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
Will modern warfare eliminate the use of artillery?
- Thread starter surpreme
- Start date
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."
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.
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.]
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 a moderator:
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.
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.
Arrrrgh, he did it...:lam
You are a weak man who can't control is inner devil!:rel
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...
You are a weak man who can't control is inner devil!:rel
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...
and persistence, precision...
And frontage. The 1440 155mm shells will cover a lot more square meters with lethal fragments than 280 standard Mk 82 bombs. Mk 82s made from cast steel with tritonal filling tend to have quite poor fragmentation effects considering their weight (prefragged Mk 82s with H6 filling are much better but ARMSCOR no longer makes them). The 155mm shells are also much better dispersed across the frontage (and in time) as well with far less gaps between them than an equivalent weight of air dropped bombs. Also that dispersion can be controlled far better by the artillery unit than the fighter bomber.
SteelTiger 177
New Member
Artillery is still needed today as much as ever.It can hit targets that in some cases fixed winged or rotary winged aircraft can't do to the potential of collateral damage.Right now the U.S. in particular has some very good artillery.We have the M777 towed howetizer,the M276 MLRS as well the Himars rocket system.One area that needs to be addressed is the area of self propelled guns.The U.S. is still using the Paladin SPH in its armored and mech artillery units lets not forget that the Abrams mbt can out run the Paladin.Any future SPH for the U.S.Army must take this into consideration when we look at the future of the field artillery.
Steel, you may want to do some reading. If you are using conventional artillery rounds, artillery is an area weapon. Collateral damage is very likely, particularly if the fire has not been adjusted. CAS, particularly using some of the weaponry recently developed has become far more tartgeted and precision in nature. (see APKWS II).
When you say the M1 can outrun the Paladin, do you mean in terms of automotive speed or weapon range? If the first, that's not a problem. The second - the Abrams can outrun the range of the Paris gun given enough time and logistics. What point are you trying to make?
I believe he was making a point about the first. As in the next replacement for the pally needs to be able to keep up with a abrams. Which is quite possible when the abrams stops for gas but the they are working on fixing the at problem.
My view? Artillery will always have a place on the battlefield. Whether its precision fire or saturation its got to many pro's vs cons. Cheap to maintain vs aircraft. Reliable, cheaper ammunition, etc. To many people point to todays wars as THE ways of all war. War is like a life it changes depending on who, when, what, where, and how its used. Evolving as the technology and tactics do.
My view? Artillery will always have a place on the battlefield. Whether its precision fire or saturation its got to many pro's vs cons. Cheap to maintain vs aircraft. Reliable, cheaper ammunition, etc. To many people point to todays wars as THE ways of all war. War is like a life it changes depending on who, when, what, where, and how its used. Evolving as the technology and tactics do.
The comparative speeds of the vehicles are not that dissimilar. Remember the Abrams will normally be moving tactically - from bound to bound, half of the time stopped. The SPG's should be moving in areas swept clear of the enemy so should be able to admin move. Besides, with sufficient artillery, you can always be stepping forward a section or battery at a time so that there is continuous coverage. More automotive performance would be good, but not every conflict will feature the type of blitzkreig thunder run as seen during GW2. if things are going that well that the tanks can outpace the arty, then CAS is probably the more suitable option.
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?).
Possibly. Given that they'll more than likely go up against someone with fire finder radar but at the same time it seems historically destroying artillery concealed in mountains and hills is tough using counter battery. But it'll depend how the IA uses their howitzers.