Arty Going Away


utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Artillery the likes of large SP 155mm seem to be going the way of the dinosaur at least in the U.S army. It seems many Arty Bats are being transformed into light inf units. The army in official statements along with statements of soldiers I have talked to are saying that fixed wing aircraft and gunships are being used more and more in place of heavy arty. The ability for a Fixed wing aircraft to bring to bare 500lbs and new 250lbs JDAMs with in minutes of a call for fire and the use of the new thermo-hellfire is becoming much more effective than anything the U.S arty bats can provide. In discussions with some members of TRADOC it appears that many arty Bats may be permanently removed. On the flip side the navy seems to be more and more interested in GPS guided naval battery fire for use against land targets as far as 50 miles inland…..cheers ute
 

ger_mark

Junior Member
in gulf war they used more atrillery then mlrs
and in case of a big war an army is quickly running out of rockets and shells are much easier and faster to produce

just my opinion...
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
if gollevainen sees this, he'll be pissed. to produce 1 missile, it's about the same price as to produce hundreds or thousands of shells. shells might be slower and weaker than missiles, but when it comes to total war, artillery will be easier to produce and cheaper, and could cover more area with the same investment. also, to produce shells needs less industrial capacity than missiles. so if half of the industry in your country is blown to bits, it might be more wise to produce shells that take up less of the surviving industry.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
well Pisigma, i'm not pissed but amazed a bit. Tough no other country can afford to replace artillery whit LACM and ALCMs than USA so no swansong for artillery yet. I'm not going to post here my touhgt's about artillery's future, couse i'm writing this bit longer essey of it to be posted in the profesional forum. But in brief artillerys role in modern warfare is as vital as it have been in the past. In fierce battles, the suporting fire needs to come at once and there's no time to wait friendly aircrafts taking of and launch their standof missiles. And no cruisemissile or even weapon disperence munition can bring as much "metal" to the battlefield than modern artillery battalion. Also the benefits of APU powered towed guns have given the "comon" artillery almoust equal tactical mobility and whit cost of expensive SP guns much more APU powered guns can do the same task and thus increasing the effect of artillery even furhter.

But as i said more of my artillery toughts can be red in the profesional forum before the end of this week.
 

Endymion

New Member
VIP Professional
MIGleader said:
who needs artillery when you can use missles?
When you understand the firepower and versatility artillery can bring you will understand how stupid that was.

I live in Shilo, home to 1RCHA (royal canadian horse artillery). There was a giant commotion not to long ago when it seemed just about every arty battalion in Canada and America were facing the problem:

"Do we really need artillery anymore?"

While not privvy to all the details, it seems both countries respectives arty's went about proving their worth, most notable was the speed they can rain fire and brimstone down on their opponents, and hand in hand with this speed are the mobility they enjoy and range - they can almost always either be ready to support the infantry or another fire mission requiring them to decimate an enemy compound/bunker/troop concentration /etc

The role of artillery has unfortunately been somewhat reduced due to precision guided missles and the power they pack. But, as the face of war changes, artillery still has a place in the field of battle.

However, as was eluded to be Utelore .. it seems that they may be turned into light inf battalions on land and perhaps then artillery is destined to have its face emerge only in the field during combat
 

ger_mark

Junior Member
well mlrs has a higher firepower then pzh 2000 (12 missiles in 60 seconds) and their containers can be canged in a few minutes for the next shot
they can also shoot "cluster rockets" and lay very large minefields (it was like 200 mines per missile if i remember right)

they are also very mobiele and are fast ready to fire when they arrive on their positions

the only problem in my eyes is the production
but only if it comes to a world war
for countrys like iraq it should be enough...
 

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
By no means do I think Arty is going by the wayside for other countrys. simply put only the u.s at this time can provide a 24hr a day lortering ability for its ground forces. U.S can provide faster response via aircraft than arty can. this has been proved many times in Iraq and with the amount of forward air controllers that are present with GPS/laser disignators can provide much more acurate fire than arty.
 

MadMax

Junior Member
mlrs are less acurate and depending on size usally have a shorter range there better for area targets. the us marines are getting a new 155 towed gun thats like a third the wieght of curent guns
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member


yeas the new british desing, M777A1...touhg whitout APU, and being so small, it means more sweating from it's users...i bet this gun is real bich amoung the marine artillerymens...
 

Top