Is there still a use for Artillery in today's military?

[Garfield226]

So I'm watching a show on the history channel about cannons. It traced the development of the canon up through today. The program took the position that canons will always be around.

Saddam was apparently developing a cannon that could shoot 700 miles. The U.S. Army developed a cannon that could fire a nuclear round 20 miles.

Missiles seem to be a longer range, more maneuverable, and more precise weapon. I believe they cost more, however.

Basically, do you feel there is still a use for artillery in today's military? Do you forsee a day when Artillery will be an obsolete weapon?

[InLikeFlynn]

Ask an Iraqi, then rephrase your question!!

[RickJay]

Artillery is arguably the most important weapon an army possesses. It's simply inconceivable that artillery is on its way out anytime soon, e.g. within a century or more.

Missiles are fine for more specific targets, but artillery is still the weapon of choice when you want to kill lots of enemy troops.

[Little Nemo]

Actually the recent Iraqi war would be a good argument that artillery's day has passed. The American troops went in with minimal artillery support which was replaced by missiles and air strikes.

But I'd say this was an exception to the rule. While missiles and airplanes can do many of the things that artillery does, there are many times when quantity not quality is needed. As the OP noted, artillery fire can provide this at a fraction of the cost, so using artillery in these cases is more efficient.

In addition, while the recent Iraqi war was also a good example of higher level communications, this also is regretably not the norm (even in the American armed forces). Artillery is usually much more closely associated with the infantry forces at the battle's edge and there is therefore much less chance of communications breakdown occurring.

[Dissonance]

Still a use today? That isn't even debatable, the answer is yes. Will there be a day in the distant future when artillery as it is understood today will be obsolete? Possibly, but that's an extremely distant future. Precision has its uses, but artillery in the 20th century has historically inflicted ~60 or 70 or so percent of all casualties. Its psychological ability to suppress is fairly impossibly to quantify, but the effect of even a short bombardment prior to a ground attack is extremely powerful to those exposed to it. Primarily because one is exposed to it and can do absolutely nothing about it. Most firsthand accounts of soldiers in combat point to being shelled as the single hardest thing to endure.

From John Ellis "On the Front Lines," an account from an officer of the 1st Scots Guards in Tunisia, WW II: "How I hate shells. I have seen strong, courageous men reduced to whimpering wrecks, crying like children... And when one has nothing to do, the fumes and dust and echoed cries of 'Stretcher bearer!' strain one's nerves almost to the breaking point. Yet if one goes to ground how incredibly hard it is to get into the open again to do the job of work. I would sooner have a thousand bullets or even dive bombers than a day's shelling."

[Brutus]

The M109A6 'Paladin' SP artilley system was so effective in Iraq, that there is talk of reviving the recently cancelled 'Crusader' program.

[Duck Duck Goose]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/20/spr...ons/index.html

Much of the drive into Iraq was led by swiftly moving, smaller, lighter forces, combined with Special Operations troops backed up by heavy artillery and tanks.

[hansel]

The thing that changed my mind was a news story on Yahoo about a successful test of a battlefield laser that shot down an artillery shell in flight. The laser was the size of a tank, while the power supply was two semi trailers in size.

Foreseeing predictable miniaturization in the technology, and reasonable breakthroughs, it's plausible that in ten years or so, there'll be battlefield lasers capable of shooting down artillery shells in flight, with the mobility of a tank.

Now imagine that alongside a charging tank brigade is a laser defense brigade. The enemy's artillery barrage is destroyed in flight, along with its missiles, and its drones.

If (and it's a big if) such a theatre defense laser could become a reality, it would fundamentally alter the battlefield by making indirect fire useless. No more artillery.

[HPL]

Originally posted by hansel

If (and it's a big if) such a theatre defense laser could become a reality, it would fundamentally alter the battlefield by making indirect fire useless. No more artillery.

I don't see it happening anytime soon. 50 years minumum.

[Gary Kumquat]

How likely is it really that any system can be developed that will be as cheap, effective and reliable as artillery?

Missiles cost. Lasers or other energy weapons are obviously more complicated, and thus likely to be prone to breaking down. Artillery seems to be a cost effective, reliable way of damaging your enemy - what's to be gained with replacing it?

[Garfield226]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
How likely is it really that any system can be developed that will be as cheap, effective and reliable as artillery?

