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?
