What's the secret sauce behind American artillery? Why is always so good in every war?
What's the secret sauce behind American artillery? Why is always so good in every war?
What's the secret sauce behind American artillery? Why is always so good in every war?
Well when our enemies don't even try to into artillery it's pretty easy to say ours is the most effective
Basic maths and lack of hazing is the basis of artillery.
>lack of hazing
Are you sure about that?
yes, arty gays aren't hurrr durr grunt tards so there's no need for shower rape and thievery in the barracks. they just train and do their job without being total frickup morons like infantry.
> t. has never been an artilleryman OR an infantryman
I have been both, u r a moron
Have you ever met an artilleryman who worked the gunline? They're dumb as rocks, and there are probably some excellent rocks that would take offense
How's 9th grade going?
I wasn't saying Russians are worse at arty, I'm saying that the Ukes are dumb peasants who are doing well to use it at all and their staying somewhat competitive is due to nice Western shit. Ukes lack institutional experience and background. There is no tradition of artillery excellence in Ukraine like there is in Russia. Meanwhile the Russians are using old russian bullshit but they at least have the institutional background and experience to use it effectively
>There is no tradition of artillery excellence in Ukraine like there is in Russia.
Bullshit. Ukrainians were trained in NATO artillery tactics since 2014 and russian institutional knowledge is laughtable brute force cargo cult without a proper NCO corps.
Learn something instead of making shit up:
https://medium.com/@x_TomCooper_x/kropyva-ukrainian-artillery-application-e5c6161b6c0a
>Russia
>tradition of excellence
Tight ass, tight groupings. Simple as.
We make newbies drink beer out of their first spent casing from a mission. We'll also let them get blown over from the muzzle brake if they want to stand where they see the grass is already dead from test shots.
The first sounds like a great way to end up with cancer.
The observers and the endless training
-t former 0861
Hint: it's not. M777 has shitty survival rates even accounting for number delivered and lost Severodentsk.
Himars is ok, but it's a basic b***h platform for launching nice ammo. Ukies would rather place SPGs and stuff like Ceasar/Zuzanna that actually carries the wareffort.
>if it gets taken out by a drone this means the artillery is bad
Ability to avoid counter battery or loitering ammunition with mobility or armored protection is one of the points of artillery. That's why Ceasar and Phz2000k have 1 damaged piece both and 0 confirmed destructions.
That's probably because they spend more time in the repair depot than out on the field.
>comparing towed artillery to self propelled
homie u gay
Roll for yfw
high-quality materials and mechanical processes, if you make your stuff really good then it will behave more like you calculated
Step 1) Pick an enemy that that is at least five decades behind in technology
Step 2) Ensure said enemy has an economy smaller than Cuba
Step 3) For preference, the enemy should have weapons no heavier than a machine gun
Step 4) Engage said enemy
Stay mad Chang.
America hasn't fought a country that's even a distant peer for 70 years
Because the ones that could put up a fight are allies or so economically integrated that fighting would be murder-suicide.
You're also forgetting that the first Iraq war was, at the time, considered a peer-conflict and everyone expected the war to be long and bloody. Iraq was not expected to be pounded into the ground and the entire affair made the Soviets shit themselves and cope about iraqi equipment.
>everyone expected the war to be long and bloody
Yes.
>the first Iraq war was considered a peer-conflict
Lol no
>Lol no
Yeah, it was you fricking zoomer. The US expected at least tens of thousands of casualties and a months long ground combat phase that might stalemate. You would know this if you knew anything at all about military operations or history and weren't a titanic newbie, since the Revolution in Military Affairs that emerged from the surprise outcome was all anyone could talk about for the decade before GWOT.
>Lol no
It really depends on who you were asking because it was the first major involvement by USA since the Vietnam war, before that there has only been the invasions of Panama and Granada, you must understand this was a time where no one really knew how an actual large-scale conflict would look like, most conflicts have been asymetrical and defensive guerrilla warfare done by both Afghanistan against the soviets and 'Nam first against USA and then against China has showed even major powers could be halted if they are force to play in such an scenario.
