This video was made using insights from vidIQ. Stick around after the
video to find out how we used vidIQ as our secret YouTube weapon while making it!
Known among US military circles as the King of Battle and in the Russian army as the God of War,
field artillery has historically played a huge role in every major conflict until the 21st
century. However, because NATO has been embroiled in fighting the War on Terror for the past twenty
years, some crucial artillery skills have started to slip. Additionally, with Russia having plenty
of tactical experience employing massed artillery in four conflicts over the past twenty years,
they have learned plenty of lessons. Russia could use these lessons to great effect against their
enemies. Because of that, it begs the question of whether Russian artillery could smash NATO forces.
As far as raw equipment, as it stands today, the numbers are evenly matched. Though Russia does
outclass even the US regarding the sheer number of towed and self-propelled artillery systems,
the numbers are practically equal when all of the NATO alliance is combined. But the main difference
is in the quality of the equipment. The US 155mm Paladin and German Panzerhaubitze are both
state-of-the-art deadly systems for self-propelled guns. With great mobility, extended ranges,
and advanced fire control computers, these are just two examples of self-propelled guns that
NATO could use to fight against Russia. As for the Russians, they heavily rely on
Soviet-era equipment that they continually upgrade to remain relevant. Russia heavily relies on
the 2S19 self-propelled gun as the backbone of its frontline Battalion Tactical Groups. Older
models like the 2S5 and 2S1 have routinely made their way onto the battlefield due to the heavy
casualties Russian forces have suffered in Ukraine. Despite receiving upgrades to sensors,
radars, fire control computers, and munitions, the chassis on these vehicles are often 30, 40,
or 50 years old. Because of this, with limited supply chain support for parts, when these
vehicles suffer battle damage or otherwise break down, they have to be written off as a total loss.
The situation does look a bit more even when comparing Russian and NATO tube artillery.
Both militaries rely on Cold War-era designs and technology even today. While Russia has
kept most of these designs because of economic necessity due to not having enough money to
fund research projects for newer systems. US and NATO countries have kept older tube
artillery in their inventories primarily due to a lack of need for newer systems.
NATO countries have instead heavily invested in advancing fire control technology, communications,
and munitions for their guns. These advances aim to make these guns the most accurate ones
in the world. For example, munition types like the Excalibur or Copperhead, guided by GPS and
laser guidance, have become a mainstay in NATO arsenals. This focus on precision-guided munitions
has increased accuracy but has dramatically increased cost. The high costs of these rounds,
often with a price tag of 80,000 dollars or more per round, have precluded the US and
NATO from building large stockpiles of shells. Even though NATO would have a slight edge over
Russia due to its precision-guided munitions, a victory over Russia is still not guaranteed.
That is because of the way Russia trains and employs its artillery forces.
One of the fundamental differences between the two ground forces is how artillery is used. In
NATO countries, artillery fire is used to support advancing infantry forces. In the Russian army,
infantry advances are made to gain advantageous positions for Russian artillery to shoot down
onto the enemy. This is because unlike NATO countries, Russia relies primarily
on direct fire operations when employing its towed and self-propelled artillery.
Artillery batteries can fire any one of a number of fire missions. There are five main categories
of fire missions, and these can be further broken down into offensive and defensive
operations according to Western doctrine. In NATO militaries, artillery fires tend to
be long-range with precision munitions. These kinds of fire missions have several benefits.
Firstly, they keep artillery crews out of the range of counter-battery fire. Counter battery
fire is when an enemy targets an adversary’s artillery positions to knock them out. The
longer ranges also give crews more time to correct their fires since they are in less
physical danger than if they were closer to the frontlines. However, because these operations
rely on precision-guided munitions, their rate of fire is slow and overall costs are expensive. The
Russian doctrine is the exact opposite of this. The Russians primarily use all their artillery
systems in a direct-fire role. Direct fire is when a gun crew can see an enemy target with
their own eyes. This kind of engagement typically happens from several hundred meters out to a few
kilometers. Because Russia focuses on direct fires, they keep their artillery very close to
the front lines, typically only about two to six kilometers behind the forward positions.
How this works in real life is that artillery crews can get direct feedback straight from
frontline troops instead of playing a game of telephone from a forward observer to a
fire control center and to the individual battery like in NATO militaries. Russia has
a distinct advantage over NATO armies since NATO countries only teach direct fire as a
method of last resort. Russia chooses it as its go-to method, and it’s quite effective.
The Russian affinity for direct fire came from its experience in World War Two. Throughout
most of the war, Soviet artillery focused on direct fire support. By the war's end, like
in the Battle of Berlin, 80% of Soviet artillery fires were being utilized in a direct fire role.
NATO gunners would not be ready if asked to perform such tasks. In fact, their equipment
would not even allow it most of the time. For example, the US M109A6 and M109A7 Paladin,
the mainstay of Western self-propelled guns, do not even have a direct-fire gun sight on
their barrel. If crews were forced to perform this task, they would have to sight targets
directly down the barrel, which is inaccurate at best. Russian artillery would also have
another advantage over NATO: sheer volume. As stated earlier, NATO militaries prefer
precision over volume to minimize collateral damage. Russia, of course,
does not care about collateral damage. We can see this throught the way they order
fire missions for their gun crews. In the US army, gun crews could get orders to suppress,
neutralize, or destroy a target. Suppressing fire is not meant to be destructive and encompasses
only enough fire to disrupt enemy operations or restrict their movement. A fire mission meant
to neutralize an enemy means only about 10% of that force to be destroyed. Destroying a force
in US eyes involves taking out 30% of that enemy unit. Russian doctrine takes this to the extreme.
