What are modern day strategic and tactical applications of Field

Ukraine

File: 0_d2458_b2826d47_XL.jpg (231KB, 800x515px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 800x515px

>>33583293
ARTILLERY THREAD? WHY IS IT PISS RELATED?

>>33583303
What about it?

>>33583320
Wut

>>33583387
>Russin MLRS goes inside Ukraine
>Fucking leveled Ukraine tanks in open field that's setting up for parade march into Donbass
>Russins leaves immediately

They got found out but shows Russin shoot n scoot still works.

>>33583293
The main issue that you should be looking at is firepower and survivability in the age of guided weapons and rapid area saturation attacks. Shoot'n'scoot has never been more relevant than in anything resembling a major power conflict today.

Ukraine can provide a number of examples where drone recon plus ToT area attacks can prove decisive, while the US experience in Iraq/Afghanistan offers insight into the use of guided rounds.

Combine the two, and you have a nasty, nasty system.

File: 2S1 Gvozdika.jpg (328KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1600x1067px

>>33583568
As long as the enemy isn't suspecting it. I'm not saying it's impossible to perform a surprise attack with arty, but anyone with half a brain in a conflict with Russia should have some degree of counter-battery capability on hand at all times. It's like going to war with the US without any kind of air defenses; you might get your shit kicked in either way, but at least fucking try.

>>33583989
So do you think with guided missiles then large scale artillery barrages, or more targeted artillery strikes are perhaps becoming obsolete?

>>33583293
>Are cost effective mass barrages still useful in modern wars?
yes, missiles are shit unless you want to hit that one specific thing, the Don just proved that

>>33583320
DAMN RIGHT ARTY BRINGS THE DREAD. WAIT, PLAT DADDY HAD WICKE BERATED?

File: 1489856364125.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>33584395
>PGMs are useless
>Just drop munitions everywhere and pray

Artillery works even in the midst of a sandstorm when all aviation is grounded.
Artillery is #1 or #2 on the list of battlefield casualty producers.
The rapid mobility of today's pieces lets commanders place it in blocking positions much more easily.
The per shot cost compared to missiles makes it quite the bargain.
Used in direct fire mode it is one of the few things that can punch through the walls of Afghan compounds.
With rocket assist and base bleed projectiles one battery can cover large swaths of territory.

I'd say it has tons of relevance even to today.

>>33583320
KISS RELATIVES? NO THANKS

>>33584087
Huh? We have guided *artillery shells*, now. GPS+INS, 10m CEP.

The one thing the US can't really do, though, is MRSI, because Crusader and NLOS-C got cancelled (each when they were about to enter service). So, US doctrine is low RoF with guided rounds, whereas Russian doctrine is to plaster the snot out of an area with a mix of submunitions and FAE.

Artillery is great if you have the option for it, since it's a lot cheaper than bombing but provides similar, if not greater, destruction.

Yes to mobility, especially with the smaller, more agile, force conflict paradigm present today.

A bit of a sidestep but, look at what Ridgeway did in Korea with his heavy tubes.

Focus on MLRS if you think fast and reactive application is the key.

File: arty.webm (3MB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1000x562px

>>33584434
NO, THE AIRFORCE MP GANGBANG IS GETTING CATERED!

>>33584678
Where does small scale hyper mobile artillery begin and tanks/armor end? It seems like they would kind of being the same thing and there would be extreme overlap?

Not trying to be cheeky, I am just legitimately curious

>>33584516
Yet you apply the same logic to battleships and everyone starts flinging shit everywhere.

File: 0_d9c1f_1f38ad80_orig.jpg (892KB, 1000x727px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 1000x727px

>>33584726

small scale hyper mobile artillery doesn't have to do direct fire like a tank does. Some companies are selling their "artillery-on-a-truck" that shoots three rounds then promptly fucks off somewhere else within 30 seconds.

pic not really related but i don't have a picture of one of these artillery trucks.

File: Archer - FH77BW L52.jpg (3MB, 2848x2136px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2848x2136px

>>33584801
I got you

And, yeah, the 2S4 is really the antithesis of the "shoot-and-scoot" idea. It's odd, given how Russia's emphasis on artillery being used for mobile and massive volumes of fire could result in such a system. I mean, it's self-propelled really just in the sense that it can move under it's own power given the nature of the weapon, and a (reasonable) reliance on precision munitions make massed fire sorta pointless.

>>33584801
>>33584828
Would hyper mobile artillery units function and be used something like battleships/line ahead battle formations broadsiding in naval warfare? Would they move around in a column and so forth?

File: Panzerhaubitze 2000.jpg (2MB, 1024x1417px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x1417px

>>33584899
That's really a very subjective sort of thing. I've seen video of PzH2000 units all lined up on a road, firing a ToT barrage, then fucking off. It's pretty neat, but I don't really know how these units organize themselves spatially when firing. I'm sure there's some sort of standard for this, especially in terms of rocket arty where backblast is such an issue,

File: 29-Regiment-Royal-Artillery-740x556.jpg (122KB, 740x556px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 740x556px

>>33583293
>Field Artillery

>strategic applications

>>33584920
>Posting a green text with no explanation

>>33584927
It should be pretty obvious what the issue is.

