Was there ever any battle where massed land or naval artillery strikes actually worked as intended and succeeded in destroying their targets. Because every time it was tried
>WW1 , somme especially: fail to destroy
bunkers
>D-day: fails to destroy fortifications
>Island hopping in the pacific:fails to destroy jap bunkers
Were there any exceptions
I find it weird how resilient fortifications actually are to bombardments.
But i think the main idea is to soften the targets, they know they can't just annihilate them. And they're usually a success in that.
>>1400310
You are badly misinformed about WW1. The whole war was about artillery.
>>1400310
>Artillery.
>Not working as intended.
You mean - besides the fact that modern artillery destroyed fortifications as the guys back then knew of it- artillery also acts as a big act of suppressive fire/fuck-off-from-this-area enabler?
I'd say they were pretty effective.
>>1400379
Wasnt it about fortifications?
>>1400400
No, it was about artillery
>>1400404
Then why did it consistently fail in destroying bunkers and attacking infantry was always slaughtered to a standstill?
>>1400310
The vast majority of casualties in war are due to artillery what are you talking about.
>D-day: fails to destroy fortifications
Why did you purposefully leave out the other beaches on D Day where all artillery strikes destroyed the bunkers and the beaches were taken easily? Only Omaha fucked up.
>>1400310
why would there be a battle if artillery could just take care of it
>>1400310
>Was there ever any battle where massed land or naval artillery strikes actually worked as intended and succeeded in destroying their targets.
Do smart bombs count?
I mean, sure, Iraq was a quagmire afterwards, and it was a stupid thing to do, but that mostly naval tomahawk bombardment did its job pretty much exactly as intended.
>>1400310
Plenty of examples. Europeans shelled the fuck out of Asian ports to get compliance in the 19th century. "Gunboat diplomacy" m8. Japan, China, Philippines. Also did some of this in the Caribbean and Latin America. Panama City was razed by pirates doing this very thing earlier on.
Modern examples? Less common.
>>1400409
because British commanders were retarded and working off of old strategies. As soon as colonials were put in charge they crushed the German fortifications and opened huge holes in the lines
>>1400310
>Was there ever any battle where massed land or naval artillery strikes actually worked as intended and succeeded in destroying their targets.
It depends if you consider that over 60% of combat casualties in WW2 come from artillery
> Was there ever any battle where massed land or naval artillery strikes actually worked as intended and succeeded in destroying their targets.
Surely you didn´t watch the ukranian conflict last year. ****Separatists**** were hitting even moving targets with awesome precision
>>1400687
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KWpx-uEgds
Ukrainian artillery is even better. Hohol use magic pig to guide shell into weak rus position.
>worked as intended
Aside from the destruction, I can assure you that scaring the enemy and keeping him up all night were most certainly intended and most certainly worked.
Basically all of naval combat after the advent of cannon until the supremacy of the aircraft carrier consisted of massed naval artillery.
It absolutely was effective in island hopping - it forced the defender to the far side of any positions facing the beachhead, allowing landings to be performed in the first place. Can't fault the IJA for not standing in their seaward positions and getting blasted away though,
>>1400723
>he thinks artillery barrage was kept up all night
>>1400827
Kill yourself
>>1400827
A lot of times, they were.
Intermittent fire was used to create sleep deprivation.
>>1400887
Sauce
>>1400887
>armies fired artillery randomly all night to spook people rather than kill them in a war where armies were actually running out of shells
Why is /his/ so shit?
>>1400895
Kill yourself
>>1400895
>>1400827
You underestimate how significant the destruction of morale was for soldiers serving on the front line, especially during times of conscription and when there was no action, just sitting around waiting to either have a shell land on you, get hit by a sniper or get ordered to go over the top.
>>1400310
Well, it seems you can only list three different occasions where massed artillery failed, so if that is it then it must be pretty darn effective.
>>1400310
>somme especially
They used the wrong type of shells. Of course shrapnel shells failed to destroy the German fortifications.
Artillery did it's job blowing Liege sky high once they brought in bit enough guns. This was Belgium, early war.
>>1401399
What about the constantly failing french offensives(I forgot their name) in 1917?
>>1400310
Take a look at the destruction of the Belgian forts in 1914.
>>1400671
>No-one refutes this meme opinion
>/his/
Jesus Christ
>>1400416
faggot
>>1400671
This is wrong, on the first battle of the Somme it was already known that artillery was the way to fuck up trenches, innovations like tanks were also being introduced, with none of its British generals being colonial
>>1401477
Dismissing historical people as retarded is /his/'s favorite way of ignoring actual history
>>1400310
>>Island hopping in the pacific:fails to destroy jap bunkers
lolwut? do you have any idea how many people died to naval artillery?
>>1400675
In the battle of Verdun there was about 64.4 artillery shots fired per casualtiy. They had started to use railway guns by that point i would like to add.
Not saying that WWI wa not a war of artillery, just that the artillery & gunnery of the era was lacking. That is a large part of why the war lasted so long. In the 1930s a number of armies start to have field guns that though of the same caliber had far higher muzzle Velocity. I want to say the weakest artillerty still in use with any number is the Russain D-20, with a muzzle energy of around 9295000 J. Makes all of the field artillery of WWI look like pop guns.
>>1400310
artillery was highly effective during the Pacific War...why do you think the Japs had to change tactics at Iwo Jima?
Also Operations Bagration and Cobra used massed artillery to create huge gaps in the German lines.
>>1401509
and the Somme was a horrific meat grinder where hundreds of thousands of people died for basically nothing. The Canadians at Vimy Ridge introduced new operational procedures and artillery tactics that massively increased the effectiveness of artillery in ptiched battles
>>1400310
Massed artillery won the Battle of Gettysburg, and by extension the entire civil war, for the Army of the Potomac.
>>1401677
I thought the whole reason behind the Somme, the Brusilov and other Allied offended on different locations was quite literally to bleed the German armies to death, a war of attrition the Germans could never win.
>>1401634
>In the battle of Verdun there was about 64.4 artillery shots fired per casualtiy
But wasn't part of the reason behind the artillery barrages to prevent the entire from advancing and most importantly, to weaken the enemy's defense in order to allow an offensive army occupy a larger area?
>>1400310
Battle of Elsenborn Ridge.
Absolutely nothing the Germans could do to avoid the rain of artillery once the Americans got their machine in gear.
Boom bump
>>1400310
>48 rounds fired
>Completely destroyed at least three Soviets
>Flooded an ammunition bunker 40 feet below water, drowning hundreds
I'd call that a success.
>>1401679
Except the Union were firing at soft targets (massed infantry) at close range, even then, the Confederates still managed to overrun the forward lines in three places.
OP's more referring to the use of artillery against hard targets (entrenched enemy).
In the case of Gettysburg, the Confederate barrage failed, although mostly because almost none of their rounded landed on target, all either fell short or overshot the Union infantry hiding behind the wall.
>>1402118
The only effective German super weapon
>>1402156
Why are all those vehicles so small
>>1401447
The Nivelle offensive failed so badly because it wasn't particularly well planned, the Germans caught on to it with plenty of time to spare and pulled back to newly built fortifications just before it began and Nivelle himself was in over his head.
>yfw Chemin des Dames was so costly and pointless the already battered French army (nearly every French soldier had been cycled through Verdun) refused to attack anymore
>>1402164
The scale does look a bit off
>>1402172
Almost like they're toy soldiers eh.
>>1402118
Whoa at least 3 Soviets
>>1402139
Not quite so simple. Union arty did excellent counter battery fire throughout the battle.
>>1400409
>attacking infantry was always slaughtered to a standstill?
why do you lie on the internet
>>1400310
>Was there ever any battle where massed land or naval artillery strikes actually worked as intended and succeeded in destroying their targets.
Yes, majority of WW1 and WW2.
>>1402118
How the fuck did they manage to get the bunker under the water in the first place? Cut into the bedrock?
