Rocket vs. conventional artillery...which is most effective?

Contributor:  Andrew Elwell
Posted:  01/11/2013  12:00:00 AM EST
Rate this Article: (2.9 Stars | 8 Votes)
Tags:   artillery

Artillery in some form or another has been used on the battlefield for centuries. It dates back to medieval China where the Southern Wu used fire arrows – said to be the first rocket in both mechanism and design – in 904 during the siege of Yuzhang. Since then armies across the globe have used varying forms of mortars, rockets and artillery to bombard their enemies in preparation for an attack.

Today, rocket artillery such as the US M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System is a familiar sight on the battlefield. However, since rocket artillery was first introduced there has been vigorous debate over whether it is more practical and effective than conventional artillery systems. Defence IQ has taken a look at this debate in greater detail…

What do you think about rocket vs. conventional artillery? Do the advantages of one significantly outweigh the other? Email haveyoursay@defenceiq.com with your opinions and insight.

In March, senior leaders in the artillery field will meet for the 11th annual Future Artillery conference. The debate over rocket and conventional artillery will be on the agenda with Colonel Tracy Banister, Commander, 210th Fires Brigade, discussing the only permanently forward deployed multiple launch rocket system brigade in the U.S. Army. In addition, Dr Jongtai Hong of South Korea’s Ammunition & Warhead Department, Agency for Defense Development (ADD), will be speaking about the ROK’s existing munitions and current requirements.

Andrew Elwell Contributor:   Andrew Elwell


comments powered by Disqus


Advertise With Us

Join Defence IQ