NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been looking at people RPing for a while and the thing i don't understand is why most RPers underestimate the value of artillery. In real combat the infantry only fights after the artillery has done its job on enemy positions, on NS it does not seem to be the case. Artillery can be a powerful tool especially at the MT level of technology then you can have powerful weapons and your enemy doesn't have adequate protection. An artillery system can be developed to destroy a whole batallion with one hit, actually i will develop that soon. Anyways, the thing i don't understand is, why the hell do you guys underestimate artillery?

Because artillary smashing a battallion into peices only makes so much good RP. Infantry on infantry battles are more fun to read and write.

I don't. I love artillery. Having a hell of a lot of cannons is the only reason the main Loyalist force wasn't overrun and destroyed at the Columbia River during my civil war.

I think (at a subconcious level, perhaps) it's because with tanks and infantry and planes, you can customize them and make them really awesome. It's hard to make artillery sexy.

Well, i still don't see why realism should be sacrafised.

On NS, storytelling>realism. Sometimes, I don't like it much either, but it's true.

I love artillery, all of my Forces including the Sardaukar Panzergrenadier Divisions are supported by Mobile Artillery, who when the attack begins to falter, open up with a salvo of Earth Shaker rounds, theres no such thing as too many Artillery Peices

Besides that it doesn't make for good RPing to say "My artillery fire at your troops...", the other main reason people don't use artillery is that in a day and age where you can coat the sky in bombers or have tanks that can target vehicles from X miles away... artillery actually isn't that beneficial...

Worked for me! Dra-pol is essentially North Korea on PCP and crack -bigger and angrier and more likely to be shut-up in doors twitching at the sound of foreign footfalls- and back before I started playing with a realistic population (now 34 million) we had over a million artillery pieces, with several hundred thousand concentrated on one front. That was because we lacked 1st rate air defences and planes, had only limited fully mobile forces, and so on, but could easily afford a tube that goes bang.

We used artillery -and specifically HARTS, or hardened artillery sites- to hold cities hostage and illicit premature surrender, to create firestorms, and to give the enemy something else to shoot at while our forces manoeuvred. I suppose, given the short ranges involved, we used massed artillery as if a legal WMD to force superior enemies to temper their operations. That is, by not using our artillery and threatening to flatten cities if threatened by counter-attacks.

Anyway, so far as we're concerned, artillery = lifeline. Even now we have a Hong-Kong-like city essentially hostage: if our more powerful enemies threaten us, we'll obliterate that city. It wouldn't win us a war, but it discourages our enemies from getting involved.

So there.

Besides that it doesn't make for good RPing to say "My artillery fire at your troops...", the other main reason people don't use artillery is that in a day and age where you can coat the sky in bombers or have tanks that can target vehicles from X miles away... artillery actually isn't that beneficial...

Nonsense! We hadn't the technological base to develop strategic bombers, lacked the resources to make enough of them to out-match superior foe anyway, and they simply didn't make tactical sense, either.

Besides, coating the sky in bombers is no more fun than blackening it with artillery shells, is it?

"I send 5,000 hypersonic bombers at your capital! Ha!"
"I don't think that your ally will appreciate that when our retalliation is to put three million pounds of high explosives into his second city fifteen miles from our border [think before you RP]"

Besides that it doesn't make for good RPing to say "My artillery fire at your troops...", the other main reason people don't use artillery is that in a day and age where you can coat the sky in bombers or have tanks that can target vehicles from X miles away... artillery actually isn't that beneficial...

Ah, tanks can't fire frangemented rounds from 30 kilometers away to bring death to a whole battalion of the enemy before your troops attack, artillery can't be shot down as easily as bombers.

As for good RPing, hell that depends on your writing skills, writing about artillery is the same as writing about bombers, if you want to make it interesting you will. Look at some of my RPs.

Nonsense! We hadn't the technological base to develop strategic bombers, lacked the resources to make enough of them to out-match superior foe anyway, and they simply didn't make tactical sense, either.

Besides, coating the sky in bombers is no more fun than blackening it with artillery shells, is it?

"I send 5,000 hypersonic bombers at your capital! Ha!"
"I don't think that your ally will appreciate that when our retalliation is to put three million pounds of high explosives into his second city fifteen miles from our border [think before you RP]"

Well obviously if you cant obtain bombers, than artillery would be good, but unless you are keeping to 1970s tech - good bombers exist.

Well, my point is bombers are more effective than artillery, so if you wanted to destroy a weapons factory at precise coordinates... you choose a bomber...

"My other fleet of 5000 bombers takes off and destroys your artillery that is about to fire on my ally's city..."

Ah, tanks can't fire frangemented rounds from 30 kilometers away to bring death to a whole battalion of the enemy before your troops attack, artillery can't be shot down as easily as bombers.

As for good RPing, hell that depends on your writing skills, writing about artillery is the same as writing about bombers, if you want to make it interesting you will. Look at some of my RPs.

No, but tanks that are created by NS, can lock on to a fast moving vehicle.

Yes of course it depends on your writing skills, but my point still stands...

Lastly: Bomber vs Artillery... enough said

They serve different purposes, you not gonna send a squadron of bombers each time before an attack. You however will fire artillery each time before an attack. Simply put artillery has its purpose and is used in real world all the time.

Well obviously if you cant obtain bombers, than artillery would be good, but unless you are keeping to 1970s tech - good bombers exist.

Well, my point is bombers are more effective than artillery, so if you wanted to destroy a weapons factory at precise coordinates... you choose a bomber...

"My other fleet of 5000 bombers takes off and destroys your artillery that is about to fire on my ally's city..."

Well, then you're spending hundreds of times more than your opponent, and probably haven't got nearly enough bombers to even make a significant impact (especially as in our case with the heavy use of HARTS).

And of course good bombers exist, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Bombers aren't uniformly more effective than artillery, or people would stop using artillery. The idea is absolutely absurd.

The question stands, why do you underestimate artillery? I'm still unaware!

They serve different purposes, you not gonna send a squadron of bombers each time before an attack. You however will fire artillery each time before an attack. Simply put artillery has its purpose and is used in real world all the time.

Ah, but the point is that the NS world is not the same as the RL world...

Indeed it's not, DMG, but that doesn't really change the core of this argument, does it? So maybe you can build more bombers... you can also build more guns. Bigger guns. Too many guns in too much space for bombers to fully do away with.

Of course in a straight fight between an artillery position and a bomber squadron, you don't want to be on the ground, but to think like that is as good a way as any to lose a war even if you ought to win.

From my experience, I can't recall artillery being wholly underestimated or even ignored, if you are referring to tube (i.e. howitzer guns and shells) and rocket artillery. On the other hand, sometimes it is the unrealistic expectations or the over-estimation of its value and power that becomes a problem. Ahem - something that will somehow destroy a hundreds-men battalion with one hit, unless you are talking about huge naval gun-like systems which plummets its value as a practical battlefield system altogether.

Well, then you're spending hundreds of times more than your opponent, and probably haven't got nearly enough bombers to even make a significant impact (especially as in our case with the heavy use of HARTS).

And of course good bombers exist, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Bombers aren't uniformly more effective than artillery, or people would stop using artillery. The idea is absolutely absurd.

The question stands, why do you underestimate artillery? I'm still unaware!

Yes you are spending much more than your opponent, but in the NS world where nations can spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on defense - it doesn't really matter.

You said you lacked the technological base to develop bombers... I was saying if you did than you obviously aren't using MT or PMT... in which very good bombers exist.

Everything we are talking about is in NS... so yes obviously bombers are more effective than artillery because people have stopped using artillery - which is the point of this thread. Also, you don't need bombers to bombard enemy lines, when there are many ground attack aircraft in existence in NS...

I don't underestimate artillery... I estimate them to be a tool of the past (the real world)

From my experience, I can't recall artillery being wholly underestimated or even ignored, if you are referring to tube (i.e. howitzer guns and shells) and rocket artillery. On the other hand, sometimes it is the unrealistic expectations or the over-estimation of its value and power that becomes a problem. Ahem - something that will somehow destroy a hundreds-men battalion with one hit, unless you are talking about huge naval gun-like systems which plummets its value as a practical battlefield system altogether.

No, what i am talking about is a 2S4 type mobile mortar that fires fragmented rounds that explode over head and unleash bundles of smaller explosive. Something like that is being developed by US from what i hear. If the battalion is stationary, it is possible to destroy all of it with 2-3 hits.

Indeed it's not, DMG, but that doesn't really change the core of this argument, does it? So maybe you can build more bombers... you can also build more guns. Bigger guns. Too many guns in too much space for bombers to fully do away with.

