Once upon a time, artillery was the key weapon in a battle. Accurate and intense artillery fire could easily turn the tie of a battle. Or rather, the side with overwhelming firepower would win the battle. During WWI and WWII, often time both sides have hundreds or thousands artillery piece firing at each other for hours, sometimes for days. Hundreds thousands of shells could be fired within a short amount of time. Majority casualty during the war were caused by shell fragments rather than bullet shots. Warships used to use their guns to shoot at each other too. Now with missiles accurate enough to fire from way beyond visual range, artillery with limited range and accurate seem to be used less and less. The recent wars I don't really see the mention of artillery at all. Especially the war involved the United States, it seems the U.S. forces always prefer air attack rather than artillery. Is artillery outdated or does it still have some kicks in it?
Artillery was very heavily used in some of the recent conflicts, such as the 1999 Kargil war between India and Pakistan and the Georgia vs South Ossetia war in 2008.
Those are not very advanced warfare. India and Pakistan are both third world countries. Although Georgia was a part of USSR, South Ossetia were mostly "militia". And we all know how those states of old Soviet Union fell behind in weapons technologies due to the economy crisis after the immediate breaking up. I'd like to see if the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc. still use artillery.
Artillery is very important for the Russian Armed Forces as far as I know. They used it very heavily during the 1999 Second Chechen War. Apart from US and UK, I think artillery is retaining a major role with all the other 3 nations you have mentioned.
Well although Russian army is considered technologically advanced, their recent opponents aren't. Chechen insurgents were mostly ... just insurgents. In some recent TV programs about modern weapons, they mentioned a German SPG. It was able to fire 6 shells at different angel and have them all land around the target at the same time. It looked pretty cool. In the program they also mentioned the U.S. artillery piece can be transported by a helicopter to the frontline anywhere they want, but I just don't see these weapons being used in real actions. It's always air strike, followed by tanks. Unless I am mistaken.
Still I remember that recently the Armed Forces of both Canada and Australia announced the purchase of modern artillery guns. Their role might have got minimized, but artillery is still very important for most of the armies around the world.
Artillery was very heavily used in some of the recent conflicts, such as the 1999 Kargil war between India and Pakistan and the Georgia vs South Ossetia war in 2008.
Artillery still has its place in the ever changing battlefields of the modern world. Only the most advanced armies of today are not relying on it. I'm confident that many of the third world countries still rely on it to win conflicts.
From the look of it, air power can achieve the same goal as artillery at a much further range, although air power requires much more money for the same missions...it does have the advantage of easier to give fire support at any location, and it is safer for the operator. Even back in Korean War and Vietnam War, some artillery shots almost instantly result in counter-strike from enemy artillery or attract air strike in a few minutes. Artillery's survivability in modern war is not as good as it used to be, because modern technology can easily triangulate the precise location of where the rounds were fired from. So the artillery bases have only a few minutes tops to evacuate after fired the first round. Unless of course, your side is totally dominating in air and overall firepower, so the enemies don't have the means to strike back.
Artillery still has its place in the ever changing battlefields of the modern world. Only the most advanced armies of today are not relying on it. I'm confident that many of the third world countries still rely on it to win conflicts.
I think it depends mostly on the type of war being fought. If there is an invasion force on the ground trying to conquer and hold on to territory, jets do play a big roll in stopping or stalling them, but jets can be shot down a lot easier than an incoming artillery shell. It also depends on whether the battle is in an urban area and how much collateral damage the two sides are willing to risk. War has changed but completely writing off one type of weapon makes that side vulnerable to the side who may find a new way to use it.
I think they are outdated. Like you said, missile strikes are just as, if not more, accurate, and much moire effective. Mortar strikes are still used, and that is the closest thing I can think of to artillery still used. I like your user picture.
Its still relatively cheap compared to other forms of bombardment so in that sense I can see its appeal. Certainly light artillery such as mortars would definitley be part of my plans if I was looking for a more mobile force. Artillerys; biggest defect is the fact that it is a static position and therefore easily taken out.
Artillery is not static.I served as an artilleryman back in the dark ages,before going cav,and even then,we firmly believed in the "shoot and scoot" philosophy.
Engagement of artillery at Kargil was purely strategic.IAF played a very minimum role here. Higher commanding officers recommended it there.A total of 300 guns,mortars including Grad BM21 MBRLs been used.Abut 250000 shells[includes 5000 arti.shells] been used only.Casualties were minimum and the engagement was cost-effective too. I personally not ready to call it as war .. '' .... Love Been High 'en Hate Been Low .... ''
Artillery on the modern Battlefield can give 'Immediate ' results whereas a request from missile or Air or Drone can be affected by outside influences weather , command structure ,comms , breakdown ,or enemy interference , all have their advantages and failings , but artillery will be there when it's needed , a battery can bring an offensive or defensive ability to the commander on the ground over a hundred square kilometers from a Battery position .
