You need both. See Ukraine needing mountains of artillery despite the pre war consensus being that the artillery era is over
The drones make the news but can’t be the only weapon you bring
You need both. See Ukraine needing mountains of artillery despite the pre war consensus being that the artillery era is over
The drones make the news but can’t be the only weapon you bring
The same pre war consensus also thought that war with Russia was unthinkable, it is Russia that focused on artillery tactics so the two assumptions went hand in hand.
It’s my opinion that artillery is out of date and by the end of the Ukraine war they will be even more out of date. It’s hard to make artillery more cost effective than it already is yet still many more opportunities to increase drone effectiveness.
Artillery is just one piece in the puzzle and it has its place, with drone spotting. You can't jam a shell.
But once your artillery positions can't be protected from drones then its game over for sure.
This is more of a doctrine issue. Ukraine was given mountains of artillery by western nations, so naturally they were going to use it. But artillery has lower RoI than drones, drones are cheaper, more accurate, more versatile, and have longer range. It makes the most sense to heavily invest in the better technology drones, not artillery. If we look at what Ukraine spends its military budget on, >50% of its military spending goes towards drones. Only 15% is going towards artillery & ammunition.
We can also look at present wars to view where the trend is going. I'd estimate that during the latest conflict between Israel/Iran/US + gulf states, approximately zero artillery shells were fired*.
During a hypothetical US/China/Taiwan + Korean/Japan conflict, I'd expect this number to be similar.
*excluding rocket artillery such as HIMARS