21 replies to this topic

[AZZKIKR]

No ICBMs or SRBMs please. just conventional artillery. which is better, shells (eg.howitzers) or rockets (eg.smerch)

Shells: Generally good. Has shorter range compared to rockets and lack scatter ability like MLRS but is tactically viable, as shells can be stored in the vehicle and small.

Rockets: Longer range, powerful. a tactical liability as the rockets need to be rearmed by a separate vehicle.

Discuss

[TehKiller]

Shells have a large AoE due to the bigger amount of shrapnel flyin all over the place. Hell they are usefull for psyhological warfare due to its higher shell shock effect.

[Sgt. Rho]

none of both, one is better for that situation, and the other for another situation.

[CommanderJB]

Indeed true, but for the moment I think shells retain a significant advantage over rockets in most battlefield conditions thanks to the fact that they cannot be intercepted (though this may change if THEL or similar programs ever actually get off the ground), have a far lower cost per shot, are much more convenient to build, load and store, can reach comparable ranges with base-bleed/rocket-assisted projectiles, and modern systems such as ARCHER are exceptionally accurate, more so than the unguided barrages that make up the majority of rocket artillery.

Edited by CommanderJB, 31 May 2008 - 01:50.

[Strategia]

Shells, for various reasons. Rockets carry much more propellant so for shells there is more warhead relative to overall munition size, shells are smaller and can be transported and loaded inside the artillery vehicle (if SP) itself, shell artillery can refire faster and is generally more mobile, shells are faster than rockets and are much harder to see and evade and/or intercept (by CIWS for instance), shells are smaller and can be produced in greater amounts, etc. etc. etc.

Not to say that rockets don't have their perks.

[Lonewolf]

shell based because from what i know rocket based can be de-activated with lasers or somming...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Missiles all the way. They are more accurate, can be fired faster, carry larger warheads, longer range, get to the target faster, blah blah blah...

Really the only things against them is that they cost more, the munitions take up more space, some types can have it's guidance systems jammed, and in the future it may be possible to intercept them with lasers, but that would also apply to shells.

[NergiZed]

Arn't Mobile ICBMs also artillery? (like the Topol-M)

If so, totally missiles. Missiles can shoot nuclear warheads, and though there was a prototype shell-based nuclear warhead delivery system, (the Atomic cannon), it wasn't really all that easy to assemble and the program was halted.

[CommanderJB]

Yes, ICBMs are technically artillery, but the opening poster specified that we were talking about battlefield tactical rocket systems. And nuclear shell-based artillery was far from just a prototype - half the Soviet artillery corps (including especially the 2S7 Pion, the largest full-tracked self-propelled howitzer in the world) were designed around the capability of firing nuclear projectiles, and thousands of rounds were produced. They were only really suited for the largest of guns because of obvious range issues, but all the same they were much more practical than calling in a bomber to deliver its payload, which is of course vulnerable to interception from both ground and air. SRBMs/IRBMs are also somewhat difficult to use against a mobile army thanks to the fact that they take some time to reach their target - a 50km-range rocket-assisted nuclear shell is going to be fairly well guaranteed of hitting something with no damage to your own forces.

[Strategia]

According to Wikipedia,

Quote

• Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional artillery, but may be capable of very destructive strikes by delivering a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover. Modern computer-controlled conventional artillery have recently begun to acquire the possibility to do something similar through MRSI.
  
• Cannon artillery can use a forward observer to correct fire, thus achieving further accuracy. This is usually not practical with rocket artillery.
  
• The higher accuracy of cannon artillery means that it can be used to attack an enemy close to a friendly force. This combined with the higher capacity for sustained fire makes cannon artillery more suitable for defensive fire.

[Destiny]

Rocket-based. No need for explaination.

[The Wandering Jew]

A true story of a Russian field commander:

Once upon a time, there was a Russian field commander who was assigned to provide a counter-offensive on the enemy territory. During their briefing, a concerned logistics officer had brought up a serious issue.

"Comrade General, we have limited number of Smerch and MSTA-S", the logistics officer said.
"We need both of them. Thirty units each", the general replied.
"Sir, Smerch is more expensive than the MSTA. The Duma will not allow it".
"The hell with the Duma!", the general fumed. "I am here to defend Mother Russia, not to please their sh*tty pants! We want thirty units each. The MSTA will act as decoy, so their motor rifle division will come to them. The Smerch shall take down their defenses on the flank where they are vulnerable. And the rest shall follow suit."
"But.."
"Thirty units," the commander said sternly. He lifted a side-arm and handed it to the logistics officer, "not unless you want red tape for breakfast."

So, thirty units each were provided to the commander, thus, the counter-offensive was a success.

The moral of the story: Shell and rockets go along very nicely.

