Is artillery even still relevant in this day and age? I'd imagine the nature of asymmetrical warfare makes the King of Battle basically obsolete.
>hurr we no need artilery. We r airfarce nao.
>Oh shit a thunderstorm.
a Finnish FO -team's radio-operator here, typically it would be platoon leader who requests the FO to call in some indirect fire, the FO -team calculates coordinates and then I transmit the call for indirect fire
we have "Gvozdikas" (Soviet SPG), couple rocket launcher systems, one domestic gun design that has its own motor, plus a couple different vehicles with 120mm mortars installed on them, plus of course infantry companies' own 81mm mortars, so most systems aren't very mobile, but there are a lot of barrels ready to start lobbing high explosives at Yellow State's troops.
Norwie here, isn't this pretty standard artillery practice? We practiced calling in arty down to vehicle commander level
>mfw i as a specialist called in 20 rounds fire for effect of 81mm mortars
Imagine, last night some helicopter moved that artillery piece from the next valley over to some hill near your area. Somewhere out there, a sniper/scout is picking off your insurgents one by one and occasionally calling in a barrage whenever you try to get an effective group together.
Call it and go someplace else or grab some hostages to create collateral damage when you get evaporated. Next life, don't get caught sitting still.
>How would it not be useful? For any location with fixed fortifications, it's like calling in an airstrike without having to wait for an aircraft on station.
Also, it's an airstrike never goes away because it's never really out of fuel/ammo. It's never forced away by enemy ground fire. And it's a lot cheaper so there's a shitload more of it.
Flying objects and counter artillery fragments striking the skull result in death at a disproportionately high rate compared to injuries in other part of the body.
And since your fatigues are already of minimal protective value against that shit, and you're not trudging through the woods, and it's hot/humid as hell, you can take your shirt off.
>Are tanks still relevant?
>Is artillery still relevant?
>Do we still need aircraft carriers guys?
Oh gee I wonder who is behind this post.
24/7 fire support available vs 15 mins time on station for aircraft.
Also much more munitions avaliable at one time.
Down side is its not as accurate but will still make the enemy shit there pants.
>set up firebase
>every time insurgents start shit with a patrol in range, there's arty coming down on their heads within minutes
How is that not going to be useful for COIN?
...are you serious? Towed howitzers are cheap, can be deployed much more easily than SPGs and provide a lot of firepower way less of a footprint. And modern ones like M777 are also pretty damn mobile, all things considered - M777 is light enough that you can fly it around with a Chinook or Osprey.
I think there should be more light artillery, designed for close-range infantry support.
We're fighting our opponents up-close and personal, and our artillery should reflect this.
>'d imagine the nature of asymmetrical warfare makes the King of Battle basically obsolete.
You'd be wrong. Fire bases provide accurate and timely fire support at a much lower cost than air support.
1. We have light "artillery" if you count the 60 and 81mm mortars, or the self-propelled 120mm mortars or the Stryker AGS that are integrated into maneuver warfare and organic to an infantry battalion.
2. Most of the above have a more lethal munition than that old m116, whether due to design (airburst) or simply more explosive in the payload.
A mortar and rocket combo has all the benefits of a pack howitzer, while being man portable.
Except from a distance, you still have to call the fire support in. That takes time, and additional time for the actual fire to arrive.
You can blast the enemy at point-blank range with considerably less delay.
The reason is time.
Incidentally, this is also my issue with air support. Not only is it far more expensive, compared to artillery, but it still takes a considerable amount of time for the support to arrive.
My friend, in the recent years there's been an awesome invention.
They call it a tank, it offers all of the stuff you just said PLUS a whole lot of extras, you should google it when you get the chance.
Yes, it's an awesome innovation countered by another innovation called an IED. An IED turns the tank into a de facto road block/source of cover.
Also, self-propelled artillery already does that anyway.
>Why are Americans so fucking stupid?
It's not that every war will be that way, but most wars the US is involved in have been and for the foreseeable future will continue to be that way.
So why not try to have the tools to fight that kind of war more effectively?
To be exact Finnish military doctrine is such that all mortars (AMOS with its 120-mm mortar system included) are listed as infantry heavy weapons. However this is not a strict international standard, since some countries do list heavy mortars as part of field artillery.
That's hilarious. The majority of our military hardware is still geared to fight the Soviet Union, an enemy that ceased to exist before 1990 happened.
Now you're criticizing America for trying to get better at fighting less technologically advanced opponents.
Having a major edge in artillery is one of the thing that force the other side to use asymmetrical warfare. Read up on what ended up happening at the start of the third year of the Syrian civil war. For those who do not feel like that the TLDR is that everyone started to run low on HMG's and artillery shells. Which in turn caused things to turn into trench war fair.
This guy gets it. Artillery forces the opponent to change tactics or get rekt. At least as long as the logistics work out.
As for needing new equipment specifically to fight COIN, you really don't. What you need is better training, particularly in areas like SUT that allow you to effectively fight the enemy regardless of the political constraints on support weapon use.
The equipment doesn't change. The tactics do. Just because in COIN certain weapons and equipment are used less doesn't mean they're useless.
I said pack howitzer retard. Light and medium arty can be replaced by mortars and rockets, but there's no substitute for heavy arty.
...in that case, get a M203, get a mortar, get a Javelin, get a tank or MGS or something. Bastardising artillery for that role when there's plenty enough systems filling it better is retarded.
Because that same IED wouldn't turn your close-range howitzer into a hole in the ground, eh?
...are you saying you want infantry squads to lug around napoleonic cannons just in case they get into a fire fight because it "takes time" to yell coordinates into a radio?
notice how Murica likes to setup fire bases all over? its so they can park arty in areas they plan to operate in so the people operating operationally can call for death from the sky
No unless you want to spend a truckload of them to actually hit.
Once you factor in the reduced amount of ordnance needed and all the indiret savings from it, "expensive" PGMs are a hell of a lot cheaper than expending enough dumb munitions to have an equal chance to actually hit.
Furthermore, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (who did the first estimate) estimates the higher-intensity air operations would cost between 4.2 to 6.8 billion. Low intensity would be 2.4 to 3.8 billion.
Naw, spreys opinion on arty would be something like
>must be self-propelled
>must have at least 1 machinegun per crew member
>digital fdc is a passing fad.
>hell, encrypted comms fails in general
>grid missions ONLY, delivered in code over voice comms.