Artillery
#1
Posted 30 May 2008 - 15:03
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
#2
Posted 30 May 2008 - 18:17
#3
Posted 30 May 2008 - 18:22
#4
Posted 31 May 2008 - 01:40
Edited by CommanderJB, 31 May 2008 - 01:50.
Quote
#5
Posted 31 May 2008 - 23:37
Not to say that rockets don't have their perks.
#6
Posted 14 June 2008 - 19:56
#7
Posted 14 June 2008 - 20:10
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.
19681107
#8
Posted 14 June 2008 - 21:40
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.
#9
Posted 15 June 2008 - 01:52
Quote
#10
Posted 15 June 2008 - 14:07
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.
#11
Posted 15 June 2008 - 14:18
#12
Posted 16 June 2008 - 04:43
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.
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#13
Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:56
Strategia Inc., on 15 Jun 2008, 14:07, said:
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.
Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source out there.
19681107
#14
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:03
#15
Posted 20 June 2008 - 02:50
Dr. Strangelove, on 19 Jun 2008, 3:56, said:
Strategia Inc., on 15 Jun 2008, 14:07, said:
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.
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.
#16
Posted 14 July 2008 - 04:16
#17
Posted 15 July 2008 - 17:57
I maintain my case that they are both very useful, but are meant for different purposes.
#18
Posted 15 August 2008 - 04:04
plus, saturation shelling.
i rest my case
#19
Posted 17 August 2008 - 13:02
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.
Clicking on the picture will bring you to the latest part of the stories.
The Terran Invasions: A New Threat Part 5 is now up!
MOF: Lost and Found Epilogue is now up!
Red Storm, TI-Prologue, TI-Chapter 1, MOF #1, MOF #2, MOF # 3, MOF # 4, MOF # 5, MOF # 6
#20
Posted 19 August 2008 - 07:35
Insomniac!, on 16 Sep 2008, 20:12, said:
I've been given a Bob coin from Mr. Bob, a life time supply of cookies from Blonde-Unknown, some Internet Chocolate from the Full Throttle mod team, and some Assorted Weapons from Høbbesy.
#21
Posted 19 August 2008 - 08:30
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.
#22
Posted 19 August 2008 - 12:54
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users