Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The End Of History For The Big Guns
SYSOP    4/16/2015 5:44:12 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
keffler25       4/16/2015 6:59:54 AM
 
Further... It is almost a certainty that the USAF will be fighting for its life in the beginning stages of a major war, so the CAS will not be there. The army must have a means to PGM support its own maneuver forces until the USAF can kill the enemy air force. Air operations will take time.
 
PGM rockets are big and HEAVY, expensive and a production bottleneck. 20,000 of them seems a lot, but during these same operations 100,000 artillery shells of all types have been expended. Cheaper, lighter and even in the PGM versions faster to produce, the merits of tube artillery delivered munitions remain very obvious to me.
 
And I say this as a supporter of rockets, as a proper means to deliver target service effects at interdiction ranges.   
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mountaintroll    Insurance   4/16/2015 8:45:10 AM
It would seem to me to be wise to keep some extra tube artillery in reserve, in case of unexpected developments in anti-aircraft and anti-missile technology.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       4/16/2015 10:20:36 AM
I 100% agree with Keffler on this.. The idea that the air force can replace artillery is ludicrous.  Augment, sure.. do better in many instances, sure.. replace.. no.
 
>Saturation and accuracy on demand
 
I'd also add persistence. It doesn't need to go get gas.. or fly back to the airfield to re-arm and come back..  
 
Not everything requires exact precision.. 
 
Opportunity Cost and Sustainability.. You can build nearly a battalion of mechanized 155mm howitzers for the cost of 1 F-35..   Given that.. how many targets can each engage simultaneously? Which of the two can take casualties / damage and keep fighting?
 
etc.. oh.. and the Army doesn't have to fight political battles with the artillery branch.. like they do with the Air Force to get adequate support and mission focus..
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HR    Joe   4/16/2015 11:34:07 AM
I do not think they believe that CAS can replace artillery as much as they believe situations where artillery will be needed or can be used with out risk will also be fewer and fewer. Also, the artillery that is available today is far more accurate and economical than the one that was available in the past... fewer do more... that is another logical line of thought. But I agree that traditional artillery has unique advantages. One is that it is easily transported and supplied by air / helicopter and that it is economical both in cost as well as in logistic tail.
 
Quote    Reply

vahitkanig       4/16/2015 12:46:08 PM
Future of Ground Troops  mostly will be  focused to urban  warfare so MLRS can  not be effective sometimes.
Plus Howitzer has  a force  penetrate   sheltes .
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       4/16/2015 1:00:54 PM
Reluctantly engaging on this..
 
>... fewer do more..
 
That doesn't hold true the way people commonly refer to "doing more with less" and how the Rumsfeld crew thought it would..  Yes, systems are more accurate and more capable.  You can expend fewer rounds and score more hits..
 
However.. if you have 5 requests for fire and only 2 tubes...  troops are left waiting...
If 1 out of 5 is out of action.. because of combat loss, or malfunction.. 20% loss.. still combat effective.  Lose 1 out of 2.. 50% loss, combat ineffective..
 
Quantity does have a quality (and sometimes necessity)
 
Quote    Reply

HR    Joe   4/16/2015 1:45:32 PM
I will concede all that. But even when you factor attrition you are still using fewer now than you did then. Other ways of thinking about it... you have mountainous terrain and you find a spot where you can locate artillery support using a helicopter. Or you are making a helo landing from the sea then you can quickly transport artillery and vehicles to pull and then move the amphibs further away. In too many circumstances artillery provides unique capabilities.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/16/2015 2:17:24 PM
Reluctantly engaging on this..
 
>... fewer do more..
 
That doesn't hold true the way people commonly refer to "doing more with less" and how the Rumsfeld crew thought it would..  Yes, systems are more accurate and more capable.  You can expend fewer rounds and score more hits..
 
I simply note that you have a heat burden and mechanical loading and wear that you cannot avoid if you have too few tubes. Suppose you need to hammer a square kilometer with non-nuclear explosive effects (Iranian Human wave attack) in two minutes flat, and you don't have a cell of B-52s on the way or you need it in less than 2 minutes and you are the platoon in the way of that Ala Akhbar charge? Wouldn't you like 6 bns of artillery ready to go?    
 
However.. if you have 5 requests for fire and only 2 tubes...  troops are left waiting...
If 1 out of 5 is out of action.. because of combat loss, or malfunction.. 20% loss.. still combat effective.  Lose 1 out of 2.. 50% loss, combat ineffective..
 
I am a firm believer in mortars. The more of them the better.   
 
Quantity does have a quality (and sometimes necessity)
 
Right tool to overkill for the job. There is nothing wrong with overkill as long as it is outgoing, whether missile, torpedo, or artillery or bullets. When the shooting starts you want it all going downrange with nothing coming back.     
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       4/16/2015 3:16:24 PM
>Wouldn't you like 6 bns of artillery ready to go?   
 
Indeed.  The ideal mission there, would be for the platoon to be the eyes and ears for the big guns.. and avoid the notice of approaching horde... 
 
Now consider that situation, like if you were calling your cable company...
 
"Welcome to Joint Forces FCS, your call is very important to us.. However, due to current enemy offensive actions call volumes are currently high.  Press 1 to leave a message and we will get back you to as soon as possible.  Press 2 to hold for the next available battery." ..  Press 2... "Hello, you are number 12 in queue.. estimated fire support wait time, 45 minutes - - <insert elevator music>"       
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       4/16/2015 5:02:49 PM
GPS might become unavailable for some reasons, like jamming, for example. When it happens old fashioned howitzer is much more accurate, although it lacks range.
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics