• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

When was the last time artillery was needed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BLACKBERRY

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
I can see the the use of infantry, armoured, and logistic support being used on peacekeeping missions which is the only thing the Canadian army seems to do, but when was the last time the artillery used their guns on a peacekeeping or peacemaking mission?
 
We used them extensively on Roto 0 Athena, both for the guns and UAV's. They were integral to the mission.
 
I am sure within the past 12 hrs there has been a few fire missions in Iraq, by Allied forces. If not the past 12 hrs, maybe 24.

Artillery is essential in todays modern military forces, and I am not going to get into a pisssing contest explaining it. There is more to artillery than just lobbing shells 11 km or more.

Like all branches of combat arms, each depends on the other to win the battle effectively.


The US are currently using a modified 105mm gun based on the UK and Aussie Hamel.


Ubique!

Wes
 
Sweet Goodness.

I see the mantra has worked.
WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS, WE ARE PEACEKEEPERS, WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS, WE ARE PEACEKEEPERS, WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS, WE ARE PEACEKEEPERS, WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS, WE ARE PEACEKEEPERS, WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS, WE ARE PEACEKEEPERS, WE ARE NOT SOLDIERS, WE ARE PEACEKEEPERS....

Hmm.. Let me see if this works.

I DO NOT LIKE MONEY, I WILL GIVE IT ALL TO BOGRAT, I DO NOT LIKE MONEY, I WILL GIVE IT ALL TO BOGRAT, I DO NOT LIKE MONEY, I WILL GIVE IT ALL TO BOGRAT, I DO NOT LIKE MONEY, I WILL GIVE IT ALL TO BOGRAT, I DO NOT LIKE MONEY, I WILL GIVE IT ALL TO BOGRAT...

 
BLACKBERRY said:
I can see the the use of infantry, armoured, and logistic support being used on peacekeeping missions which is the only thing the Canadian army seems to do, but when was the last time the artillery used their guns on a peacekeeping or peacemaking mission?

Some people just don't have a clue at all. ::)

Now why do I feel this need to give Bograt money???  ???
 
i can personally tell you that the guns were used on op Athena roto 0 . we fired to the best of my knowledge at least 2 maybe 3 live mission's this doesn't include the ranges either. the most common use the artillery have overseas is foo/fac party's.
 
Guns were also deployed to Bosnia on Roto 6 (Mar-Sept 2000).

What a moronic question.....
 
I've heard a lot of air force guys say how with todays modern technology and bombing ability and guidance and what have you, that artillery is becoming obsolete. I can tell you that the 1RCHA doesn't quite agree.

I think that with the advancements however, there is less need for artillery, but it has things that aircraft don't have.. It can be deployed so many places, in almost any location, can provide fire in some places aircraft can't and has very good mobility and deployment speed and you can't always depend on aircraft to soften up targets for the infantry... well you know really, it comes down to that saying which goes something like "you can use planes to bomb a location but you need soldiers on the ground to hold it" and I think that holds true with artillery as well. Diminished it's need may be but obsolete? I don't think so..
 
You forgot the biggest advantage we have over aircraft,.....we fly in any weather.
 
here Bograt, feel free to withdraw a sum of 19 Billion dollars from Accnt# 007.... and while you are at it......


Artillery... as I learnt the hard way(this last weekend on BMQ) the motto on their capbadge stands for "The Right and Glorious Lead the Way" at least, that is what I remember.... either way, artillery is a wonderful thing, even though you can't appreciate it until you need it, when you need it then you can really appreciate it. It enables you to 'soften up' targets before an attack, it enables you to hit the enemy behind their lines(HQ etc etc..) it enables you to disrupt their flow of re-inforcements, it enables you to fire over hills so that they cannot mass a counter-attack on the other side.. all of these are in essence free hits, we do not directly risk any life during these ops because in a perfect world the enemy can't shoot back...
*The guns thank God the guns*
 
Not again....

for the last time, those that ignor the aArtillery, do so at their own peril.

Blackberry, please don't display your ignorance on a subject you obversely know nothing about. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, silence would be considered a viable option. Take it.
 
You forgot the biggest advantage we have over aircraft,.....we fly in any weather.

Yeah, and it can't be shot down (as far as I know).

Trivia for non-arty guys (like me):

Artillery has killed more soldiers in war than any other from of arms.
 
Hey I know I'm just a dumb ex grunt, but shouldn't the question really be;

"When is the next time artillery will be needed?" 
 
I guess the saying "The only dumb question, is the one left unasked" went right out the window in this thread. God forbid that some guy, who doesn't know anything about what is used in a modern battlefield try to further his education just a little bit, by asking a question.
 
"The only dumb question, is the one left unasked"

I would agree with Goober on this one folks, it's not like the guy came in like half the idiots who roam through and say something like..

ARTILLERY IS STUPID AND USELESS AND ANYONE WHO IS IN THAT PART OF THE MILITARY IS A STUPID HEAD IDIOT!...

We've had folks waltz through here who've made posts THAT effective? Can you believe it?  ::)

Anyway, at least he asked a question in a normal fashion and politely.

Joe
:cdn:
 
He hit 3 nerves with members here, Goober/Recruit Joe:

1)- Said that all we seem to do is Peacekeeping.
2)- Questioned the relavance of a complete arm of combat.
3)- Didn't use common sense.

He also hasn't filled out his profile, so I have no clue how much experience he has.

And remember: There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.
 
People who question the need for artillery have never seen the destruction created by a regimental fire mission and fail to understand how much leverage the guns can provide to our forces.
 
1)- Said that all we seem to do is Peacekeeping.
2)- Questioned the relavance of a complete arm of combat.
3)- Didn't use common sense.

.....and has a history of trying to stir things.
Quote,
I get tired of Canadian laziness and people thinking that is the way it should be. When I joined the British army  I wrote to them first and for 5 months a LT COL wrote back to e and coresponded with me. When I arrived at the Strand recruiting office LT COL Lumb {RETD} had contacted the recruiter sgt Hagerty {Welsh Guards} and had everything set up for me. I just wish th Canadian govt, army, police ect would get their crap together.
[ most of the good ones have been deleted]
 
I know he hit some nerves, and some of these nerves get hit alot, especially in a public forum. This forum has done alot to reduce dumb posts and mis-information, and has succeeded in it for the most part. But the question was asked in a simple manner, and the grammar looked fine. I just think he should have been given alittle slack. I mean, its a public forum, and questions/posts like this will never stop. There will always be posts that strike nerves with readers, as new people will always be coming in, sometimes not reading all the FAQs and rules and suggestions. So you can either reply to each one of these "dumb" or stupid questions in a bitter way (which reflects these boards in a negative manner, and keeps some people from posting) or give a bit of slack, every now and again, when a question is asked articulately.

Sometimes what one person sees as common sense, is not so common to another. For instance, I was always wondering, can people smoke on submarines? My common sense tells me NO, because oxygen is limited down there, and it needs to be clean to breath. But sometimes intelligence can cloud your common sense. My intelligence (subjective I know) tells me that many advances in air filtration systems have been made, and maybe there is a small room somewhere on a sub, with a filtration system where the submariners can smoke every now and again.

Gunnerlove:
Maybe ne has never seen the destruction, but maybe he knows how destructive artillery can be, and can't really picture it being used in any of the modern conflicts we were in, because alot of these conflicts recently are in an urban scenario, where there are civilians, and artillery wouldn't be used. I don't know, just playing a bit of devil's advocate, thats all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top