Of course in a straight fight between an artillery position and a bomber squadron, you don't want to be on the ground, but to think like that is as good a way as any to lose a war even if you ought to win.

It doesn't change the core of the argument, but it does change the core of Your arguments.

Comparing the use of bombers to artillery is like comparing a Surface-to-Surface missile with a M16...

Considering one single bomber could carry a nuclear weapons, I am pretty sure that no matter how many guns in whatever space you have - a bomber could do away with.

And no to think like that is not how you lose a war...

Very good point Omz222

No, what i am talking about is a 2S4 type mobile mortar that fires fragmented rounds that explode over head and unleash bundles of smaller explosive. Something like that is being developed by US from what i hear. If the battalion is stationary, it is possible to destroy all of it with 2-3 hits.

True, however most artillery is unguided and indirect fire...

Also with a bomber, you could destroy the same stationary battallion. The difference being the artillery has to be within 30km (or whatever) and the bomber could be launched from 3000 miles away.

Yes you are spending much more than your opponent, but in the NS world where nations can spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on defense - it doesn't really matter.

You said you lacked the technological base to develop bombers... I was saying if you did than you obviously aren't using MT or PMT... in which very good bombers exist.

Everything we are talking about is in NS... so yes obviously bombers are more effective than artillery because people have stopped using artillery - which is the point of this thread. Also, you don't need bombers to bombard enemy lines, when there are many ground attack aircraft in existence in NS...

I don't underestimate artillery... I estimate them to be a tool of the past (the real world)


Yes, it does matter. Scale changes, but ratios don't. That point just doesn't stand up in the slightest.

And yes, I was using modern tech. I just happened to role play in a moderately realistic fashion instead of just pretending that NS runs on magic. This is one of the big problems that made me stop RPing the mainstream of NS and help to found the insular group A Modern World. People just ignore the limitations of their states and think that because they're twice the size of China, the laws of physics, economics, and everything else just don't apply anymore.

Dra-pol had and used strike aircraft, too -relatively dated ones, but still useful- but I can't for a moment imagine why that would have any impact on our decision to use artillery. It just doesn't even begin to make sense.

You can consider it a tool of the past, but if you enter a war RP with a half decent player, you're going to suffer badly from ignoring artillery, just how badly depends on a lot of variables. Uh. I suppose that's the end of it.

But, the bomber is also more vurnerable and expensive, as i said you are not gonna send bombers before every little attack.

I don't underestimate artillery... I estimate them to be a tool of the past (the real world)

As someone who has been in an actual army, i disagree. Moreover, bombers and aircraft are much more vulnerable to the enemy then artillery and rocketry.

But, the bomber is also more vurnerable and expensive, as i said you are not gonna send bombers before every little attack.

No but you are also not going to shell the enemy with three million pounds of high explosives for every little attack...

Yes it is more vulnerable and expensive, but as I said when you can spend 15 trillion USD on defense, one little bomber doesn't matter... and while being more vulnerable they are also more powerful, have a longer range, more accurate, and can surprise the enemy...

We'll just have to see the system itself, though I still have some doubtful feelings in regards to the proclaimed destruction effects of something that is similar to a 240mm mortar (which the 2S4 is basically). As for the "smaller explosives", you might mean submunitions (or bomblets) which are very similar (in its basic concept) as the device you describe. Popular types such as the DPICM were widely deployed by the US in the ground phase of the '91 Gulf War.

It doesn't change the core of the argument, but it does change the core of Your arguments.

Comparing the use of bombers to artillery is like comparing a Surface-to-Surface missile with a M16...

Considering one single bomber could carry a nuclear weapons, I am pretty sure that no matter how many guns in whatever space you have - a bomber could do away with.

And no to think like that is not how you lose a war...

Very good point Omz222


That was kind of my point. Bombers and artillery are different. You understand that, but still seem to be arguing that bombers and other strike aircraft can replace artillery. Would you replace assault rifles in your army with SSMs? No. So, you agree with me, then!

Artillery can also launch nuclear weapons, but, again, not the point. You can ruin any debate on military conflict with a nuclear bomb, but that's a bit like pulling Hitler into a political debate. You can't just nuke someone because a war isn't going your way. Apart from being a good way to get ignored in role play, it makes no sense in character, because you might just get nuked back. And more than that, Dra-pol's artillery was nuked in the conflict around which I base most of my argument, and the result was that 1) we nuked back, and 2) our artillery stopped being a threat and turned into a death-bringing war-winner, because we started using it. Shock horror, a few nuclear weapons didn't disable hundreds of thousands of artillery pieces, most dug-in to hardened shelters across a vast mountain range.

The main problem here seems to be that you're just... wrong. About scale, primarily, about capability. I think, maybe, you can either visualise it or you can't, and there's nothing I can do about that.

I do use artillery. I use rocketed motorcycles to counter enemy artillery. The thing is, most of my RPs are stealth and infantry based, so there isn't much on for a full scale war to happen.

GPS guided artillery is very accurate and yes you can use artillery every time before any little attack thats how its done in the real world and thats how i do it, also if a bomber is shot down you will have to build a new one which you will not be able to do atleast until the end of the battle even by NS standards, and they all can be intercepted on their way, plus it will take time for them to arrive.

We'll just have to see the system itself, though I still have some doubtful feelings in regards to the proclaimed destruction effects of something that is similar to a 240mm mortar (which the 2S4 is basically). As for the "smaller explosives", you might mean submunitions (or bomblets) which are very similar (in its basic concept) as the device you describe. Popular types such as the DPICM were widely deployed by the US in the ground phase of the '91 Gulf War.

Yes 2S4 is a 240 mm mortar, and yes i know that submunitions is not a new thing, that doesn't change however the margin of destruction.

Yes, it does matter. Scale changes, but ratios don't. That point just doesn't stand up in the slightest.

And yes, I was using modern tech. I just happened to role play in a moderately realistic fashion instead of just pretending that NS runs on magic. This is one of the big problems that made me stop RPing the mainstream of NS and help to found the insular group A Modern World. People just ignore the limitations of their states and think that because they're twice the size of China, the laws of physics, economics, and everything else just don't apply anymore.

Dra-pol had and used strike aircraft, too -relatively dated ones, but still useful- but I can't for a moment imagine why that would have any impact on our decision to use artillery. It just doesn't even begin to make sense.

You can consider it a tool of the past, but if you enter a war RP with a half decent player, you're going to suffer badly from ignoring artillery, just how badly depends on a lot of variables. Uh. I suppose that's the end of it.

I also don't believe that NS runs on magic, but the thing is... if you are a nation three times the size of china and your economy is 20 times as big and strong, you can afford more things and are not ignoring the limitations of their states.

Using strike aircraft would affect your decision to use artillery. The original point came from, that you would not send a bomber before every little attack, however you could send a strike aircraft. Moreover the aircraft would be much more precise and could inflict better casualties than the artillery.

The problem with every debate you guys are making is two things...
1) NS isn't the real world, and no matter how much you want it to be it isn't... so many aspects of RL don't exist in NS... live with it.
2) Artillery is Inaccurate and Ineffective compared to aircraft. period. It is not underestimed - it is estimated to exactly its value in NS.

Now that we beat this issue to death... I am done.

Not really trying to get into the argument, but artillery and bombers (if you mean fighter-bombers and attack aircraft which are all tactical) are different in their concept and deployment, and thus neither can replace the other. However, the simultaneous employment of artillery and aircraft support will have a devastating effect on enemy forces, though the latter offer may enjoy a more limited availability for ground forces.

Well, there we go, what can you say? DMG underestimates artillery, some other people don't, and some may over-estimate it, because it can't always be relied upon to flatten an entire formation with a couple of shots, unless maybe you're fighting a C19th army marching in ranks across the salt flats.

[quote]Using strike aircraft would affect your decision to use artillery. The original point came from, that you would not send a bomber before every little attack, however you could send a strike aircraft. Moreover the aircraft would be much more precise and could inflict better casualties than the artillery.

Not true, first of all modern artillery is plenty precise and second of all most respected RPers don't have a 100000 plane airforce, the numbers of aircraft are limited and can not cover the area artillery can.

The problem with every debate you guys are making is two things...
1) NS isn't the real world, and no matter how much you want it to be it isn't... so many aspects of RL don't exist in NS... live with it.

Ah, actually for most people they do.

2) Artillery is Inaccurate and Ineffective compared to aircraft. period. It is not underestimed - it is estimated to exactly its value in NS.

Actually artillery is accurate and effective than compared to aircraft most of all its less expensive, you can have more of it than the planes and it is virtually invulnerable to an enemy attack while a plane is not. Simply put planes have their purpose and artillery has their own which is the all time ground support in any battle, while aircraft are only to be expendable in special cases, they are a bonus not a given.

Not really trying to get into the argument, but artillery and bombers (if you mean fighter-bombers and attack aircraft which are all tactical) are different in their concept and deployment, and thus neither can replace the other. However, the simultaneous employment of artillery and aircraft support will have a devastating effect on enemy forces, though the latter offer may enjoy a more limited availability for ground forces.

I agree with your statement.

That was kind of my point. Bombers and artillery are different. You understand that, but still seem to be arguing that bombers and other strike aircraft can replace artillery. Would you replace assault rifles in your army with SSMs? No. So, you agree with me, then!

Artillery can also launch nuclear weapons, but, again, not the point. You can ruin any debate on military conflict with a nuclear bomb, but that's a bit like pulling Hitler into a political debate. You can't just nuke someone because a war isn't going your way. Apart from being a good way to get ignored in role play, it makes no sense in character, because you might just get nuked back. And more than that, Dra-pol's artillery was nuked in the conflict around which I base most of my argument, and the result was that 1) we nuked back, and 2) our artillery stopped being a threat and turned into a death-bringing war-winner, because we started using it. Shock horror, a few nuclear weapons didn't disable hundreds of thousands of artillery pieces, most dug-in to hardened shelters across a vast mountain range.

The main problem here seems to be that you're just... wrong. About scale, primarily, about capability. I think, maybe, you can either visualise it or you can't, and there's nothing I can do about that.

No but I would destroy a tank with an SSM rather than an assault rifle.

Using an RP in which you decided that consequences to your own forces is not a good argument on why it wouldn't work.

You said that a bomber couldn't take out a large artillery force extended over a large area... my point was that you can...

Oh, and good argument - just say I am wrong because I dont understand... very good argument. Unfortunately for the bajillionth time, NS ISN"T REAL... so you don't have to make it exactly like real life...

a bomber couldn't take out a large artillery force extended over a large area...they don't have that many bombs...and you could have like 1K artilery pieces for one B-2 bomber...and artilery works better for defence than a bomber

Last statement because this has been beaten to death.

You don't need 100,000 aircraft to do the job of 100,000 artillery. Of course the number of aircraft is limited but so is the number of artillery... so your point doesn't make sense

If you tell me that most people on NS abide by the strict reality of the world, I will go slam my head in a door...

I agree that aircraft and artillery have different uses - however aircraft can partially do the job of artillery, while the reverse is not true...

Lastly - I don't under-estimate artillery, I just estimate them to what they are in NS.

edit: Artillery can definately be taken out, very easily...

You're just getting more and more wrong! Look!

However, the SSM/rifle point, look at it in context and you'll see that, first, you agree with the point that I'm actually making.

And you're still failing to appreciate scale and context, and I don't have the resources to change that.

And... oh, well, everyone else is covering most of it, now, so I give up.

MY only point is that I don't UNDER-estimate them...

They are what they are...

to me, your main point is that you estimate artilery the way most NS rpers do, and if you do that then you under estimate artilery.

Meh, Self Proppeled Artillery is one of the main things of my land army..one can weaken the enemy before needing to actually compromise your own troops, I love it.

Artillery is the most lethal and far-reaching weapon of a field army. The damn problem is getting them to keep up with said army and keeping them constantly supplied, and the Bombers take out Artillery thing is made problematic by two inventions called the Anti-Aircraft Gun and the Surface-Air Missile. And if your flying STRAIGHT at(or over) a line of artillery guns when they open fire a shell might hit your aircraft.

Ahhh, artillery. I've used it extensively in combat. The sad thing is, the last real war I was in was in June of last year. However, the Belemese war could, if you wanted to term it as such, be called the 'Artillery War' as a bulk of the victories or defeats were determined not by the prowess of the infantry, or the masterful manipulation of the skies, but by the effectiveness and amount of artillery deployed.

The war was fought in the dense forests of Buechoria and both of us had extremely well air defense and enough aircraft to cancel each other out. We could not execute air to ground campaigns for most of the war [except towards the end when, due to a massive unguided missile barrage I wiped out a bulk of their aircraft logistical entity on the ground, I was able to capture air superiority] and had to rely on artillery, especially since the dense foliage prevented effective infantry or armor combat.

I remember entire battles fought solely through the use and movement of artillery. We fired long-range rounds, grenade rounds, high explosives, etc. etc. Not to mention we also fired dummy rounds, propaganda rounds, drones, and beer [ARSB soldiers are notable for their mischeviousness, especially in that war where they abducted Belemese soldiers on patrol, drugged them, dressed them up as drag queens and left them in Vogelsang, Buechoria's capital]. Artillery is an extremely versatile weapon and contrary to popular belief, can be used to make an RP that much more realistic and enchanting. Infantry can't pummel the other side with raining death, unless they've all got portable mortars and rifle-launched grenades. And nothing can match the sheer confusion and chaos of a well-coordinated artillery strike or its counter-strike by the enemy. Well, unless you airdrop an entire heavy armor division on a camping enemy light recon force.

[ARSB soldiers are notable for their mischeviousness, especially in that war where they abducted Belemese soldiers on patrol, drugged them, dressed them up as drag queens and left them in Vogelsang, Buechoria's capital]. Artillery is an extremely versatile weapon and contrary to popular belief, can be used to make an RP that much more realistic and enchanting. Infantry can't pummel the other side with raining death, unless they've all got portable mortars and rifle-launched grenades. And nothing can match the sheer confusion and chaos of a well-coordinated artillery strike or its counter-strike by the enemy. Well, unless you airdrop an entire heavy armor division on a camping enemy light recon force.

<3 you for your tanks, (My Republican Guard uses them) and your insanity.

I've devastated the enemy during the Montignac Civil War with ship based artillery. And nothing says "Shut up, you propaganda spewing idiot" than a massive Salvo of 120mm, 155mm, 175mm, 240mm shells and 240mm Rockets. You win many a battle with artillery. Besides, fighter aircraft and bomber aircraft can all be shot down, and missiles can be jammed or shot out of the sky. Artillery though is a different matter, unless you use supersonic missiles or something nothing can compete with the devastating power of well placed, GPS guided artillery. Besides, I don't run around with no AA units. I have dedicated AA squads, Type 95 AA, massive Long-range towed AA rockets, along with control vehicles, GPS/RADAR jammers too.

Leafanistan makes a good point. Artillery cant be intercepted by AA units. You can send in your bomber wave of doom, but many will be shot down if you just fly them over entrenched positions. And dont mention stealth aircraft. Sure, you might have a bit more survivability, but most nations have good enough radar to at least know that bombers are incoming. Artillery can just sit one or two clicks behind your army and fire shell after shell into the enemy. Artilliery has its place, planes have their place, and funky things like satelitte-launched ICBMs have their place, even though their uses are similer.

Artillery is useful, but useless against tech wores who play like this...

1. Fire missiles from hundreds of miles away

2. Use EMP

3. Spend the whole time using Stealth bombers and cruise missiles

I like RPs with infantry, tanks and artillery as the main units. There is some support from aircraft, missiles, and the like, but not to a great extent. Ship encounters with close-up guns and torpedoes, some missiles and naval aircraft, but again, not an enormous amount.

Lol thank you...


Anyways yeah. If you're on the opposite end of an opponent who matches, or even exceeds, your capabilities [anti-air, air forces, etc.] you're not going to send in an aircraft which costs, in many cases, over a hundred million USD to do a job which could done for less than a thousand, assuming you don't lose any of your artillery [which is rarely the case].

I also love my compressed air artillery, although we don't use it for offensive purposes and instead send in special forces to rig up the small artillery to fire either propaganda rounds, bottles of beer [which fit snugly in the barrel] or random personal items [don't want to go there] at enemy front lines. They can't hear them, nor do they know they're coming before the latest issue of Laska magazine [Soviet Bloc equivalent to Playboy] slams into some sleeping soldiers face quickly followed by a salvo of lotion bottles, beer bottles, and a packet of condoms, along with an informational diagram on various sexual positions... After that comes propaganda... Yeah, sure...

Yes, that's ARSB infantry for you.

While the fact that artillery is unaffected by air defence is agreed (even though stating it is as ridiculous as stating that ships are better than Humvees because the former is much more invulnerable to machine gun fire), one must remember that there are still various dangers to the employment of artillery, such as air attacks, counter-artillery fire, among other things. With airpower, granted that it has been reduced in its effectiveness due to the availability of air defences, it does not mean that airpower suddenly becomes useless with the availability of newer air defence systems and your SA-23429232239 ULTRA-S-300 systems. Really, what makes me wonder is, what makes people think that they can't counter air defences? Air defence will always be a threat, but it's not as if its presence will always cast a spell of doom for all enemy aviators. It has worked in the Bekka Valley and the Gulf War (and no, the pre-war Iraq air defence system was far from being in a status of failure for their time), and even though the battlefield air defence threat will definately be a threat for enemy CAS aircraft, it's this whole irrationality of believing that air defence has made airpower extinct that is really diminishing the true value of airpower in NS.

Kreynoria']Artillery is useful, but useless against tech wores who play like this...

1. Fire missiles from hundreds of miles away

2. Use EMP

3. Spend the whole time using Stealth bombers and cruise missiles

I like RPs with infantry, tanks and artillery as the main units. There is some support from aircraft, missiles, and the like, but not to a great extent. Ship encounters with close-up guns and torpedoes, some missiles and naval aircraft, but again, not an enormous amount.\

In that case, attack their homeland. Military bases and such, so they cant use their weapons without hitting themselves. And get a satellite defence net for missiles.

While the fact that artillery is unaffected by air defence is agreed (even though stating it is as ridiculous as stating that ships are better than Humvees because the former is much more invulnerable to machine gun fire), one must remember that there are still various dangers to the employment of artillery, such as air attacks, counter-artillery fire, among other things. With airpower, granted that it has been reduced in its effectiveness due to the availability of air defences, it does not mean that airpower suddenly becomes useless with the availability of newer air defence systems and your SA-23429232239 ULTRA-S-300 systems. Really, what makes me wonder is, what makes people think that they can't counter air defences? Air defence will always be a threat, but it's not as if its presence will always cast a spell of doom for all enemy aviators. It has worked in the Bekka Valley and the Gulf War (and no, the pre-war Iraq air defence system was far from being in a status of failure for their time), and even though the battlefield air defence threat will definately be a threat for enemy CAS aircraft, it's this whole irrationality of believing that air defence has made airpower extinct that is really diminishing the true value of airpower in NS.

I'm not saying that at all. (Though some people do) I personally love planes of all kinds for my military.
I'm just saying that a few artillery guns can give nice close range fire support quickly, especially in a place where air defences are high. Sure, you might get the same effect with planes, but.
1) They wont get there as quickly. Artillery just turns, aims and fires, planes have to take off, or just fly to the target.
2) You wont lose millions of dollars in expensive equipment, such as strike planes.
3) BUT. Planes have much more presicion, and some have more power.

I love artillery...[snip]...theres no such thing as too many Artillery Peices

Too true.

Tube artillery, of all things is economical and efficient. It's simple, cheap, and can do a job nearly as well as any gun today. The difference between the guns of ww2 and the guns of today is more in fire control and coordination than in the guns themselves. The 155s or whatever you use are not sexy like 1km long SDs or super stealthy bombers, but when men and materiel are short, the tube artillery makes itself handy. I think the notion that artillery destroys entire bns is rather silly, but it will disrupt the functions of practically any unit it hits thus giving your people the advantage.

Rocket artillery is a different sort of thing. Tube artillery delivers a continuous bombardment, and even the latest command and control can't get over the guns' limited rates of fire. Rocket artillery is the answer. It is best at delivering concentrated, short, sharp bombardments but is less efficient in an 'on-call' sense.

The fundamental differences in artillery doctrine can be important, too. Do you want massive pre-planned bombardments where you can concentrate your firepower or do you want 'on-call' artillery where your commanders figure these things out.

Remember that Sex Bomb thing the US Army researched, I finished researching it. I now mix it with my artillery strikes. Nothing better than storming an enemy division when they are too busy fucking each other than to shoot us. Then its mass arrests, a lot of happy and tired POWs. ;)

Of course, when your on a strafing run against a line of artillery, your making yourself vulnerable to Air Defenses, you would be open for the enemy to lob 6 SAMs at your plane, the chances of getting away from SIX SAMs(not to mention the rapid fire, proximity fused, anti-aircraft guns), isnt exactly impossible, but mostly improbable.

And stealth planes are being rendered useless by more and more potent radar systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft.

I haven't used Artillery in a while, but nontheless I maintain the Artillery for MT purposes, should the need arise. There isn't a whole lot to explain there, expect that with other Artyillery I use Spectre Gunships and Battleships, and so on and so forth.

But, thats the MT Scene.

As for my FT Scene, I use the Cruisers and Battlecruisers, their main guns having enough strength for Artillery. If, say, I invade a planet: I would need to crush Planetary Positions, so I'd call upon the Battlecruisers to flatten them from Orbit, whilst the Cruisers would be concentrated on the incoming fire and protecting the Bombarding Artillery from the Battlecruisers.

In that sense alone, I still would use Artillery.

However, something that applies to both MT/PMT/FT is the Nuclear Option. Whilst not actually artillery, it is an asset to my Nation. For one, I use Nuclear Torpedoes in my Cruisers and Battlecruisers, basically because guns alone can't get you anywhere in space for long.

I also use Nuclear Weapons to flatten Nations, so long as they agree to Mutually Assured Destruction, or something of the like, if a war goes on too long. I would, also, use Stratetic Nuclear Weapons to obliterate MT Fleets, launched from a nearby B-1B Bomber.

Mainly, however, my current artillery in a MT Sense is in storage, haven't used my MT Military in some time. I maintain it because I have kept the Origional NS Nation of Anagonia on NS Earth, and love to RP MT whenever possible. But, in a FT Sense, I still can, and would, use it.

However, overall, I love Nukes, and Nukes are my friends. So long as you accept, Nukes will be flying high. :D

P.S. Yes, I Know. I was once called "Nuclear Anny, Anny the Nuker," and best of all, "Anny Nukem." My Nation is, and always will be, in love with Nuclear and Hydrogen Weapons. :D

OOC: Does anyone read Tom Clancy? He made a great point for artillery in the end of Executive Orders, and in Armored Cav, he did a wonderful job explaining it.

I.E.
IC: The massed units of (Your Name Here)-istan comprised of well over 1000 artillery pieces, 2500 tanks, 3000 IFVs, over 250,000 infantry, 1500 SAM and AAA sites, and 15 Command Posts (CPs) and 150 aircraft. They were spread over an area the size of Connecticut. The United States of (Your other name here) had only a few artillery units against them, numbering 120 M109A6 Paladins, 60 M270 MLRS, and 60 M2001 Crusaders and their FAASVs.
The US(Ynh) took all of the MLRS and dumped over 460,000 submunitions on the artillery sites from the M77 rockets, virtually destroying them The Paladins and Crusaders launched massive strikes on the tanks and IFVs, knocking most of them off. The infantry were the targets of most of the next volley 2 min. later, while some MLRS and Paladins used XRM-77 rockets and Copperhead rounds to take out most of the remaining vehicles and CPs. The airfields were hit along with the SAMs and AAA next. Now YNH-istan has but a couple hundred combat vehicles, artillery pieces, SAMs and AAA and only a couple thousand infantry left.

The above shows how less than 200 artillery pieces can destroy units 100 times their size (Infantry really add up...) in just 20 minutes or less. 60-second chef, man, he is burning that meat up.

But, all in all, I love artillery. Tanks, helicopters, and other stuff can reach out and destroy one vehicle with almost complete impunity, but artillery can vaporize entire units with the flick of a switch from 20 miles or more away. (roughly qouted from Armored Cav)

Really, I think we ought to RP a fake war with one side using artillery and small amounts of bombers, and another side using lots of bombers and little or no arty. The rest is even, of course (i.e., fighter/transport aircraft, tanks, helos, infantry,...

Of course, when your on a strafing run against a line of artillery, your making yourself vulnerable to Air Defenses, you would be open for the enemy to lob 6 SAMs at your plane, the chances of getting away from SIX SAMs(not to mention the rapid fire, proximity fused, anti-aircraft guns), isnt exactly impossible, but mostly improbable.
...and that's what standoff anti-armour and cluster munitions, coupled with effective targeting systems, are for. Though for that matter, I don't understand why one is trying to make a direct comparison between artillery and aircraft from the start, considering that they are both for different roles.

And stealth planes are being rendered useless by more and more potent radar systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft.
Detection and tracking & engagement are two different matters, even if you do not take other factors such as frequency-hopping capabilities (aka LPI) and ECM immunity capabilities into account. Methinks the usage of radar to detect stealth is somewhat overrated here (it is indeed very possible, but it's a problem when you get it to a point where every radar in service of your military can track and successfully target a B-2 at 300km range), even though stealth is in many times overrated in itself.

Well one major plus point for artillery is availability, if you have your ground froces organised pretty well then the artillery is generlalyt always with your front line elements and is always availble on short notice, unlike airpower. Unless of course you are fighting a toially one sided conflcit where you can afford to have your strike aircraft cab ranked behind a tanker somewhere overhead for hours at time.

I really haven't paid as much attention to this thread as I probably should given the fact that I'm trying to learn as much as I can about RPing ground combat, so I apologise if this has already been said a million times. My sense is that people don't necessarily underestimate artillery, but some RPers prefer the mental chess game of trying to outwit their "enemy" and perhaps they feel that using artillery cheapens that at the company or platoon level.

It's one reason I absolutely *loathe* missile saturation attacks. Are they legitimate strategy? Yes. But do they enhance RP? Pardon my French, but fuck no.

Because artillary smashing a battallion into peices only makes so much good RP. Infantry on infantry battles are more fun to read and write.

I disagree. People number-wank their infantry so often that its not even funny. Its either numbers like "OMG! I use 5% of my 5 billion population, meaning I have 250 million soldiers to use!" or NS'ers magically mustering, deploying, and transporting them 100,000+ miles in NS Earth in just 1 NS day. Multi-million man infantry armies invading small nations = no fun at all to read or write.



That aside... I have the king, the Emperor, and the Supreme of all MT artillery to date (and I designed it 6+ months ago)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7986009&postcount=1

It's one reason I absolutely *loathe* missile saturation attacks. Are they legitimate strategy? Yes. But do they enhance RP? Pardon my French, but fuck no.

I would have to disagree. For one, missile saturation attacks, especially on a fleet, are extremely overestimated in the amount of damage they would cause. Frankly, NSers have such great surface to air missile systems that over 80% of the missiles coming in are wiped out just by that; then you have to take in mind AAA and CIWS weapons. In the end, a small percentage of that missile wave is going to make it through, and it'll most likely shake your capital ships and sink a few smaller ships; but nothing lethal to you in general.

Consequently, they don't necessarilly degenerate a role play, and they may enhance it if it's written well. Because, simply said, the days that a dreadnought lines up with another dreadnought and starts firing at it are over - missiles are what's in.

Although, I have to refute that last claim as well. Especially in W@W we're finding that missiles are becoming more and more obsolete to the extremely well designed protectionary methods, such as ships entirely destined as air defense vessels [such as my Paramount], consequently, W@W stresses innovation, or frankly, you're dead meat [one of the reasons W@W has found so much success lately]. I try to export that to NationStates, and for me it seems to be working pretty well.

...anyways, back on topic. I personally love artillery, and I use it mostly in counter-battery fire and strategic and tactical support bombardments. Normally, when I start an offensive I also have a short [30 minute] bombardment, but beyond that, my artillery is much more tactical than anything else. It may be because I'm a fan of slow, methodical advances, instead of spectacular armored advances, which I found just don't work on NS.

Regardless, those are my two cents.

Because artillary smashing a battallion into peices only makes so much good RP. Infantry on infantry battles are more fun to read and write.

ok, ill write a short piece of artillery fire. btw i love artillery, take it everywhere and build big dugouts with it in.


The Snow lay soft and thick on the solid ground untouched by anyone it sat in the no-mans land.. The sun low in the sky and the clouds high made it an ideal day.

The Sound of metal against metal rang out over the flat land that lead to the forests of pine. The scraping of the snow off the guns was a daily chore for the men of the Federations finest. The shovels scarred and scraped the barrels and the noise of shots in cannon scarred their ears.

Kommandant Soandso'ov scanned the trenches, men were piling out of the dugouts wearing little more than what they slept in and their greatcoats.

He walked down the line, checking sights, triggers, all the nessecaties.
The Radio operator flagged him down to the south end, The officers truck was half buried under the night snow, it would take a long time to remove but wan't going to be for now.

The Kommandant ran down and into the battle command truck, he swept off his hat and gloves.

"The orders just come over the lines, Fire commence at 0400 hours."

" good, we will be ready for then, Captain, get your crews ready for the assault, i want a high distribution of ammunition."

"Da Kommandant"

Kommandant Soandso'ov ducked his head and stepped into the trench, he took his binos and watched the horizon. Soon it would be his job,
To make Hell on earth.

.......... and it could continue to the actual attack

"the noise shook the line of guns, all firing like a wave of fire."

So that was Krobs 5 minute guide to Artillery Use in RPs

sorry i was off track from the main subject. i didnt read through first

Artillery is extrememly important. In war, most of the casualties are caused by artillery just because you can fire soo many shells onto the target. My army has zillions of cheap mortars so that they can plaster the enemy. But the real reason that it dosen't show up that much is because noone thinks of it. They're paying more attention to tanks, soldiers in planes, and artillery dosen't really sit there on the battlefield. It's easy to forget sometimes, but in real life an army without artillery is going to have a hard time.

As much as I realize that this is potentially inviting a flame war to develop beyond what is already present in the earlier pages of this thread, I don't think that the problem is underestimation of artillery assets, both tube and rocket.

For the most part it is a lack of understanding and knowledge when it comes to armed conflict, past, present, and possibly the future which can only be discussed on a theoretical level. In all forms, not just some.

Another problem is that a huge number of people think they're God's Gift To XYZ.

[XYZ to be substituted with: Technology, Tactics, Strategy, et ceterae.]

It's also a matter of doctrine; people who model themselves after the Russo-Soviet forces are going to place increased reliance on artillery and people who model themselves after American / NATO forces are going to place the emphasis on close air support and control of the skies, expecting that this makes the war amazingly simple for them.

It's unfortunate but true. This thread has been an eye-opener for me at least, seeing how many people understand how much of what and how well, and I look forward to seeing RPs conducted by them at some point in the future.

From where I sit artillery is hardly obsolete and I can't see it becoming obsolete due to airpower or any other advances in military technology any time soon. Artillery is much like the infantryman or the armoured fighting vehicle.
For those who aren't familiar with the reference I'm making, simply put I am saying that with each new technological advance people have put out the cry of "It's the end of the infantryman!" or something along those lines, and time has proven that statement horribly inaccurate.

I don't see the need to participate in this discussion further, it is what I would call an "Endless Debate." There are literally dozens if not hundreds of examples that could be cited, studied, and rebuked only to be met with another example.

It's not so much one weapon platform's percieved superiority over another but how one goes about utilizing it.

Regardless of how your army is modeled, after the Soviets or NATO, you really need artillery. Like I said, more soldiers die from artillery than any other combat weapon.

I would have to disagree. For one, missile saturation attacks, especially on a fleet, are extremely overestimated in the amount of damage they would cause. Frankly, NSers have such great surface to air missile systems that over 80% of the missiles coming in are wiped out just by that; then you have to take in mind AAA and CIWS weapons. In the end, a small percentage of that missile wave is going to make it through, and it'll most likely shake your capital ships and sink a few smaller ships; but nothing lethal to you in general.

Consequently, they don't necessarilly degenerate a role play, and they may enhance it if it's written well. Because, simply said, the days that a dreadnought lines up with another dreadnought and starts firing at it are over - missiles are what's in.The problem with your first paragraph is that, even if you allow for adjustment to NS-ized combat, the effect of anti-missile defences, CIWS, and other defences against missile attacks is largely overrated. Many RL combat systems are tested in the neighbourhood of 95 percent effectiveness, but those are field tests. In actual battle, the percentage effectiveness of such defences is much, much lower. Basically, you're going to have to expend quite a bit of ammunition to shoot down a sufficient amount of missiles to keep your fleets from suffering mission kills.

Besides that, there is a major problem with the thinking that losing a few escorts isn't that big a deal. If you lose enough escorts, it allows aircraft or submarines or other smaller ships to have free rein on a vulnerable capital ship, in particular aircraft carriers that are only incidentally armed IRL, and are barely better armed in NS. And your thought about missile saturation attacks doesn't begin to cover the launching of literally THOUSANDS of missiles against a fleet.

