Artillery Branch

Remington 1858

Remington 1858

Active member
You will never see a war movie or read a war book about the artillery, however it is one of the most important elements of combat power. It has been the decisive element in a thousand battles. Stalin called it "the God of War". I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that the U.S. Field and Anti-Aircraft artillery are without parallel in the world, both in power and technique. The tube and rocket artillery can put fire on an enemy at any time of the day or night and in any weather. I am not a redleg ( artllleryman), but to see a battery of 155s put a fire-for-effect on a target is an awe inspiring sight. In WWI long range guns could hit targets 2 or 3 miles away. Today the Multi-Launch Rocket System (MLRS) can strike targets dozens of miles deep. A critically important branch, but they get no glory and it is a branch about which outsiders know almost nothing.
 
I would say logistics is the unsung heroes.
But all are a small part of a larger machine.
If someone fails - the machine stops!
 
There has even been films about logistics organizations, but about the artillery; no! Many years ago there was a film entitled "Red Ball Express" about the remarkable logistics effort to sustain Gen. Patton's drive. The film "Mr. Roberts" is about a U.S. Navy supply ship. However the gunners get no glory. The artillery causes more casualties than any other combat arm. I got to thinking about this watching trailers for the new Brad Pitt film,"Fury". Tanks are important, sure. I'm a former tanker and recognize their value, but artillery causes the majority of enemy casualties. Old saying, " the artillery kills, everybody else just makes noise".
 
Remington 1858 said:
There has even been films about logistics organizations, but about the artillery; no! Many years ago there was a film entitled "Red Ball Express" about the remarkable logistics effort to sustain Gen. Patton's drive. The film "Mr. Roberts" is about a U.S. Navy supply ship. However the gunners get no glory. The artillery causes more casualties than any other combat arm. I got to thinking about this watching trailers for the new Brad Pitt film,"Fury". Tanks are important, sure. I'm a former tanker and recognize their value, but artillery causes the majority of enemy casualties. Old saying, " the artillery kills, everybody else just makes noise".
Click to expand...

And that’s baloney!

The enemy can move or survive in reinforced positions. And then someone is going to have to go in and make sure the enemy is dead or gone. If not, then he will have to be killed or driven off. And it´s a job for the infantry. And they are the ones who decide whether or not the battle is won. I acknowledge the strength there is in having artillery to back you up. But they are not the deciding factor.
 
Just for interests sake figured I would post some data from John Ellis's - The World War II Data Book for British casualty figures 1939-45...

Mortar, grenade, bomb, shell ...........75%
Bullet, AT mine................................10%
mine & booby trap...........................10%
Blast and crush.................................2%
Chemical..........................................2%
other................................................1%
 
During WWII, the U.S. Army Medical Corp conducted extensive research into the wounding mechanisms of U.S. and Allied soldiers in the European and Pacific Theaters. Pathology teams were sent to the battlefields and their data, including photographs were incorporated into several rather gruesome volumes entitled" Wound Ballistics". I was given access to this data many years ago when doing research on body armor and saw that in both theaters of war artillery was the major killer. In general, about 3/4 of fatalities in the European theatre and about 60-65% of fatalities in the Pacific theater were caused by artillery and mortar fire. In the Pacific theatre there was more close range fighting involving small arms and the Japanese did not have the artillery possessed by the German Army. In todays combat where the enemy does not possess artillery ( but, does have mortars), the percentage of artillery - related casualties is lower. In fighting conventional armies, there is documented evidence that the most dangerous threat to the infantryman is enemy artillery. Modern artillery is a precision weapon system and can cause casualties by several effects. It can kill without ever touching a man. Blast ( overpressure) kills as effectively as fragmentation.
 
So what!
It still does not change the fact that someone must enter and ensure that everyone is dead. And it´s been that way since the birth of artillery.
 
Well, that is exactly the point; the artillery flattens an objective before the infantry moves in in order to crush resistance. At least, that is the way the German and American Armies did things in WWII. Trying to move into a defended position without artillery preparation is a recipe for a lot of dead infantrymen.
 
Kesse81 said:
So what!
It still does not change the fact that someone must enter and ensure that everyone is dead. And it´s been that way since the birth of artillery.
Click to expand...

