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

Chocobo_Blitzer

Active member
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
gladius said:
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.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
Back
Top