Missiles cost. Lasers or other energy weapons are obviously more complicated, and thus likely to be prone to breaking down. Artillery seems to be a cost effective, reliable way of damaging your enemy - what's to be gained with replacing it?

This was my original thinking. Then I wondered, what about the "changing battlefield" we're always hearing about? After all, artillery (at least the artillery that I'm aware of) isn't terribly useful when you're trying to take out specific targets in a city full of civillians, a la the recent war on Iraq. Is it?

To take it a step further, imagine if I picked six or seven particular buildings in, say, Chicago. Then you try to take over or eliminate those six or seven targets while minimizing damage to the surrounding area. What is artillery's role?

[msmith537]

Originally posted by HPL
I don't see it happening anytime soon. 50 years minumum. [/b]

Less than that I think.
http://www.airbornelaser.com/

But even if tactical anti-artillery lasers become a reality, they can still be overwhelmed by a battery of MRLS dropping hundreds of bomblets out of the sky at them.

Originally posted by Garfield226This was my original To take it a step further, imagine if I picked six or seven particular buildings in, say, Chicago. Then you try to take over or eliminate those six or seven targets while minimizing damage to the surrounding area. What is artillery's role?

You would basically program six or seven sets of coordinates and let the shells fly.

As long as armies will have a need to bring indirect fire against an enimy, there is a place for artillery on the battlefield.


It's kind of like the argument that helicopters and man-portable missles would make the tank disappear from the battlefield. There will always be some need for a fast moving impenetrable vehicle that can deliver massive direct firepower.

[smiling bandit]

Plus, many of the advantages of missiles are being duplicate in some way by super-accurate artillary.

If (and it's a big if) such a theatre defense laser could become a reality, it would fundamentally alter the battlefield by making indirect fire useless. No more artillery.

Nope. Even if they develop such a system that, say could be put on a dedicated Humvee-like vehicle, that only make sartillary less useful, but doesn't eliminate it. It simply mean one must be much more careful with the initial bombardments and also use combined arms to eliminate their defenses.

Plus, such things would be expensive and not everyone could afford them.

[hansel]

Possibly, but I wonder if we aren't on the cusp of a change such as the one that occurred in WWI, when machine guns rendered the cavalry charge useless.

On the other hand, lasers are of finite power. Perhaps it will lead to armored warheads...

[msmith537]

Originally posted by hansel
Possibly, but I wonder if we aren't on the cusp of a change such as the one that occurred in WWI, when machine guns rendered the cavalry charge useless.

On the other hand, lasers are of finite power. Perhaps it will lead to armored warheads... [/b]

I just want to point out that, unlike missles, artillery shells have few delicate moving parts and they don't have a relatively thin-skinned airframe. And they are fast. You would need one heck of a laser to detect, acquire and destroy a 155mm shell in mid-flight.

[toadspittle]

Originally posted by msmith537
I just want to point out that, unlike missles, artillery shells have few delicate moving parts and they don't have a relatively thin-skinned airframe. And they are fast. You would need one heck of a laser to detect, acquire and destroy a 155mm shell in mid-flight.

How about a 152mm shell?

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...0342-6771r.htm

The latest test of the MTHEL came this week when it intercepted both a Katyusha and a 152-mm artillery shell in the bone-dry air over White Sands with a bevy of U.S. generals looking on.

Still, seems to me that this only adds a layer of armor to your defenses, so to speak. Any system like this could be overwhelmed, given enough artillery on the other side. Just a numbers game. Just because we have Patriot-2 batteries doesn't mean theater ballistic missiles like the SCUD are now obsolete--it just means that we're not TOTALLY defenseless.

[London_Calling]

Seems to depend who you’re at war with. During the Iraqi liberation / acquisition, the average Iraqi artillery piece apparently managed to get off two or three rounds before being blown apart by a coalition plane. Against an opponent with lesser communications, less accurate targeting tech, less dominant and immediately available air cover, artillery might have a role. For Saddam’s loyal troops against this opposition, it represented little more than tokenism.

Of course, the gap between opponents isn’t always that great, so, one assumes, there is a role when the forces are better matched.

Don’t see artillery as being the weapon of choice for the first-world army’s, though. The new-ish GPS targeted (plane dropped) bombs seem to better address the political ‘surgical’ / minimal ‘collateral’ damage issue in our democracies – old fashioned artillery still invites the occasional front page mistake.

