What's the most deadly arm of the military, in terms of number of casualties inflicted? I read that during WWII the biggest killer was artillery, and that it was responsible for more deaths than any other unit type. Is this still true for modern wars? Or is air superiority and bombing more deadly?
>>29562574
Artillery, still, not including massive bombings on civilians or nukes.
>>29562731
Nice. Is it a popular MOS? I mean everyone thinks being 11B or 0311/grunt is being a "killer", when in reality you get to blast the most people from a distance.
>>29562795
Artillerymen are dumb and incompetent, t. Finn.
It's a lot of dakka though and a well-trained squad can send great amounts of ordnance down range in minimal time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyxzFVgz70M
>>29562574
Artillery and now air powers are the two things most likely to kill you in a modern war. Apparently the vast majority of casualties in Ukraine have been caused by arty.
>>29562826
I mean, if you're gonna fuck up, at least make them wonder how the hell you did that and have to make a powerpoint about you, right?
My only gripe about it is how loud are those guns (I realize VERY)? Do you incur hearing damage over time? Is there effective ear protection?
>>29562826
>Artillerymen are dumb and incompetent
Sounds like the MOS for me then. But at least the guy having to calculate the range or whatever has to be smart. So what's a "smart and competent" MOS then?
>>29562966
>But at least the guy having to calculate the range or whatever has to be smart. So what's a "smart and competent" MOS then?
That would be the artillery observers. Gods of the battlefield.
Though they don't truly have to calculate things anymore, as the equipment used gives them all the information they need to know.
Tbqh it's probably attack aviation assets.
>>29563003
Artillery is by far more cost effective and easy to deploy. Attack aviation might destroy higher valued targets, but it simply doesn't match the might, power and speed of artillery in conventional warfare.
>>29562987
can't all this shit just be done with lasers and drones these days?
>>29563071
how would a drone be able to watch where the rounds landed and give adjustments?
plus instinct is a big factor on being a spotter, sometimes the equipment isnt right/not the firing solution thats optimal.
drones cant do everything
>>29563071
The way spotting and adjusting works needs a relatively unchanging viewpoint. If I said, "left 200, drop 100" and the fire direction center adjusts fire based off the gun target line rather than my line of sight, being the observer target line, then the adjustments are going to come all out of whack. Other reasons not to use a drone for adjustment include any height of burst munitions. Point detonating fuzes are used for adjustment, but to adjust the optimal HOB for a fuze that functions 20 meters off the ground, I would need to be able to actually see where the fuze is functioning from my vantage point, and an aircraft can't tell that looking from the top down.
>>29562987
>Gods of the battlefield
That would be the JTAC
Anybody can call in arty.
Let's look at Syria and the Ukraine conflict: The answer is yes.
>>29563261
Plenty of people are trained to call arty.
>>29563092
>>29563233
You can FFE if you have a 8 digit target location from the start.
You don't need a stationary OP, you just need to know how far the rounds land from the G/T-line
>>29563273
Syrians can't into artillery though.
>>29563287
Consider yourself trained.
>>29562574
E5 13F here (forward observer) and JFO (joint fires; call in aircraft, CAS, etc).
One time on the OP we were training with white phosphorus and FDC didn't want to deal with the paperwork and hours-long hassle of turning in non-expended munitions.
I got to call in the last mission with "expend all munitions" with 34 rounds of WP. This was when it was raining. White Phosphorus reacts with oxygen, be it air or in water, and burns at ~5,000F. I cannot describe the amount of destruction and absolute mayhem that this mission caused.
This smoke cloud of Hell itself traveled 5 square miles, forcing an evacuation of part of our base. I will tell you that without a single doubt in my mind, modern artillery is by and large the most destructive military weapon in existence, short of an ICBM or nuclear munitions.
>>29562826
>>29562966
>expend-all-munitions guy here
Artillerymen are not dumb and incompetent. Sounds like a POG who's butthurt, or an infantryman who doesn't like his platoon FO. There are fuck-ups in every MOS. I work with some of the brightest and most sinister dudes in the Army, and proud of it. Two of my LTs transferred to AF and are now JTACs. I wouldn't trust anyone else next to me. I gave up multiple E5 slots because they would ave meant I would PCS to different battalions or brigades. I only took a slot when it became available within my FIST community.
>>29563442
>Artillerymen are not dumb and incompetent.
>>29563288
And what happens if it's cloudy, there's a SA threat in the area, or your TLE is throwing you off? Yeah we have LLDRs that can give us 10 digit grids but if shit isn't working or an asset isn't available then what do you do? You whip out the binos and OF fan and get to work. Not every infantry platoon is going to have a uav dedicated to them to call fires. That's what you have an observer for.
>>29563311
And it's still the most powerful weapon by far.
>>29563360
>I cannot describe the amount of destruction and absolute mayhem that this mission caused.
attempt to elaborate please.
>>29563360
>modern
Since Napoleon war has pretty much been about massing more artillery than your enemy.
>>29563360
I'm thinking about enlisting. My dream job is to be an 13F or something comparable.
