Does the US military still need artillery?

I think so because certain artillery can be portable and used by troops when air strike is unavailable.

Artillery is the true killer in most types of conflict. Airstrikes are very expensive compared to the cost of a shell.

The battlefield commander has direct access to artillery because it is in his unit or even under his command. He is better able to direct fire to the areas in his immediate tactical situation and adjust that fire has the situation warrents. In order to use air power he has to request a limited resource and use expensive stand off weapons or risk a multi-million dollar aircraft and put a pilot in danger to hit a target with limited range weapons when that target might not be worth that risk or expense.

Air power should be dedicated to targets that require larger ordinance and/or is out of reach of artillery.

Simple answer is yes, being a former soldier I know that more casualities of war, injuries, and damage are done by artillery. It tends to soften an enemy position and rattle the opposing army to the point complete frustration and fear.

Okay I'm glad to see that there is some humor on this site. But the question "does the United States military still need artillery? " and some of the answers show a lack of understanding of both mobility and the uses and capabilities of artillery on the battlefield.

For an instance Philip S. Said "I think so because certain artillery can be portable and used by troops when air strike is unavailable. " While I cannot claim any great experience with fast movers as in airstrikes by jet aircraft, I do have a lot of experience with helicopters and air assault operations having been part of the 1st Air Cavalry Division in Vietnam.

What very few people understand is how artillery can support even fast-moving air assault operations. While we faced very well-trained and very courageous opponents they were essentially armed with weapons from World War II and they still caused us heavy casualties in our helicopter units. Today you have much more sophisticated anti-aircraft systems such as man portable air defense systems (mpads) such as the various shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles.

Frankly airstrikes by jet aircraft are just as likely to get hurt by these systems as helicopters. About 40 some years ago we figured out that by moving our tube artillery into range of these defenses we could use the guns to suppress the air defenses in support of our helicopters. By the way the credit for that belongs to my old boss General Harry W.O.Kinnard and the rest of the staff.

Gunpowder evolved continuously, it's not an area I expert in, but I've never come across anything to suggest any notable advances coinciding with the Renaissance. Ballistics were basically empirical practices by master gunners until into the 18th century. Optics were irrelevant until the late 19th century because until then the range of guns was extremely short, and of course commanders didn't site guns in detail, they left that to their artillery commanders having given them the general areas (not forgetting that in the earlier periods guns were mostly used in seiges).

Like any account of multi-faceted technology and its application the difficult bit is coherently combining the temporal and thematic. When the system perspective is critical, as it is for artillery, it is particularly challenging. The images used are just splattered about randomely.

They need to appear next to the text that they are meant to illustrate. A 320--mm railway gun next to "Field Artillery"? A picture labelled World war I gun next to Post-WWII?

Someone can undo this if they want, but I just removed the part under MRSI questioning its usefulness. I'm not military myself, but I'm on a first name bases with enough shoulders and marines to speak with some confidence about the ability to land 5 shells at one time as opposed to 1 shell at a time. Edit when did tanks become arty?

Tanks are artillery. The word "tank" is merely an in-development/production code for designation of a vehicle that was intended to create a new capability in artillery employment, i.e. Artillery that could accompany infantry to, and over the enemy trench lines without employing horses.

"Tanks" remain a form of artillery to this day, although their role has been overshadowed during the Second World War and subsequent conflicts by the need to engage and defeat other "tanks". However, in absence of this opposition, they pretty much revert to artillery support role, which is what they were used for in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, SP and assault guns were on occasion used to counter tanks also, and there is no disputing they are artillery.

So, would you mind replacing the tank as a development of artillery please. Don't have time to critque the many dubious assertions, distortions and misunderstandings. However, which notable army defines tanks as artillery?

This is important because tanks and artillery almost invariably only exist in armies. Therefore while an academic view (and possibly the Wikip nono of 'research') may or may not be interesting it is irrelevant in an article that deals with artillery as it is and how it evolved because the view that matters is how armies have and now see it. How do they carry the shells?

I assume there is more than one way it is done, but it would be nice if they could be listed somewhere.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.

Related Questions

» About WebKnox
» Contact
» WebKnox Blog
» RSS
» Newsletter
» Twitter
» API
» API Showcase