One final point though about missiles, and this is completely separate from the previous rant about missile saturations: Against ships like the SDs or similar warships (including various "large cruisers" and trimaran battleships), missiles are not designed to penetrate the thick armours of such warships. If you fired a Harpoon against my refit Vigilant-class superdreadnought expecting to cause serious damage, I'd probably laugh my ass off. Tests of the elderly Iowa class battleships found that many standard antiship missiles had little to no effect against a Iowa. The problem would be magnified against vastly better protected warships including trimaran escorts.

DMG, I can tell you must not RP infantry a lot. There are several large holes in your argument.

Artillery is Inaccurate and Ineffective compared to aircraft. period. It is not underestimed - it is estimated to exactly its value in NS.

Incorrect. Today's artillery is extremely accurate and effective, in fact (dare I say) moreso than aircraft. With aircraft you have to worry about other aircraft, AAA, and SAM sites. With planes your presence is well broadcast thanks to a little thing called radar signature.

With artillery, it is hard to determine where the hell it is coming from unless you have satellites scouring every inch of the enemy lines. Rocket assisted artillery shells (preferred weapon by my infantry) can add 5 to 10 miles to your effective range, and with the assistance of your own satellites (coordinates, etc.), you can guide them right on top of some poor sap's head.

You don't need 100,000 aircraft to do the job of 100,000 artillery. Of course the number of aircraft is limited but so is the number of artillery... so your point doesn't make sense

Aircraft are limited by the number of weapons they have on board. Artillery is limited by how backed up your supply lines are. As long as you have a steady flow of ammunition, you can fire artillery until your heart's content. Mind you, artillery batteries tend to have anti-air batteies stationed near them as well. Gotta love mobility.

You said that a bomber couldn't take out a large artillery force extended over a large area... my point was that you can...

Negative, I don't believe a bomber could. If said bomber managed to make it past intercepting aircraft, AAA and SAM fire from the ground, then perhaps they could do some damage, but as I stated above, mobile artillery usually has some sort of air protection (not sure if everyone does this, I know I do) with it. Plus the fact that it is mobile helps, because it can fire then displace rather quickly.

My point is this, you can never substitute artillery with aircraft. Technology has gotten to the point where you practically can't fly planes or shoot missiles anymore without having some AI guided, mach 7 projectile up your ass in seconds. Artilery is much harder to detect and destroy, especially if they're lurking in a wooded or mountainous environment.

Artillery will always be around and will always be vital to any ground campaign. I should know, infantry and infantry tactics are my specialty. ;)

The problem with your first paragraph is that, even if you allow for adjustment to NS-ized combat, the effect of anti-missile defences, CIWS, and other defences against missile attacks is largely overrated. Many RL combat systems are tested in the neighbourhood of 95 percent effectiveness, but those are field tests. In actual battle, the percentage effectiveness of such defences is much, much lower. Basically, you're going to have to expend quite a bit of ammunition to shoot down a sufficient amount of missiles to keep your fleets from suffering mission kills.

Besides that, there is a major problem with the thinking that losing a few escorts isn't that big a deal. If you lose enough escorts, it allows aircraft or submarines or other smaller ships to have free rein on a vulnerable capital ship, in particular aircraft carriers that are only incidentally armed IRL, and are barely better armed in NS. And your thought about missile saturation attacks doesn't begin to cover the launching of literally THOUSANDS of missiles against a fleet.

One final point though about missiles, and this is completely separate from the previous rant about missile saturations: Against ships like the SDs or similar warships (including various "large cruisers" and trimaran battleships), missiles are not designed to penetrate the thick armours of such warships. If you fired a Harpoon against my refit Vigilant-class superdreadnought expecting to cause serious damage, I'd probably laugh my ass off. Tests of the elderly Iowa class battleships found that many standard antiship missiles had little to no effect against a Iowa. The problem would be magnified against vastly better protected warships including trimaran escorts.


But, you're not dealing with Pac-3s and S-400/500s here, you're dealign with surface to air missile systems guided by multi-band RADARs [as I've seen many guided by], LIDARs, CELLDARs and LADARs, so accuracy is going to go up immensely. And frankly,a Billy Bob SAM missile is cheaper than a Exocet M-2000 4th generation anti-ship missile, and so people are more willing to fire the former in bulkier waves than the anti-ship missiles. It is to say, missile wave is met by missile wave.

I personally think AAA and cannon fire against missiles is largely underrated, especially if you're using high potential burst shells, which are absoltely perfect for taking out waves of missiles that number over 500 missiles. Imagine a bunch of packed missiles met by something that can cost a factory about 30 bucks to make, which fires balls in all directions, tearing into the missiles. Just, you can put up indefinate amounts of AAA fire and cannon fire, and packed missiles just won't last.

In conclusion, not only are missile waves ineffectual, it's a relatively bad strategy to go with regardless.

On the Iowa. In front of a congressional review it was said that if a Tomahawk hit an Iowa all they had to do was repaint it, and it was back to normal.

bump

I was reading an Armed Forces Journal (Military magazine). In it was an article very much like this thread.

The writer was talking about the days of Close Air Support being numbered. Why? Because its much easier, cheaper and maybe even quicker to have the infantry squad call in a "smart" artillery strike, like a cruise missile, or fire from an AGS (Advanced Gun System, precision artillery, effectivly). Air support can be shot down, the planes have to get there, sometimes even take off, while an AGS can be told "Fire at coordanates X,Y" and BOOM.

I was reading an Armed Forces Journal (Military magazine). In it was an article very much like this thread.

The writer was talking about the days of Close Air Support being numbered. Why? Because its much easier, cheaper and maybe even quicker to have the infantry squad call in a "smart" artillery strike, like a cruise missile, or fire from an AGS (Advanced Gun System, precision artillery, effectivly). Air support can be shot down, the planes have to get there, sometimes even take off, while an AGS can be told "Fire at coordanates X,Y" and BOOM.


Artillery, however, faces similar problems because it's a lot easier to engage in counter-battery fire than it is to shoot down an aircraft. So, the negatives are the same. The best response would be a mixture of close support and artillery fire.

I've been looking at people RPing for a while and the thing i don't understand is why most RPers underestimate the value of artillery. In real combat the infantry only fights after the artillery has done its job on enemy positions, on NS it does not seem to be the case. Artillery can be a powerful tool especially at the MT level of technology then you can have powerful weapons and your enemy doesn't have adequate protection. An artillery system can be developed to destroy a whole batallion with one hit, actually i will develop that soon. Anyways, the thing i don't understand is, why the hell do you guys underestimate artillery?
I'm all for a good artillery barrage. If you're a half decent RP'er, then you would realise the tremedous physchological effect of it. Morale will sink as a result of continued shelling. However, it's always possible to create adequate protection. WW1, for example. The German's built bunkers to escape the artillery, and it worked.

Artillery also churns up the ground, and is highly inaccuracte (if you consider artillery to be used in the sense of the word, very large guns behind the lines and more so). IN the world of MT, pinpoint strikes are more desirable than blanket shelling, especially in close range engagements. Aircraft can do more damage with greater precision. But artillery still has it's place.

However, creating artillery that wipes out entire battalions in a single blow is a GodMod of epic proportions. The calbire of the weapon, coupled with the explosive yield neccessery (which is actually a misnomer, as artillery are more designed for impact rather than explosion) would be immense, and economically unwise.

Snake Eaters, you've obviously never heard of MRLS, which has the ability to literally destroy a square mile with eight rockets.

Artillery also churns up the ground, and is highly inaccuracte (if you consider artillery to be used in the sense of the word, very large guns behind the lines and more so). IN the world of MT, pinpoint strikes are more desirable than blanket shelling, especially in close range engagements. Aircraft can do more damage with greater precision. But artillery still has it's place.

Artillery is not inaccurate thats the thing for some reason people don't realize.

However, creating artillery that wipes out entire battalions in a single blow is a GodMod of epic proportions. The calbire of the weapon, coupled with the explosive yield neccessery (which is actually a misnomer, as artillery are more designed for impact rather than explosion) would be immense, and economically unwise.

If US Army thinks its feasible in RL, i think it might be feasible on NS. Also it is not so ridiculus as you describe, all that has to be done is a 250-60 mm self-propelled howitzer or mortar with a shell that has a ton of submunitions in it and another explosive that would denotate in mid air and spread the submunitions around a wide area. How is that impossible?

Snake Eaters, you've obviously never heard of MRLS, which has the ability to literally destroy a square mile with eight rockets.
I have heard of the Multiple Launch Rocket System. Used mostly by the American Army. But you don't see the point. It's so rare that it is used in that capacity, that the whole point is defeated. Also, if you want good RP's, then you want decent fighting to go on, instead of someone saying,'OMG pwned u wit my MLRS!'

