[Phsstpok]

This is a bad move.

They said the same thing when they did away with the massed cavalry charge. I suggest we deal with it. "Smart" mortars are more effective than howitzers. Rockets are more accurate and have more range. The "conventional" artillary that we do need isn't conventional and isn't suitable to weekend warriors as it is too complex and needs constant training and practice.

Of course, having said all that, I'd love to be able to call in a salvo from the 16 inch guns of Big Mo, even with her mechanical computer targeting system. There's something to be said for hitting a parking space sized target with a shell the mass of a volkswagen from 30 miles away.

What I really want, however, is a Sheva gun named Bun Bun. "That's what you get for letting rednecks play with Anti-Matter!"

[Stopislamnow]

Well, when thousands of Chinese Migs totally negate any air superiority we had, we'll wish we had alot of the things we don't seem to need today.

I know, I know, we'll never go to war with China. But there is that troublesome Aztlan movement...

[jpsb]

I would love to see big Mo, or New Jersey or Wisconsin back in action. Yea they are expensive, but nothing gets an enemy's attention like a 16 in gun.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

They did away with cavalry charges?

[JasonC]

It is dumb and it is silly to tell those who know it is dumb to put up with it. Are smart mortars better than dumb howitzers? Sure. Straw man. Smart howitzers are better than dumb mortars, and better than smart mortars too. There are terminal homing rounds and ICM rounds for either. For one thing, they have three times the range. For another, organic mortars carry enough for about half an hour of supporting fire. Then you are out, and can pray.

It is just an institutional promotion and funding fight. The air force promises more than it can deliver to get enough of an undersized pie to pay for critical upgrades. Within the army, the snakeaters cite their machismo as evidence nothing else matters. The logistics types and bottom line boys back them up because NG majors and colonels have less pentagon pull than the Domino's delivery boy. Actual combat effectiveness doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Fee]

The Army has not abandoned the artillery gun. They just need less because we can call for fire much quicker and more accurately than the past. Today a foward observer on the move can locate his own position via GPS, laze the enemy with a laser rangefinder that gives distance, and direction from his own established position, and the information is instantaneously sorted out on his computer radio. The observer selects the mission he wants and the call for fire report is sent to artillery unit which is already preparing to fire. New artillery units can fire one round (two at most) to hit designated target. During Vietnam our troops did not have all these precision navigation and rangefinding tools that can correlate all this info into a call for fire report instantly. The observer had to estimate, lateral the info by voice over a radio to artillery fire control who in turn lateral by voice to the gun crew. By the time the round left the gun, the designated target has moved, thus forcing the foward observer to adjust fire several times, before the target is neutralized. Normally several guns are used on one target to scatter the rounds a bit to cover any changes between the time the observer called for fire and the rounds left the battery.

[tort_feasor]

John Ringo bump

[T-Bird45]

I've read the entire thread to this point and didn't see your (Phsstpok) comment refuted:

"Smart" mortars are more effective than howitzers. Rockets are more accurate and have more range. The "conventional" artillary that we do need isn't conventional and isn't suitable to weekend warriors as it is too complex and needs constant training and practice.

How do you define "more effective"? Range - can't be that because howitzers outrange mortars. Explosive payload - nope. Accuracy - maybe, depending on range probable error factors. Do you have any data/links to support your statement?

As to rockets, since they are unguided (by definition), accuracy is a factor of circular error probable at a given range. I will grant you they have more range than standard howitzer rounds.

What is the "conventional" or non-conventional artillery we need, specifically? National Guard personnel currently operate the MLRS successfully and did so in Gulf War I. As a former artillery officer, both active duty & NG and tube & missile, I would like to read how to improve this battlefield asset rather than be rid of it now only to wish we hadn't later.

#4 - thanks for the ping...I would welcome your comments, also.

[Darksheare]

Bad move because aircraft, even though labeled all weather, really cannot deliver munitions in all weather.