Cucumber Khan wrote:Regular wrote:And yet there still americans talking shit about their artillery being superior when they are outsiders when it comes to it
Well, I think a lot of that is because of the highly sophisticated guided munitions that the US deploys. That's definitely something the Russian Military have to start investing in
Let me add to the posts above (which also answer your question) with a few extra things to think about.
The highly sophisticated guided muntions that the US deploys - it deploys in low-intensity Talib warfare where it can afford expensive, high-tech ammo - simply because it's just not depleted that fast.
Add to the fact that the Talibs, Iraqi insurgents, etc... never really travelled around or fought in large groups or formations, as well as usually on foot - making them tough targets for artillery as they can duck and find cover as soon as the first shell hits.
This adds up to having to expend a large quantity of ammunition - just to destroy a few lightly-armed insurgents.
Then you have the factor of collatoral damage too; with insurgents usually popping up among civilians and civilian infastructure.
Together this all makes guided munitions pretty neccessary for those conflicts.
Rest assured though that in a full-on intense conventional confrontation with anyone serious, all those fancy shells would run out within a day, and the only realistic or economical option would be dumb munitions. This is the reality.
For anyone with a mind to fight a conventional war - dumb shells have always been a far wiser option with guided shells only available in small quantities, to be used in conjunction with SF operations and so on. This has pretty much been the Russian approach, not-coincidently.
Up until recently Russia has had only had the Soviet-developed laser-guided mortar and howitzer shells (which France and others bought and which were among the first of their class in the world; having been developed in the mid 80s); which were expensive, designed to work in conjunction with artillery observers, and reserved for specific tasks; for example smashing armour columns with precision hits on their top armour as was done to those Ukrainian armour columns were taken out last summer or so rumour has it.
It is only recently that Russia has started investing in GLONASS guided shells; given that its GLONASS constellation has only reached full operation within the last 2-3 years. Russia has been busy upgrading its artillery with GLONASS integration/targetting, and have probably been buying up these shells for many of these systems too. Such shells can be set with GLONASS coordinates, and will gently guide themselves to that location while in flight.
However while they are guided, and accurate - they are not really 'precision guided' in the sense of what you are talking about - as they are not capable of being guided to a target (other than an immobile one with a precisely known position) nor do they have any sensors for determining targets and homing in on them. They simply guide themselves more precisely to a coordinate than dumb shells do and land in a much tighter group.
rather than the fire-a-lot-of-shells-in-the-general-direction-of-the-enemy-and-hope-that-one-will-hit tactic.
When there are a good amount of targets within the artillery system's CEP at that range - there's a good chance that a lot of those shells will hit something; and guided munitions in that case become a little superflous and wouldn't really add anything that a good old artillery barrage with conventional ammo wouldn't accomplish.
The 'tactic' is to cover a square (or circular rather) area in explosions within a minimal amount of time, destroying anything there that dares to cling to life. Why would guided munitions be any better for accomplishing that then dumb munitions?