Will modern warfare eliminate the use of artillery?
This is a discussion on Will modern warfare eliminate the use of artillery? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by surpreme
Just reading there is talk about eliminating artillery in the U.S. Army. I don't know how ...
Just reading there is talk about eliminating artillery in the U.S. Army. I don't know how far this will go? Had a discussion will other army buddies they are saying the same thing there thinking about eliminating artillery. If anybody on here have anymore info on this I would like to know.
There is definitely going to be a greater reliance on smart weapons launched/dropped from UAVs and aircraft.
But as long as issues of availability, response time, and appropriate sizing of the warhead to minimize collateral damage remain it is unlikely that regular units, as opposed to SOCOM, will be willing to give up their organic indirect fire capabilities. And then there is the factor that the Air Force insists on using only their own FACs to call it in, but there are only a couple per battalion.
Just reading there is talk about eliminating artillery in the U.S. Army. I don't know how far this will go? Had a discussion will other army buddies they are saying the same thing there thinking about eliminating artillery. If anybody on here have anymore info on this I would like to know.
The nature of arty has changed, its not on the way out - certainly not from all the future warfighting constructs that I've seen that various militaries are developing
in addirion, the concept of arty has changed from the traditional view. Arty is now more about precision munitions, guided munitions, and not necessarily restricted to towed, tyred or tracked/tractored delivery
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Both armies must have had a tough time moving their arty through all those mountains/high altitude terrain, I mean, moving all those guns must have been a logistics nightmare.
Apparently PA, at a few locations, had high-ground advantage over IA.
Would self propelled arty alone done the trick?
Multi-legged slef-propelled arty, still in the labs maybe?
With the advent of highly mobile forces of tanks and mechanized infantry I don't think artillery will become obsolete. Even with gps guided ammunition, artillery is still capable of playing a significant role in fire support in modern warfare.
Both armies must have had a tough time moving their arty through all those mountains/high altitude terrain, I mean, moving all those guns must have been a logistics nightmare.
Apparently PA, at a few locations, had high-ground advantage over IA.
Would self propelled arty alone done the trick?
Multi-legged slef-propelled arty, still in the labs maybe?
Heavy lift helicopters would I think be ideal for moving heavy arty through/over rough terrain. CH-47's were used to good effect in establishing fire bases in Vietnam. Howitzers today weigh less so even more so.
Heavy lift helicopters would I think be ideal for moving heavy arty through/over rough terrain. CH-47's were used to good effect in establishing fire bases in Vietnam. Howitzers today weigh less so even more so.
Yea, read IA's plan to grab some(145 -confirmed?) M777 ultralight.
Thought it strange that US would sell such a piece of art to India.
But, wouldn't such arty's lack of mobility bog down IA in such locations, where shoot&scoot is needed the most.
(Minor OT, second most populous country in the world, and they're running short of officers/pilot !!)
A lot of this discussion, actually all of it, has focused on artillery’s secondary role – that of destroying targets. In this role artillery competes with a range of other systems including aircraft, missiles, etc. But the primary role of artillery is suppression in which it only competes with different versions of artillery (mortars, naval gunfire, AC-130 gunships). Suppression is the denial to the enemy of their ability to manoeuvre by maintaining a barrage over time on a piece of real estate. No other weapon system can do this mission. Suppression is also the key ingredient to enabling our own force to manoeuvre and in many cases to survive when confronted with localised tactical overmatch.
Then of course there is the next generation of artillery. Rail guns and ‘rods from god’ (inert clusters of tungsten rods fired from rail guns hitting the target at hyper velocity) will hugely boost artillery’s ability to quickly and cheaply destroy targets over extreme ranges. In 50 (or 100) years time artillery will potentially be able to outperform TACAIR in missions of close (air) support and battlefield (air) interdiction. Being able to put kinetic effects on the ground quicker (and far cheaper) from a JFO’s call for fire than even an aircraft orbiting above and across the theatre ISR complex.
Suppression could also be done with all the other delivery platforms listed. The choice challenge would then be cost per unit 'suppression' - for want of a better term.[Mod Edit: Please be aware that you are responding to a post by a Defense Professional, in a manner that demonstrates a lack of understanding of what has been posted. Kindly note that you are on the wrong channel and we have provided some guidance, as you seem to have a real interest in learning more. Try and read up on the concept of artillery suppression in the context of manoeuvre warfare before posting, it would improve the quality and relevance of your reply.]
Agreed, using JSF for this role won't be smart, but what if Big-Dumb-Boosters concept here?
i.e.: hundreads of so-called vintage tech jets like F-5/F-20(start making them again), rockets/missiles, for exactly the same purpose.
Let's invoke the genius of Henry Ford in mass production, and reap the benefit of economy of scale.
While waiting for rail gun to be made battlefield ready, wouldn't it be a lot easier to field Paris/HARP type superguns, (at least the Paris gun is battle proven, and we also know HARP worked well), given the availability of affordable production facilities. Big-Dumb-Boosters get the job done too. [Mod Edit: While we want to encourage participation and provide some guidance, do bother to read up on the basics before posting, or you will not last long in this forum, when others point out the obvious in a more direct manner.]
Last edited by OPSSG; March 15th, 2013 at 12:19 AM.
Suppression could also be done with all the other delivery platforms listed. The choice challenge would then be cost per unit 'suppression' - for want of a better term.
Agreed, using JSF for this role won't be smart, but what if Big-Dumb-Boosters concept here?
i.e.: hundreads of so-called vintage tech jets like F-5/F-20(start making them again), rockets/missiles, for exactly the same purpose.
Let's invoke the genius of Henry Ford in mass production, and reap the benefit of economy of scale.
Not quite. No matter how cheap or whatever your bomb trucks are going to be you have to fight in four dimensions. The fourth dimension being time. An artillery unit can lay down a frontage for hours and tirelessly move it from place to place as per need. For aircraft to do similar you need a bomber stream with one plane every 30 seconds or so. The cost, coordination load, logistics, etc for that compared to a simple little artillery battery are extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Himal
While waiting for rail gun to be made battlefield ready, wouldn't it be a lot easier to field Paris/HARP type superguns, (at least the Paris gun is battle proven, and we also know HARP worked well), given the availability of affordable production facilities.
The rail gun will be the same size and have the same rate of fire as current self propelled 155mm guns. A Paris/HARP gun is a huge fixed system with a rate of fire of one round per hour etc. Also the time of flight of the rail gun will be far lower than big conventional guns so reducing dispersion and making it responsive.
Not quite. No matter how cheap or whatever your bomb trucks are going to be you have to fight in four dimensions. The fourth dimension being time. An artillery unit can lay down a frontage for hours and tirelessly move it from place to place as per need. For aircraft to do similar you need a bomber stream with one plane every 30 seconds or so. The cost, coordination load, logistics, etc for that compared to a simple little artillery battery are extreme.
Arrrrgh, he did it...
You are a weak man who can't control is inner devil!
Just for the sake of letting this not be the only thing I write here just a small comparison.
A battery of PzH2000 brings ca. 1.440 155mm rounds per hour onto a target area. That's roughly the equivalent of 280 500lb bombs. As a light fighter won't carry many 500lb bombs we are talking about something like 140 sorties for every our of continious fire of just one battery of modern arty. Quite cost effective when it comes to cost, logistics and response time...
