Is artillery even still relevant in this day and age? I'd

Go away

>>28866364
Why?
I'm genuinely curious. I wish to know what place it has now. If it's still relevant, or if we're just keeping it going in case of more conventional conflicts.

howitzers like in your picture are not relevant outside of providing welfare work

>is the capability to fire deadly explosives that far outstrip the damage of anything that is man-carriable 20 miles accurately outdated?

Op is a fag , as usual

WHAT?!

NO THE METRIC SYSTEM IS FOR EUROPOORS.

>>28866410
Artillery can still be used in asymmetrical warfare. Just do it like finland where a mere squad leader can order artillery on target on minutes notice.

>>28866410

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.

>>28866360
Yes putting ~24 pounds of TNT on a target without flying a multimillion dollar aircraft is in fact relevant.

File: 1375735198320.png (293KB, 800x424px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 800x424px

>>28866360

>hurr we no need artilery. We r airfarce nao.
>Oh shit a thunderstorm.

>>28866360

Insurgents usually hide in buildings.

Ask yourself this; what are buildings weak to?

>>28866481
The enemy cannot active the IED if you disable his hand!

>>28866462
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

>>28866552
How mobile is your arty?

>>28866583
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.

Artillery has a max range measured in miles. Yeah, it's still relevant

>>28866622
*forgot: there are maybe two or three additional gun models in use, don't know the numbers but there are plenty.

>>28866552
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

>>28866360
>that file name

Hhhmmm

>>28866649
someone said it's squad leader who orders the indirect fire here, I said thata ctually it tends to be an officer.

>>28866666
*that actually

Thanks for all the info guys!
Are there any books you would recommend to learn more about artillery? Any time period in history is fine.

>>28866461
WHAT? THE MEDICS STOLE THE EARPROS?

>>28866706
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=artillery
pick anyone, but read the comments before ordering.

>>28866360
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.

Isn't it the queen of the battlefield?

>>28866471
>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.

>>28866360
Why are these dudus still wearing helmets?

>>28867802

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.

>>28866666
Dub quints of truth speak truth.

File: 1455084045256.png (170KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x350px

>>28866360

>Are tanks still relevant?
>Is artillery still relevant?
>Do we still need aircraft carriers guys?

Oh gee I wonder who is behind this post.

>>28866502
Skeletons

>>28866715
IMPRESSIVE!

CHINESE ARTILLERY HAS SUPERIOR EDICTS?

>>28867876
ARTSY HAS SOUP DICKS?

File: Grad.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>28866360
...
is this nigga serious?

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.

>>28866360
>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?

>>28866442
...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.

>>28867900
MRLs at night are the best thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxsRM2kszQ4

File: m116_75mm_pack_howitzer_8_of_9.jpg (1MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2304px

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.

>>28868155
...why? A modern howitzer is just about as accurate at 20 miles as it is at 5. There's no rational reason to get it closer to the fight than it needs to be.

>>28866360
>'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.

>>28868155
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.

File: 1450487985322.jpg (492KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1280x851px

>>28868155
A mortar and rocket combo has all the benefits of a pack howitzer, while being man portable.

>>28867890
WHAT? YOU'RE MOTHER IS SOFT?

>>28868168

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.

>>28868299

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.

>>28868299
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.

>>28868339

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.

>>28866622
>>28866629
What? I recently fought alongside the fins in an exercise in Latvia. They used amos. Would say those are pretty much as mobile as it gets

>>28868374
Nvm, amos is mortar, not artillery.
Sorry for the brainfart

Artillery is not obsolete. The doctrine surrounding it needs to be fully adjusted to fighting counter-insurgency warfare.

>>28868362
>An IED turns the tank into a de facto road block/source of cover.

Not even close. Yes, some IEDs can utterly disable tanks. Most, however, do not.

>every war from now until the end of humanity will be a low intensity COIN conflict

Why are Americans so fucking stupid?

>>28868437
>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?

>>28868388

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.

>>28866360
i would love to call in a fire mission on your ignorance.

>>28868457

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.

>>28868437
Any war among world powers is going to end in a nuke blast.

>>28866360
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.

>>28866360
>Is fighting even still relevant in this day and age? I'd imagine the nature of asymmetrical warfare makes the fighting basically obsolete.

>>28866502
>Skeletons fired in artillery shells.
>Kinetic force blasts an entrance.
>Skellingtons flood out in a murder flood.
>Profit?

>>28868267
I THINK HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DENTAL PICKS. WHY DO WE NEED DENTAL PICKS?

>>28869077
YOU WANT TO DO WHAT WITH YOUR HOT LIPS?

>>28868247
Are you high?
That ain't gonna have the same awesome effect on an enemy as a 155mm shell

>>28868971
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.

>>28866666
Swedish FO here. Our infantry squad leaders are trained to call in targets to us, and we call the arty to blast them.

File: 1452193425640.jpg (57KB, 720x594px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x594px

>>28869349
I said pack howitzer retard. Light and medium arty can be replaced by mortars and rockets, but there's no substitute for heavy arty.

>>28868299
...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.

>>28868362
Because that same IED wouldn't turn your close-range howitzer into a hole in the ground, eh?

File: 1326765880718.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

>>28868299
...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?

>>28868959
I could see nuclear devices being used in a tactical setting rather than "durr lets end the world cuz putin is ghey lmao"

>>28870029

And then wait for-fucking-ever for the support to actually show up, lol.

>>28866360
yes
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

>>28866502
very strong winds?
boeing 767s?

>>28866502

Nowadays we'll use a ten thousand dollar aircraft bomb to destroy what a cheap artillery shell could have easily done instead.

Muh economics.

>>28870148

I mean are airstrikes even remotely cost-effective compared to artillery?

>>28870148
>one shell
>cheap

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.

>>28868011
Yea cheap out on the towed howitzer
Then spend 5 million dollars a year on the personnel needed to operate it
Makes sense

>>28870607

The average strike cost is 2.5 million altogether. That's per strike. One by itself.

Do the math. How is that saving money?

>>28870856

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.

>>28867854
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.

>>28866410
why? Artillery, shot for shot, is still a better casualty producer in COIN conflicts

>>28868339
Tank is direct fire. Artillery is there for indirect fire. They are complementary, synergistic. There's a reason the Stryker Infantry Company contains both mortars and MGSs.

>>28866870
That's the infantry.