Reddit mentions of Field Artillery and Firepower

I served 6 years in the artillery branch including time overseas. I now talk about that time with high school students, and often field questions from them.

​

What I have noticed is that in pop culture and general history books, which I'm guessing mostly informs their questions, the focus on military operations is entirely on the Infantry and Armour, to the exclusion of Combat Engineers and Artillery.

​

Most good military history books cover how crew-served weapon systems, both in direct and indirect fire account for most (I was told 90% in Artillery School, but that may be biased) casualties. Similarly, operational studies emphasize how engineers facilitate movement of friendly forces and impede those of the enemy. I don't expect high school students to have an academic interest in military history, but I thought that these ideas would diffuse though the culture they consume. Why is there a disconnect between Field Artillery and Firepower and TV, movies and video games?

There is "Field Artillery and Firepower" by Maj. Gen. J.B.A. Bailey. This has coverage of the role of artillery in the First World War.
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Artillery-Firepower-Updated-Expanded/dp/1591140293

There is also "Doctrine Under Trial: American Artillery Employment in World War I" by Mark E. Grotelueschen
https://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Under-Trial-Employment-Contributions-dp-0313311714/dp/0313311714/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

Though second book is specifically about American Artillery

>On the Cold War, I find it useful to think about the Cuban Missile Crisis. What ultimately solved it was not signaling through force (indeed, that almost killed us all) but rather people who were skilled at understanding the political context the various actors were moving within. Absent that, I think we escalate in the face of Khrushchev's hardline message, Castro takes over missile command, and we all die.

I'd argue that Khrushchev actually won the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sure, we reached a diplomatic solution and the West rejoiced, but what wasn't public at the time was that the West made an important concession for this, the withdrawal of missiles from Italy and Turkey, which were much more important strategically than the Cuban missiles.

Additionally, the US all but conceded the existence of Cuba and promised not to invade it, which is another diplomatic setback in the sense that once such a promise is made, it's very difficult to take back if the situation changes. I'm not saying Kennedy's decision was wrong or that I would have done things differently, but overall, the USSR came off better from that engagement than the US did.

>On the effectiveness of the message, I'm not so sure. I broadly agree with you about Putin, with the caveat that he understands that Russia is in an inferior position vis-a-vis the West. That's behind his asymmetric tactics from mercenaries to electronic disruption to his attempts to split the western alliance through provocation.

Yes he understands, he's an incredibly smart man. However that's his game, see how far he can push before pulling back, creating frozen conflicts to maintain Russia's sphere of influence. But states communicate not so much by words as by actions. Whether those strikes were a calculated strategic option by Mattis and co. or them giving in to Trump wanting strikes as his fancy of the week, that's all going to factor into Putin's plans as to how much he can push, because we've proven we are willing to stand by at least some of our commitments. It's an important message to send IMO and the logical escalation after the economic sanctions. We won't take military options off the table.

That's probably the main point we disagree on, and ultimately it's a question of perspective, especially the general view of international relations you might have vs mine.

>Vis-a-vis taking our chips and going home, with Assad about to wrap this thing up, aren't we going to have to do that soonish anyway? The other option (it seems to me) is to plunge Syria into a more-or-less permanent civil war, and I'm not entirely sure that gets us anywhere.

Yes, you're correct, eventually we'll either have to commit or take our chips and go home. I prefer the second option, but we need to spin it in a way that doesn't make us look weak. To be fair, we could probably freeze the conflict and keep a small rebel held area. It's good training for fighter pilots and SOF. But that's neither here nor there at the moment.

>I've really enjoyed this discussion, and I hope you do read that book. It's fantastic and changed my perspective on the issue of credibility on a fundamental level.

Thank you, I have enjoyed it as well. I will add it to my reading list. Allow me to recommend something closer to my field of expertise, Field Artillery and Firepower by Mgen Bailey. Wonderful book if you're interested in really understanding the basics of artillery and gunnery doctrine throughout history.