Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For 40k I think it would be justified purely on the 'Rule of Cool' basis. A ridiculously huge baroque gun emplacement fits the Imperium perfectly. It would probably be sometihng like the various Superguns that people have tried to build (Saddam Hussein being one of them) built to shell a neighboring naiton or similar. These are big enough they might have supporting emplacements for anti-aircraft and similar.

In 40k, I could completely see this being used on some hell-hole planet to suppress Orks in the badlands. Keep them from gearing up for a fight by constant shelling, the kind of thing that may be done every day for years with one month's rest a decade for maintenance and a ceremonial hunt by the planet's nobles (and any local Guard). Of course, no one has brought back anything bigger than a snotling in the last century, and the senate argues that the cost of keeping the gun(s) running isn't worth it for an old tradition...

Balance wrote:
In 40k, I could completely see this being used on some hell-hole planet to suppress Orks in the badlands. Keep them from gearing up for a fight by constant shelling, the kind of thing that may be done every day for years with one month's rest a decade for maintenance and a ceremonial hunt by the planet's nobles (and any local Guard). Of course, no one has brought back anything bigger than a snotling in the last century, and the senate argues that the cost of keeping the gun(s) running isn't worth it for an old tradition...

Consider this idea stolen for my Dark Heresy roleplaying :-)

Ratbarf wrote: It takes the role of air strike, and basic arty barrage all in one expensive as hell go.

One proven art system: 1 million $
One unproven but cool project: 1000000000000 million $
To lobby the Gov to fund your retirement using taxpayer dollars: priceless

Seriously now, conventional artillery has and will have a place in modern battlefields. Missiles are very precise and can be launched hundreds of miles away but they are expensive as hell and although fortresses are things of the past sometimes armies need saturation fire and unless you want to go short of a nuke or FAES system you´ll need something else than a few missiles.

M.

Someone mentioned robot swarms... how about swarms of cyborg bugs?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8302903.stm

I think they could be viable if proper defences were erected. Scramblers to prevent teleport lock on, trenches to defend from the ground anti-air to prevent air strikes. Of course there is always nuke it from orbit. . .
If the objective was that important for both sides I could see it as viable.

edit: dakka dbl post

If you mean on the 40K battlefield, fixed emplacements SHOULD be worthless with orbital fire, teleporting commando strikes and countless other ways of destroying them. I bet a Mawloc can feel an artillery piece fire half a planet away.

Mattlov wrote:If you mean on the 40K battlefield, fixed emplacements SHOULD be worthless with orbital fire

Ships have to position themselves for orbital bombardments. Planets can have anti-ship weaponry as fixed emplacements on the ground, concealed, waiting for when the orbiting ships engage in bombardments.

teleporting commando strikes

Teleporting isn't as precise as you think, can be jammed/scrambled, and not to mention the inherent dangers of using the Warp as a teleport mechanism anyways.

and countless other ways of destroying them. I bet a Mawloc can feel an artillery piece fire half a planet away.

True, but there's also countless ways to defend them. There's a reason why the Imperium at least, dedicates at least one or two full Imperial Guard regiments to defend their artillery batteries during campaigns.

Mellon wrote:

Balance wrote:
In 40k, I could completely see this being used on some hell-hole planet to suppress Orks in the badlands. Keep them from gearing up for a fight by constant shelling, the kind of thing that may be done every day for years with one month's rest a decade for maintenance and a ceremonial hunt by the planet's nobles (and any local Guard). Of course, no one has brought back anything bigger than a snotling in the last century, and the senate argues that the cost of keeping the gun(s) running isn't worth it for an old tradition...

Consider this idea stolen for my Dark Heresy roleplaying :-)

Happy to help!

ThePatriot wrote:I'm curious to see your opinions regarding emplaced artillery vs. self-propelled on a future battlefield. Would the emplaced artillery be viable when there are anti-gravity self-propelled artillery vehicles?

Artillery on a future battlefield won't be emplaced. Self propelled, and then from a couple of miles away in a nice safe area, surrounded by a nice defensive area.

Air strikes, Morters, and grenade launchers take the place of needing it.

It still has a use, but not in the same way as it once did in the Napolionic era.