>>1401634
>In the battle of Verdun there was about 64.4 artillery shots fired per casualtiy.
Sauce. Remember, there was a million casualties at Verdun.
>>1400310
Opening stages of ww1 most french forts were destroyed
>>1400310
are you kidding me, someone needs to post the Verdun pictures because you must be new to have not seen the carnage that artillery did to that french countryside.
here is the pictures from Verdun
>>1402118
>Flooded an ammunition bunker 40 feet below water, drowning hundreds
Nope. The only sources for that claim come from the oh-so-reliable Manstein and his memoirs, and hitting the bunker would be a difficult task for any gun considering it was on the reverse slope of a cliff. Given how hilariously inaccurate the Gustav was, it's far more likely that the bunker was flooded by the Luftwaffe bombardment with heavy armor-piercing bombs.
>>1400409
70 % of the deaths in ww1 were from artillery
On the naval side of things, the naval bombardments of Kwajalein and Roi-Namur by the USA were incredibly successful, to the point that the bombarment received the nickname "Spruance Haircut."
>>1403641
>a wiki article with literally zero actual historical content
Oh you really showed me.
>>1401634
About 10 million shells were fired at Verdun, where there were around a million casualties. Please stop posting.
>>1405047
Not all of those casualties were from artillery, you boylover.
>>1405042
>First picture is literary a WWI map for coordinating harassing fire and titled so
>>1400310
actually the creeping barrages in ww1 proved very effective in the later years.
and artillery support proved very effective in most battles in ww2 for supressing defenses, if not out right destroying them
>>1405122
But most of them were. Around 70% of the casualties would've been from artillery. Stop being a fag and arguing just for the sake of arguing. You had no fucking idea what the shit was coming of your mind when you typed your post.
>>1405706
This. The Soviets were very successful with their artillery barrages during the late war. They decimated the German defenses before the actual battle began.
>>1400409
It didn't, you just had to use the correct type of gun. Underground bunkers and other deep fortifications need heavy artillery in order to defeat. In the case of the Somme, the British lacked enough heavy artillery and hope medium artillery wold get the job done and destroy the German concrete shelters. It didn't, the shelters worked as intended and the Germans emerged to fire on the advancing infantry as the barrage passed.
Do not conflate a spectacular fuck up that was quickly learned from with the norm of what happened during the war.
>>1400433
Not even Omaha is a good example, by 9:30 in the morning Destroyers showed up to knock out several key German gun emplacements.
>>1406264
From what I understand, even early in the war they were pretty effective the few times the had their shit together. Just off the top of my head, Soviet artillery was devastating at Khalkhin Gol.
>>1400409
artillery changed the game you twit
ww1 is literally
Artillery: The War
>>1401634
>64.4 artillery shots fired per casualty
thats actually a remarkably high casualty ratio
and its false
>>1402198
at least 3 Soviet armies (in concert with other heavy artillery batteries)
>>1400310
literally the entire world war II on the western front
anytime the Germans would stand in one place they'd get wiped away by artillery
its goal is to destruct and disrupt not to destroy with pinpoint accuarcy
>>1400671
>le british generals were retards who threw their men into the guns and went BAAAA
Fuck off.
>>1400310
>Was there ever any battle where massed land or naval artillery strikes actually worked
This board is indeed retarded beyond belief, artillery was the #1 cause of casualties in both world wars and by an enormous margin.
>>1401720
>I thought the whole reason behind the Somme, the Brusilov and other Allied offended on different locations was quite literally to bleed the German armies to death, a war of attrition the Germans could never win.
Correct. In terms of lives lost it was insane but in terms of warfare it was solid. England + France (and later the US) could afford to throw more bodies into the fire than Germany which would equal an eventual win. Insane, but logical.
>>1406835
>This board is indeed retarded beyond belief
Are you surprised? It's what happens when /int/ has a car crash with /pol/ and creates a board where nobody knows what they're talking about and just bases their arguments on national pride and baited shitposting.
>>1400310
Yes. They always succeed in killing a massive amount of dirt.
