Find results with:

Add another field

Search by date

to

Searching collections:

School of Advanced Military Studies Monographs

Add or remove collections

Home Will the “king of battle” reign on the future high intensity battlefield?

Reference URL

Rate

Save to favorites

To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document

To embed this object, paste this HTML in website

Will the “king of battle” reign on the future high intensity battlefield?

View Description

Download

small (250x250 max)

medium (500x500 max)

large ( > 500x500)

Full Resolution

PDF
Text

1993.pdf [1.79 MB MB]]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:
Adobe Acrobat

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

Submit

Cancel

...

Back to top

Powered by CONTENTdm®

Rating
Collection	School of Advanced Military Studies Monographs
Title	Will the “king of battle” reign on the future high intensity battlefield?
Author	Ware, Howard L., III
Abstract	This paper analyzes the U.S. Army's field artillery fire support system's ability to deliver devastating and timely fires on the high intensity European battlefield of the 1990s. In an era of budget cuts and manpower constraints, the artillery has counted on strong innovative leadership, quality soldiers, sound training and flexible doctrine, and creative advanced technology to give the U.S. the edge over the Soviets. Meanwhile, the Soviets have modernized and restructured their artillery force. This paper shows that current artillery force structure is inadequate for the high intensity battlefield. A variation of the Combat Power Model is used to conduct a comparative analysis of U.S. and Soviet artillery systems. Following a brief discussion of artillery doctrine, U.S. and Soviet artillery delivery systems; command, control, and communications (C3); sustainment and support; and target acquisition capabilities are evaluated. This comparison shows that U.S. and Soviet delivery systems are qualitatively quite similar. The U.S.'s only significant advantage is in the area of "smart" munitions. The Soviets have a tremendous advantage in cannon, multiple rocket launcher, and missile quantity. American C3 and target acquisition systems are automated and use modern technology; these same Soviet systems do not. However, that does not necessarily mean the Soviet systems are deficient. Sustainment problems possibly exist in both countries' artilleries. The paper concludes with three main points. First, both the U.S. and the Soviets have a formidable artillery force with which both sides will attempt to win a large scale artillery-on-artillery duel. Second, the Soviets are attempting to establish a quantitative advantage and technological parity with U.S. artillery. Finally, U.S. artillery is qualitatively and technologically sufficient. However, to accomplish its multitude of missions, it is quantitatively deficient.
Keyword	Fire support; Field Artillery (Army Branch); Europe; Military doctrine; Command, control, and communications (C3); Support; Sustainment; Target acquisition; Military capability; Force structure; Soviet armed forces; Artillery fire; United States Armed Forces; Military technology; Artillery forces; Battlefield
Series	Command and General Staff College (CGSC), School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) Monograph
Publisher	Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original	1988-12-16
Date, Digital	2008
Resource Type	Textual
Format	PDF; Adobe Acrobat Reader required; 64 p.; 1.79 MB.
Call number	ADA 210967
Release statement	Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository	Combined Arms Research Library
Library	Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created	2008-03-31

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Will the “king of battle” reign on the future high intensity battlefield?

Will the “king of battle” reign on the future high intensity battlefield?

File Format:

Description