Please note, I hate leet speak, I am only using it to emphasis a point.

Artillery is not inaccurate thats the thing for some reason people don't realize.



If US Army thinks its feasible in RL, i think it might be feasible on NS.

Depends on what you class as artillery... and the US Army... don't even get me started, or I may go wildly off topic. On the topic of destroying a battalion... sure, it's feasible. BUT, when you started this thread, you were asking why people underestimate the artillery in RP's. It's doing stuff like that in RP's that mkes it unpopular. Just because a weapon can do something like that, doesn't mean you have to make it.

Well yes of course it does all depend on the class of artillery but many people make a point that artillery is innacurate which is simply not true, i use precision artillery.

I have heard of the Multiple Launch Rocket System. Used mostly by the American Army. But you don't see the point. It's so rare that it is used in that capacity, that the whole point is defeated. Also, if you want good RP's, then you want decent fighting to go on, instead of someone saying,'OMG pwned u wit my MLRS!'

Please note, I hate leet speak, I am only using it to emphasis a point.


Actually, MRLS and it's faster lighter variant were used to hell's end in the opening days of Iraq. Why do you think the Iraqi army surrendered so quickly? They were getting pummeled without even seeing their enemy.

Well yes of course it does all depend on the class of artillery but many people make a point that artillery is innacurate which is simply not true, i use precision artillery.

Then you should define precise artillery. Nothing is completley precise. A cruise missile, for example, is naturally going to be more precise than a 120mm self-propelled howitzer (ah, the AS-90, gotta love it), but it still has it's faults.

Actually, MRLS and it's faster lighter variant were used to hell's end in the opening days of Iraq. Why do you think the Iraqi army surrendered so quickly? They were getting pummeled without even seeing their enemy.

Don't you think I know that? Christ Almighty. Look, this thread isn't about a weapons capabilites in real life, it's about how it's used in NS. I'm just making the point as to how using MLRS and similar systems in such a manner as you describe defeats the nature of a good RP.

Don't you think I know that? Christ Almighty. Look, this thread isn't about a weapons capabilites in real life, it's about how it's used in NS. I'm just making the point as to how using MLRS and similar systems in such a manner as you describe defeats the nature of a good RP.


No, that's a misconception. You can have a good roleplay with MRLS, you can have good roleplay with nuclear weapons. In fact, A Passion Play has been rated one of the best threads and it includes [b]all of the above.

not true, if my precise artillery has GPS targeting it will be just as precise as a cruise missile on a stationary target, plus i've been thinking of designign smart shell type technology that would allow artillery shells to change their trajectory during flight making them even more precise in case the target starts moving.

I get a bit worried about all this talk of destroying whole battalions and such.

It works in theory, yes, but in practice I would hope that RPers don't put too much faith in actually being able to apply that level of assured destruction on the battlefield. I don't think it's just about making a good RP by choosing not to win in one volley, rather that, when the dust clears, in most circumstances you're going to find that, oh, half of them weren't there/moved/took cover/were never there to begin with/were otherwise sufficiently protected, obscured, or mobile, and so on and so forth.

That's not meant as an indication of Beth Gellert's lack of faith in artillery. We have towed and self-propelled guns and rocket artillery aplenty (and close-support aircraft, too, for the record), but we're under no illusion about it making us miraculously proof against an enemy advance.

MLRS is good for counter-battery fire and against infantry as well as lightly or non-armored targets(such as trucks and Humvees). Against tanks and APCs its worthless.

As I have said before, artillery is the sharpest and farthest reaching teeth of a ground field army. The problem is keeping it supplied(tube artillery eats up an insane amount of ammo) and keeping it with the field army when said army is on the move(artillery usually falls behind... even self-proppelled guns)

But of course claiming that it has a capability of destroying a battalion with a single shot is not saying that every time it shoots it destroys a battalion.

I get a bit worried about all this talk of destroying whole battalions and such.

It works in theory, yes, but in practice I would hope that RPers don't put too much faith in actually being able to apply that level of assured destruction on the battlefield. I don't think it's just about making a good RP by choosing not to win in one volley, rather that, when the dust clears, in most circumstances you're going to find that, oh, half of them weren't there/moved/took cover/were never there to begin with/were otherwise sufficiently protected, obscured, or mobile, and so on and so forth.

That's not meant as an indication of Beth Gellert's lack of faith in artillery. We have towed and self-propelled guns and rocket artillery aplenty (and close-support aircraft, too, for the record), but we're under no illusion about it making us miraculously proof against an enemy advance.
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR AGREEMENT!

MLRS is good for counter-battery fire and against infantry as well as lightly or non-armored targets(such as trucks and Humvees). Against tanks and APCs its worthless.

As I have said before, artillery is the sharpest and farthest reaching teeth of a ground field army. The problem is keeping it supplied(tube artillery eats up an insane amount of ammo) and keeping it with the field army when said army is on the move(artillery usually falls behind... even self-proppelled guns)
Good points all.

No, that's a misconception. You can have a good roleplay with MRLS, you can have good roleplay with nuclear weapons. In fact, A Passion Play has been rated one of the best threads [by Doomingsland] and it includes all of the above

Alright, I'll clarify. It makes a good RP if everyone agrees to it. But, when you get one person doing it, it sucks.

Don't you think I know that? Christ Almighty. Look, this thread isn't about a weapons capabilites in real life, it's about how it's used in NS. I'm just making the point as to how using MLRS and similar systems in such a manner as you describe defeats the nature of a good RP.

And the "OMG! I have 100 million soldiers at 5% of my 2 billion population" numberwank doesn't defeat good RP? Or what about "I launch D-Day with 5 million soldiers!"?

In those instances, artillery can and *will* make short work of numberwanked NS ground armies.

And the "OMG! I have 100 million soldiers at 5% of my 2 billion population" numberwank doesn't defeat good RP? Or what about "I launch D-Day with 5 million soldiers!"?

In those instances, artillery can and *will* make short work of numberwanked NS ground armies.

I never said anything about number wanking. You are putting words in my mouth, and trying to claim that I said them

I never said anything about number wanking. You are putting words in my mouth, and trying to claim that I said them

You said "I'm just making the point as to how using MLRS and similar systems in such a manner as you describe defeats the nature of a good RP."

I'm saying that it's perfectly justifable to use mass artillery if the enemy numberwanks like in the examples I stated above. If the numberwanker whines or complains, it's their fault, not mine.

I'm saying that it's perfectly justifable to use mass artillery if the enemy numberwanks like in the examples I stated above. If the numberwanker whines or complains, it's their fault, not mine.
How about this... If someone numberwanks, you just don't RP with them. Putting yourself at their level by countering their numberwank with something exclusive that is designed to counter numberwanks (in your instances, mass artillery barrage, though I don't see anything excessively bad about it when given the right circumstances) but is considered too excessive in other cases isn't the way to solve it.

How about this... If someone numberwanks, you just don't RP with them. Putting yourself at their level by countering their numberwank with something exclusive that is designed to counter numberwanks (in your instances, mass artillery barrage, though I don't see anything excessively bad about it when given the right circumstances) but is considered too excessive in other cases isn't the way to solve it.

Yeah- I just don't want to end up ignoring 90% of RP's, you know?

Its quite hard to find a good, reasonable, and enjoyable RP. In my 14 months here at NS, I've only found *ONE* good RP- namely E20 (Earth 1900 - 2000, Alternate History).

Incorrect. Today's artillery is extremely accurate and effective, in fact (dare I say) moreso than aircraft.Precision artillery is accurate, but AFAIK it's not as accurate as precision bombs and missiles. IIRC Giat used to have a PDF on a "Penguin" guided artillery shell on their site that included its accuracy, but it's not there now...
With artillery, it is hard to determine where the hell it is coming from unless you have satellites scouring every inch of the enemy lines.No, it's not. Thanks to counter-battery radar, your artillery had better move fast after shooting. Sitting still while you fire ten more salvos is a good way to die.
I personally think AAA and cannon fire against missiles is largely underrated, especially if you're using high potential burst shells, which are absoltely perfect for taking out waves of missiles that number over 500 missiles. Imagine a bunch of packed missiles met by something that can cost a factory about 30 bucks to make, which fires balls in all directions, tearing into the missiles.That's been a standard SSM defense in the Nianaciana navy for almost two OOC years. If the missiles are coming from opposite directions, though, the guns will have trouble taking them all out, and I've had some other doubts about how well it'll actually work.

I'll refrain from challenging naval stuff here, as this thread is about artillery...

