Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/wg2024 Follow the link to download the game and get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, premium accounts and more!
You forgot to mention North Korea: for all that we mock it for the antique arsenal, until recently South Korea knew that if the war resumed Seoul would be lost in a single hour due the sheer number of howitzers in range. Artillery keeps an entire country hostage, to the point it's one of the reasons South Korea decided to build a new capital from scratch.
I heard of the same and part of me wants to laugh of it thinking of North Korean quality control. Then I remember NK is such a military focused nations it’s likely the artillery and ammo are likely still pretty well maintained. Explosives have a surprisingly long shelf life. I remember shooting Vietnam era mortar rounds when I was a Marine in the 2010s and they went off without a hitch. Even if the NK ammo turn out to be duds; the psychological effect of knocking your city has full of unexploded ordinances would be unbearable to put it lightly.
@@SEAZNDragon It's been verified in Ukraine that the NK ammo has a high percentage of duds, up to half according to Ukrainian officials. But when six thousand shells are flying at you that means three thousands will become field hazards for who knows how long (here in Italy we're still finding unexploded ordnance from the American bombings during World War II, with a railway getting shut down for two weeks earlier this year after they found four and they looked for others).
@@dylanrice69 Doesn't really matter in the case of the guns threatening Seoul and the other South Korean cities in range. The difference between a working shell and a dud is that the former explodes on impact and the latter is a prolonged hazard, so they still make things horrible for the inhabitants.
You forgot hydraulics during the evolution of artillery. Not having to resight the guns constantly was quite helpful. The French 75mm was a helluva an advancement.
They barely touched the subject, how can you say that they forgot one aspect, making a video about this subject would make a series of one hour video's
I think the biggest thing about modern artillery (that you didn't mention) is the massive increase in accuracy - the Excalibur can hit within 140 meters at 40km or more. Mainstream artillery is also way more accurate than WW2 or Vietnam era 'level-everything' artillery
Fwiw: "With current artillery, Excalibur has a range of about 40 km (25 miles) with an accuracy of 4 m (13 ft) CEP or better." "A conventional unguided M549A1 155 mm artillery projectile has a circular error probable (CEP) of 267 m (876 ft) at its maximum range, meaning that half of the rounds can be expected to land within 267 m (876 ft) of their intended target."
I would have liked some more details about this. A chart with CEP and overpressure radius overlayed for various launchers and shells. Possibly compared to cruise and ballistic missiles... So much data...
Called The King of Battle for a reason. In WW1 and WW2 it was responsible for 70% of combat casualties and something like 60% of combat deaths. Most ways to go out in war don't actually involve the whole "Shooting at each other with rifles" part. Kind of dampens the glory, doesn't it?
As a former Infantryman, I have great respect for the "cannon cockers", but they can't take the ground or hold the ground. We are "The Queen of Battle" for a reason. Arty can blow it up but that's about all. Can they "close with the enemy by fire and maneuver."? Nope can't do it. It takes a grunt to do all that. It's nice if we have arty support, but that's all it is. Support. Cheers from a former Ranger
@@Skaldewolf When the king is confronted by the queen, he dies. Ever play chess? The king is the weakest piece on the board while the queen is the most powerful. LOL! I've been deployed twice and arty played little to no role. It would have been nice, but the RoE didn't allow it. Could cause too many civilian casualties. Only a grunt can take a village and keep the civies from getting creamed. Keep believing it cannon cocker, but when the bad guys are gonna overrun you, who ya gonna call? The Infantry, that's who.
@@Skaldewolf You want another indicator. Of the 2467 Medals of Honor awarded in the US Army only 90 were to artillerymen. 79 to medics. And about 70 to other branches. That leaves about 2200 awarded to the Infantry. The king is in the rear with the gear, while the grunt goes where others fear to tread.
There's an old military truth: 'Every era has its artillery.' This journey through history proves that as we evolve, so too does the firepower that defines us.
Probably not getting it exactly right, but: "Infantry is the Queen of warfare, and Artillery is the King. And we all know what the King does to the Queen."
Simon, I just want you to know that when you read out the caliber size of the Big bertha gun; I literally, involuntarily let out a, "Holy shit!" Great video, as always!
I was a Navy Corpsman with a Marine Artillery Battalion. Something like 80%% of all casualties in the last 120 years has been from arty. The distances involved in a 155mm m198 are astounding. The accuracy is pretty spot on. I wouldnt want to be in the receiving end of incoming rounds. The Russians old doctrine was to eliminate a grid square on the map, our doctrine was pin point accuracy. I am not sure if the Russians still use that doctrine today or if they got smart. I am guessing with their shortages in Ukraine, that have been forced to ration those rounds.
To be honest, Soviet doctrine was based on the experience of WWII, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and other major conflicts. Practice revealed, that having absolute dominance in number of guns and number of atillery shells pretty much decided all of the mentioned wars. That's quite wasteful and not highly efficient, but you need to consider that USSR was all about a fully mobilized war economy, capable of outproducing all of the NATO in regard to artillery munitions with a smaller economy
My grandfather was a forward observer in France during WW2 as well as the Korean War, he didn't share much but something he used to talk about was how the US Army actually adopted WW2 Soviet artillery doctrine during the Korean War, it makes sense when you consider the strategies used by the Chinese/Koreans but it was something that surprised me for sure
Lol in the part about Portuguese cannons, it auto transcribed cannon balls as cannibals. Imagine the terror of a volley of cannibals raining down on you.
In WW2 one of the greatest inventions for artillery was the proximity fuse. Whether for AAA or Howitzer the proximity fuse was a significant innovation.
Artillery and infantry operations were already fused together in combined arms during the First Balkan War of 1912 when Bulgarian artillery started using rolling barrages in front of advancing friendly infantry. Conceptually the rolling barrage was invented by the British a few years earlier.
*Thank you* for mentioning pre-gunpowder ancient artillery. Most folks don't really think about these nor realize that the basic roles of different types of cannons were carried over from Classical and Medieval artillery. Really, the only major new artillery roles that were not found in Roman times are *major* use of artillery mounted on vehicles (including ships) or the use of artillery for targets too far away for the artillery crew to see.
Artillery is suc a fascinating and terrifying concept, I've read, played and watched many forms of media regarding it, and it always seems like the equaliser in any battlefield.
Besides range. caliber and portability, I believe it has more to do with their potential uses. You would definitely use artillery to siege a military emplacement or a city. You wouldn't do that with a mortar, or even a battery of mortars. Those you would use as infantry support weapons, rather than demolition or area-denial, typically to add firepower to an assault. Even the biggest ones I know of (120mm) wouldn't be very effective on buildings, but they can wreak havoc among other infantry, and even tanks, if you're lucky.
I want to highlight the Trifecta. Normally done with Three(Or more) Non Linear Weapons shots are fired in cadence at different arcs so that they strike the target at the same time creative groups can and do launch different munitions to the effect of the imagination.
NATO didn't building their artillery stocks. But they can put warheads on foreheads from a hundred miles away, and do it in a way that destroys the logistics of your foe
since the ukraine war, artillery warfare has become much different. The accuracy of guided shells and rockets makes them act more like a slow-moving but far cheaper form of air power. And with the counter-battery radar nowadays, assuming ammo constraint isn't an issue, once an artillery opens fire, the enemy will respond in short order. In this context at least, the days of artillery blanketing an entire town or city seems to be over. Sustained fire rate will be giving way to burst fire instead, and the time needed to leave the place will also be an important factor as it will determine how many rounds an artillery piece can fire before it has to leave.
That's not true for the most part, mass use of artillery will never be on the back foot much less go away, all major battles in this war has been won by artillery leveling the place
@@rajaydon1893 what he said was that massed artillery being used to destroy a target is a thing of the past. I don't think he meant that artillery is going to take a less important role. Just that you can't get away with ww1 style bombardments. I think that is mostly true, at least when you are talking about two conventional armies fighting each other.
@@SangiinKherem I doubt counter-battery fire is going to stop the military from levelling a whole area, but it certainly won't be as straightforward as waking up and walking over to your artillery then bombarding the area until bedtime, at least until someone comes up with some creative solutions
Ok i get simons approach. He's becoming the answer to everything on youtube like it's google and the internet of yester-year. Mr simon is going for you tube domination now
Naval artillery my beloved was neglected. Sadge. Naval artillery is artillery, too! And cooler because it's integrated with enormous moving fortresses.
About World War I, there are some misconceptions here and there. I highly recommend to watch the videos of the youtube channel "the great war". Especially about Verdun where it's not simply a meat grinder but a battle that held the whole front together on both sides. It had a strategic value and meant, in the eyes of the headquarters, that it should be defended at all costs. Nobody wanted to use people like that but without any better strategy, it came down to that. However, those assaults were not useless either (yes, they were deadly and achieved little to nothing in the eyes of the soldiers but), tactics evolved and the way people went on the assault in 1915 was not the same as in 1917 and 1918. Equipment and resources were far different at the end. The evolution that gave the allies the edge in bringing the war back in motion was slow and came at the cost of those meatgrinders
Russia hit its limit on 155 mm shells. It has bought in excess of 10 million rounds from North Korea to replenish its stocks. You are correct that NATO countries have NOT kept stockpiles, instead relying on the USA to come to the rescue. Problem is everyone fell in love with the fancy multi-million dollar missiles and the cost affective 155 mm was left out.
"It feels good to have artillery in the castle again. I'll let you know if I hear of any settlements that need our(your) help. In the meantime be sure to lend a hand to whoever needs it." Some guy with a weird hat
Russia is basically waging a WW2 style war in 2024. Indiscriminate artillery fire on civilians and their infrastructure is the only thing Russian Army is capable of... But just imagine if US and NATO forces operated in a similar way during the 20 years of Afghan and Iraqi wars? Imagine if we flew the B-52s in a massive "a la Vietnam War" raids, to destroy the enemy? Imagine the world's uproar if USA, Germany, GB, Australia or any Western combatant did that? Now try to remember the outcry, attacks on and the general critique of the US military, when we mistakenly killed 20-30 civilians in a Predator UAV strike.. Double standards maybe?
It's very worth noting that, when it comes to infantry with proper training and equipment, artillery is actually not that good at destruction - earthworks are particularly good at resisting the power of shellfire, which is why the more a war leans on artillery barrages, the more you tend to see infantry digging in, with WWI being something of the logical extreme of this. I forget the exact statistics, but I remember seeing that an overwhelming number of the casualties of any given artillery barrage are killed in the first minute (something upwards of 70%) dropping to only a couple of percent after 5 or 10 minutes (one of the early Perun analysis videos, maybe). The reason for this is very simple - they often don't know artillery is coming until the first blasts hit, but as soon as they do, they scramble for cover and stay there until it's over. And if you're in a foxhole or trench, you're basically safe from anything short of the shell actually landing in the hole with you. (At which point you're fucked, but a direct hit from artillery is not survivable regardless!) Well made fortresses designed for that level of artillery also tend to last really well. Castles were usually pretty durable against rocks flung from catapaults, but fared poorly against early cannon, especially when they brought in metal shot. Star fortresses were brilliant against cannonfire, but began having issues when explosive shells were developed. Fortresses like Verdun stood up really well in WWI (Verdun took a hell of a beating, but it took a LOT of work to do it. Fortresses of the Maginot Line held up really well unless they were commanded by Charles Huntziger, who ordered the Ardennes fortresses be abandoned and basically opened up a hole in French lines. Modern bunkers take specialized bunker buster munitions to destroy, and there's probably some level of bunker design that can withstand those (though naturally the people with the bunker busters aren't publicizing what it takes to defend against them). Artillery only really works on things not designed to withstand that tier of artillery technology - that's why a medieval castle is a deathtrap for soldiers facing an enemy with howitzers, but things like the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin were never actually penetrated. (I'm pretty sure there's some WWII bunkers around in Germany that still exist, mostly because the kind of firepower needed to demolsh them would risk leveling the city around them for several blocks.)
Never underestimate human ingenuity when it comes to killing each other. War is what has driven technological progress since the first hominids on the African savanna figured out they could brain each other with clubs better than with fists. It's been one giant continuum from that first club right up to the hydrogen bomb.
Good episode and i learned a bit about how artillery is used. What if you did one about the destructive power of some of the shells mentioned; Big Bertha,.NATO standard etc. including information about range and accuracy and how it has developed since the middle ages through the enlightenment, industrial age, and now modern warfare
analysts always like to talk about how different forms of warfare become obsolete. the way infantry fared against tanks, tanks fared against top-down attacks, the horse against the machine gun. not to say there are methods and systems that didn't get put out to pasture, but we shouldn't always be quick to discard our tools. plus as i recall, russia's had to reach out to its allies to supplement its shrinking supplies, with a lot of corners being cut/duds being made to meet demand.
It's not what can counter a weapon system, but what that weapon system can do for you. Heavy cavalry was used as a breakthrough unit, but guns rendered heavy armor impractical until the tank made armored thrusts viable again. Motorized vehicles have replaced horses in war and civilian life. Infantry are always needed to dig in and hold ground. Other systems can replace artillery as fire support, but rarely as cost effectively, though FPV drones are cheaper than artillery shells which is wild. Drone crews are like sniper crews with a heavier payload.
“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope.” -Major General Smedley D. Butler
I think that while artillery is important, it is completely countered by countries that manage to gain air superiority or better yet supremacy on their adversary. The reason it is that effective in Ukraine, in my opinion, is that neither countries could manage air dominance. Both Russia and Ukraine have aging fighter bomber aircrafts, far from the current standards in terms of stealth, electronic warfare and precision strikes capabilities, while at the same time disposing of a huge stockpile of air defence systems. Nato countries however, are not in this situation. And while artillery is still hugely important for our military capabilities, our armies are structured around the plane, not the gun, and it is a feature, not a bug.
Precisely my own thoughts - the US has already stated it does not intend to bog down in a position war like WWI or the Ukr war EVER - while that assessment can hold true until your enemy forces you to a standstill, nato armies usually hold air campaigns and usage of air platforms to a much higher standard than Russia and ex soviet strategies ever did... artillery is useful and will always be so, able to break ties whenever it wishes - but if it gets insta-obliterated by a plane firing a long range missile or a bomb, well...
Exactly. It also has to do with doctrine, the West prefers precision strikes over the total destruction of mass artillery attacks. As destructive as Israel’s air strikes against targets are, an artillery barrage would be far more devastating in its collateral damage.
@rajaydon1893 nuclear is a slippery slope. I don't know what you think would happen in that case, but I assure you it wouldn't be people lying down and crying, there'd be retaliation. Immediate and total. Russia has a terrible air force compared to nato countries, what it does have is good AA systems, but I don't know how well they'd fare against combined arms and cutting edge modern electronic warfare systems and platforms. Can't underestimate your foe but America has been constantly overestimating Russia based on their own lies...
The most exciting time innthe history of artillery is 1850-1900. Skipped it for the most part. The French 75...first controlled recoil... This video was written by someone who doesn't know artillery
With the entire Russian doctrine of warfare I can see one major critical weakness. Two words, contested airspace. Artillery is substantially made ineffective in this domain and the Russian air force I don't think ever has had a conflict that the air domain was not already dominated by default. That's an idea for a video, a hypothetical 'how to' counter Russian forces with a per nation. Wink Wink.
19:07 Re-think your statement again. Conventional wisdom was absolutely right, because Ukraine started the war with *_none_* of those things, and didn't get any of them for more than *_an entire year_* and Russia has completely failed to defeat them. If Ukraine had all of those things, Russia would have already been excised from Ukraine.
The production claim that Russia is able to outproduce artillery shells is simply false. Russia is being forced to beg artillery ammo from North Korea. Likewise, the Russian bragging abut being able to fire 10x as manybshells as Ukraine overlooked the fact this isn't a sign of *actual good performance* . See, Russia was busy burning out their barrels mostly pushing mud around, because they were using mass fires on places where there were relatively few militarily significant targets. Russia has been forced to pull WWII and even *pre* WWII artillery piexes out of inventory to replace lossss (most of whom were lost due to *excessive wear* - if you wait for the barrel to actually blow up is it damages or destroys the *entire* piece, not just the barrel.) Russia cannot pull their firing oieces out of the line to redurbish them, rhey dont have the spare barrela to keep up this level of use, they dontnhave the fscilities to do this level of rebarreling (it's a depot job), and they have almost entirely empited their stockpile bases of artillery.
May our shots be true and timely and our observations keen May our bark roll out like thunder in the name of Home and King May the ranks of tanks and bayonets pay heed to the power of The Guns For of all the Lords of Battle _We_ are The Chosen Ones.
![Diggy Graves - Red Vineyard [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Ro085T0mnQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/wg2024 Follow the link to download the game and get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, premium accounts and more!
NOOOO
Artillery is being overused in the Russo-Ukrainian War, because Russian air power is garbage.
If games is the only place humies would go to war in.. but knowing humies. Nah, won't happen.
Major: Lieutenant, do you see that ridge?
Lt: yes sir
Major: I don't want to
Lt: yes sir
cringe
Artillery: when you want to make a crater out of a mole hill.
"Sgt, do you see that grid square?"
"Yes sir I do."
"I don't want too."
"Right away Sir."
😂
I still say Warfronts should cover the Geneva Conventions.
Do you mean the Geneva Checklist?
- Putin, probably
@@L4r5man "they're more like guidelines."
The geneva recommendations
Chuckles: "More like the Geneva Suggestions!"
🤡
There is an old Krogan saying: Our borders are determined by the range of our guns.
sheperrrrrd
Clan Urdnot Scout Master.
You forgot to mention North Korea: for all that we mock it for the antique arsenal, until recently South Korea knew that if the war resumed Seoul would be lost in a single hour due the sheer number of howitzers in range.
Artillery keeps an entire country hostage, to the point it's one of the reasons South Korea decided to build a new capital from scratch.
I heard of the same and part of me wants to laugh of it thinking of North Korean quality control. Then I remember NK is such a military focused nations it’s likely the artillery and ammo are likely still pretty well maintained.
Explosives have a surprisingly long shelf life. I remember shooting Vietnam era mortar rounds when I was a Marine in the 2010s and they went off without a hitch. Even if the NK ammo turn out to be duds; the psychological effect of knocking your city has full of unexploded ordinances would be unbearable to put it lightly.
Real, I read they could cause 50,000 civilian casualties per Minute in Seoul alone. No Nukes required.
@@SEAZNDragon It's been verified in Ukraine that the NK ammo has a high percentage of duds, up to half according to Ukrainian officials. But when six thousand shells are flying at you that means three thousands will become field hazards for who knows how long (here in Italy we're still finding unexploded ordnance from the American bombings during World War II, with a railway getting shut down for two weeks earlier this year after they found four and they looked for others).
@@lordMartiya the claim that half of them are duds is just bullshit. Complete propaganda
@@dylanrice69 Doesn't really matter in the case of the guns threatening Seoul and the other South Korean cities in range. The difference between a working shell and a dud is that the former explodes on impact and the latter is a prolonged hazard, so they still make things horrible for the inhabitants.
You forgot hydraulics during the evolution of artillery. Not having to resight the guns constantly was quite helpful. The French 75mm was a helluva an advancement.
They barely touched the subject, how can you say that they forgot one aspect, making a video about this subject would make a series of one hour video's
@@jacco_por it wouldn't even have added a minute.
I think the biggest thing about modern artillery (that you didn't mention) is the massive increase in accuracy - the Excalibur can hit within 140 meters at 40km or more. Mainstream artillery is also way more accurate than WW2 or Vietnam era 'level-everything' artillery
Isn't the CEP of that round around 10 meters, at least according to BAE systems.
True!
Fwiw:
"With current artillery, Excalibur has a range of about 40 km (25 miles) with an accuracy of 4 m (13 ft) CEP or better."
"A conventional unguided M549A1 155 mm artillery projectile has a circular error probable (CEP) of 267 m (876 ft) at its maximum range, meaning that half of the rounds can be expected to land within 267 m (876 ft) of their intended target."
I would have liked some more details about this. A chart with CEP and overpressure radius overlayed for various launchers and shells. Possibly compared to cruise and ballistic missiles... So much data...
"God is on the side that has the best artillery."
Napoleon Bonaparte
Another fun note, an artillery round was the first man-made object to leave the stratosphere.
you lier
Shells from the Paris Gun I believe.
it did come back down though
With one hell of a message @@vorden25
"enter" the stratosphere.
Called The King of Battle for a reason.
In WW1 and WW2 it was responsible for 70% of combat casualties and something like 60% of combat deaths. Most ways to go out in war don't actually involve the whole "Shooting at each other with rifles" part.
Kind of dampens the glory, doesn't it?
Forget about honour, forget about pride
And quietly crawl in the mud
1914 - The hundred days offensive
As a former Infantryman, I have great respect for the "cannon cockers", but they can't take the ground or hold the ground. We are "The Queen of Battle" for a reason. Arty can blow it up but that's about all. Can they "close with the enemy by fire and maneuver."? Nope can't do it. It takes a grunt to do all that. It's nice if we have arty support, but that's all it is. Support. Cheers from a former Ranger
@@Hillbilly001 Infantry might be the queen of the Battlefield, but artillery still is king. And we all know what the king does to the queen.
@@Skaldewolf When the king is confronted by the queen, he dies. Ever play chess? The king is the weakest piece on the board while the queen is the most powerful. LOL! I've been deployed twice and arty played little to no role. It would have been nice, but the RoE didn't allow it. Could cause too many civilian casualties. Only a grunt can take a village and keep the civies from getting creamed. Keep believing it cannon cocker, but when the bad guys are gonna overrun you, who ya gonna call? The Infantry, that's who.
@@Skaldewolf You want another indicator. Of the 2467 Medals of Honor awarded in the US Army only 90 were to artillerymen. 79 to medics. And about 70 to other branches. That leaves about 2200 awarded to the Infantry. The king is in the rear with the gear, while the grunt goes where others fear to tread.
Sitting through days of an Artillery Bombardment in WW1 was one of the scariest things to experience as a human in war.
There's an old military truth: 'Every era has its artillery.' This journey through history proves that as we evolve, so too does the firepower that defines us.
Probably not getting it exactly right, but: "Infantry is the Queen of warfare, and Artillery is the King. And we all know what the King does to the Queen."
It's not a party without Arty 💥
Warthunder Sponsorship, now we know where Simon's writers get their details...
ironically warthunder is really lacking in artillery gameplay, world of tanks did it better earlier.
Simon, I just want you to know that when you read out the caliber size of the Big bertha gun; I literally, involuntarily let out a, "Holy shit!" Great video, as always!
What about motar systems? From small enough for a team of infantry or larger vehicle mounted systems.....
Not as destructive as but still effective for infantry troops to bomb/suppress enemy fire
@@kingsleyhealey1731an 80mm mortar round will ruin ur day.
There is some interesting ancient mortars outside the tower of London.
Just saying.
Artillery in a nutshell.... the use of explosives to send an even bigger explosive to a piece of land that you want remodeled.
Somewhere in the year 40k, this video puts a smile on an Imperial Guardsman's face. BTW, no mention of the failed nuclear artillery prototypes?
I was a Navy Corpsman with a Marine Artillery Battalion. Something like 80%% of all casualties in the last 120 years has been from arty. The distances involved in a 155mm m198 are astounding. The accuracy is pretty spot on. I wouldnt want to be in the receiving end of incoming rounds. The Russians old doctrine was to eliminate a grid square on the map, our doctrine was pin point accuracy. I am not sure if the Russians still use that doctrine today or if they got smart. I am guessing with their shortages in Ukraine, that have been forced to ration those rounds.
Russia is winning...
Ukraine is a dictatorship for the MIC.
To be honest, Soviet doctrine was based on the experience of WWII, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and other major conflicts. Practice revealed, that having absolute dominance in number of guns and number of atillery shells pretty much decided all of the mentioned wars. That's quite wasteful and not highly efficient, but you need to consider that USSR was all about a fully mobilized war economy, capable of outproducing all of the NATO in regard to artillery munitions with a smaller economy
The grid squares got smaller, but the mass approach is still in use
My grandfather was a forward observer in France during WW2 as well as the Korean War, he didn't share much but something he used to talk about was how the US Army actually adopted WW2 Soviet artillery doctrine during the Korean War, it makes sense when you consider the strategies used by the Chinese/Koreans but it was something that surprised me for sure
Blanket bombing and meat waves. Soviet doctrine is still the same now as ever.
Lol in the part about Portuguese cannons, it auto transcribed cannon balls as cannibals. Imagine the terror of a volley of cannibals raining down on you.
In WW2 one of the greatest inventions for artillery was the proximity fuse. Whether for AAA or Howitzer the proximity fuse was a significant innovation.
In hindsight, naming something the Toyota w@r didn't age well. That thing is still raging all these years later!
Artillery and infantry operations were already fused together in combined arms during the First Balkan War of 1912 when Bulgarian artillery started using rolling barrages in front of advancing friendly infantry. Conceptually the rolling barrage was invented by the British a few years earlier.
*Thank you* for mentioning pre-gunpowder ancient artillery. Most folks don't really think about these nor realize that the basic roles of different types of cannons were carried over from Classical and Medieval artillery.
Really, the only major new artillery roles that were not found in Roman times are *major* use of artillery mounted on vehicles (including ships) or the use of artillery for targets too far away for the artillery crew to see.
last time I was this early, we just had cannons
Catapult anyone?
We're throwing rocks over here
I was always amazed to learn that artillery was the biggest killer of World War One, I had always assumed it would have been machine guns.
Werent infatry and artillery combined with the use of the creeping barrage?
@DokDo1995 yes, the use of both is part of a combined operation.
I saw a video about these guys that trigger controlled avalanches in the Alps. They use an artillery cannon and shells from WW1. They never have duds.
Artillery is suc a fascinating and terrifying concept, I've read, played and watched many forms of media regarding it, and it always seems like the equaliser in any battlefield.
Artillery is suc??? Lol😂🤣
@@SuperMadman41 lmao such* haha
Artillery!! Fort Sill is smiling.
...and me, too.
@@jaeboston8455 it's where I went for Basic Training.
Whats the difference between artillery & mortars? Legitimately curious.
Besides range. caliber and portability, I believe it has more to do with their potential uses.
You would definitely use artillery to siege a military emplacement or a city. You wouldn't do that with a mortar, or even a battery of mortars. Those you would use as infantry support weapons, rather than demolition or area-denial, typically to add firepower to an assault. Even the biggest ones I know of (120mm) wouldn't be very effective on buildings, but they can wreak havoc among other infantry, and even tanks, if you're lucky.
@@mar71n32n0v1lLL0 thank you!
Mortars are a subtype of artillery.
I want to highlight the Trifecta. Normally done with Three(Or more) Non Linear Weapons shots are fired in cadence at different arcs so that they strike the target at the same time creative groups can and do launch different munitions to the effect of the imagination.
Explosives happy bastard here, never going to call myself anything else from now on.
Artillery has historically been the largest harvester of flesh in warfare since the first cannon was used almost 1000 years ago.
NATO didn't building their artillery stocks. But they can put warheads on foreheads from a hundred miles away, and do it in a way that destroys the logistics of your foe
Could we get a art of war episodes on the different kinds of war ships and their tactics? The 2 navel players would love it!
Artillery, king of the battlefield.
since the ukraine war, artillery warfare has become much different. The accuracy of guided shells and rockets makes them act more like a slow-moving but far cheaper form of air power. And with the counter-battery radar nowadays, assuming ammo constraint isn't an issue, once an artillery opens fire, the enemy will respond in short order. In this context at least, the days of artillery blanketing an entire town or city seems to be over. Sustained fire rate will be giving way to burst fire instead, and the time needed to leave the place will also be an important factor as it will determine how many rounds an artillery piece can fire before it has to leave.
That's not true for the most part, mass use of artillery will never be on the back foot much less go away, all major battles in this war has been won by artillery leveling the place
@@rajaydon1893 what he said was that massed artillery being used to destroy a target is a thing of the past. I don't think he meant that artillery is going to take a less important role. Just that you can't get away with ww1 style bombardments. I think that is mostly true, at least when you are talking about two conventional armies fighting each other.
@@szj3255 counterfire is the reason why we train to shoot and scoot. Artillery batteries don't remain in one position for long.
The use of guided shells and rockets is still very rare tho + sometimes you need to Level a whole area
@@SangiinKherem I doubt counter-battery fire is going to stop the military from levelling a whole area, but it certainly won't be as straightforward as waking up and walking over to your artillery then bombarding the area until bedtime, at least until someone comes up with some creative solutions
Imagine what it was like to sit through days of artillery in WW1 I would say it was just horrific.
Ok i get simons approach. He's becoming the answer to everything on youtube like it's google and the internet of yester-year. Mr simon is going for you tube domination now
Naval artillery my beloved was neglected. Sadge. Naval artillery is artillery, too! And cooler because it's integrated with enormous moving fortresses.
About World War I, there are some misconceptions here and there. I highly recommend to watch the videos of the youtube channel "the great war". Especially about Verdun where it's not simply a meat grinder but a battle that held the whole front together on both sides. It had a strategic value and meant, in the eyes of the headquarters, that it should be defended at all costs. Nobody wanted to use people like that but without any better strategy, it came down to that. However, those assaults were not useless either (yes, they were deadly and achieved little to nothing in the eyes of the soldiers but), tactics evolved and the way people went on the assault in 1915 was not the same as in 1917 and 1918. Equipment and resources were far different at the end. The evolution that gave the allies the edge in bringing the war back in motion was slow and came at the cost of those meatgrinders
14:52 BIG
Good editing 👍
Russia hit its limit on 155 mm shells. It has bought in excess of 10 million rounds from North Korea to replenish its stocks. You are correct that NATO countries have NOT kept stockpiles, instead relying on the USA to come to the rescue. Problem is everyone fell in love with the fancy multi-million dollar missiles and the cost affective 155 mm was left out.
Well after 2 decades of low intensity conflict a small number of fancy missiles would get more popular than the battlefield ravager that is 155mm.
At war Quantity usually beats Quality.
@@SangiinKherem To a certain extent you are correct, there does need to be a certain level of quality to the quantity, otherwise it's pointless.
@@alexwalker2582 Yea ofc. 100 spears won't beat 10 guided shells. But 100 regular shells likely will.
"It feels good to have artillery in the castle again. I'll let you know if I hear of any settlements that need our(your) help. In the meantime be sure to lend a hand to whoever needs it." Some guy with a weird hat
The arty of war
Russia is basically waging a WW2 style war in 2024. Indiscriminate artillery fire on civilians and their infrastructure is the only thing Russian Army is capable of...
But just imagine if US and NATO forces operated in a similar way during the 20 years of Afghan and Iraqi wars? Imagine if we flew the B-52s in a massive "a la Vietnam War" raids, to destroy the enemy? Imagine the world's uproar if USA, Germany, GB, Australia or any Western combatant did that?
Now try to remember the outcry, attacks on and the general critique of the US military, when we mistakenly killed 20-30 civilians in a Predator UAV strike.. Double standards maybe?
Everyone hates us cuz they aint us
It's very worth noting that, when it comes to infantry with proper training and equipment, artillery is actually not that good at destruction - earthworks are particularly good at resisting the power of shellfire, which is why the more a war leans on artillery barrages, the more you tend to see infantry digging in, with WWI being something of the logical extreme of this.
I forget the exact statistics, but I remember seeing that an overwhelming number of the casualties of any given artillery barrage are killed in the first minute (something upwards of 70%) dropping to only a couple of percent after 5 or 10 minutes (one of the early Perun analysis videos, maybe). The reason for this is very simple - they often don't know artillery is coming until the first blasts hit, but as soon as they do, they scramble for cover and stay there until it's over. And if you're in a foxhole or trench, you're basically safe from anything short of the shell actually landing in the hole with you. (At which point you're fucked, but a direct hit from artillery is not survivable regardless!)
Well made fortresses designed for that level of artillery also tend to last really well. Castles were usually pretty durable against rocks flung from catapaults, but fared poorly against early cannon, especially when they brought in metal shot. Star fortresses were brilliant against cannonfire, but began having issues when explosive shells were developed. Fortresses like Verdun stood up really well in WWI (Verdun took a hell of a beating, but it took a LOT of work to do it. Fortresses of the Maginot Line held up really well unless they were commanded by Charles Huntziger, who ordered the Ardennes fortresses be abandoned and basically opened up a hole in French lines. Modern bunkers take specialized bunker buster munitions to destroy, and there's probably some level of bunker design that can withstand those (though naturally the people with the bunker busters aren't publicizing what it takes to defend against them). Artillery only really works on things not designed to withstand that tier of artillery technology - that's why a medieval castle is a deathtrap for soldiers facing an enemy with howitzers, but things like the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin were never actually penetrated. (I'm pretty sure there's some WWII bunkers around in Germany that still exist, mostly because the kind of firepower needed to demolsh them would risk leveling the city around them for several blocks.)
This video is making me hope that Civ 7 will focus on Artillery more.
Never underestimate human ingenuity when it comes to killing each other. War is what has driven technological progress since the first hominids on the African savanna figured out they could brain each other with clubs better than with fists. It's been one giant continuum from that first club right up to the hydrogen bomb.
Field Artillery maximizes the enemies ability to give his life for his country.
Seeing the thumbnail for this video made me a very excited artilleryman
Good episode and i learned a bit about how artillery is used. What if you did one about the destructive power of some of the shells mentioned; Big Bertha,.NATO standard etc. including information about range and accuracy and how it has developed since the middle ages through the enlightenment, industrial age, and now modern warfare
Was an artyman for years, we easily maintained 75% accuracy. That was 20 years ago. Today, accuracy at higher levels are easy. You info is flawed.
Wheres all my Fisters at???
analysts always like to talk about how different forms of warfare become obsolete. the way infantry fared against tanks, tanks fared against top-down attacks, the horse against the machine gun. not to say there are methods and systems that didn't get put out to pasture, but we shouldn't always be quick to discard our tools.
plus as i recall, russia's had to reach out to its allies to supplement its shrinking supplies, with a lot of corners being cut/duds being made to meet demand.
Myself as well as most people I know would not like to be on a modern battlefield with a sword and a horse, but you do you bud.
It's also very heavy and it leaves the Russians completely reliant on the rail system for logistics and supplies
It's not what can counter a weapon system, but what that weapon system can do for you. Heavy cavalry was used as a breakthrough unit, but guns rendered heavy armor impractical until the tank made armored thrusts viable again. Motorized vehicles have replaced horses in war and civilian life. Infantry are always needed to dig in and hold ground. Other systems can replace artillery as fire support, but rarely as cost effectively, though FPV drones are cheaper than artillery shells which is wild. Drone crews are like sniper crews with a heavier payload.
@@mightza3781 that was a rather long and wordy post. But along the way, did you forget your point?
King Of Battle!
Wonderful introduction video about Artillery ...thanks
“WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope.”
-Major General Smedley D. Butler
I have now found yet another Simon channel
Simon, you have never seen how much damage I can do when unleashed lol.
Starfishes love big bangs
MASSIVE amounts of precision air power takes artillery out of the fight
All hail the king of battle....or fear it depending on if that gun tube pointed at you or not.....
I think that while artillery is important, it is completely countered by countries that manage to gain air superiority or better yet supremacy on their adversary. The reason it is that effective in Ukraine, in my opinion, is that neither countries could manage air dominance. Both Russia and Ukraine have aging fighter bomber aircrafts, far from the current standards in terms of stealth, electronic warfare and precision strikes capabilities, while at the same time disposing of a huge stockpile of air defence systems. Nato countries however, are not in this situation. And while artillery is still hugely important for our military capabilities, our armies are structured around the plane, not the gun, and it is a feature, not a bug.
Precisely my own thoughts - the US has already stated it does not intend to bog down in a position war like WWI or the Ukr war EVER - while that assessment can hold true until your enemy forces you to a standstill, nato armies usually hold air campaigns and usage of air platforms to a much higher standard than Russia and ex soviet strategies ever did... artillery is useful and will always be so, able to break ties whenever it wishes - but if it gets insta-obliterated by a plane firing a long range missile or a bomb, well...
Exactly. It also has to do with doctrine, the West prefers precision strikes over the total destruction of mass artillery attacks. As destructive as Israel’s air strikes against targets are, an artillery barrage would be far more devastating in its collateral damage.
You can only accomplish that against an enemy that poses little or no threat to your aircraft and has no nuclear arms
@rajaydon1893 nuclear is a slippery slope. I don't know what you think would happen in that case, but I assure you it wouldn't be people lying down and crying, there'd be retaliation. Immediate and total.
Russia has a terrible air force compared to nato countries, what it does have is good AA systems, but I don't know how well they'd fare against combined arms and cutting edge modern electronic warfare systems and platforms.
Can't underestimate your foe but America has been constantly overestimating Russia based on their own lies...
@@leosalemii
It's better to overestimate and be proven wrong than underestimate and get taught a bitter, casualty heavy lesson.
13B for life.
Mortars win the wars that the king of battle will fail to win.
The most exciting time innthe history of artillery is 1850-1900. Skipped it for the most part. The French 75...first controlled recoil...
This video was written by someone who doesn't know artillery
The same people saying artillery was a weapons system of the past are the same one saying tanks and jets were also obsolete and or out of place.
King of Battle.
The king of battle
Wassup Simon man of many videos. Dude how many frickin channels u got😅😅😅😅😅😅😅. Love it From murica
King of Battle
Since when was 70 million a small country?
Since a couple decades ago.
I always hear toad artillery 🐸 😂
Shout out to the
13 Bs, 13 Es, 13 Fs. The Cannoners, The Fire Direction Center, and The Forward Observers.
Please cover the, “ Triple nickel’s “
With the entire Russian doctrine of warfare I can see one major critical weakness. Two words, contested airspace. Artillery is substantially made ineffective in this domain and the Russian air force I don't think ever has had a conflict that the air domain was not already dominated by default. That's an idea for a video, a hypothetical 'how to' counter Russian forces with a per nation. Wink Wink.
Its a scary world we now live in. War is EVERYWHERE.
I kept waiting for an aside about nuclear utility.
Big guns never tire.
I thought the Gustav gun was a myth
Finland has entered the chat.
Remember Murphys laws. Suppressing fire doesnt. Friendly fire isnt..
Artillery is obsolete they said. Its old tech and useless now they said.
WarThunder has no artillery gameplay. Also, the Gen Dynamics F-111A is not faithfully reproduced in game.
Am i the only one Who thinks ww1 artillery canons look cooler than modern ones?
"Explosives happy bastards."
How is artillery not easy pickings for drones?
Why could I guess from the thumbnail that this was another of Simons channels?
Don't we have systems like CRAM and directed energy weapons that can intercept artillery shells?
Because intercepting artillery shells isn't easy
Dear god, how many channels do you have?
19:07 Re-think your statement again. Conventional wisdom was absolutely right, because Ukraine started the war with *_none_* of those things, and didn't get any of them for more than *_an entire year_* and Russia has completely failed to defeat them. If Ukraine had all of those things, Russia would have already been excised from Ukraine.
The production claim that Russia is able to outproduce artillery shells is simply false. Russia is being forced to beg artillery ammo from North Korea.
Likewise, the Russian bragging abut being able to fire 10x as manybshells as Ukraine overlooked the fact this isn't a sign of *actual good performance* . See, Russia was busy burning out their barrels mostly pushing mud around, because they were using mass fires on places where there were relatively few militarily significant targets.
Russia has been forced to pull WWII and even *pre* WWII artillery piexes out of inventory to replace lossss (most of whom were lost due to *excessive wear* - if you wait for the barrel to actually blow up is it damages or destroys the *entire* piece, not just the barrel.)
Russia cannot pull their firing oieces out of the line to redurbish them, rhey dont have the spare barrela to keep up this level of use, they dontnhave the fscilities to do this level of rebarreling (it's a depot job), and they have almost entirely empited their stockpile bases of artillery.
Can you cover infantry in another video?
Artillery kills
Infantry dies
May our shots be true and timely and our observations keen
May our bark roll out like thunder in the name of Home and King
May the ranks of tanks and bayonets pay heed to the power of The Guns
For of all the Lords of Battle _We_ are The Chosen Ones.
Landfill hurricane attacks