I think artillery (for us) has likely developed a political downside as other targeting tech improves.

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Artillery is cheap, effective, easy to use and mass produce.

A battleship can send a ton of lead into a target 25 miles away. It doesnt care if you sent one or a dozen patriot missiles up against it. Its going to do massive damage to or near the target.

An anti-missile missile like the patriot damages the warhead or the guidance system of an incoming missile. a ton of lead has neither. Once artillery ordinance is fired, it can not be countered.

[E-Sabbath]

Guess what, London? We have GPS guided shells, too. And you can shoot more shells faster and cheaper than you can drop bombs.

[Mekhazzio]

As has been mentioned, artillery currently fills a role that is irreplaceable. Artillery is mass, indirect fire support. An indirect battery can, from a centralized position on the battlefield, rain heavy fire wherever it's necessary. It's cheap and therefore plentiful, and thus readily available to the front line units that need it, the giant hammer always waiting to reach out and smash the tallest nail.

Artillery has a short range compared to other indirect options, such as cruise missiles and air support, but it's vastly less expensive, more timely, more potent and generally more precise. It is also, for the forseeable future, practically unstoppable. Shooting down a single shell in a rigidly controlled experiment is a far different thing from intercepting an entire barrage in a combat environment...and even then, I imagine it would be fairly easy for decoys and similar countermeasures to greatly reduce the effectiveness of any interception systems.

Now sure, the argument can be made that artillery is of limited utility in an urban environment where collateral damage must be minimized as much as possible - but all indirect fire is affected by that. Air support is also crippled, yet highly vulnerable (helicopters especially) while cruise missiles are functionally useless in a dynamic situation. However, these are more the defining limitations of urban combat, and some of the reasons why it's so much more of a 'level' playing field with regards to technology than an open battlefield is.

For that open battlefield, artillery is King. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

[Odesio]

Artillery technology hasn't been sitting still. We have computerized artillery like we've computerized everything else. We've got artillery capable of firing 6-7 rounds in such a way that they all impact the target at the same time. If I've got three of these things is this laser system going to be able to stop 18-21 shells at once?

Marc

[Magiver]

Originally posted by Brutus
The M109A6 'Paladin' SP artilley system was so effective in Iraq, that there is talk of reviving the recently cancelled 'Crusader' program.

The need for artillary is as strong as ever but the Crusader was canceled because of technological advances in guns. Specifically, rail guns.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/fcs-nlos.htm

[Dissonance]

I was unaware of the counter artillery laser. For the near term future, I can't picture it being more than a neat trick, though. It's a bit like star wars/SDI/BMCDO - it's one thing to be able to stop a limited attack involving a few warheads coming at once, but it's entirely another to be able to stop a mass, sustained bombardment.

Surgical artillery has been around for a while:

http://www.wsmr-history.org/copperhead.htm

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by Dissonance
Ick, my sincerest apologies for that ugly spaced triple post, I refreshed in a new tab, it won't happen again.

I agree with your post (all three times! ).

Just to note, as a matter of board etiquette, that it's considered not necessary to post an apology, but simply click on the link on one of the posts that says "Report this Post to a Moderator" and request deletion of the duplicates. This saves them time and trouble in cleanup and brings it to their attention faster. (Not criticism, just repeating what's been said in the past about this sort of occurrence.)

[Spiny Norman]

The average army commander - on any level - is always more happy when his fire support is under his direct control, preferably subordinated to him. The average infantry company commander may only have a couple of pathetic medium mortars in his unit, but they're his, they're manned by his men, every detail of their performance is under his control. The same principle applies to to batallion, brigade, corps...

Air support, OTOH, comes from an entirely different organization that operates under different rules, with different mission parameters - no amount of cross-training will remove the feeling that things can go wrong in subtle, unforeseeable ways once you outsource any part of the mission.

Soldiers know that having something that'll just do where and when it's needed always beats having the perfect solution arrive slightly late. Which is one of the reasons any army will stick to its guns.

[Tony Barber's Underwear]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)

A battleship can send a ton of lead into a target 25 miles away. It doesnt care if you sent one or a dozen patriot missiles up against it. Its going to do massive damage to or near the target.

I don't think the US Navy uses battleships any more.

[SenorBeef]

Originally posted by Tony Barber's Underwear
I don't think the US Navy uses battleships any more.