The Iran-Iraq war yet gave pause to military strategists as it showed despite the shock value of a modern military this could eventually be forced back through asymetrical warfare and a willingness by the enemy to sacrifice their own in disproportionate numbers.
Then, the Gulf War happened, it was like going back to 1939, it shocked everyone, even USA themselves in how successful the whole thing was, not just in terms of the speed and destruction, but the scale, in a few weeks USA and his allies have annihilated one of the largest armies in human history and forced Saddam to surrender, most people did the math, USSR has crumbled, all other major players were allied or partners with USA and/or had armies more or less the size and technological level of Iraq.
"Unipolar" isn't an easy word to be associated with, but USA had achieved it, ironically, we may say you are right in saying it was not a peer conflict after the deed was done.
Back to the present, you may say whatever you want about USA (or any other major power including China) capacity to fight an asymetrical war, but when it comes to conventional war I no longer believe there is at this moment any power on this planet capable to give resistance to the americans for more than a few weeks.
One last thing, in a war for Taiwan, I don't think neither India, Vietnam or even the russian would remain iddle, and guess with whom they have grudges.
Iraq was never a peer conflict. It was a tinpot Middle Eastern country on the verge of bankruptcy. The estimates of deaths were much higher because
A) the military was much more cautious about underpromising because the Vietnam war had severely damaged their reputation (them claiming the end was in sight for a decade)
B) They expected a long drawn out battle against a hardened army, which turned out to be a mass of low morale conscripts who quickly surrendered
C) Internally Iraq years of purges after the iran war and nepotism had made Iraq a corrupt, inefficient military. E.g. It's French Kari AD system was badly operated and had huge gaps, while most of its pilots were incompetent and given jobs based on tribal ties.
>so economically integrated that fighting would be murder-suicide.
this meme will never die, will it? That was the exact same shit your forebearers said just before WW1, how a big war in the west was IMPOSSIBRU as economies are so strong and integrated, war is suicide for germany, austria-hungary, italy, france and uk. Unrestrained raw political power is the ultimate prize, economic pain is a distant third concern compared to that. Same reason ukraine did not stop as soon as the gas orders from euro started drying up
>war is suicide for germany, austria-hungary, italy, france and uk
It kind of was suicide for all of those countries.
Austria hungary got deleted, france lost almost all of its young male population and got nationwide PTSD, the british were no longer the #1 world power, russia became the USSR, and italy invented fascism as a result of how much devastation was caused by ww1. The fact that the US came out of ww1 relatively unscathed was what paved the way for their current position in the world today.
The only difference between then and now is the fact that a war between peer first world countries would result in nuclear armageddon instead of just having your country disintegrate in a civil war.
>the british were no longer the #1 world power
They most certainly were. Their empire was at its largest extent in 1922. By the late 30's they were in the decline. After 1945, no. Historically the end is 1956 as being No.1. Then 1997 is the end of them as a global power.
Only one of you gays had the brains to question the statement.
Grim.
Good artillery is about several factors:
1.Good logistics
2.Good QC
3.Minmax autism
4.Good C&C
5.Good tech
The US unironically excels at these 5, so it's no surprise their second hand stuff like HIMARs have utterly broken the much propagandized soviet-russian artillery stuck in a WW2 mindset.
american corruption is when a company makes something way better than it needs to be in order to justify a high pricetag
in the end it kinda doesn't matter because the government can just print and spend as much as it wants in the name of "our troops should get the highest quality gear and nothing less"
then add in
and you are unstoppable
instead of guessing and firing and repeating this until a shell lands, a trained crew can actually figure out by math how to accurately make a shell land on target
its brilliant really
That's a British gun. Following on from two superb towed guns before it the 105mm light gun and the QF 25pdr
The secret sauce is being designed by bongs apparently, kek.
Still, they should mount 777's onto trucks, would be cool.
already happened.