I do hope you guys get my point.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 Strategia Inc., on 15 Jun 2008, 14:07, said:

According to Wikipedia,

Quote

• Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional artillery, but may be capable of very destructive strikes by delivering a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover. Modern computer-controlled conventional artillery have recently begun to acquire the possibility to do something similar through MRSI.
  
• Cannon artillery can use a forward observer to correct fire, thus achieving further accuracy. This is usually not practical with rocket artillery.
  
• The higher accuracy of cannon artillery means that it can be used to attack an enemy close to a friendly force. This combined with the higher capacity for sustained fire makes cannon artillery more suitable for defensive fire.

s

Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source out there.

[Crazykenny]

Both are good since both can be used in a variaty of situations. Shells are accurate and can be fired in close proximity of Allied troops. Rockets have long range and carry more destructive power.

[Eddy01741]

 Dr. Strangelove, on 19 Jun 2008, 3:56, said:

 Strategia Inc., on 15 Jun 2008, 14:07, said:

According to Wikipedia,

Quote

• Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional artillery, but may be capable of very destructive strikes by delivering a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover. Modern computer-controlled conventional artillery have recently begun to acquire the possibility to do something similar through MRSI.
  
• Cannon artillery can use a forward observer to correct fire, thus achieving further accuracy. This is usually not practical with rocket artillery.
  
• The higher accuracy of cannon artillery means that it can be used to attack an enemy close to a friendly force. This combined with the higher capacity for sustained fire makes cannon artillery more suitable for defensive fire.

s

Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source out there.

It's still right though. In general, the average rocket fired by the M270 MLRS is less accurate than a shell fired from the M109 howitzer. The rocket fired by the MLRS is totally unguided (well, the normal one is, they are developing guided versions and the larger ATACMS is a guided missle, but takes the place of 6 unguided rockets, so that's a tradeoff. However, accuracy is less of an issue, when one M26 rocket, the area of effect is already very large, since every rocket is essentially made up of bomblets that are slightly larger than hand grenades each, so it just decimates the target area with sharpnel and explosions. The M109 howitzer on the other hand, fires an unguided shell, which has an explosive warhead on it, not multiple bomblets. It is more accurate because it leaves the muzzle with more velocity than a rocket from the MLRS system, and travels a shorter distance, having less affect by the wind and such. And of course, the howitzer can fire constantly, while the MLRS can provide a pretty quick volley of up to 12 rockets (for the M270), but then requires a pretty long reload. Do note that the MLRS has a much longer range, and a much larger area of effect.

The point is, the US fields both howitzers and MLRS systems, they do different jobs, for widespread destruction, MLRS is used, for more accurate targeting from a closer range, the howitzer is used.

Now, personally, I'll take the cannon artillery if you could have only one, it's a more versatile weapon in general that can provide sustained fire support.

[Penguin_Pyromaniac]

You forget shoot-and-scoot capabilities for MLRS systems. During the second Gulf War (very techinicallly third), MLRS gained a reputation for fast deployment and destruction of Iraqi Artillery. Plus, shells may be more accurate, but they can't be guided without a steep price for production (based on the US copperhead shells).

[Eddy01741]

In general, even without guidance, shells are more accurate, but that is mostly due to higher velocities and closer ranges. ANyways, shoot and scoot capabilities are good, but they cannot provide sustained indirect fire support like shell based artillery. It's like comparing a fighter-bomber airstrike to close helo support. Plus, destruction against iraqi artillery isn't saying much, it says about as much as the M1 abrams and the challys rollling over the T-54/55s in the first gulf war.

I maintain my case that they are both very useful, but are meant for different purposes.

[Lord PieMonster]

Shells. Quicker to fire/reload, smaller, lighter, cheaper, and more accurate.
plus, saturation shelling.

i rest my case

[General Kirkov]

Shells are much more effective, you don't know if they are going to hit you or not, you can't track them in as they come in and their payload can be modified more easily. All you need is a bigger gun wich is much cheaper to make than a bigger rocket truck.

Rockets: You can see them comming kinda just watch the Russia pwning Georgia videos. Their payloads are limited to the size of the rocket/misile wich would require additional fuel to deliver the explosives which in turn requires a bigger rocket and delivery vehicle.

[Soul]

My vote goes to shell, I just love the sound of an artillery cannon firing.

[Foxhound]

Shell-based is far better in most cases.

Rocket-based fills its niches though. Fast firing, you can fire a ton at once, and most MLRS (not just US rocket systems) use bomblets as munitions. You can decimate an entire area in a few seconds if you use an MLRS battery.

...and hey. Buratino.

[Eddy01741]

Meh, I still like to call the buratino the burrito lol, I remember how grossly OP it was in shockwave .95 lol.