Correct. But they should.

[JRDelirious]

"Artillery" changes in what it is and what it does. Originally it was catapults and ballistas. Then it was cannon. Now it's SPHowitzers and MLRS. Once it hurled rocks, balls of flaming pitch, and dead bodies; then it was cannonballs, grapeshot and sharpnel shell; now it's cluster bomblets and NBCs. Heck, in the philosophical sense of land war, Close Air Support is a form of artillery.

So I can see how we may for a long time retain surface--based weapons systems attached to and moving along with the land units and responsive to their field commanders, that propel relatively inexpensive, minimal-inflight-guidance ordnance in large amounts on short notice from the rear lines over the heads of the front troops at the enemy with not-necessarily-to-the-last-inch accuracy, for breaching defenses or inflicting mass casualties. Whether what is used is still recognizably a gun, and whether it becomes a "special cases" rather than a general-purpose combart arm, that's another story. But for the next few decades it is still relevant -- not every battle will be urban, not every strike surgical. And ocassionally it'll be cloudy or rainy and the air cover will not be too good.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by MGibson
Artillery technology hasn't been sitting still. We have computerized artillery like we've computerized everything else. We've got artillery capable of firing 6-7 rounds in such a way that they all impact the target at the same time. If I've got three of these things is this laser system going to be able to stop 18-21 shells at once?

As has been mentioned overwhelming an artillery defense system is quite possible. You don't even need to speculate on it. Today North Korea has something like 10,000 artillery pieces ranged on Seoul, South Korea. They estimate that artillery can rain 500,000 shells per hour on Seoul! That's nearly 140 shells per second! I find it hard to envision a defense system that could come close to putting a dent in that kind of attack.

Of course on a mobile battlefield you won't have that kind of massed artillery but in the end the artillery is cheaper than the defense system. In general you are probably better off using your own artillery in a counter-battery fire mode to take out the enemy artillery. Considering the US better and more accurate artillery than most other countries with the ability to pinpoint enemy artillery after it fires (using radar) I doubt enemy artillery would survive very long in any case with no need for expensive and delicate laser systems.

I saw the TV show in question too and they seemed to suggest that for close support of troops artillery is still the best method. Planes might (with certain weapons) be accurate but they don't always have that precision available to them, they are not timely compared to artillery and they cannot bring the mass attack that artillery can provide. Aircraft might manage this if you have a few dozen planes loitering very nearby but once they unload they have to leave to rearm...artillery can hang in a long, protracted battle.

Artillery definitely has its place. I recall that in Deserrt Storm Iraqi troops spoke in great fear of the 'steel rain' the US poured on them (artillery including the MLRS which is missile artillery). This in no small measure helped convince the mass of troops to surrender as they did. The Iraqi soldiers did not speak in such awe of precision bombing.

[ExTank]

As a former tanker, I second the previous post concerning troops wanting to have an immediate response somewhat under their control (at Company, Battalion, Brigade and Divisional levels), as opposed to a USAF FAC telling you, "Sorry, you don't have priority for air support." Or, "Sorry; the planes came under heavy AA fire and had to abort to alternate targets."

If a practical battlefield laser defense system becomes available, then artillerists will develop decoy rounds of some sort, with detectors to pinpoint the location of the laser defense batteries. Then the cannon cockers load up a Silver Bullet and let fly.

Then the laser(ists?) develop doctrine and technology to counter the artillerists counter measures.

And thus the age-old "Stick .vs. Rock" race continues. If anyone thinks that one might eventually outdo the other, please remember that the crossbow was supposed to be the doom of mankind because of its lethality. Only once we entered the nuclear age (that's a pretty nasty rock!) did the prospect of humanity's annihlation become a reality.

The "Rock" is favored now because it allows its user to strike its target at a safe distance; be it artillery, air strikes or cruise missiles.

Who knows where the changes in technology will take us?

[Declan]

Originally posted by hansel
The thing that changed my mind was a news story on Yahoo about a successful test of a battlefield laser that shot down an artillery shell in flight. The laser was the size of a tank, while the power supply was two semi trailers in size.

The system was orginally designed so that villages in Israel could shoot down katushas and mortar shells. On a modern battlefeild , artillery will be one of several suites brought to bear against an enemy. Any future battlefield lazer system will in the beginning ,most likely be at divisional level for airdefense against conventional aircraft , cruise missiles and theater ballastic missiles like the Scud and Frog.

