12Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteS2 is going to come in here any minute now and tear you a new one...
Just my personal thoughts:
The US Military is an international juggernaut; there is close to nothing on Earth that could stand up to its might. Its serving men and women pack some of the deadliest and most advanced mankillers the world has ever seen, especially prevalent in the Air fleet. UAVs packing Hellfire missiles, the US Carrier Battle Group, Attack helis, conveniently located air bases etc...all at the fingertips of a radio packing ground pounder. And they've held this superiority of the skies for over 7 decades now.
Which brings me to my main question: where does large scale artillery fit in this highly sophisticated web of air superiority? Stuff like the Paladin and the MLRS...it all seems (as much as I love a good million dollar light show
What the German Wermacht in WWII feared most, short of a Soviet clusterf--k, was American artillery. Not their air power, their infantry, nor their tanks: their artillery. Artillery was king of battle then, and the US Artillery Corps was divine royalty.
But the king couldn't fly. He couldn't sprint. He wasn't such a good swimmer either.
Air Power currently provides a versatile, rapidly and creatively deployed (from Sea and Land bases), precision support asset, that can better ascertain an engaged ground unit's immediate concerns and needs, in forms that can go beyond the simple calling of a strike on a map grid. Most importantly, it's direct support, with their targets often in line of sight.
Now there have been advances like the guided shell and the cluster[f--k] mine shell which offers capabilities beyond an artillery officer's craziest wet dream. These continued advances, plus the advantages of the relatively low cost and easily implementation, not to mention its historically proven killing power, will surely keep artillery in its respected place for years to come.
But can it live up to US Air Power's recent war winning record? Does it provide a capability equally as strong enough to effectively augment boots on the ground?
Or has it become the next third wheel? You decide.
Last edited by Red Team; 17 Nov 11, at 13:28.
"Draft beer, not people."
S2 is going to come in here any minute now and tear you a new one...
I'm sure the arty guys could answer this a lot better than I could but, I do agree, artillery has pretty much taken a back seat to PGM's; unless it is EXTREMELY accurate (like the M712, the M982, and the XM1156), it is fairly useless in today's battles. Nine times out of 10, friendlies are too close to the enemy to risk an arty strike; good for saturating an enemy position, not so good for CAS. Artillery, particularly SP, still has a place in modern warfare, but it's definitely NOT "king of the battle" anymore.
P.S. I thought it was the Soviet artillery the Wehrmacht feared? I know the Soviets learned a lesson from Napoleon's invasion of their country in the 19th century; I thought they came to fear and respect the French artillery, hence their own emphasis on artillery thereafter.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Research the 2006 Lebanon War. Our chief of staff was the former commander of the IAF and seemed to forget what lessons had been learned in Vietnam and other places: You can't win with just air power. You need troops on the ground to effect change. Besides, even inaccurate 155mm coming in over their heads is still cheaper than an F-15 sortie with 2000lb bombs, and just that is a reason why they will keep arty around for quite a while now
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
- IMO, it is faster for ground troops to call in fire from a supporting battery than to get an air strike.
- The air strike will come and go, but arty fire is just seconds away from call.
- In defence/ attack one can pound the enemy troops till the last moment till own infantry "goes over the top".
You cannot do all this with air power (unless the air strike kills all the enemy in front of own ground troops).
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
No. Artillery works in the rain.
Oh yes the only way to win a war is to have dedicated boots on the ground. This thread actually came out while I was doing research on my paper, I noticed some of the articles I was reading in the library emphasizing the utility of US Air Support as "the new artillery". And in some ways it does provide as much killing power, even more precision, and in some cases, increased difficulty for a retaliatory strike.Originally Posted by bigross86
Enemy arty can be countered by blitzing it with a rapid charge or through counter battery fire. Whereas with facing air support: you better have some good MANPADS/Triple A or solid intel and the means to operationally disrupt an air base or carrier task force (talk about belly of the beast).
Take the War in Afghanistan 2002, a handful of Special Forces A-Teams calling in Air Strikes took down the Taliban regime in a matter of weeks. The problem the Taliban had was their lack of an ability to hit them back effectively. The Air Strikes took a heavy toll on their troops and equipment, reducing their combat effectiveness in suppressing the A Teams/Northern Alliance from calling the strikes in, while disrupting the attacks from the source was out of the question: they didn't have an effective navy or Air Force. Even if they had such resources, would they have stood a chance against the protective blanket of destroyers and Aegis cruisers?
Now I thoroughly disagree taking arty off the table as a military tool. It's cheaper, its killing power is unquestionable, the arty crew are some of the best trained, and it is usually always going to be on call as long as a unit is within support radius.
Hell, who isn't scared of having flying lumps of high explosives coming down on you like spring rain?
Also @ Stitch: I lumped in Soviet arty as part of the Stalin induced clusterf--k category.
Last edited by Red Team; 17 Nov 11, at 13:25.
"Draft beer, not people."
Artillery lasts longer, an air strike lasts a minute or two, an artillery barrage can last for hours.
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children." -- Confucius
Sounds like sex talk.
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
The 2nd Indochina War...
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
24/7 all-weather precision fire support is irreplacable. Not to say somebody won't try...but they'll find cannon fires indispensible in the end. The availability of munitions from the mundane to the exotic coupled with responsiveness integrated right down to a platoon leader's lap remains unique. Further, the communications net created by the fire support system is networked, redundant and an all-source intelligence distributor.
You can replace it. If so, it'll be deeply regretted. From the CSI study on the Battle Of Wanat-
"...The TF Rock TOC recorded the initial contact report from Wanat at 0423, the time the first field artillery fire mission was executed. This was an immediate suppression mission aimed at a target approximately 550 yards to the northwest of the COP, danger close (less than 650 yards from friendly positions) for 155-mm field artillery, and about as close to friendly positions as high angle artillery could be safely fired in the mountainous terrain. TF Rock commander Ostlund briefly delayed the execution of the fires while he confirmed with Myer that all the Chosen Company defenders were within the perimeter, as he knew that a patrol was scheduled to depart the COP at around the same time. Within six minutes of the start of the action, the first rounds impacted. Myer initially focused the artillery on the southern and western sides of the COP..."
Combat Action In Afghanistan 2008: Wanat-The Staff Of U.S. Army CSI
Last edited by S2; 18 Nov 11, at 01:58.
"This aggression will not stand, man!"
Jeff Lebowski
Reading this thread and the innaccuate assumptions in place. I will echo S2's PoV. No one has tried to replace the field artillery.
Frankly, I don't know what the point of this thread is. Maybe in an AirForce forum that they would try to spout this BS and I know the Birdbrains tout that they and they alone can do danger-close support.
HORSE PUCKEY! Danger Close existed since WWII and by the infantry talking to the guns. The Birds, to this day, don't speak out language. They cannot. Bellycrawlers work in terms of mils. The birds, by the virtue of the speeds, need to speak in grids.
Simply put, the horse artillery ain't leaving the field anytime soon. And yes, they were decisive during the Iraq War.
Chimo
So the obvious question I want to ask is (and I haven't read S2's file yet) would it be a fair assessment to say that arty is not as important in a Guerrilla war as it would be in a "conventional" war?
Last edited by YellowFever; 18 Nov 11, at 03:51.
Wrong question. The question is which target the insugents prefer, one covered by a firebase or one covered by air?
Chimo
Yes Sir, I understand that but I'm thinking that in a war like Afghanistan where platoons or smaller sometimes have to be airlifted to the battle area, arty won't be available to them while the Air force, while slower, can always come to them should they need to blow things up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: