The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

B.Smitty RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/12/2006 7:40:23 AM

LOS - Line Of Sight. Should be fairly self explanatory. These aren't artillery systems, these are tank guns, auto-cannons, etc.. LOS ranges are usually from 0km to 4km-ish. BLOS - Beyond Line Of Sight. This is a hybrid - LOS weapons firing indirect munitions. They are intented to increase engagement ranges for AFVs to improve survivability and increase enemy attrition before the LOS battle. BLOS ranges are commonly mentioned to be from 2km-12km-ish. The new FCS-speak for this region is the "red zone". NLOS - Non Line Of Sight. This is traditional indirect fire. In the FCS world, this can include tube artillery, mortars and missiles/rockets. The NLOS region is often said to be from 4km to 50+km.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/12/2006 5:40:35 PM

Norbert... In the abstract the role of artillery is the same as in the 20th Century. I define artillery here as including mortars, cannon, & rockets/missles. Aircraft are excluded here despite valid philosophical arguments for considering them as artillery. 1. It places highly destructive ammunition at long ranges. The destructive power of artillery ammunition per projectile is larger than most other ammunition types. Aircraft ammunition is an exception. Other exceptions are specialized types such as antitank ammunition for specific applications. 2. The range first gives artillery the ability to strike distant targets in seconds or minutes. This gives it a local tactical mobility very different from infantry, tanks, or anyother type unit armed with direct fire weapons. A secondary benefit is the range gives significant protection from enemy. 3. The ability to attack indirectly from behind obstacles gives it significant protection from enemy observation and attack, and gives it an advantage in sritking beyond obstacles that hinder manuver units armed with direct fire weapons. 4. Atillery can only attack & destroy. Its ability to physically occupy ground is negligable compared to infantry or tanks. Getting back to number two - range. The most important advance in artillery in the 20th Century was the ability to mass the fires of literally all the artillery weapons in range in just minutes. By developing systems of common survey, a common networked communication system, and the procedures to use these two items, it became possible to mass the fires of multiple battalions with a attack order of just a few phrases. Then a new target could be attacked again in just minutes. Even the fastest manuver units require hours to move to each target and attack it across the same range or distance that artillery cover. The introduction of precision guided ammunition is reolutionary only in the technicall sense. In generall it is another refinement of accuracy that has been continuing from the earliest days of indirect fire. These refinements allow the reduction of quantities of ammunition to achieve the desired destruction or effect on a target. Reduced time needed to achieve the effect is also a usefull benefit from increased accuracy.

Quote Reply

Sabre RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/20/2006 10:32:42 AM

I would add that the addition of precision guided munitions to the artillery goes a long, long way towards rebalancing the airpower vs. artillery equation. Since the current "demand" for munitions, at least in "Western" armies, is not just precision, but (relatively) small munitions, a precision artillery shell is perfect for the job, and the cost is much less than a "smart bomb" when the delivery system and all the support it requires is factored in. A fighter-bomber, pilot training, maintenance personnel and spare parts costs far, far more than a self-propelled howitzer and crew. Depending on how you do your math (and if you chose an expensive and stealthy fighter bomber), between 10 and 100 times more expensive. An artillery shell also doesn't have a pilot that can be shot down, and the artillery can operate in any weather, as well. The aircraft has far greater range, of course. The point is that artilley shouldn't go away just because the Air Force has smart bombs, but it's easy to get the feeling that U.S. Army (but significantly not the Marines) is eager to forget about the Artillery and Armor branches, in favor of more Military Intelligence and MP's. I think there aren't many responses to this question because Carl S was so accurate and concise in his analysis.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/21/2006 4:38:48 PM

Sabre...cut that out before I start taking myself seriously.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/22/2006 8:26:16 PM

An interesting point is the secondary role of artillery which need to mute:indeed in both Iraq wars, iraqian artillery was totally unable to inflict losses. So it is a starting point of discussion.

Quote Reply

neutralizer RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/23/2006 4:43:43 AM

The main reason Iraqi arty was ineffective in both 1991 and 2003 was that it was comprehensively outclassed in the CB battle, starting with target acquisition. In 1991 both a US and a UK division reported similar accounts from Iraqi div arty comd PWs about their experiences. The air campaign destroyed about 10% of the artys, but arty CB, when contact was made, destroyed 90%. The first lesson that soldiers relearn at the start of each war, including in 2003, was that air is mainly promises. The chances of getting it when you need it are not good. They soon learn that they can rely on arty. The problem with precsion munitions is that they are useless against an imprecise target. Air delivered munitions of any type are useless if you need suppression for a period of time because air cannot deliver a continuously sustained attack.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/23/2006 8:40:15 AM

One example of the suppresion of the Iraqi artillery was their use of their CB radars. Post Desert Storm thirtysix CB rdar sets were identified in Kuwait. Only one was identified as having been activated, and it was located & suppressed by US artillery within minutes. A second factor in the Iraqi failure with artillery was their command & control. It was simply too slow. Antiquated adjustment methods were regularly seen with four direction brackets and five to ten minutes between each adjusting round. Above the battery level it seemd to take a minimum of 20 to 30 minutes and often longer for targets to be ordered or approved by the controling HQ. The remark about suppresing imprecise targets with precision weapons is excellent. I dont have a statistical study. there are many description from Desert Storm & OIF of the necessity of attacking targets wich were either: A. Not located exactly. The artillery observers or FIST teams frequently had information from scouts or other foward element of enemy targets that were beyond a ridge, a group of buildings or otherwise out of LOS.. Taking the time to find a apporpriate observation position often threatend to hand the initiative over to the enemy. Getting a imeadiate suppresion mission on the enemys general location is frequently more valuable than the possibility of a precision shot fifteen minutes later. B. To many targets. In either Iraqi waar it was not uncommon for the FO to be confronted with dozens of indivdual vehicals and entrenched weapons. Confronted with a tank & mech battalion mixed the artillery & air spotters do have the option of unholstering their lazer designators and picking off sixty plus individual targets one by one. Or the artillery commander can mass a couple battalions and suppressthe entire target area in ten minutes or nuetralize it in a few more minutes. Precision weapons are absolutely necessary on the modern battlefield. But the priciples of mass and speed still apply here.

Quote Reply

S-2 RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts-Sabre/Carl S. Reply 7/23/2006 12:15:50 PM

"...but it's easy to get the feeling that U.S. Army (but significantly not the Marines) is eager to forget about the Artillery and Armor branches..." Could you expand on this point, please? I'm not certain that I understand and, as a former army artillery officer, would disagree. Once, in recent memory (Operation Anaconda), can I recall an Army commander (Tommy Franks)giving short shrift to U.S. Army artillery. Carl S.- great reply, as mentioned earlier by Sabre. Nothing less than what I've come to expect from a Ft. Sill trained Marine artillery officer of the highest calibre.(;-)!

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts-Sabre/Carl S. Reply 7/23/2006 11:59:32 PM

"Nothing less than what I've come to expect ...... of the highest calibre.(;-)!" You guys are setting me up for something, right?

Quote Reply

neutralizer RE:The role of artillery in contemporary military conflicts 7/24/2006 5:30:54 AM

And deserts are wide open and offer much better visibility than other types of terrain. Having done two jungle wars (I don't do deserts, tried training in Libya years ago but too much stone and sand for my taste) I cannot think of a single instance where precision munitions would have been usable or useful.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT