RESETTING ARTILLERY AS A COMBAT ARM-- Brig DS Sarao

Date:- 17 August 2026

Introduction

1 Any person with some interest in military matters would have noticed a change in the doctrinal and organisational logic necessitating the change in employment patterns of artillery. Contemporary battlefield conditions have also weakened the utility of traditional arm-and-service classifications that distinguished “combat arms” from “combat support” by the presence or absence of direct contact. Today’s high-tempo environment, wide-area sensing, precision long-range fires, persistent ISR awareness, and fast sensor-to-shooter cycles have changed how combat power is generated, synchronized, and applied. With ‘’destroy before contact’’ becoming the new mantra, artillery is in effect a range based combat power.

2 This paper argues that these employment shifts have redefined artillery’s operational function: artillery is no longer merely a 'fires enabler' for the close battle, but an instrument that shapes outcomes by destroying the enemy’s warfighting capacity before formations can safely close. In doctrinal terms, the decisive measure is not whether artillery is “in contact” with the enemy, but whether it fights for the ends that define victory—breaking the enemy’s ability to organize, coordinate, manoeuvre, and sustain combat power—while enabling friendly forces to manoeuvre with reduced risk and uncertainty.

Combat Arm or Combat Support: What Really Makes the Difference?

3 Considering the changes we see happening in twenty-first century warfare and the way combat power is being employed in the current battle-field milieu, we need to first understand as to the kind of battlefield contribution artillery as an arm, is able to deliver. The older way of classifying arms was relatively simple: infantry and armour were combat arms because they engaged the enemy directly in the close tactical fight, while artillery was labeled combat support because it delivered indirect fires rather than physically seizing the objective through contact.

4 That classification probably had some logic once upon a time, but is not relevant anymore. When the mindset of dismissive and parochial ‘service/arm’ loyalties is stripped away, the real deciding factor is not merely whether the arm is in “direct or indirect contact with the enemy” in a narrow sense. The decisive factor is whether the arm fights the contact battle in a way that actually determines whether the enemy is defeated and whether friendly forces can act freely in the close fight.

5 In doctrinal terms, contact exists because both sides seek the same ends: to destroy the enemy’s ability to fight, to disrupt his capacity to generate and apply combat power, and to impose such costs—in terms of men, material, cohesion, time and space (territory)—that the enemy can no longer execute his plan. Infantry and armour used to accomplish these ends through proximity so that if and when boots on ground are required to hold territory, the same is achieved with minimum loss of own men and material.

6 And what does artillery do now? Exactly the same. With precision munitions,long-range vectors, networked targeting, drones/ISR integration and fast fires it means that now artillery can not only destroy high-value targets in the depth, intermediate and contact battle zones but also impose prohibitive costs in terms of men and material by “fires that destroy before contact”. And in today's battlefield, this becomes the primary way you win.

The Crux: Artillery’s Job Is Not “Support Fire” Anymore—It Is Combat Outcomes

7 If artillery is “support,” the question that must be answered is: support for what? The purpose of artillery fires is not fire for its own sake. It is to enable the land battle—by clearing the way, suppressing threats, or preventing the enemy from operating effectively. Now comes the interesting part because the modern interpretation of artillery fire has shifted the emphasis from battle field support to battlefield control. It would be therefore fair to say that modern artillery and its ability to deliver fire power is the instrument that can:

Kill and neutralize high-value targets before they can threaten manoeuvre.

Shape the battlefield—decision points, movement corridors, likely enemy avenues of approach, and the timing of enemy actions.

Destroy the enemy’s warwaging potential by targeting the systems that generate combat power: command and control, air defense, logistics nodes, counterfire elements, protected weapon systems and also force the enemy to ‘hand over’ territory with minimal threat and casualties to own boots on ground.

8 The critical linkage is this: artillery’s effects are not simply designed to “help” contact happen. They are designed to create the conditions under which contact in its true sense is actually obviated so that own forces can achieve their mission with minimum friendly loss and maximum enemy disintegration. When that becomes the primary battlefield function—rather than a secondary assist—artillery’s role is no longer support in the old sense. It becomes combat power delivered at range.

From “Fires for Manoeuvre ” to “Fires as a Decisive Function”

9 The shift becomes even more unmistakable when we see how artillery integrates modern capability into the kill chain. There are in fact several developments that have accelerated this transition:

Precision and lethality at extended range. Improved munitions and fire-control enable fires that are not merely suppressive or area-denying. They can be destructive against specific target sets—reducing collateral effects while increasing combat effectiveness against what matters.

