Just how much hurt Soviet Artillery will bring to bear....

[dragoon500ly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=dgB0XGV_xZc

[Webstral]

The above link goes to 57mm ADA guns firing. Still, it's easy enough to find BM-21 footage.

I’ve always felt that the US pays too little attention to MRL. The MLRS is a fine system, but there aren’t enough launchers. A division commander should have a full battalion of these bad boys at his beck and call. I can’t remember where I when I read that on average it takes an infantryman 30 seconds to find adequate cover. Once he’s under cover, the radius at which a given round causes casualties decreases dramatically, since concussion becomes the problem for the rifleman. Sustained fire is a thing of the past. Therefore, if one wishes to take out targets of opportunity, a large number of rounds need to arrive in a short period of time. Light mortars and MRL are the weapons of choice for this.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The above link goes to 57mm ADA guns firing. Still, it's easy enough to find BM-21 footage.

I’ve always felt that the US pays too little attention to MRL. The MLRS is a fine system, but there aren’t enough launchers. A division commander should have a full battalion of these bad boys at his beck and call. I can’t remember where I when I read that on average it takes an infantryman 30 seconds to find adequate cover. Once he’s under cover, the radius at which a given round causes casualties decreases dramatically, since concussion becomes the problem for the rifleman. Sustained fire is a thing of the past. Therefore, if one wishes to take out targets of opportunity, a large number of rounds need to arrive in a short period of time. Light mortars and MRL are the weapons of choice for this.

Well, there's the truck-mounted one they have now. The HiMARS I believe it is?

EDIT :Yeah, HIMARS

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

This might be a bit of a general question, and if so, then forgive me. But how MOBILE is Soviet Artillery overall? I know that will depend on what size/caliber and weight of what artillery pieces we're referring to, but how decent overall is Soviet Artillery at executing "shoot and scoot"?

ISTR the divisional guns (152mm and 122mm) were SP, and thus could move more quickly. The stuff at Army and Front level would be towed, and less mobile. But, those would have more nearby guns/rockets assigned to counter-counterbattery and more ADA assets around them.

[Legbreaker]

It would appear that the Soviets didn't need to worry too much about being able to shoot and scoot given the overwhelming superiority in available barrels. So what if they lost a few from counterbattery fire. Those NATO weapons would quickly be neutralised either by counter counterbatteries, or the overall ground offensive overrunning them.
And of course we already know the low value the individual soldier held in the Soviet scheme. So what if they lost a few if the overall objective was achieved.

The big issue I see to my untrained eyes is logistics. Could they keep their artillery and everyone else supplied with the required ammunition?

[ArmySGT.]

Russian 152mm Towed in action

Things to be seen.

Long caliber rifled guns.
No electronics
Semi automatic breech (watch those fingers comrade)
Re-used brass powder charge holder. (brass case seems to get a powder charge, primer, and some kind of cap or plug.

Unskilled crew. I don't speak russian so these could be students. Otherwise these are some poorly led, unmotivated, poorly trained crews.

Exactly as you expect conscripts to be.

[ArmySGT.]

Russian 240mm Mortar in action

Things to be seen.

battery appears to be 4 tubes.

Crew appears to be 4-6.

Rotary ammunition carousel. 10-12 rounds.

Auto loader.

No electronics.

No defensive weaponry. Crew small arms.

A laser guided Rocket round? Much larger round that appear to have a seeker in the nose. Rocket venturis in the base and needs a booster from a mortar fin base projectile to clear the tube before ignition.

Apparently a seige mortar.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It would appear that the Soviets didn't need to worry too much about being able to shoot and scoot given the overwhelming superiority in available barrels. So what if they lost a few from counterbattery fire. Those NATO weapons would quickly be neutralised either by counter counterbatteries, or the overall ground offensive overrunning them.
And of course we already know the low value the individual soldier held in the Soviet scheme. So what if they lost a few if the overall objective was achieved.

The big issue I see to my untrained eyes is logistics. Could they keep their artillery and everyone else supplied with the required ammunition?

Again at the risk of bringing about the end of the world, I’m entirely in agreement with Leg on this one—from the Soviet point of view. Years ago, a senior MI officer suggested that the Soviets would have used their towed pieces to attract counterbattery fire. MRL would have been waiting.

The two big ticket items in terms of tonnage of supply in modern warfare are fuel and large caliber ammunition. The Soviets would have needed plenty of both, since their offensive scheme included lots of tanks and lots of artillery. Trucks move this stuff. Roads have limited capacity. Traffic jams occur. Operation Desert Storm showed that keeping the supplies moving forward is a challenge. The Syrians, who had done this kind of thing recently enough, kept things moving. The Saudis, who had no real world experience in this area, ran into problems. Heck, after four days the US Army was running out of some key items.

In Twilight: 2000 terms, the Soviets would have spanked the Chinese defenders at the beginning of each leap forward from their supply dumps during 1995. Combat power would have dropped off in a reverse J curve after a certain time or certain distance. In Europe, with Pact forces on the defensive in the DDR, the logistical picture would have been more favorable for the Soviets. Moving stocks forward through Poland would have presented the usual challenges, but getting the fuel and ammunition from the rail heads to the forward units in East Germany would have been much easier than if the Soviets were invading West Germany. I would expect a much higher sustained volume of artillery fire against the West Germans under these conditions.