But to be thorough...

Nuke them from orbit, just to be sure.

In a universe where much of what you fight will try to move towards you, I'd say they would be fine as long as they have an AoE self-destruct blast

Brother SRM wrote:

starbomber109 wrote:I donno, in the future they might be switched over to cruise missiles for all artillery.

Well yes, but as you know, many of us play a wargame where 38,000 years in the future people land on planets to swordfight.

I laughed out loud.

Mellon wrote:

Balance wrote:
In 40k, I could completely see this being used on some hell-hole planet to suppress Orks in the badlands. Keep them from gearing up for a fight by constant shelling, the kind of thing that may be done every day for years with one month's rest a decade for maintenance and a ceremonial hunt by the planet's nobles (and any local Guard). Of course, no one has brought back anything bigger than a snotling in the last century, and the senate argues that the cost of keeping the gun(s) running isn't worth it for an old tradition...

Consider this idea stolen for my Dark Heresy roleplaying :-)

Feel free to use these as you like. I just kind of liked the image of a massive defensive wall lined with a half-dozen baroque big guns that fire every couple minutes, like clockwork, 24/7... The target is miles away, perhaps across a massive canyon or waterway. Anyone saying anything negative about the guns is likely to be seen as unpatriotic or worse, so no one questions the gigantic expenditure to keep the ammo rolling in, the guns maintained (Being on a gun crew is likely an honor, but is also likely not something the best and brightest aspire to as it's pretty rote by this point... program random coordinates with certain boundaries, and fire the gun, reload, program, fire.) Sons of nobles assigned to the guns probably spend most of their time at a soundproofed HQ away from the gun line shuffling paper and wishing they could go ride horses or whatever.

Some scenario ideas:

The PCs are asked to join the hunt for some reason... Maybe this is the year something bigger is found. And the Orks have learned the pattern, found a way to avoid the shells, and are planning.

The Senate's efforts to stop the centuries of shelling could be for several reasons. Simple cost savings is one, but what if it's something darker? What if it's a plot by a cult to drag the planet into active warfare sot heyc an coem out on top, or jsut turn the planet into a nice ball of Khorne-friendly combat?

What if the shelling is, actually, a very slow act of devotion to Chaos? They have, after all, been engaging in warfare (of a sort) for centuries!

Nurgle might like the shelling, too, if there's nasty toxins and viruses involved. Maybe the shelling is contributing to some nasty mutant-making stuff?

Deep analysis of all plots fired shows that while a massive area is bombarded, one small region (perhaps a mile square) has never been selected. The odds of this over the centuries involved is astronomical. What's there? Are the guns keeping something from leaving that area? Could be an artifact of the Imperium, some Xeno weirdness, or anything else. For this one, there might be a scenario to convince the powers that be to stop the shelling out of the normal maintenance window, or just making a mad-dash across the no-man's land hoping the gunners do their jobs, to get to the Oddity. Then, of course,t he Oddity itself... And getting back.

Another idea might be to focus on the gun line as something that does need to be kept running. If the guns are mostly run by citizens who can't or won't get a better job, they could certainly get sloppy. An Inquisitor's teams might need to force the line to work harder, or even replace a team to strike at a specific target (like an identified Ork army forming, an almost-reactivated gargant, etc.). They might have to even delve into ancient archives to find a shell better than those normally sued sot hey can hit it with something a bit bigger.

The OP wanted to know so he could choose between fixed or SP? It's hinted at in using heli/para missile batteries/105's etc, that non-SP artillery, ie towed, is just as mobile as SP if not more so.

With fixed fortifications any enemy knows where you are from the moment the foundations are being dug, so much like the German blitzkrieg, they go around, over or land on top of your fort, game over.

Self propelled artillery is, as someone pointed out already, expensive in resources--bust a track, have a fault on engine/transmission etc and your gun is out of action until the fault's fixed.

Towed, though, are usually simple artillery pieces on a light carriage along with a truck to carry crew, ammunition and tools. ANY truck (or track) with a towing pintle can be used, making it more flexible. Many are liftable by helocopter or air-droppable, adding to that flexibility.

