minimum range is minimum.

Also, such explosions tend to shoot the unburnt propellant-rod back to the user.

Well yes but we are talking something like 20 - 50, maybe 100 - 200 meters here or what ever. Not something in the single digit kilometers. And with the guided rounds in particular there should be no minimum range. As for the unguided ones I don't need them to hit the target, they can just be launched at a low trajectory to airburst over it.

so a guided round can safely explode right after it leaves the launcher?

No, the guided round in question is designed to take out enemy tanks. So if a potential target (enemy tank) gets into such a close range that there is a danger the explosion from said guided missile will harm the crew the crew will probably be dead already from said tank.

you still said it has no minimum range.

and although this design is awesome, i still think that you should use L118s, light mortars, etc, for the same reason why you need DMRs, BRs, and LMGs, rather than being able to field one design.

No minimum range that meters, since as explained above.
And besides, the thing is a shaped charge warhead so there is not likely to be a minimum range worth mentioning. It's going to be something like 100-200 meters at most.

The same thing goes for the other missiles, yes it is not likely going to be wise to fire it within 200 meters, maybe even 500 meters away from the launcher but that's about it. I can add it if you think it matters but honestly those are not the ranges I intended it to be used in the first place.

And as said above again and again this will NOT replace battalion and division level support completely. It will replace the AMOS equivalents on the battalion level and add as 1 or 2 launchers to the company level. At the regimental level you will still see regular light artillery support like the things you mentioned.

On the company level in particular I intend to deploy two of these launchers instead of the ATGM section. This is because each of my IFV's is a BMP-3 look alike with ATGM's and each squad has ATGM's so a dedicated missile unit is redundant.

Also, on the company level my full list of support weapons would be:
3 x HIFV (ATGM capable)
1 x Command HIVF with a 2A9 (real design) gun-mortar
1 or 2 x 9K1 launcher unit (1 motorized or 2 towed)


The idea is to give individual units punch beyond their level so to say. A regular battalion that has a unit of these attached will be a danger to enemy regiments if used intelligently.

Also, I plan to deploy it on a vehicle derived from my tracked HIFV as a base. That will allow me to fire with almost no setup time and move away rapidly.

PS. Any edits to the actual design will have to wait until morning when I get some sleep.

Unguided rockets are just not going to be a useful direct fire weapon, the dispersion of a Hydra-70 rocket (as an example) is 29mil. In other words about a 50% chance of landing within 30m of the target at one kilometer. That's not good.

SALH rockets are going to have serious problems because the smoke from the first rounds motor will block the rest of the seekers (well also revealing your firing position in a spectacular manner) until it clears. So you get one shot before the enemy fires back and blows the launcher to bits.

There are reasons artillery rockets are not used like this.

Wait, are you suggesting that Purpelia isn't a military genius? That sir, is a ridiculous accusation.