Military Monday: The Past and Future of 3D Warfare
Artillery, Missiles, and Drones
One of the biggest changes in warfare to date was the shift in the late 19th / early 20th century to a 3-dimensional fight.
Through most of human history, warfare was fought largely in 2D, be that with swords or muskets.
Sure, there were bows and arrows, catapults, trebuchets, and even some cannons. But these weapons were really used in a direct-fire manner, still.
But advances in metalwork and munitions, coupled with practical methods for using aiming points led to the development of indirect fires at the turn of the 20th century.
By the First World War, the battlefield had shifted to the third dimension.
19th Century Innovation - Trenches
To discuss the role of artillery in World War I, we really need to look back half a century earlier.
While belligerents have built trenches in warfare for centuries, they really grew in use during the Crimean War (1853-1856) and the Civil War (1861-1865). Increased accuracy, volume, and range of direct fire weapons led defenders to “dig in” to reduce the exposure to that fire.
The Siege of Petersburg (1864-1865) saw the Union Army employ machine gunnery.
As one can easily imagine, hiding in a trench and behind earthworks allows both sides to “wait out” the other—as long as supplies allow. It creates a dilemma for attackers, in that the direct fire systems are no longer useful unless you can force the defenders out of their trenches.
This is where artillery and indirect fires enter the scene.
World War I Innovation - 3D Warfare
Lobbing artillery over the heads of the defenders, and particularly using an timed fuse to create an “air burst” to rain down shrapnel on the defenders, begins to negate the advantage that the trenches provided.
For the first time in warfare, the battlefield became 3D, and fighters had to worry about attack from above.
During the war, Artillery quickly earned the moniker “King of Battle” as it proved itself highly effective. By the end of the war, the Germans had 92 field guns, 31 field howitzers, 14 medium howitzers, 14 heavy guns, 7 heavy howitzers, and 3-4 super heavy howitzers for every mile of trenchwork. That’s a lot of firepower.
The Allied (Entente) Powers similarly found artillery to be critical to their success. During the bombardment prior to just one battle, the British used 3.5 million shells. That’s 3,500,000 shells. The United States currently produces about 14,000x 155mm rounds per month. While we’re scaling production up, at the current rate it would take us more than 20 years to produce that many shells!!
Even once we hit our production goal of 90,000 shells per month, it will take us more than three years to produce the number of shells fired in a single pre-battle bombardment.
One other important innovation contributed to the three-dimensionality of WWI: powered flight.
Airplanes were originally used for reconnaissance and surveillance missions. Pilots had a small side arm for self-protection.
Then, they began carrying grenades to drop on targets of opportunity. Then they were outfitted with bombs and machine guns.
This is a similar pattern that we’ve seen in recent years with small unmanned aerial systems.
Return of Fires
Over the past few decades, we’ve seen warfare dominated by maneuver—especially light forces.
Today though, we’ve realized that we need to return to emphasizing fires far more than we have.
Gen. James Rainey, the commanding general of the U.S. Army Futures Command, during a recent Fireside Chat hosted by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) stated directly that we need to prioritize fires over maneuver at this point.
The emphasis on these long range 3D capabilities can be seen in programs that include:
Long Range Precision Fires - a new missile to replace the ATACMS already impressive 300km range
Extended Range Cannon Artillery - increasing the range of howitzers to 70km
Northrup Grumman’s New B-21 Raider Bomber
Navy testing of hypersonic missiles
According to at least one source, the U.S. ranks 8th globally for artillery power, lagging behind Russia, China, North and South Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and even Egypt.
Drone Wars
One clearly important tool in creating long range, 3D effects is the unmanned aerial system (UAS).
UAS provide an incredibly inexpensive and fairly reliable means of creating 3D effects. Already proven for hunting high-value individuals, we’re now seeing a shift towards targeting materiel.
Compared to traditional artillery, UAS are cheaper and have far greater ranges.
The United States currently uses ATACMS, which costs more than $1M per shot for a 300km range, and GMLRS, which costs $160K per shot for a range of about half the ATACMS.
We are now starting to see the unveiling of drones capable of flying 1000km, including in GPS-degraded and denied environments for a fraction of the cost of the GMLRS.
The ability of drones to penetrate a hostile’s defenses was highlighted again last week as a UAS flew into Belarus, where it landed on a Russian A-50 radar-carrying plane. Several days later, another drone—this one carrying a munition—destroyed the Russian plane.
Advancements in low-cost platforms, speed, swarming technologies, visual positioning systems, and terminal guidance and targeting will continue to make UAS an even more attractive long range fires capability than traditional artillery and potentially even more advanced missiles.
The bottom line is that the capability required is the ability to fight “deep.” Long range systems that create a 3-dimensional battlefield creates dilemmas for opposing forces.
We can achieve this required capability inexpensively and effectively using one-directional UASs and we should continue to invest in advancing these technologies both for our own use and for foreign military sales.
Drop a comment and let me know if you agree with me or see a different opportunity. Reach out to me directly if you’re building these sorts of long-range capabilities.
Keep building!
Andrew