I should point out that I've never seen or heard an artillery rocket in real life, so I certainly can't pull out a "those sound like BM-24 rounds to me." but I do present the following observations;
The rounds appear to get more and more accurate.
The first two fall in the vicinity of the base, with the rest (to all appearances) subsequently hitting the base. This suggests (to me at least) that they are being adjusted.
If they are timed rockets, why are they fired one at a time?
If I had a whole pile of Katyushas, and was just going to point them and run, I'd want a nice big synchronized time on target (or as close to it as possible with whatever timer I'm using). Is there any reasonable advantage to be gained by giving everyone two to ten minutes to find cover while my rounds fire one at a time? Also, I run the risk of having un-expended rockets destroyed by counter-battery while still on the ground.
If it was enemy mortars why didnt they engage the troops in the open outside the FOB ?
I don't know how accurate you can drop mortar rounds, but if me and half a dozen of my buddies had just humped a mortar tube, baseplate, etc and a dozen rounds up a mountain, I sure wouldn't want to waste them on a HMMWV. Especially if the mortar is on the reverse slope, with only a (not very good) spotter calling all the shots against a target that's liable to start moving at any time. I would go for the big easy target with lots of people and stuff to blow up, that's not going anywhere.
If it had been mortar fire the base would have taken a beating with alot of casualties
Provided the attackers had more than a few rounds with them. Obviously they were not able to put much ammunition in place, because regardless of what weapon they used, they only fired a handful of rounds, and seem to have been done firing before the counter-battery opened up. Had they been able to put in place more ammunition, of any kind, they would have done a lot more damage to the base than they did.
So yeah, that's basically what I've got.
There doesn't seem to be much consensus among the 'experts' as to what kind of rounds those were. Since I can't tell a mortar blast from a hole in the ground ( :
), I had to look at the circumstantial evidence, which seems to me to point to a mortar.
Am I way off course here? (not that many here would hesitate to tell me about it if i am)
Or does anybody here think these arguments are reasonable?