“Aside from one or two insignificant advances modern artillery and its role on the battlefield have changed little since 1945. Has artillery, therfore, had ‘its day’ in the leading armies of the world today?”
Discuss.
Gentlemen, please bear in mind that this statement isn’t mine – I was just curious what you’d all think.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th February 2003 at 06:29
RE: Artillery
…no… quite easy to airlift… even a cessna can carry a paper artillery piece… 🙂
The basis for the crusader is to fire multiple shots at different elevations so that the rounds land almost simultaneously. Of course the cost and weight of them means that you could only afford a few and if they were smaller and lighter and cheaper you could get the same effect of several simultaneous impacts simply by using several at once… of course it died because it can’t make 12 rounds land on target at roughly the same time like MRLS can…
(BTW Elp here is another weapon you once asked me about that can land two rounds on target at the same time:
http://club.guns.ru/eng/gp25.html
(see the bottom photo caption on how to lob one round on a high trajectory and then reload and direct fire a second round so that they arrive almost at the same time))
By: ELP - 19th February 2003 at 05:00
RE: Artillery
The Crusader: Good Gun, but a bit hard to airlift.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th February 2003 at 01:36
RE: Artillery
No, sorry.
The only big gun I have seen firing at a high rate (apart from naval guns of course) is the 82mm Vasilek automatic mortar, which fires from 4 round clips at a rate of about 80-100 rounds per minute. (Not that is practical rate… cylic rate is higher).
By: mixtec - 18th February 2003 at 17:33
RE: Artillery
About 6 months ago a new self propelled arty system was axed by the US (cant remember name). A real dumb move as I dont think the US can rely on air superiority all the time, and this is a very cost effective expenditure. The rate of fire is increased on this gun because its autoloaded.
Garry- Did you ever find anything on that rapid fire arty I mentioned to you a while back that fires 3 round bursts?
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th February 2003 at 04:40
RE: Artillery
“You will need to look hard nowadays to find tubes with more than 203mm in service anywhere these days. “
Actually I don’t think very large calibre guns were that much good. The Germans had a large range of enormous guns that had a very low rate of fire and were not widely used. Apart from the Siege of Sebastopol I don’t really recall any large siege engines doing anything of note… Oh there was the Paris gun, but for the most part they were big and expensive and used a lot of manpower for something that could have been done by a squadron of Stukas.
The Soviets were huge protagonists of artillery… Stalin called artillery the God of war and they rarely used anything bigger than 203mm. Of course they used them in huge numbers which more than compensated for the lighter shells they fired than the German bohemouths.
When the Soviets were in afghanistan they found mortars to be very useful. This war was what spurred the development of selfpropelled automatic mortars.
By: ELP - 18th February 2003 at 02:49
RE: Artillery
On a big level I wonder. Iraq in 91 had a hell of a lot of artillery. Didn’t do too much good though because we took away their eyes.
It does have a use. But if you don’t have control of the air and are using towed artillery your life span could be short. You need something that moves right after it fires.
By: mixtec - 17th February 2003 at 18:28
RE: Artillery
Its true arty hasnt improved much at all unless you call base bleed ammo a huge step forward. The question of rockets vs arty is a reliable one, rockets were used extensively by the russians in WW2. I personally think in a combat area with wide open terain, longrange will win the day, and armored self propelled arty will be neccesary part of any armored unit in that situation.
By: Arthur - 17th February 2003 at 15:40
RE: Artillery
Artillery has
greatly improved since the days of World War I and II. It
has become more accurate, long ranged, more powerful, and
overall more effective. In my opinion it will be very
necessary in any future conflict, at least IMHO.
Arty more powerful after WWI and WWII? Quite the contrary. You will need to look hard nowadays to find tubes with more than 203mm in service anywhere these days. During WWI (and to a lesser extent WW2) however, you had these massive ultra-heavy siege guns (Dicke Bertha mortars for example) with calibres sometimes over 400mm. Such heavy, powerful guns are now obsolete, because their role has been taken over by aircraft. Aircraft which also are a great threat to such massive targets as well.
On a tactical level, arty support will of course remain, but the power of the first half of the 20th century definately won’t come back.
By: PhantomII - 17th February 2003 at 15:27
RE: Artillery
“insignificant advances” ??
I’m not sure I agree with that statement. Artillery has greatly improved since the days of World War I and II. It has become more accurate, long ranged, more powerful, and overall more effective. In my opinion it will be very necessary in any future conflict, at least IMHO.
By: Arabella-Cox - 17th February 2003 at 12:01
RE: Artillery
I think there will always be a place for your own artillery. (ie an artillery unit assigned to support your unit)
Use of SAL (semi active laser homing) and other seekers means if you are an infantry unit attacking some dug in grunts 13km back from the action an 2S4 can set its angle at 45 degrees and wait for the call.
When the forward observer finds a target point and places a laser spot there and makes that call in just a few minutes 130kgs of laser guided HE will plunge vertically into the marked target… all weather day and night with very little chance of being shot down.
Mobile enough to keep up with your units and can be supplimented with Rocket artillery with greatly improved range… current tube artillery for the Russians has 152mm 2S5 with a range of 33km, 203mm 2S7 with a 47.5km range, while the 2S4 240mm mortar has a max range of 19km. Compare this to rocket range with the two standard multiple rocket launchers being the 122mm Grad with a maximum range of 40km, while the 300mm Smerch with a maximum range of 90km.
The tube artillery is compatible with a range of SAL guided shells, while the Rockets can fire various types of sensor fused top attack anti tank rounds in addition to their standard rounds including cluster, FAE, HE etc etc.
By: ink - 17th February 2003 at 11:48
RE: Artillery
Yes but I think the point is, how much does the US army really need when it only gets involved in conflicts where it can be certain of massive, over-whelming air support?
How much of a role did artillery play in Afghanistan? Or Allied Force? How significant will it really be in Iraq?
Is artillery still the “god of war” or is it being ousted by airpower?
By: shorthome - 17th February 2003 at 11:30
RE: Artillery
Noway, you alway’s need heavy fire support to knock out enemy defenses or stop an enemy advantege.
Maybe you try and play the Command & conquer serries to find out your self how usefull Arty is even with state of the art weapons.
The plane has taken over some of the rolles of the artillery bud its nice to have your guns always standing ready to fire and planes are not always in the aerea. and those sam’s again.
Sign In
February 17, 2003 at 10:42 am