Will the 'King of Battle' Reign on the Future High Intensity Battlefield?

This paper analyzes the U.S. Armys field artillery fire support systems ability to deliver devastating timely fires on the European battlefield of the 1990s. The Soviets have modernized and restructured their artillery force. This paper shows that current U.S. artillery force structure is inadequate for the high intensity battlefield. Using a variation of the Combat Power Model, a comparative analysis of U.S. and Soviet artillery systems is made. Following a brief discussion of artillery doctrine, evaluations are made of U.S. and Soviet artillery delivery systems C3 sustainment and support and target acquisition capabilities. This comparison shows that U.S. and Soviet delivery systems are qualitatively quite similar. The U.S.s only significant advantage is the area of smart munitions. The Soviets have a tremendous advantage in cannon, multiple rocket launcher, and missile quantity. American C3 and target acquisition systems are automated and use modern technology the Soviet systems do not, but that doesnt necessarily mean the Soviet systems are deficient. Sustainment problems possibly exist in both countries artilleries. Conclusions include 1 Both sides will attempt to win a large scale artillery- on-artillery duel. 2 The Soviets are attempting to establish a quantitative advantage and technological parity with U.S. artillery. 3 U.S. artillery is qualitatively and technologically sufficient but is quantitatively deficient.