It looks so autistic, i love it
The short answer is: Anglos are best at modern war. But, more detailed: a huge amount of operational experienced combined with tech and training. Most others lack one or all of those elements.
For example, the Ukrainians operate some of the finest guns in the world: M777, CAESAR and PzH2000. KRABs are also very good. But due to poor operational experience they end up squandering them on sniping rear targets instead of bringing them to bear on the front lines.
Russians a lot of operational experience, allowing them to make the most use of their guns. But the guns and ammo are poor resulting in them having awful accuracy. It takes all three elements working together to rise to level of American gunnery.
Russians like arty because its a broke homie's air force. No CAS so they have guns and rely on them more. Ukies are doing well to even be using artillery considering their crews are just some barley farming peasant morons we decked out in mishmash western gear that Russians still havent managed to match (bc they're broke, corrupt and moronic)
The Russians have in fact won the artillery battle early in the war. At the start of the East offensive, both sides seemed to be evenly matched in terms of fire volume (based on reports, before Ukraine severely locked down information) but that seemed to rapidly switch to Russia’s favor — that is because Russia has advanced artillery doctrine and every unit (on paper) has an organic artillery force attached. That means they do counter-battery as a regular function and organic fire-support with battery fire, the literally only thing which allowed them to advance at all. Ukrainians do not do fire-support and counter-batter is done rarely; the guns are squandered on sniping rear targets. This is due to Ukrainians not having a strong artillery doctrine nor the command processes to handle such a doctrine even if they did have it.
Ukrainian front lines would be in much better shape if they could get fire-support from their high-quality Western guns as the much greater accuracy could offset the large ammo imbalance.
That doesn't seem true at all when traditional russian artillery tactics were broken when HIMARs were introduced, forcing russians to go beyond their reach, play the same game as the ukies or be destroyed.
>Ukrainians do not do fire-support and counter-batter is done rarely; the guns are squandered on sniping rear targets.
Please, we've seen examples of that since they fricked up the VDV in Hostomel. If anything it's clear they have better C&C of their artillery than the russians, they just have less tubes.
HIMARS undoubtedly inflicted a cost but that cost has not been severe enough to eliminate the Russian fire superiority. HIMARS would be much better used against front-line troops, but, as we discussed, Ukraine won’t and probably can’t use them that way.
This is untrue and completely moronic.
HIMARs isn't even preferentially used by the west against front line targets because it's an awful match for the capabilities. HIMARs is a long range, accurate and mobile weapon that is very poorly protected and ammunition hungry. It was developed for counterbattery missions to allow SBCT to not automatically die to Smerch. It is well suited to interdiction and counterbattery missions, especially if you have tiny ammunition supplies like the Ukraine does. Using it to prevent any logistic mass from forming anywhere near the FLOT is optimal use of it for the Ukraine.
As for support to TIC, Ukraine isn't doing less of it by choice, it's doing less of it because its artillery is outnumbered by Russian artillery multiple times over. Russia's army, to a large extent, is an artillery army that seeks to use fires to attrite and destroy enemies in the way that western forces use manouevre forces.
Your analysis is bad, wrong and moronic.
Yeah I don't know why people try to argue that the Russian artillery is worse, it is their key advantage. Russia's slow advances in Donetsk would be impossible to explain otherwise, they don't have more men in the field than the Ukrainians.
Ukies are actually doing the most rational thing in their situation, which is to break apart the russian supply line, russians may have superior numbers, but there is an upkeep to that, this is not Starcraft or C&C where you can mass produce many times your opponent's number and then proceed to steamroll him without any additional operational requirement, this is why HIMARS has been so effective, no ammo and fuel, no tank swarm punching through the ukrainian line.
>The Russians have in fact won the artillery battle early in the war
Through sheer number of tubes and nothing else. 1 year since those "victories" we can see their artillery numbers means frickall when you have to start rationing shells.
>Russians a lot of operational experience,
>sending untrained meatscripts and uncovered machines to their deaths
yeah
>Russians a lot of operational experience,
It really doesn't. Russias major wars since WW2 are Afghanistan, Chechnya & Ukraine.
