Artillery's current and future role in the war on terror - Page 2




 
--
 
September 3rd, 2004  
soldierzhonor
 
 
actually in Afghanistan military leaders found themselves in need of artillery support instead of just the mortars. The mortars helped but many leaders stated that they needed the punch that the arty could provide. It was one of the "what could we have done to improve the war" briefings.
September 3rd, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
So then, it can be said that field artillery is far from dead..... but what about cut-down? Limiting the number of cannons and such?
September 3rd, 2004  
gladius
 
The US army is supposed to increase artillery, in order to have less men per division, and using it as force multiplier, but I don't know if they are still going to go through with it.
--
September 3rd, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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.
The Crusader is a fine system but is extremely heavy. I believe it could not be transported on a C-4 galaxy. With everything in the military moving to rapid deployment, the crusader does not fit into that mission.
September 3rd, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
All off topic posts have been removed.
September 3rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
You're a long ways from seeing artillery become obsolete in warfare. Artillery has never been better. For example, a single Paladin self-propelled artillery (according to a history of artillery show I saw recently) packs the equivalent bombardment capabilities of that monster gun of Hitler's that had to be loaded around on a railroad car.

Obviously, for precision, that doesn't make a really great tool. So as it relates to the war on terror, it depends on what you need.
September 4th, 2004  
Kirruth
 
 
Well, the role of artillery has changed through time. It's no longer the mass-casualty weapon of the 18th century, or the rolling-barrage weapon of WW1. It's likely it will change again with this new conflict.

The principal enemy in the War on Terror is the Arab infantryman, armed with assault rifles, high explosive and RPGs, fighting on his own ground. The typical posture of this kind of fighter is to fortify a position and ferociously defend it - the classic example being the Prophet at Medina in the fifth year of the Flight. The events at Najaf and Tora Bora were in much the same pattern. Such fighters are often unconcerned with their own deaths or those of nearby non-combatants. Being surrounded is no problem.

I'd see artillery in this kind of conflict as having two main roles i) controlling the topology of the battlefield, and ii) inderdiction.

By controlling the topology I mean that a commander with modern artillery can decide which buildings stand or fall, which bridges. Given enough firepower he can even remove forests or mountainsides. This kind of capability is vital to capture strong positions.

By interdiction, I mean preventing enemy activities such as reinforcements, checkpoints, retreats or advances. These will also be very important given that the enemy may have more concentrated forces locally. The classic example of this Ia Drang where Hal Moore's 7-Air Cav batallion held off a PAV brigade, primarily with artillery barrages.

My thought is that the classic weapon for this type of activity will be the trusty 105mm gun (air and helicopter movable to the high ground), but that the ammunition may need to be re-shaped to support this type of fighting. One can imagine a localised, very high temperature explosion might be better for precision destruction of buildings, for example.

It's a really interesting question. Sorry about the slightly long reply - the question captured my imagination
September 4th, 2004  
yurry
 
Quote:
Given enough firepower he can even remove forests or mountainsides.
That I would realy like to se
Perhaps a nuclear tiped shell
September 4th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yurry
That I would realy like to se
Perhaps a nuclear tiped shell
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w79.htm
http://3ad.com/history/cold.war/nucl...0.howitzer.htm

But they have all been dismantled now (maybe)
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/PR_NA-03-16_W-76Dismantled-LastNuclearArtilleryShell(12-03).htm
September 4th, 2004  
yurry
 
Check this one out:

http://lenin.poljane.net/~yurry/Nuclear_Cannon.mpg

P.S: this is on the school server, if someone could put it on a higher bandwith I would apreciate it. Otherwise be patient