How important of a role will artillery play in today's battlefield? Will it decline? Given that terrorist are always in civilian infested areas....

True, toppling corrupt nations that are/would support terrorism allows artillery to be deployed with minimal hindrance. Just the same, the bigger part on fighting terrorism is in the cities, the cramped alleyways and apartment buildings, the schools and police stations.

Whatcha think?

I think It can still be valuable, but it is defnetly diminishing when you consider we now can drop combs the way we do these days. Still, it's a cheaper alternative and while It may be declining In the West It will still be important for other countries.

I'd say it is more important than most leaders think. Remember operation anaconda in Afghanistan? Well, someone very high up decided that artillery was NOT going to be used in the operation. As soon as troops hit the ground, poop hit the fan. The apaches had a tough time hovering in the high altitude and the Air Force is only available when they are directly overhead. The infantry had to rely on 88 mm mortars, which have a range of 5400 meters and do not pack that big of a punch. The 105 artillery in the army has a range of 11400 meters. I bet those guys on the ground with they had some suppressing fire from the big guns. Lesson learned; you cannot rely just on the air force and choppers for indirect fire. Artillery remains to be the only indirect firing system that is "on call" 24/7 and can fire day or night in any weather condition.

I have to say it was fun seeing some 3 star general try to explain to the press why artillery had not been used in the operation. Someone in the press had been doing their homework.

there is always the Scorched Earth policy, but i hope we never have to use that

What is that policy? And what does it have to do with artillery?

the Scorched Earth policy is, well let me give you a scenario.

If America were to be invaded(which could never happen because anyone who tried it would get their ass kicked) and if the US military started to lose then they would retreat and on their retreat they would destroy everything that they can't take with them, then once they leave Artillery would destroy everything behind them, but it would be our own stuff, basically if we started to lose really bad, in our own land, then we would have artillery destroy anything of ours that can help the enemy, we would burn all crops that we couldn't carry, melt all guns, that we couldn't take, and basically destroy everything that we own using artillery just so that the enemy can't use it against us.

Wow, I didn't know we had such a policy in place for a homeland invasion... least there is one.

it is only like worst case scenario

Say it however you like or in any way you like, it all comes back to the same thing: The military is a complete package moreso now than ever in history. That means that taking away any single element from a large military operation go over about as well as a pregnant pole vaulter.

I can't conceive of a technological advance that would make artillery irrelevant. Bombarding the crap out of your opponent from a distance is never going to become obsolete.

Its not as obvious for urban anti-terrorist work, but considering how accurate they can be on a first shot these days, it still has its uses there. Need to level building X? Artillery can do it very well.

Artillery is known as king of battle, for very good reasons.

In every major war since WWI, artillery has killed more people than any other weapon.

Not to mention its more cost effective than dropping bombs.

I was kind of sad to see that the US canceled deployment of the Crusader artillery system, we will probably need it for any type of major conflict in the future. It was agreat system it could shoot multiple rounds in the air at different angles and have it all land at the same time, then scoot to avoid counter battery fire.