This is why gunners don't get any credit...every time someone tries to give it the grunts get angry and indignant. The point remington was trying to point out was that the grunts have the lions share of movies and the lions share of credit...when the lions share of killing on the battlefield is done by the artillery.

We are the King of battle, responsible for making sure the Queen doesn't get raped...

One thing I like to point out to my infantry brothers (much to their chagrin) that I served with while a fire support officer..."My artilleryman have been doing the grunts job since this war started...NOT ONE infantryman has done an artilleryman's job since this war started...food for thought" Or the fact that I could claim having more TICs under my belt and for longer durations than almost any grunt in the company...doing their job no less...it tended quiet them down a bit.
 
brinktk said:
This is why gunners don't get any credit...every time someone tries to give it the grunts get angry and indignant. The point remington was trying to point out was that the grunts have the lions share of movies and the lions share of credit...when the lions share of killing on the battlefield is done by the artillery.

We are the King of battle, responsible for making sure the Queen doesn't get raped...

One thing I like to point out to my infantry brothers (much to their chagrin) that I served with while a fire support officer..."My artilleryman have been doing the grunts job since this war started...NOT ONE infantryman has done an artilleryman's job since this war started...food for thought" Or the fact that I could claim having more TICs under my belt and for longer durations than almost any grunt in the company...doing their job no less...it tended quiet them down a bit.
Click to expand...


While in general I agree with you but could it not be said that MPATS and MPADS are infantry carrying out what was formerly an AT and AA artillery role?

(PS that is a genuine question no matter how much it looks like a smartarse response.)

:)
 
Last edited:
The infantry needs MPADS and MPATS but the range of those weapons is severely limited and they can't be networked, so that if one gunner misses the target, it gets away. It's the same with mortars. Mortars have similarities to artillery although they are infantry weapons. Mortars suffer from the same limitations, short range, can't be networked. The Field and Anti-Aircraft artillery are long range systems that have central control and direction so that the fire of these weapons can be massed on a target beyond visual range. Field artillery also has the capability of engaging in counter-battery fire, destroying enemy artillery and in interdicting fire, attacking concentration points and routes used by the enemy. Interdicting fire inflicts casualties on the enemy in his own rear area.
 
Last edited:
brinktk said:
This is why gunners don't get any credit...every time someone tries to give it the grunts get angry and indignant. The point remington was trying to point out was that the grunts have the lions share of movies and the lions share of credit...when the lions share of killing on the battlefield is done by the artillery.

We are the King of battle, responsible for making sure the Queen doesn't get raped...

One thing I like to point out to my infantry brothers (much to their chagrin) that I served with while a fire support officer..."My artilleryman have been doing the grunts job since this war started...NOT ONE infantryman has done an artilleryman's job since this war started...food for thought" Or the fact that I could claim having more TICs under my belt and for longer durations than almost any grunt in the company...doing their job no less...it tended quiet them down a bit.
Click to expand...
Point taken.
And yes, we grunts are probably very arrogant.
 
Kesse81 said:
Point taken.
And yes, we grunts are probably very arrogant.
Click to expand...

No worries, I like to rib the grunts when I can. Make no mistake though, I cherish my time with the grunts the most out of my military service and I, as well as my gunners, know exactly why we have to be good at our jobs. It's for those grunts doing the killing, and being killed up close.

I don't mind giving and getting crap from my infantry brothers...it is because I love them that I tell them they are the scum of the earth! :cheers:
 
We guys up front are just used to taking things for granted. We expect that the shells will be fired and hits where we want them, when we want them. We may well be ungrateful mother****ers, but I wonder if it´s not just part of our identity - we often regard ourselves as real warriors.

Occasionally, it's probably a good thing to be reminded that the world does not revolve around us.

Cheers m8
:cheers:
 
I served in the infantry. We worked with the artillery boys, but we were able to guide in the indirect fire. However, at one occasion; the artillery support squad counted it wrong so the salvo of 155mm shells landed to close for comfort. One shell fragment destroyed the radio carried by one soldier in my platoon. We had trust issues after the incident
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top