I'm told that in the battle for Berlin in WW2 the Soviets lined up their towed guns wheel to wheel, for 43 miles, then let rip. That's one helluva counter battery strike!

I believe the modern tactic is to scatter the battery's guns, to reduce the risk of counter battery fire, with each gun doing a "shoot and scoot" fire mission, ie move quickly into position, blat off 1 or 2 round then leg it elsewhere?

Not so easy to duplicate on a gaming table, but it possibly means you need fewer guns to cover your "front".

Balance wrote:

Deep analysis of all plots fired shows that while a massive area is bombarded, one small region (perhaps a mile square) has never been selected. The odds of this over the centuries involved is astronomical. What's there? Are the guns keeping something from leaving that area? Could be an artifact of the Imperium, some Xeno weirdness, or anything else. For this one, there might be a scenario to convince the powers that be to stop the shelling out of the normal maintenance window, or just making a mad-dash across the no-man's land hoping the gunners do their jobs, to get to the Oddity. Then, of course,t he Oddity itself... And getting back.

Yes, yes... this is the one... Mmm, I can see it now. The (seemingly gone rogue) Inquisior that my PCs are working against have a hidden research base that is protected by the "random" shelling. Ork spores are nurtured there in safety only to be release to the surface in time for the annual hunt. With knowledge of the complex shelling pattern and a good distance meter and compass it is quite possible to move safely to the entrance, while your movement is amply covered from nosy sensors by the dust and detonations. In preparation of the hunt the entrance is covered up by using effectively invisible explosives to collapse the cave entrance, this entrance is later dug out by servitor crew. This is of course where the inquisitor is doing all the genetic laborations on captured genestealers. The inquisitor have a two centuries old deal with the panetary governor, but doesn't want the senate to know anything. There will be a multitude of honour, traditions, politics, powerstruggles and of possibly directed opposition from the governor to battle in order to solve this problem. Excellent! Thank you so much for this inspiration. I'll tell my players where to send their love/hate mail ;-)

For 40k?

I'd assume mostly SP guns - they're sexy beasts. If I ever get to the point where I've got nothing else to do, I'll mobilize a railway gun on super-Baneblade chassis!

Emplaced artillery is macro cannon against orbital threats.

ThePatriot wrote:Thank y'all for the enlightening replies. I was curious about this because I'm deciding for my setting, Inceptum Terminus, will have emplaced and self-propelled artillery or just self-propelled artillery.

The tech level of IT is roughly the equivalent of Renegade Legion with anti-gravity tanks, gauss and laser weapons, and other hard science fiction equipment. No shields though, but they do have holographic projectors mounted on the vehicles for camouflage.

People are under the assumption that this thread is for 40k. It's not, but about my own setting. I'll quote myself from page one. Once again thank you for the time you took to answer this thread.

What sort of detection equipment are we talking about? Because, if you can track an incoming projectile with sufficient speed and accuracy, any reasonably powerful laser would render artillery functionally useless; outside of massed barrages anyway.

dogma wrote:What sort of detection equipment are we talking about? Because, if you can track an incoming projectile with sufficient speed and accuracy, any reasonably powerful laser would render artillery functionally useless; outside of massed barrages anyway.

This is going to require some explanation of the of the history, so please bear with me.

According to the history, prior to terrorists unleashing a coordinated nuclear/biological/chemical attack on the US and her allies in 2002, the US/Russian Confederation/Germany/UK alliance fought against the France/China/Vietnam/Korea alliance for complete control over local space starting in 2000. Both sides used starfighters and frigate class starships above the earth with their primary missions being close air support for troops on the ground and taking out the opposing side's satellites. Both sides have a starbase in orbit above the Earth that they can launch fighters for space control. The French Alliance lost their satellites early on in the war, but the US Alliance space forces were pushed back to the moon and lost all of their satellites. After Armageddon, the next 98 years is spent rebuilding from the massive terrorist attacks and the Corporate States sign the Corporate States Economic Trade and Assistance Treaty amongst each other that would require the use of every person being implanted with an RFID chip and their movements are recorded by monitoring cell towers. The cell towers have a detection range of 100 miles on clear terrain and send a constant stream of data to specifically constructed data centers. The data centers would be able to determine the location of anyone that shouldn't be inside of individual Corporate State territory. Theoretically, it is possible to remove the chips, but that would be in violation of the treaty. If total war broke out, it would take a very long time for each of the Corporate States to remove the RFID chips from their military forces. Just by tracking the movements of an invading army, the defenders would be able to tap into the monitoring towers and get location data of every invading unit.

