Field Artillery vs Aerial Bombardment

[TSLexi]

What would you consider the advantages of field artillery over aerial bombardment for neutralizing a position or suppressing and demoralizing the enemy?

IMHO, artillery has these advantages:

1. Cost. Artillery can provide fire support and bombardment at a much cheaper rate over a bomber or Warthog
2. Operating capacity. Artillery can fire as long as there's ammo, and doesn't need to stop a mission to refuel.
3. An artillery piece can be driven, towed or dropped into position behind the front, where the crew can operate in relative safety, whereas an air strike puts the pilot at risk from AAW, interception, etc.

Now, obviously you can't use artillery in every situation. But it should be used whenever possible, rather than wasting the air force.

 

[Oddball]

Fuck that...

Noting more mobile, flexible and directable than a squadron of Thunderbolt IIs

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV8NHsmVMPE]Maroon 5 - Harder To Breathe - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

What would you consider the advantages of field artillery over aerial bombardment for neutralizing a position or suppressing and demoralizing the enemy?

IMHO, artillery has these advantages:

1. Cost. Artillery can provide fire support and bombardment at a much cheaper rate over a bomber or Warthog
2. Operating capacity. Artillery can fire as long as there's ammo, and doesn't need to stop a mission to refuel.
3. An artillery piece can be driven, towed or dropped into position behind the front, where the crew can operate in relative safety, whereas an air strike puts the pilot at risk from AAW, interception, etc.

Now, obviously you can't use artillery in every situation. But it should be used whenever possible, rather than wasting the air force.

Demoralization is not possible for the most part. WWII pretty much proved you can't demoralize an opponent save in very specialized situations. Artillery is very good at suppressing the enemy as you drive over him but it is limited to the forward edge of battle for the most part.

You are correct on the cost.

Airpower when used correctly is a battle winner. Arty is not.

 

[Oddball]

I'll demoralize your ass with a couple squadrons of A-10s.

Take it from a SAC man....Strategic air power is overrated.

 

[westwall]

I'll demoralize your ass with a couple squadrons of A-10s.

Take it from a SAC man....Strategic air power is overrated.

Believe me, I know!

 

[Oddball]

Artillery?

You'll beg for artillery when the warthogs start diving on your asses!

 

[TSLexi]

Use strategic air power to strike critical components of the enemy's infrastructure to demoralize them (could you put up a fight if your electrical grid, water pumps, and crops were taken out?), and use mobile artillery to bombard enemy positions while your armor breaches their front so your mechanized infantry can secure the position.

 

[Mushroom]

Both have good and bad points.

Artillery good: All weather, available at all times, can shoot as long as there is ammo
Artillery bad: Short range, can shoot as long as there is ammo

Aircraft good: Delivers a lot in a short time, pinpoint accuracy
Aircraft bad: Grounded in bad weather, can only stay overhead as long as fuel/pilot lasts, long rearm times

I see the good and bad in both, which is why I would want to have both.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Agree 100% 'shroom.

Short delivery time is key, if you have a new high value target environment 300 miles away you can usually have birds over it fairly quickly. Putting artillery into play would require some logistics that aren't happening instantly. Hell for a well-defended and fortified target they could even fly a B-2 from Missouri with a bunker buster, very few countries have anything like that sort of global strike capability.

But for high volume sustained effect nothing can touch field artillery, a modern artillery battalion with howitzers and MLRS can wreck.