Difference between Infantry and Artillery? - Page 4




 
--
 
November 24th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
No Artillery is best used as an indirect fire weapon and the is how they are deployed. If they have to direct fire then something is very wrong.
November 24th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Actually direct fire artillery isn't that alien of a concept.
The Germans liked to use field guns a lot and I think that idea went over to the Russians as well.
However, the British/French doctrine of field artillery was the use of howitzers. Of the two methods, the indirect, howitzer based artillery organization was more practical later on as technology evolved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
No Artillery is best used as an indirect fire weapon and the is how they are deployed. If they have to direct fire then something is very wrong.
November 24th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
I will amend that to say Modern Artillery as opposed to an 24 lb Napoleon gun.
--
November 24th, 2004  
EuroSpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Actually direct fire artillery isn't that alien of a concept.
The Germans liked to use field guns a lot and I think that idea went over to the Russians as well.
However, the British/French doctrine of field artillery was the use of howitzers. Of the two methods, the indirect, howitzer based artillery organization was more practical later on as technology evolved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
No Artillery is best used as an indirect fire weapon and the is how they are deployed. If they have to direct fire then something is very wrong.
Germans used some in WW2 and i think russians may still use like militias in central Africa. A field gun in direct lay fire use is practically completely immobile, heavy, weak to any enemy fire and it has too high profile what makes it a good target for enemy fire and spotting. Think about why aren't old AT guns still in use?

155mm is a big gun but has low penetration when HE used but can give a good punch for a tank and it's crew inside. Anyway, 155mm howitzer vs. MBT, quess wich one is going to win? Artillery is the most effective used in it's desingned role as a support unit giving indirect fire for the fighting units.
November 24th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Thanks guys.
November 24th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
If a field artillery unit has direct visual of the enemy, then they have endangered themselves to the possibility of the enemy firing on them and destroying them. What Army wants to put its heavy artillery at risk? Lighter artillery is another matter entirely.
November 24th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
But it depends on terrian. Deserts, plains where you can see horizon to horizon with very small or rolling hills it's possible to use Battery Adjustment without risking the unit. Dosen't happen often though.
November 24th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
True, but under those circumstances, direct fire wouldn't work for either side.
November 24th, 2004  
EuroSpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
But it depends on terrian. Deserts, plains where you can see horizon to horizon with very small or rolling hills it's possible to use Battery Adjustment without risking the unit. Dosen't happen often though.
True that depends on terrain and works bestly in open terrain against an enemy without heavy weapons. Can be easily used in any mudhut country where open terrain and visibility many kilometers to any direction. Try same against an army equipped with airforce, artillery, tanks, other heavy equipments and you will surprise.
November 25th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
actually, the chinese 155mm GUn-HOWtizer is both direct fire and indirect, its very capable of kiling a tank if directed and aimed wiht a laser range finder

btw, the chinese has a couple thousand of these toys planned for thenext 5 years[/img]