Howitzers vs mortars vs plain old, regular, normal cannons

Which is the best weapon to mass-produce in an army, overall?
Thanks.

Lieutenant Blaster.

 

There's no answer to that.

Mortars (81mm or smaller) for portable close support (organic to infantry formations)

Howitzers for indirect fire with heavy shells, for example against entrenched positions

Direct fire cannon for those times when you just need to "reach out and touch someone", e.g. AT or Flak

It would also depend on the time period. WW1 would require howitzers and Mortars mainly, WW2 more guns perhaps

Tom

 

A good mixture is needed.

Even in WW1 plain direct-fire cannon were useful for counter-battery fire (knocking out the enemy howitzers)

 

Like Ricky as said, there is no universal answer because every situation is unique.

 

I believe Long Range Artillery is the best massed produced siege weapon in a army. My reasoning is because the longer range a weapon has ultimatly means your farther from the enemy which gives more chances of being hidden (if in a wooded area or in mountianous regions) and a much less chances of having your artillery units captured. when using mortars, yes are much lighter ans more manuverable, there is a higher chance of injury on the job and your much closer to the enemy than you want to be.

King Randall

 

Sometimes you dont get that advantage King Randall as nowadays an army might be defeated but there will be resistance groups that are called terrorists but the occuping force. An example of that is Iraq they call the insurgents terrorists but they had similair tactics when they fought the British I dont recall anyoen being called a terrorist from there.

 

Yea true nowadays, but i was thinking back in '39. these days you dont have to worrie about artillery if your a 2nd world nation like ourselves cause we have the big toys ae: Heavy Bombers, Advanced fighters n whatnot

 

Dont forget upgraded T-72s with reactive armour.

 

Trouble is, you can't hit anything hidden behind a hill...

 

Yes you can, that's the whole point of indirect fire...

 

Sorry, I just had a bad-brain moment - assuming that King R was referring exclusively to 'guns' - high-velocity, flat-trajectory chappies.

 

Hit targets behind a hill? That what mortars, howitzers, and, off-topicly but practically, airplanes are for.

 

yes they fire indirectly and the shells would reign down upon the hill and it would be no more. if they cant reach it then you call in air support

 

I'm not sure if people are going to talk about different types of artillery pieces, but if there's one towed artillery piece over all others it would be the heavy gun-howitzer (150-155mm). It is able to fire in all trajectories, it's shells are extremely hard-hitting yet enable relatively rapid firing unlike 8 inch howitzers.

 

Welcome to the forum, LV.

The weapons you mention are indeed perfect for their role as indirect-fire, medium artillery. The Long Tom itself was also renowned for accuracy, something that really makes artillery a superb weapon - not just useful for barrage fire but for aimed shots as well.

 

.


no question , after individual weapons and transports , the best asset is
artillery since the end of the long bow ,
modern artillery with radio controlled spotter are the real muscle of a line,
the infantery is the filling , long range guns can control an extensive area
from one position and are the cheapest and most accurate way of sending
large amount of grief to someone then switch target.in a mater of seconds.

With great reluctance , it must be noted than a decent ground attack plane
can perform , sometimes , the same missions with a longuer reaction time
less punch but a greater range and with some intelligence function .


.

 

The stuff I read on modern artillery is freakish , they can calculate the firing
location of a shell to within a few feet when the shell is at mid flight ,
the counter battery can begin while the first shell has not yet landed !
The arabs guerillas leave a timer to fire their rockets ,
the israeli counter fire is so fast .