This thread is an endless debate. Ground-based tube and missile artillery have their use, infantry and armor have their use, close-air support and bombers have their use, and cap hammers have their use on the modern battlefield. You can't possibly expect one system to assume the status of "be all, end all" over the other.

Now, discussing artillery for a moment; yes, I would agree that from what I've seen of NS, they are generally underrated. I think people see the word "artillery" and think of Soviet guns decimating Berlin en-masse, or of rows of Katyusha trucks spewing missiles over a treeline. Artillery has advanced much since those days in precision and guidance. Self-propelled artillery is faster, able to keep pace with some second-line field army units. C3 systems are much more advanced, and ballistics is a refined science. Copperhead munitions now rival first-generation laser guided bombs in terms of shot-for-shot accuracy, and the technology continues to improve.

On the other hand, so does the technology against artillery improve. Counterbattery radar and counterbattery fire are both deadly effective at craftily dismantling an opponent's artillery assets, which is why modern armies utilize a Shoot-n-Scoot doctrine for field artillery. While this negates the effectiveness of counterbattery fire, every minute you spend moving is a minute you're not spending on loading or outting shots.

Now, we can take a look at the other side of the contested spectrum, in which strategic bombers have a percieved ultimate superiority over ground assets, in which it has been demonstrated that they don't. Surface-to-Air and anti-aircraft systems improve to counter faster, more agile aircraft. Increasingly powerful radars adapt to defeat stealth. Aircraft become exceedingly more maneuverable, and employ exceedingly more powerful countermeasures, while passive technology advances to "counter the counter", so to speak. Better systems are developed for SEAD, and better systems are developed to defeat those measures, and the cycle progresses ad infinitum.

Anti-battery defense systems adapt to intercept more sophisticated missile systems, and now we're breaking development in newer battlefield CIWS systems to engage and defeat artillery and tank shells. It never ends.

The point I hope I've succeeded in making is that the effectiveness of X system used on the battlefield can only be measured by how much Y countermeasure fails to stop it. The only way you could realistically hope to defeat an opponent is, therefore, to employ as many un-counterable measures as possible to fight them, which is only achieved through the concerted, well-orchestrated use of combined arms.

So, back to the original topic, is artillery underestimated? Yes. Is it the most powerful asset a mobilized field army has at their disposal? Currently, yes.

Is that going to last? Hell no. Advance and survive or seek alternatives.

This thread is an endless debate. Ground-based tube and missile artillery have their use, infantry and armor have their use, close-air support and bombers have their use, and cap hammers have their use on the modern battlefield. You can't possibly expect one system to assume the status of "be all, end all" over the other.

Now, discussing artillery for a moment; yes, I would agree that from what I've seen of NS, they are generally underrated. I think people see the word "artillery" and think of Soviet guns decimating Berlin en-masse, or of rows of Katyusha trucks spewing missiles over a treeline. Artillery has advanced much since those days in precision and guidance. Self-propelled artillery is faster, able to keep pace with some second-line field army units. C3 systems are much more advanced, and ballistics is a refined science. Copperhead munitions now rival first-generation laser guided bombs in terms of shot-for-shot accuracy, and the technology continues to improve.

On the other hand, so does the technology against artillery improve. Counterbattery radar and counterbattery fire are both deadly effective at craftily dismantling an opponent's artillery assets, which is why modern armies utilize a Shoot-n-Scoot doctrine for field artillery. While this negates the effectiveness of counterbattery fire, every minute you spend moving is a minute you're not spending on loading or outting shots.

Now, we can take a look at the other side of the contested spectrum, in which strategic bombers have a percieved ultimate superiority over ground assets, in which it has been demonstrated that they don't. Surface-to-Air and anti-aircraft systems improve to counter faster, more agile aircraft. Increasingly powerful radars adapt to defeat stealth. Aircraft become exceedingly more maneuverable, and employ exceedingly more powerful countermeasures, while passive technology advances to "counter the counter", so to speak. Better systems are developed for SEAD, and better systems are developed to defeat those measures, and the cycle progresses ad infinitum.

Anti-battery defense systems adapt to intercept more sophisticated missile systems, and now we're breaking development in newer battlefield CIWS systems to engage and defeat artillery and tank shells. It never ends.

The point I hope I've succeeded in making is that the effectiveness of X system used on the battlefield can only be measured by how much Y countermeasure fails to stop it. The only way you could realistically hope to defeat an opponent is, therefore, to employ as many un-counterable measures as possible to fight them, which is only achieved through the concerted, well-orchestrated use of combined arms.

So, back to the original topic, is artillery underestimated? Yes. Is it the most powerful asset a mobilized field army has at their disposal? Currently, yes.

Is that going to last? Hell no. Advance and survive or seek alternatives.


Bravo, well said. It's all about combined arms in modern combat, one piece is nothing if the whole is missing. A case in point; mortar teams have been wildly successful in Iraq against their insurgent counterparts because of counter-battery radars and helos using laser designators to help the mortarmen find their targets.

I have to find myself in agreement with the overall view of Strobania's analysis; however, do note, there are also complications as to using precision artillery shells (such as the American Copperhead) as well. First, it's quite expensive, which means that no matter how much funds you have, regular unguided shells will still dominate your total supply of artillery shells unless you are under special circumstances where the precision shells are absolutely required. Secondly, it may not be readily available or/and is in short supply, which means that most of the time you will still see unguided shells used. I also recall that the Copperhead needs manual laser designation on it's target in order for it to work. Even with the factors combined, using unguided artillery shells doesn't mean anything too bad. Recent advances in computers has been wonderful - there are even artillery pieces now that can fire multiple rounds in one salvo and have them all land on the same target at the same time (MRSI).

Another note about artillery. In terms of direct support of friendly troops, there are obvious reasons why artillery is generally preferred - for the simple fact that they are more readily available and fire missions can be requested by friendly troops more easily and quickly, since after all, artillery guns are part of an army and most likely they are also assigned to the friendly troops' unit's brigade or division. Aircraft are in many instances, part of a separate branch (aka the air force) which means that it might not be available that often upon request, and coordination is somewhat more difficult. But can either replace the other? Absolutely not.

First, it's quite expensive, which means that no matter how much funds you have, regular unguided shells will still dominate your total supply of artillery shells unless you are under special circumstances where the precision shells are absolutely required. Secondly, it may not be readily available or/and is in short supply, which means that most of the time you will still see unguided shells used. I also recall that the Copperhead needs manual laser designation on it's target in order for it to work. Even with the factors combined, using unguided artillery shells doesn't mean anything too bad.

This is correct, and I'd also like to drive the point the other way and make note of the fact that laser-guided bombs and JDAMs do not form the entirety of our freefall conventional arsenal of Bombs That Blow Up. Unguided bombs still see their use for the same reason that you don't sortie B-1Bs to flatten a tank column. There are appropriate tools for every job, and you use the one that isn't going to be wasted. Now, steering this around, unguided bombs aren't always that accurate, and that I think was the point many people were trying to make when answering the misconception that artillery is completely innacurate - dumb bombs don't always drop on a dime either.

Aircraft are in many instances, part of a separate branch (aka the air force) which means that it might not be available that often upon request, and coordination is somewhat more difficult. But can either replace the other? Absolutely not.

This was a harsh lesson learned during Vietnam much to the chagrin of many an infantry commander. Improved communications and air cavalry helps, to be sure, but it is still the Field Artillery which is often called upon to carry the day.

Actually, from what some of my Drill Sargeants said, laser-guided mortars are seeing more use in Iraq than unguided. The reason for this is simple, the close quarters work involved in Iraqi cities demands that the most precise rounds be used, and as good as regular artillery is, it isn't what one would call a precision weapon.

No, I don't underestimate artillery. In fact, I actually like it, but understand it's limitations. However, artillery and CAS are separate things, and must be used appropriately, or as Strobania put it, the use of combined arms and technology. Wars are won through a marriage of tactics, quality of weapons and many other factors.

I've been looking at people RPing for a while and the thing i don't understand is why most RPers underestimate the value of artillery. In real combat the infantry only fights after the artillery has done its job on enemy positions, on NS it does not seem to be the case. Artillery can be a powerful tool especially at the MT level of technology then you can have powerful weapons and your enemy doesn't have adequate protection. An artillery system can be developed to destroy a whole batallion with one hit, actually i will develop that soon. Anyways, the thing i don't understand is, why the hell do you guys underestimate artillery?
I already have one of those. But I don't use cause I haven't been in many wars. The so called wars I've been in were nothing more than police actions that merely required dropping a bomb or two before the other side backed down.