An aside, the book focuses mainly on the US due to space constraints and the US federal government ceased to exist in 2002 and state governments ceased to exist in 2001. Out of the ashes, nine Corporate States arose to take control over the former states. Local space above the Earth is currently uncontrolled with both alliances space forces ceasing to exist.

I love how France sided with the Communists, I suppose they lost?

Ratbarf wrote:I love how France sided with the Communists, I suppose they lost?

Actually, China, Vietnam, and Korea were all democracies that sided with France. I used an alternate history. Both sides lost, so it really doesn't matter.

notprop wrote:The 105's seem to be doing the job in Afganistan.

While the heavy stuff will need to be mobile as discussed, or even completely replaced with Air/Space resources I think that there will always be a niche for static light batteries, either for defence or support of slower moving formations.

Another additional question I would pose is whether the gun will be completely replaced by missile/air deployed munitions?

The fighting in Afghanistan is not against a well equipped adversary. If they had signifcant counter battery, air support, air mobile and air superiority assets then it would be a very different situation.

ThePatriot wrote:Just by tracking the movements of an invading army, the defenders would be able to tap into the monitoring towers and get location data of every invading unit.

That sounds interesting, but the question was meant to be in reference to radar-type technologies. Basically what I was trying to get across is that, if you can pinpoint an artillery shell in flight, you should be able to shoot it out of the sky with a laser very easily. In such an instance you would only be able to use artillery en masse to produce any reasonable effect.

So that sort of pinpointing anti artillery techique, if effective enough, would in effect work like a forcefield. And that would, do I believe, make static battery emplacements useful _if_ such forcefields required to be static as well. That would leave the battling sides with huge gun emplacements protected by impenetrable forcefields/laser+radar grids from where they could bombard the less protected parts of the planet.

That would make for mightily epic battles where infantry storms the gun emplacements.

Hi all.
I belive most light to medium artillery will continue to be mobile, either towed or self propelled.
This is equivelent of 75mm to 150mm current ordnance.
As these have ranges of up to 20 miles, (if we allow for secondary propulsion systems in larger calibre weapons this could be extended to about 50 miles.)

After this 'tactical use artilery' there is the 'strategic strikes' carried out by air power and long range missiles.(100 to 2000 miles range.)

IF super gun emplacments are used , they would have to have massive range and devastating effects to make them viable.And as such being a top target,massive protection, propbably in the form of a fortres type complex would be needed to protect such a weapon.

So even if used, most games would not include these type of weapons unless dealing with the strategy of higher level games.(Divisional level and higher.)
Or a 'Guns of Navarone' type mission for a skirmish game perhaps.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Anything that cannot move is just a target.

ThePatriot wrote:I'm curious to see your opinions regarding emplaced artillery vs. self-propelled on a future battlefield. Would the emplaced artillery be viable when there are anti-gravity self-propelled artillery vehicles?

In reality, virtually none. We don't have void shields or meters of ceramite casemate. Mobility = survivability as you can't kill what you can't find. Static emplacements exist for big guns but frankly guided projectiles and smarter, more efficient warheads have made large shells obsolete.

Static emplacements exist for big guns but frankly guided projectiles and smarter, more efficient warheads have made large shells obsolete.

Except from a cost efficency standpoint, I beleive it costs 80000 dollars per missile? 20000 per guided arty shell and around 1000 or so I would expect for a large arty shell.

If that large Arty shell only gets one shot because mobile counterbattery flattens the gun & crew, then the cost of that single shell is actually well over a million dollars.

Ratbarf wrote:

Static emplacements exist for big guns but frankly guided projectiles and smarter, more efficient warheads have made large shells obsolete.

Except from a cost efficency standpoint, I believe it costs 80000 dollars per missile? 20000 per guided arty shell and around 1000 or so I would expect for a large arty shell.

The less you miss, the less ammo you use.