I'm pretty sure arty will stay important as long as we keep fighting 3rd world sandnigger countries that can't at all even deal with those (very immobile therefore vulnerable) targets, but on 2030 and beyond when fighting equal enemies they will be very very vulnerable and nearly useless bc autonomous drones en mass.... Just fucktons over fucktons of autonomous recon and bomb stones =everything immobile will die quick

>>33584752
An artillery battery isn't stuck on a multi hundred million dollar vessel that is out ranged by literally every weapon designed to kill it.

>>33584945
>arty
>immobile
what is the paladin
what is the m777

>>33585006
>counter battery fire
>M777

>>33585019
>britshit howitzer bolted to an mtvr
what did they mean by this?

I know a static front is hard to envision in a modern conventional conflict, but if one did form, wouldn't counter-battery fire be less of an issue? If the your firing elements are 15km behind your lines, and the enemy's 15 beyond theirs, they can't touch each other (short of RAP rounds or something). Additionally, if things are extremely fluid and maneuver warfare is still the name of the game (opening weeks of a conflict), surely counter-battery fire isn't going to be this absolutely monolithic threat, right? If your SPGs halt and fire, and if the enemy's SPGs are constantly on the move, surely you could expect some reasonable leeway in executing a fire mission before needing to worry about return fire.

I just have a hard time believing that artillery is slated for irrelevance in modern and future conflicts because other artillery can threaten it.

>>33585027
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAESAR_self-propelled_howitzer

>>33585027
>britshit howitzer

like the US M777?

Or other British weapons in US use like M119 or the railgun?

>>33584964

While on the other hand the past few days have shown that using missiles for the shore bombardment role is ridiculously wasteful and inefficient in comparison.

>>33585224
How?

China has best artillety

>>33584716

where is this webm from?

>>33585355
I think you mean artirrery

>>33584492
Good luck when you go bankrupt trying to pgm a division.

>>33585481

White Tiger (2012)

>>33587071
high value targets fuckface. command and control elements. TOCs and command teams, radars, commo parks, fuel dumps, repair depots.

lrn2 effectiveness.

>>33583293
bruh. you're looking to branch 13 series, get into manuals. read doctrine dumbass.

>>33585006
>triple seven
>mobile

yeah nah fuck off

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016/armament/18578_Gorman.pdf
Thoughts on this?

>>33584920
>not self propelled
RIP
>inb4 h...helicopter mobile

>>33590072
>imagine living without seeing a 105mm battery underage, fire a salvo and move within 4 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak4Dr2DVrKc

>>33583293
they blow stuff up
sometimes the stuff you want
sometimes the stuff you don't care about
sometimes the stuff you don't want

>>33585050
30 km is nothing for artillery.

>>33587640
i think it's a damn shame that we dont use ICM. they's mad killy. i support any initiative to give back my bomblet-dispersing commie-fucker shell

>>33591147

I did say not counting rocket assisted projectiles, which aren't going to be as common as plain shells.

M119: 13.7km
M109 Paladin: 18km
M777: 24km
2S19 Msta: 29km
PzH 2000: 30km
2S35 Koalitsiya-SV: 40km

So I'm seeing the newer stuff is certainly much more capable, and you definitely have a point. But keep in mind a lot of these state of the art SPGs still make up a rather small percentage of their nations' artillery arms (the Koalitsiya has a claimed fire rate of 16 rpm, Jesus).

Besides, fine, I'll modify the original numbers. So a 2S35 is sitting 70km behind the front firing RAP rounds, and a 2S35 equivalent is disposed similarly on the other side. Can't counter-battery something that's 140km away.

>>33592964
Iskander-M has a range of 500 km

>>33584964
No, it's just stuck on a multi million firebase/chassis that is out ranged by literally every weapon designed to kill it.

>>33583293
>I have a theory that mobility in artillery is the key to it being most effective with a number of historical precedents that validate this claim. Your guys thoughts?

That was USSR doctrine and after WW2 in effect a complete failure. Stand back and shell.

That's not effective combined arms. In the end if you want to clear the infantry have to go in.

>>33593904
Which was the ground version of Lemay just bomb them with muh planes

>>33593904
can you cite some examples of its failures?

>>33593904
u wat

USSR doctrine was all about mobilization as quick as possible to tear though enemy lines and cut off their logistics

WHAT!?

>>33583293
It's much cheaper than an airstrike and can actually carry the ammunition for sustained bombardment unlike a plane.

>>33592964
>2S35 Koalitsiya-SV: 40km
Wasn't it 70km?

>>33592964
2s35 range is 70 km with guided

>>33585224
Nice try, BBFag