Rocket Artillery Vs Conventional Artillery.

Hunty

<div class="IPBDescription">Difference in effectiveness?</div> Can anyone tell me about the effectiveness of rocket artillery(say,US MLRS system) vs the effectiveness of conventional artillery(the standard 155mm canons)?

BigMadSteve

I'm not an expert but I think the MLRS can cause damage over a large area.

<a href='http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/' target='_blank'>Here is some info</a>

Hida_Tsuzua

Typically you get better range with a rocket based system. Regular cannon are just as good until after a certain range (a few miles I believe) you have to go for the huge type cannons (such as the nuke cannon, Bertha, the really huge cannon Saddam was working on, etc). I also think rocket artillery has less recoil (which can wear down cannons over time or require recoil absorbers).

DarkDude

Well, it depends on what you are talking about. RAP's- Rocket Assisted Projectiles or rockets themselves.

RAP's are fired from normal cannons and can come in almost any size that artillery can. After the shell goes through a certain number of spins a rocket on the back of the shell kicks in and gives the projectile a far longer range. This is most effective for of course hitting far away targets, upwards of 7 miles. (I think, could be wrong) The cost of all this is accuracy, when the rocket kicks in it could send the shell off target because of the jolt.

Rockets themselves are usually used in short range situations though cruise missles are made for long distance operations. Rockets allow much smaller vehicals to be used because there is no need for a huge cannon to hit long distance targets. There is also a lot less recoil allowing 1-2 humans to carry and fire them. (RPG's <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ) Rockets also have the ability to be guided much more accuratly than conventional shells can. With sytems such as hellfire, you can send a rocket through a window of a building and have it detonate inside as oposed to outside causing a lot more stuctual damage. One drawback is that rockets have a much higher risk of error because of the computers and moving parts used.

Both have pros and cons and both are used for different situations. Conventional artillery will probably be phased out within the next 25-50 years at the most though some still may be used.

Burncycle

Conventional artillery will never be phased out.