Will modern warfare eliminate the use of artillery?

[Rimasta]

The only thing I can add to this discussion is reboot the XM2001 Crusader! Apart from providing the US Army with artillery dominance it also provides the tank fleet with the LV100-5 engine which is a huge improvement for M1(A3?).

Crusader was cancelled because it was very heavy. The army was trying to develop assets deployable by C-130. IMHO, being a former Paladin crewmen myself, the N-LOS cannon or the German army SP howitzer would seem ideal. We had issues manning all the guns in the battalion to the point where we disbanded a battery and folded into Alpha and Bravo batteries. One thing I'd like to see is a higher rate of fire, and less manpower needed to operate each gun in the field. We don't shoot slow but watching the Germans shootat the speeds they do, it gives me something to envy. Plus the German system is so effective it's almost like one howitzer has the power of two howitzers.

 

[swerve]

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.

Why is it strange that the USA would sell a foreign (British) designed piece of equipment made from partly foreign (British) made components to India? It's not as if it's sensitive, US-only, technology.

 

[Marc 1]

Shoot and scooter was mentioned earlier on this thread. Has this tactic ever been used in combat?

Should have been. Counter battery fire has been around since WW1 - unless you are confident that your guns are comfortably out of the reach of their arty/CAS then to sit on your thumbs will result in copping a caning. The exceptions are where you have a COIN scenario - fire bases mean the arty will not move, but that means you should control the approaches to the bases with observation and fire (patrols - on foot/vehicle or airborne).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Crusader was cancelled because it was very heavy. The army was trying to develop assets deployable by C-130.

Sort of. But the real reason Crusader was cancelled was money. Bear in mind that even at the height of the FCS project the new system was only going to equip about half of the US Army’s brigades. The rest would still be equipped with MLC70 Abrams tanks. In which case an MLC50 Crusader would fit in just fine.

As to the Hercability it has always been a completely stupid requirement and didn’t last long within FCS beyond the requirement for modular armour capability. Ie all armour (and a few systems), ammo, fuel removed and the MGV systems could be airlifted by C-130. For what purpose remains to be intelligently explained.

IMHO, being a former Paladin crewmen myself, the N-LOS cannon or the German army SP howitzer would seem ideal. We had issues manning all the guns in the battalion to the point where we disbanded a battery and folded into Alpha and Bravo batteries. One thing I'd like to see is a higher rate of fire, and less manpower needed to operate each gun in the field. We don't shoot slow but watching the Germans shootat the speeds they do, it gives me something to envy. Plus the German system is so effective it's almost like one howitzer has the power of two howitzers.

The German PzH2000 is certainly a capable system but not as capable as even the lightweight version of Crusader. But as Australia has discovered in trying to acquire these systems is that they are not integrated with AFATDS which is of primary importance for the US Army. Frankly it would probably be a lot cheaper for the US Army just to reboot Crusader than import or local build PzH2000. Crusader was developed and would not take long to be at production level. Plus if you build Crusader you can then leverage the new engine to upgrade the Abrams. Which was the plan all along.

 

[StanV111]

And what do you really think of Abrams fire control system. I've heard it is still out of date. [Mod edit: First and last warning on spam like posts. Simple ignorance is no excuse for playing the politics of disrespect.]

You'll be shot 100 of times before making a good shot yourself. I mean modern arms.
[Mod edit: This is a forum for mature, considered discussions on defence matters. Read the Forum Rules and visit the DT Hall of Shame, before posting again. No reply to this warning is necessary, and if you attempt to:

(i) reply to this warning, or
(ii) delete this warning,​

you will be banned. Congrats on trying the patience of the Mod Team on your very first post.]

 

[Bonza]

Where did you hear that? I know the M1A2 variant included some kind of fire control update, and my impression was the Abrams had pretty good systems in that regard. Just a civilian myself though, so happy to stand corrected by those with experience. There's a few ex tankers on the forums that could probably give you a definitive answer.

 

[the road runner]

And what do you really think of Abrams fire control system. I've heard it is still out of date. You'll be shot 100 of times before making a good shot yourself. I mean modern arms.

Off topic...
You heard wrong! Out of date compared to what?

You seriously think that the USA who has one of the worlds most advanced defence forces has a sub standard fire control system?Look at the upgrades the M1 has had over its entire life.Look at wars that it has fought and dominated.The below link will give you some insight to the fire control fitted to Abrams.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

Edit.Beat me again Bonza !

 

[marshal of USA]

Nah,as i far as concern,artillery is still the god of war (till the tank came rolling in)
1st,they are cheap,an a-10 thunderbolt cost 12 millions dollars while an m198 cost 600 thousands dollars,means that you can buy about 15 arties with trucks for towing and ammo for an a-10. 15 arties will surely do even better at bombarding enemies (albeit risk getting to closer range but still,15 guns correctly place is harder to destroy) And you don't need fuel,special care for arties.Just set them up and the next 5 minutes you gonna see all hell break loose while it may take nearly 20 mins to get an a-10 up and running for CAS
2nd aircraft are in greater risk of getting kill,we all know that it is not fun flying above Vietnamese flak system with Israeli pilots chasing us,things will be like the great mariana turkey shooting.Arties can be better protected,they can be dug in fortification and get out in a blink,they can be unloaded into many packs,they can be disguised and dispersed into many location,and unlike planes,they don't need special airfield or specifically trained crew to do the jobs.
3rd they are much more simple to maintain and to train someone with them.In case we decided to go total war with Chincom,it will be much easier to train thousands of mens and guns and send them into war:dbanana