Can you give me any advice?
>>29563318
Precisely.
>>29563657
That era can be classified as modern warfare.
>>29562795
its different
a pilot in an F15 or B1 flying over and bombing some shit is rather anonymous, the pilots don't see the people, might not even see the explosions if the airspace is hostile since they'd be busy flying and avoiding death
artillery would be similar, they'll be at the firebase and lob rounds onto a target but wont actually see the enemy combatants
a rifleman on the other hand sees the person he's shooting at and if its close enough range might even be able to make out facial features
even more true for marksmen and snipers unless the sniper in shooting at someone 2500 yards away
>>29562574
why does the cannon have a bayonet on it
>>29563318
>round type
>special
"I would like a beehive salvo to start, and let me get white phosphorous as well please"
Fire for just fuck all that shit up
>>29562574
In WW2? thats crazy, I figured in WW1 for sure though, that and machine gun fire.
The bird flu and trench foot have the most kill count. In the history of wars
>>29566384
mmm....id have to put that down to typhus if were gonna be picky m8
>>29566376
Not only that.
World war 1, world war 2, the Korean War, and even the Vietnamese war had most of the battle casualties caused by artillery.
Around Vietnam is where it started to switch to aircraft.
Although mortars have been up there. Certainly airstrikes during the original invasion of Iraq, desert storm, and Afghanistan were the bulk.
>>29566265
>>29566265
It's a tow hook
>>29563657
Napoleon is considered to be the foundational doctrinaire for the first generation of modern warfare.
>>29566408
Dysentery, cholera, and tuberculosis deserve to be mentioned in this discussion as well.
heavy metal comin' through
>>29568168
seeing the muzzlebrake working on howitzers always gets my dick excited
>>29562966
>does it cause hearing damage?
Yes. My math professor served in artillery, and once in a while will remind us that he's half deaf from artillery fire. He saw action in Yugoslavia as part of the intervention force; has some good stories about it too.
>>29562574
mortars of course :^)
>>29562826
Looks fun as fuck..I would pay to do this
>>29562966
>So what's a "smart and competent" MOS then?
25S/P or any 35 series job comes to mind.
>>29562574
Yes and no. Artillery would be too specific, as one cannot distinguish between the fragments of an artillery round or a mortar round. But in general, yes, fragmentation is the biggest killer. Next come small arms. Pic related is from Vietnam. So it has stayed this way. But there are differences between conflicts. For the IDF bullets have already become the number one killer of their soldiers, as the nature of their conflicts is both asymmetric and highly urbanized. In Ukraine OTOH artillery is responsible for a whoppping 85% of all casualties, most probably due to the comparatively static nature of the warfare there.
>>29568567
What about planes?
>>29562574
Air force and special operations guys probably.
>>29568972
Depends on the type of bomb and their accuracy. Most are general purpose bombs. They sacrifice fragmentation potential for blast effect. But they fragment at least somewhat. Other bombs are specifically for use against hard targets or bunkers.
During WWII accuracy was abysmal. Nowadays with GPS guidance it's several orders of magnitude better. But there are two caveats. First the logistical strain for deliviring bombs is much greater than for deliviring artillery shells. So the iron on target is hugely different between the two in an all out war. Second, GPS guidance won't work against a peer adversary. So the bombs would have to rely on INS, which is about one order of magnitude worse, or on terminal guidance through laser painting, which requires a specialist on the ground and can therefore only be used against high value targets, not against enemy infantry. And GPS or terminal laser guidance can also be done with special artillery shells.
But it's great to minimize collateral damage in asymmetric conflicts.
>>29569068
>Second, GPS guidance won't work against a peer adversary.
What do you mean by this?
for confirmed kills, arty and bombs win.
for possible kills/general death, SAC (or whatever we call it now) and the nuclear force in general wins hands-the-fuck-down
>>29569081
You can't outfit a satellite that orbits the earth at 20'000 km altitude with a powerful enough transmitter to burn through any noise that might be generated. So the GPS signal is very susceptible to electronic warfare. Of course towel heads in mud huts can't do it. But one has to assume that a peer or near-peer adversary can and will do it.
>>29568246
>>29568567
I'm surprised by the lack of motars in modern militaries.
Their cheap and easy to produce / supply, you'd think they'd flood the battlefields with them.
>>29569176
Well, mortars are included in the fragment category of that pie chart. As I said, their fragments are indistinguishable. So when battle surgeons examine the mayhem they can't attribute a kill to either artillery or mortar but just to fragmentation wounds. But you're right insofar as the last wars showed the continued importance of mortars. And this has been acknowledged by the armies of Nato countries.
Throughout history? Probably edged weapons.
>>29569244
Maybe this has changed, but aren't mortars light artillery ? At least they used to be considered such.
>>29569318
Uh, I wasn't talking about administrative labeling, but about weaponry as such. Usually artillery means breech-loaded weapons with long, rifled barrels for long distances and mortars muzzle loaded weapons with shorter, smooth-bore barrels for medium distances.
>>29562826
oh noes
