Sunday, August 07, 2016

The Flame of You Infantry are On Your Own?

Israeli artillery again seems like it wants to be more like the air force. For the love of God, why?

So Israel has a new artillery doctrine:

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Artillery Corps is in the process of introducing a new tactical doctrine that combines short bursts of shell fire with guided surface-to-surface missiles.

So far no problem. They want precision and missiles to supplement tube artillery.

And the article says artillery has a primary role of supporting maneuvering ground units. That's good--if true.

Let's go on about the Flame of Fire Artillery Brigade implementing the new doctrine:

The IDF Ground Forces Command has been investing in developing the Artillery Corps' ability to carry out rapid and independent surface-to-surface strikes. The techniques are specifically designed to target asymmetrical threats such as militants who vanish into civilian areas after carrying out hit-and-run attacks.

Independent surface-to-surface strikes using organic surveillance assets?

I thought that this thinking was discarded as I noted in this 2014 post. I quote a now-dead article that indicates that the Israelis had abandoned this line in favor of supporting ground units in combat:

Just a year ago, Israel’s Artillery Corps was crafting a new mission statement and doctrine to transition from its traditional role of fire support to the leading ground force provider of standoff attack. Its Fire2025 master plan aspired to one-shot, one-target accuracy at increasingly long ranges, with saturation fire relegated to second-tier status.

I quoted more of the article to show that the artillery branch was recommitting to ground support instead of being a second air force that fancies itself able to achieve decisive results on the ground without playing second fiddle to ground maneuver units by being tied to supporting them, and commented:

As an aside, I may wonder about our Air Force's commitment to ground support, but the Israeli army's own artillery was attempting to be an air force that doesn't fly? Really? Inter-service rivalry is better than intra-service rivalry any day.

The army artillery change is that the artillery will remain committed to army ground support even as it is allowed a parallel effort to gain market share at the expense of their air force's deep strike missions[.]

But the first article makes me wonder if the "primary" mission is more than lip service since the focus of the article is on the long-range independent deep strike parallel aspect.

Why does Israel need a second air force on tracks while the army seems to be left without anybody committed to fire support for them?