Networked targeting and faster decision cycles. When artillery is tied into sensor-to-shooter processes—supported by ISR and real-time targeting—fires can be planned and executed with less friction. This moves artillery from a periodic support function to a responsive combat function.

Drones/ISR integration, real time and persistent awareness. The environment

increasingly rewards forces that can locate targets quickly, update their

situation, and engage before the enemy can relocate, conceal, or harden.

Fast fires and sustained employment. Artillery combat power is not one-shot

impact; it is the ability to repeatedly deliver the right effect at the right time and in more than the required quantity. Modern artillery employment can sustain pressure and repeatedly deny the enemy initiative, shaping the battle in time, space and lethality. In effect, artillery becomes a system that can destroy high-value targets and set conditions before and during the close fight. Artillery no longer waits for maneuver to justify its existence; it helps decide what manoeuvre will be able to do at all.

The Drone and Missile Heavy Reality: “Destroy Before Contact” Wins

10 Current battlefields are increasingly characterized by:

wide-area sensing,

rapid long-range fires,

dispersion,

limited safe massing and maneuver,

and severe time pressure for un-interrupted communications, command and execution.

11 In this environment, the advantage accrues to forces capable of “fires that destroy before contact.” Winning means the enemy cannot safely close, cannot concentrate, cannot keep formations intact long enough to deliver decisive force, and cannot survive the time window required to transition from defense to offense.

12 Precision interdiction and destructive fires—especially when integrated into a networked kill chain—become synonymous with combat power because they accomplish the mission endpoints that previously belonged to the contact battle:

the enemy loses the ability to fight effectively,

friendly forces encounter fewer functional enemy capabilities,

and the close fight, when it occurs, is conducted with far lower risk and reduced uncertainty.

When Formations Cannot Safely Close: Artillery Becomes the Primary Combat Instrument

13 In older paradigms, the logic was straightforward: armour and infantry mass, close, and win through contact. Artillery supports that concept by softening or shaping.

But modern survivability and anti-access dynamics often prevent safe massing and rapid closure. Notice what is happening on the Russian-Ukranian front. When the enemy can punish concentration, and when protected mobility and countermeasures complicate direct engagement, the battlefield shifts. Precision destruction at distance starts to do the work of combat arms. In that sense, artillery functions not as a “secondary” contributor but as a primary combat instrument:

It attacks the systems that keep the enemy organized and dangerous.

It degrades the enemy’s ability to coordinate and execute.

It forces the enemy into reactive postures.

It reduces the cost of the friendly approach to contact or negates the requirement of the contact battle altogether.

14 This is why “combat support” is no longer a complete label. Artillery’s effects can be decisive in their own right—especially when contact is not assured, not safe, or not the most efficient way to impose defeat.

Practical Implication for Doctrine and Mindset

15 The ongoing wars around the world are reinforcing the same pattern: modern forces that integrate sensors, networking, and precision fires gain disproportionate leverage. Artillery employment increasingly mirrors the logic of a combat arm—delivering decisive effects, not simply assisting other arms.This is not just a technical evolution; it is a cultural and doctrinal shift.

16 As B H Liddell Hart once cautioned, getting a new idea into the military mind is hard, and removing old ones is harder. The temptation is to cling to the historical label—artillery supports, infantry and armor fight—because it is familiar and because classifications often outlive the realities they were meant to describe. Recollect how it took more than 40 years before the Indian Army realised that ‘advance to contact’, a concept which was de rigueur in most Indian Army exercises and war games; was an outdated concept.

17 But artillery’s modern operational value is not an argument about semantics. It is an argument about whether the weapon system is capable of imposing defeat directly, shaping the battlefield and enabling operational success through destructive effects at scale and speed with the contact battle being avoided at best or reduced at worst.

Conclusion

18 Principles of war remaining same, artillery’s role is changing because warfare is changing. The older classification—combat arms engage directly; artillery supports indirectly—was rooted in how battles were fought and how fires were integrated into the kill chain.

20 So the crux remains the same: artillery should be treated less as a secondary enabler and more as a primary combat instrument—because in modern conditions, the forces that win are those that can destroy the enemy’s ability to fight before the contact battle even becomes inevitable.

For Winning the First Fight: Artillery Is Now The Center of Gravity In High-Tempo Combat