In comparison, Russian suppressive fire aims to take out 30% of the enemy force.
While annihilation, the Russian equivalent of destruction, aims to eliminate 70 to 90% of an
opposing force's personnel. How they accomplish this is through sheer volume. To calculate how
much ordnance a fire mission would take, the Russian military created a nomograph that combines
variables like caliber, duration, target type, and mission. For an example of what an annihilation
fire mission would be like, the nomograph for infantry in the open suggests 600 rounds per 12
guns fired every 15 minutes. Such huge ordnance expenditures are only possible because Russia
relies heavily on "dummy" weapon systems. Why Russia relies on less precision-guided
munitions is not necessarily because of not having the capability to produce those systems
but the costs involved. Russia has made limited munitions similar to NATO Excalibur and Copperhead
munitions. However, due to costs, Russia has favored mass-producing artillery projectiles over
these munitions. At the cost of 80,000 dollars per round, Russia would have burned 48,000,000
dollars for that one fire mission on infantry in the open. The Russian government simply
does not have the money to support that kind of expenditure. However, do not think that Russia
does not try to make their dumb munitions smart. The way that Russia makes its artillery rounds
smart has been through its proliferation of drones. In NATO countries, it’s standard now
for just one drone per artillery company, while Russia mandates that each artillery
observer gets one. To demonstrate just how many drones Russia has bought over the past decades,
from the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 to the war in the Donbas in 2014, the Russian drone
inventory increased ninefold to almost 2,000 drones. Unlike their western counterparts,
practically all of these drones are unarmed. Most drones bought are commercially available,
like the ones Russia bought from Israel. Because the drones Russia uses are cheap, they can
blanket the sky no matter how many are shot down. Russian artillery crews are trained quite well in
using drones to correct for artillery fires. US and NATO countries have been using drones as a
reconnaissance tool for their artillery observers but do not possess the skill to specifically use
drones to adjust their fires as Russian gunners do. Instead, NATO countries rely heavily on GPS to
know where they are and where they are shooting. Because of that, this would be another flaw if
NATO were to get into a shooting war with Russia. In the days before GPS, gunners would have to be
excellent mathematicians. Using various formulas and celestial sights from the stars and sun,
they would have to do all the calculations for artillery fire by hand. GPS and fire
control computers have all but eliminated these skills from NATO armies. However, even though
NATO would be quite disadvantaged in a GPS-denied environment, so would their Russian adversaries.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, most of the artillery schools and training grounds
became part of newly founded countries. Because of this, the Russian artillery
corps faced a brain drain of sorts. Newly commissioned officers lacked the skills
required to multitask as platoon commanders, fire control officers, and forward observers,
like in the Soviet model. It wasn’t until rather recently that the Russian military started
trusting non-commissioned officers to carry out some of these tasks. US and NATO militaries
have routinely relied upon their enlisted personnel to do these tasks for generations,
so the West would have a win there. The West would also have a win in encrypted communications.
As evidenced by the war in Chechnya and now in Ukraine, Russian units routinely lack even the
most basic of secure communications. Unlike in the West where soldiers can
feel confident that their communications are secure, Russian soldiers consistently operate
in environments where the enemy listens to their every move. Communications were so
bad during the Second Chechen war that Chechen rebels would routinely call in fire missions on
Russian troop positions using their own artillery. Another disadvantage would be the Russian economy.
Because due to the mountain of sanctions Russia has been under, they can no longer manufacture
their precision-guided munitions. In fact, Russian industry is even having issues with producing dumb
munitions. In recent news reports, Russia has had to buy boatloads of artillery shells from
North Korea since Russia cannot build its own conventional ordnance at the rate it needs. If
NATO and Russia were ever to get into an actual conflict, the arsenal of democracy
would far outpace Russian production in munitions. Additionally, even though Russian troops have more
experience using drones and the war on terror degraded some skills among NATO gunners, NATO
militaries could easily bridge these knowledge gaps due to the professionalism of NATO militaries
over Russia. Unlike the mass of untrained and unmotivated Russian conscripts, US and NATO troops
are professional, motivated, and intelligent. If war really were to break out, though it might be
a tough few months in the beginning, once the West closes their knowledge gaps and ramps
up production of precision munitions, Russian troops would be outgunned on the battlefield.
Ever wondered how we decide what to make videos about? We’re going to let you in on a little
secret. It’s vidIQ. It lets us see exactly how many searches per month a certain keyword gets.
More searches, means more potential viewers, But of course there’s more to it than that. VidIQ also
shows you the competition for that keyword. The less competition there is, then the more
likely it is that your video will stand out. Which means more views for your video! I know,
it sounds too easy, but it really is! You don’t need to have a genius IQ,
you just need to have vidIQ! But try it for yourself! Get a 30 day trial
for only $1 by going to vidiq.com/theinfoshow Now you need to watch “Why Russia Can't Stop
US Weapons.” Or, have a look at “I Survived 100 Days Fighting in WORLD WAR 3 (Not Minecraft).