I've long liked artillery because it was accurate and responsive in any weather; and it was a dedicated Army resource that doesn't rely on the Air Force (which had other priorities higher than fire support). Marines, on the other hand, had artillery and their own airplanes committed to supporting their own people to get the best of both worlds.
To be fair to the Air Force, in the past accurate air support meant getting in the weeds where planes were vulnerable to rapid-fire 23mm anti-aircraft weapons. It was somewhat understandable that the Air Force disliked ground support and that the Army didn't trust the Air Force to supply the needed ground support.
But times have changed. Strategypage says that the Army is sold on JDAMs delivered by the Air Force:
The air force controllers, and the bombers overhead, are getting smart bombs on target so quickly and accurately, that ground commanders are favoring the bombs over calling their artillery. This is partly because of the new 500 pound JDAM, which is a one shot solution to the typical terrorist tactic of running into a building to make a glorious last stand. The enemy gunmen never seem to catch on to the fact that going into a building, simply brings down a smart bomb within ten minutes. One bomb, one building. Artillery requires several shells to do the job, and our troops know that the enemy is more likely to survive a shelling than a bombing.
Able to loiter above bad weather in relative safety, air power is now able to accurately and reliably kill the bad guys when the good guys on the ground need it to happen. And the warheads on the Air Force stuff is far bigger than the Army's artillery shells--even the small diameter bomb is much bigger than our biggest tube rounds. So even guided rounds won't make artillery the first love of infantrymen again.
Already the Army is getting rid of excess separate artillery brigades. As long as we retain absolute air supremacy, will we even need artillery in the future? When troops call in fire support and don't even care what the source of the explosion is, the need for artillery will drop more than it has now.
Of course, if we ever face an enemy with the capability of hindering our aircraft and if our naval fire support assets are too far away, we'll need Army artillery to provide the fire support. But for now, my reasons for favoring traditional tube artillery are fading. And the proof is on the ground provided by the troops who now believe they can count on responsive and accurate fire support from the Air Force.