This current war is Russia's first conventional war since 1945.
>But due to poor operational experience they end up squandering them on sniping rear targets instead of bringing them to bear on the front lines.
I don't think they have the ammo to blow the frick out of everything they'd wish to blow up
LMAO these takes are so bad and so moronic I think they might be from Armchair Warlord.
We own the air so nobody can frick with our artillery except occasional mortars, which promptly get cratered from counter-battery. And when you own the air chances are you already bombed the piss out of enemy artillery assets anyway. So our arty is unmolested (except by our own cannonwienerers shoving things in it's rear)
send them all our m109s so we literally cannot cancel the new spg program
Americans aim.
Cowards too scared to storm the enemy position.
>lets just call the boom boys
>industry so rich their boom boys are overpowered
Grow some balls.
Untutored courage is no match for an educated bullet. -t. George "God Damned Yankee Superiority" Patton
>face me like a real man!!!
lol, impotent brown cope
Americans love fighting wars, but don't like dying in them. That's why we avoid getting into fair fights. Fight smarter, not harder moron.
It is interesting to think about. Through that lens, Vietnam makes more sense. I was watching detailed battle documentaries with approximate troop numbers and positions and noticed that in many battles the Americans were inflicting heavy casualties on the VC and NVA. However, they were also taking more casualties then they were use to. Videos like that put Vietnam into perspective. A country like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran could in theory easily stomach the casualties that the Americans were receiving in Vietnam and simply keep marching forth. But once the Americans reach a certain density they tend to pack up and go home unless they believe the world's going to end if they don't win.
Artillery is the king of battle, and is responsible for the majority of casualties.
Instead of leaving the gun batteries to calculate each fire mission, the US Army did their homework and precomputed firing tables for essentially every combination of shell and charge, in every location, and every weather condition. Making a fire mission the work of seconds instead of minutes. Moving to computers made it even faster.
Guns and equipment were standardized, tested regularly, and built to good tolerances. The reality of counterbattery fire also makes it quick to displace.
Combine that with airborne fire spotters to claim the high ground and wirelessly relay it back to the FDC.
A predictable round, firing from an accurate gun, that knows where it is, and where its target is is fricking scary as hell.
american fire-control system in WW2 was a total revolution in artillery warfare
centralizing all requests for fire missions into a single center that could then prioritize and distribute those missions allowed for a true bottom-up system where troops could call down fire whenever needed
soviet system was far inferior, with a top down approach that was only good for large set piece missions but virtually incapable of supporting individual units
this was arguably the best system the soviets could have come up with since a lack of communications and a far smaller capacity to supply shells despite an abundance of guns would make it impossible to do anything close to what the americans did
but its obvious when the germans could fire more shells per gun than the soviets could that they had reached the end of their artillery finesse, only raw force could even the scales
honestly training and logistics, $$$$ fricking talks, and the yanks can afford to do fire training like 3 times as often as the next comparable military.
Spending a massive amount of time and money on training them. The only way to get good at arty is to put rounds downrange. Ammunition is expensive, so many countries short their supplies and just dry-fire in drills.
That's not even an American arty you moron.
13D. The secret sauce is math.
we just have so fricking much of it
Imagine a zerg rush but instead of precious living men it's just mass-produced artillery shells
Because anything is better than nothing and America only fights wars against people who don't have anything.
>tl;dr western artillery is actually maintained.
western nations actually put effort into their tooth to tail ratio, being that we keep a very heavy tail for our teeth. first western tube artillery is made to be re-fitted after about 20,000 or 10,000 if you actually fire every round at the maximum range. they have built in barrel sleeves. second, western artillery uses a lot of MLRS guided rockets, which are extremely precise.
>behind American artillery
By all their artillery being made by the Bongs. One of the few good areas of the Bong MIC left (after DMR's/Sniper Rifles and avionic shit and the odd missile). Whether IFV's enters that list depends on the Bradley replacement program.
Quality in training, doctrine, support, and equipment. Simple as.