[B}Foreseeing predictable miniaturization in the technology, and reasonable breakthroughs, it's plausible that in ten years or so, there'll be battlefield lasers capable of shooting down artillery shells in flight, with the mobility of a tank.[/b]

There will not be that many of them on the battlefield at one time, while its possible that the size will be brought down to a size of a tank pack ,the radar used to track incoming artillery , the computer to assign fire plots to the invidual lazer crews and the logisitics of the laser batteries is probably going to have a big enough foot print ,that they will be sanitized , along with the more conventional sam batteries in the opening phases of a war.

Now imagine that alongside a charging tank brigade is a laser defense brigade. The enemy's artillery barrage is destroyed in flight, along with its missiles, and its drones.

And what happens when the cheering lazer crew finds out they just revealed themselves to a choice of aircraft/MLRS/Artillery because they were suckered into firing. The early lazers are going to have limitations , cooling , radar intergration , simple mechanical problems on vehicles , they are gonna make the battlefield more spicy , but not that spicy.

If (and it's a big if) such a theatre defense laser could become a reality, it would fundamentally alter the battlefield by making indirect fire useless. No more artillery.

Actually thats two separate lazers

Theatre defense would be controlled by the theatre commander and his AD people , while a battlefield lazer would be organically linked to what ever corp, division , brigade they are attached to.

It won't change the battlefeild , but it will add more spice in the first few days of a war.

Declan

[Magiver]

The laser idea for repelling shells is pointless. If you were watching the beginning of the last war, the Iraqi's found out what trajectory radar can do. They fired a ranging shot and were pummeled with return fire. The trajectory of the shell was traced back to the source using radar.

Shooting at incoming shells is a repetitive process. Destroying the opposing artillery is a much better/cheaper method of defense.

Now incoming missiles, THAT’S when a laser really shines (pun intended). The opposing force would not be in position to detect the laser.

[Rhum Runner]

I heard some reports towards the end of GW II that we were running out of cruise missiles. Just another reason to keep the guns around.

[semi-hijack]
A couple years ago there was a cover story in Popular Science about a new navy ship with a rail gun type weapon with a range of 400+ miles. Anyone remember that, or heard anything more about it? Obviously, a ship can carry the enormous power plant needed to run such a beast, but suppose you could build a semi-mobile land based version?

[Declan]

Its possible that the fleet was running out of cruise missiles in theater, but the production lines were/are going three shifts flat out. Same with the company that makes the jdam kits.

Declan

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Magiver
Now incoming missiles, THAT’S when a laser really shines (pun intended). The opposing force would not be in position to detect the laser.

How would one detect a laser? By definition it is a coherent beam of light. Even if some light scattered off of the projectile (whatever type of projectile) I find it hard to think of a system that could not only pick that up but identify it for what it is and backtrack it to its source.

[Dissonance]

Originally posted by Magiver
The laser idea for repelling shells is pointless. If you were watching the beginning of the last war, the Iraqi's found out what trajectory radar can do. They fired a ranging shot and were pummeled with return fire. The trajectory of the shell was traced back to the source using radar.

Not to undervalue the usefulness or effectiveness of counter battery radars, but the Iraqis managed to frequently get off more than ranging shots. The larger reason for the poor performance from Iraqi artillery in the 1991 Gulf War was the inability to find targets for their guns and pass the information along to them in a timely manner, which speaks to an underlying weakness of the Iraqi army in every war it's ever fought in: extremely poor command and control. The pentagon claimed at press briefings in both wars that they were substantially crippling Saddam's ability to communicate with his troops, but at least for Desert Storm this was proven to be untrue. What the pentagon saw as signs of a serious breakdown of command and control (and they would be, in most armies) was actually Iraqi command and control operating at a level that was par for the course.

The anti-artillery shell laser isn't pointless; just take a look at who's developing it. It's a joint US-Israeli venture. It could be useful in the event of future cross border shelling by Hamas, where rounds would be coming sporadically in ones and twos. Counter battery fire isn't particularly useful in this situation. What's happening is individual rockets are fired or a few rounds are lobbed from a mortar after which the tube is broken down and the crew either disperses or displaces to fire another couple of rounds from a different location.


Polycarp - Thanks for the tip, no criticism taken.