Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_2500-1.JPG

Nellis_14_2495-1.JPG

Nellis_14_1221-1.JPG

Nellis_14_0352-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





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 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 31st, 2013   #16
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,084
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by surpreme View Post
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.
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2013   #17
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,876
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by surpreme View Post
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"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2013   #18
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 19
Threads:
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?
Himal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2013   #19
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
Threads:
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.
JohnDavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013   #20
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Threads:
Even war, economic does come into account. 155mm round is around $300 vs missile, guess the answer is obvious.
searchfun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2013   #21
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,876
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchfun View Post
Even war, economic does come into account. 155mm round is around $300 vs missile, guess the answer is obvious.
its about technical and weapons solution relevance

nobody in logistics says "send me the cheapest weapon in the warehouse and the soldiers will have to use what we give them"

that's a good way to lose wars
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2013   #22
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,084
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
its about technical and weapons solution relevance

nobody in logistics says "send me the cheapest weapon in the warehouse and the soldiers will have to use what we give them"

that's a good way to lose wars
There is a old saying that goes: "Winning a war is expensive, but losing a war costs you more."
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2013
SteelTiger 177
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: Violation of forum rules: No one-liners
Old March 10th, 2013   #23
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Rimasta's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: California
Posts: 121
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Himal View Post
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.
Rimasta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2013   #24
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 19
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rimasta View Post
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 !!)
Himal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2013   #25
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,538
Threads:
Given the rapid down-sizing of airforces all over the world? No, I don't think artillery will become less popular.

Quite the opposite I should think. Land forces will always require fire support of one sort or another.
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2013   #26
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,252
Threads:
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.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2013   #27
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 19
Threads:
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 01:19 AM.
Himal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2013   #28
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,252
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Himal View Post
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 View Post
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.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2013   #29
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,538
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
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.
But what about F-111 killboxes?

Sorry. I'll leave now...

ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2013   #30
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,681
Threads:
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...
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:46 PM.