Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

The purpose of this paper is to explain why US artillery should have a greater role in the conduct of operational fires. Current artillery has the capability to achieve operational effects, but Army doctrine almost ignores the capability. As a result, artillery force structure is inadequate to support the operational level commander. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, sees artillery as the mainstay of its fire support system at the tactical and operational levels. Soviet Artillery is organized and equipped to support both operational and tactical plans simultaneously. This paper evaluates the respective US and Soviet approaches to the use of artillery at the operational level. Historical and current approaches are included in the evaluation. Also, the paper looks at emerging technology which may influence US Army doctrine concerning the employment of artillery at the operational level. Artillery cannot accept responsibility for conducting all operational fires. It is not necessarily the best asset for conducting operational fires. But it currently has the ability to enhance the operational fires provided by the US Air Force and Army Aviation. Emerging technology promises even greater capabilities for the artillery. The paper recommends that the Army reassess the use of artillery as an operational fires asset in view of its current and emerging capabilities to enhance operational fires. (kr)