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

[dragoon500ly]

The artillery organization of the Soviets has developed to meet two conflicting requirements, responsiveness and centralization. In order to meet the needs for the breakthrough attack, centralization of all artillery assets is required. At the same time, the mobile battle and the meeting engagements requires a rapid response. At every level from battalion up, the Soviets provide the support needed by the commander to accomplish these two goals.

The NATO response to these two requirements is to adopt a flexible system, in which a single forward observer can direct all artillery within range onto a single target. Furthermore, this system does not require the FO to relay his request through ever higher levels of command, but can instead, speak directly to the artillery.

First introduced in World War II, and refined in Korea and Vietnam, this type of organization allows for an incredibly short response time, a US forward observer can expect the first rounds to be falling on target within 100 seconds. With a battery dedicated to a specific unit, this response time can be shortened even further to as little as 38 seconds.

The Soviets are well aware of this system, but they have made the decision not to use it. Their belief that the NATO system's almost total reliance on radio communications will fail under the power of Soviet electronic warfare. NATO's fire control system will also be vulnerable to the EMP effects of nuclear weapons and finally they realize the difficultly of using a microphone while wearing a NBC suit or a protective mask.

The Soviet emphasis on centralization of artillery planning at regimental and divisional level does not allow for the NATO system. Its use by the Soviets would impose an incredible strain in terms of the numbers of forward observers, radios and technicians to support it.

The above is based on FM 100-2-1 and "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army".