what are the pros and cons of artillery and naval gunfire for infantry support as compared to air support?

Question

only military knowledgable people answer only

Answer 1

1. Naval gunfire at one time was only available within a few miles of navigatable waters. Now with rockets and missiles that range factor is not a problem, however the time in the air or time to target is usually much longer than it would be for artillery from nearby fire bases. Naval gunfire requires special laison and spotters (or did in the past).
3. Artillery is fairly responsive, the times to target are short, it is under the same local command, it's accurate, infantry officers and noncoms are trained in the art of spotting and calling this fire. Many infantry units carry light artillery, mortars with them so that they have their own immediate close support. However, the bases must be protected which means you need more men to conduct operations and sometimes long dupply lines can cause problems getting ammo to the tubes. In Infantry Officer training I humped an 81mm mortar tube for 3 days along with my normal gear. It wasn't fun but it can be done. And then you have a good close support weapon with you under your command.
4. Air support is always welcome. Planes pack a big bang and are appreciated. Just the sound of 'fast movers' making a fly over sometimes caused the battle to stop because the enemy left. Yay, Air!!! However, there are never enough planes! And they can only stay on station (ready to support a given area) for a short time. Air support is often not available. Most of the time you must contact the sortie through a forward air observor. You mark your location with smoke, relate the target location from yours, he fires a smoke rocket into the target, you correct it, he fires again and then the aircraft make their runs (over which you do not have direct control). This can be a lengthy process and always raises the hair on your head. Those boys are good but it is scary because you go and look later at what their loads did (if you're lucky). Still, hats off for air. Also, if even one aircraft is shot down it is a huge loss tactically, strategically and economically.
5. You did not mention direct support by armored artillery or tanks but this is very good to have. They pack a huge punch, are right there with you and have a helpful effect on your men's morale (and your own). They are immediately rersponsive! "Hey, Sarge, yeah, you in that damn noisy smelly tin can. I don't like the looks of that hump next to the third tall palm over there." A minute later there is no hump (or palm) and you owe the guy (another0 six pack........ War was fun! War was hell! I hate it! BUT I swear to Him, I loved it!

All things considered there is a necessity for a combination and no one type is adequate, but of those you mentioned I believe the artillery to be still the most responsive, easiest to get on target and therefor the most important. If you could have air with direct contact with the pilots and the supply was unlimited I would take that.

Answer 2

Naval and artillery fire is available 24/7 in any whether and can protect the troops continuously while Aircraft can only attack in decent weather and can stay only as long as there fuel and bombs last which is usually 2 or 3 passes. The aircraft also have many more missions to divide up there time so they can only stay so long. Artillery stays with the troops all the time. It also cost alot less to shell the bad guys than to bomb them. shells cost hundreds even thousands but bombs cost millions not to mention the millions spent putting that plane in the air not so for artillery. Accuracy wise there is no difference as both have GPS guided munitions and fire controls.

Answer 3

A lot depends on the nature of the target.
You report the target and somebody in the rear decides whats needed, unless you have air controlers or artillery spotters with you.
I called for arty once, was told I was too close , to back up a klick.
Had the Mighty Mo's 16 in guns pay a vist to Charlie.
Now , that's fire support!

Answer 4

Naval gunfire can only be used in coastal attacks. Very limited. Almost obsolete.

Land based artillery.
Pros - quicker response, normally under the control of a unit commander, can stay on station for and unlimited amount of time, variety of ammunition options, virtually unlimited ammunition

Cons - limited range, subject to counter battery fire, accuracy depends on the spotter(forward observer), guns cannot see the target

Close air support.
Pros - extremely fast response, pilots can see the target, pilots can verify target data, virtually unlimited range, very effective in danger close missions (close to friendlies)

Cons - can stay on station for limited amounts of time, subject to anti aircraft weapons, lot of bureaucracy to fire on targets, limited ammunition

Answer 5

Artillary can create 'wall' to prevent the enemy from getting within a pacific distance of allied forces, as well as being able to quickly fire multiple rounds in a single area to destroy enemy positions or armour, as for air support is more for being on the move quickly so to as keep up with a rapidly moving patrol, or invasion

Answer 6

Artillery fire....not effective against fortified postisions or high grounds.

Close air support....targets visible, weapons tactics, targets are sitting ducks.

Artillery fire is not terrible accurate too.

Answer 7

I have no idea what we are talking about....but since the gorgeous Vasilicaaa is Romanian, I too shall support Romania.