JSouthworth wrote:

There you have an example of military politicking. They don't want to admit that manned fighters are obsolescent, so they try to blame the guy in the cockpit. Bullshit.

In recent years the RAF have been putting forward some pretty strange arguments in their attempts to justify retaining manned fighters, they talk about the need to have "air-minded individuals in the air" for instance. At the moment I think they have too many air-headed individuals on the ground.

You know what else is "obsolescent"?

EVERYTHING.

obsolescence
noun
The state or process of becoming obsolete.

obsolete
adjective
No longer in use.

And one thing I was sure would be "obsolete" by now, with the ubiquity of search engines and access to millions of source-able documents, is the use of UNSUPPORTED references in online forums. Guess not. Kinda like manned fighter jets. Still used, still lethal, and not going away soon.

Focuspuller wrote:

Kinda like manned fighter jets. Still used, still lethal, and not going away soon.

Lethal? If you were to drive your car into a lamp post at 75 mph, that would be lethal. Embarrassing would be a better word to describe the combat performance of Russian tactical fighters in the Ukraine War.

The size of the IR (Infrared) signature of these aircraft is one major problem, the jet outlet nozzle(s) at the rear of these aircraft make an ideal target for IR homing weapons.

The RAF, USAF and US Navy are a bit like the cavalry after WW1, pretending that they still have a useful role in land tactical warfare when the reality is that their mounts are excessively vulnerable.

JSouthworth wrote:
Lethal? If you were to drive your car into a lamp post at 75 mph, that would be lethal. Embarrassing would be a better word to describe the combat performance of Russian tactical fighters in the Ukraine War.

The size of the IR (Infrared) signature of these aircraft is one major problem, the jet outlet nozzle(s) at the rear of these aircraft make an ideal target for IR homing weapons.

The RAF, USAF and US Navy are a bit like the cavalry after WW1, pretending that they still have a useful role in land tactical warfare when the reality is that their mounts are excessively vulnerable.

"Embarrassing would be a better word to describe the combat performance of Russian tactical fighters in the Ukraine War."

What is embarrassing is your failure to accept the poor performance of Russian PILOTS as a major factor.

"The size of the IR (Infrared) signature of these aircraft is one major problem, the jet outlet nozzle(s) at the rear of these aircraft make an ideal target for IR homing weapons."

IR signature targeting has been around for FIFTY YEARS, and tactical combat jet fighters managed to be highly effective during that time. WTF is your point? And BTW, pasting your field manual factoids into your posts does nothing for your argument.

"The RAF, USAF and US Navy are a bit like the cavalry after WW1, pretending that they still have a useful role in land tactical warfare when the reality is that their mounts are excessively vulnerable."

BULLETIN: The "mounts" are ALWAYS vulnerable. Horses gave way to tanks. Wooden ships gave way to ironclads. Biplanes gave way to single-wings which gave way to jets. At every stage, countermeasures for every advance led to more advances and more countermeasures. Advantages (and weaknesses) are temporary. Currently, the battle is between Stealth technology and IRST systems, and no Air Force in the world is retiring its tactical fighter jets.

Focuspuller wrote:

"Embarrassing would be a better word to describe the combat performance of Russian tactical fighters in the Ukraine War."

What is embarrassing is your failure to accept the poor performance of Russian PILOTS as a major factor.

I'm not convinced that it is a major factor when the Russians have plenty of combat-experienced aircrew.

Recent experience suggests that manned fighters may still have applications in limited war, particularly if we stretch that definition a bit to include the situation where this government or that government feels the need to drop a few  bombs and kill a few people more or less at random in order to make it easier to convince people that they're combating terrorism. But the situation in Ukraine is a real war as opposed to a sectarian dog and pony show.

JSouthworth wrote:

I'm not convinced that it is a major factor when the Russians have plenty of combat-experienced aircrew.

Recent experience suggests that manned fighters may still have applications in limited war, particularly if we stretch that definition a bit to include the situation where this government or that government feels the need to drop a few  bombs and kill a few people more or less at random in order to make it easier to convince people that they're combating terrorism. But the situation in Ukraine is a real war as opposed to a sectarian dog and pony show.

"... the Russians have plenty of combat-experienced aircrew."

From what?  Syrian operations?

RUSSIA’S INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA PROVES THAT IT'S FAR BEHIND THE WESTERN WORLD
https://jalopnik.com/russia-s-involveme … 1794966734

"But the situation in Ukraine is a real war as opposed to a sectarian dog and pony show."

Absolute nonsense. If the situation in Ukraine were a "real war" Ukraine would be occupying Russian territory today. Ukraine's NATO benefactors are loathe to allow Ukraine other than defensive tactics and support. Despite your mischaracterization, this is "limited war."

JSouthworth wrote:
they try to blame the guy in the cockpit.

JSouthworth wrote:
Embarrassing would be a better word to describe the combat performance of Russian tactical fighters in the Ukraine War.

Focuspuller wrote:

"... the Russians have plenty of combat-experienced aircrew."

From what?  Syrian operations?

RUSSIA’S INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA PROVES THAT IT'S FAR BEHIND THE WESTERN WORLD
https://jalopnik.com/russia-s-involveme … 1794966734

"But the situation in Ukraine is a real war as opposed to a sectarian dog and pony show."

Absolute nonsense. If the situation in Ukraine were a "real war" Ukraine would be occupying Russian territory today. Ukraine's NATO benefactors are loathe to allow Ukraine other than defensive tactics and support. Despite your mischaracterization, this is "limited war."

JSouthworth wrote:

The war between Russia and Ukraine is much more than a limited war, but less than a total war although the level of commitment on both sides is increasing in terms of the numbers of personnel involved and also in terms of the casualty figures, in so far as they can be considered reliable.

You're again making the mistake of characterizing the Ukraine war as a conflict between Russia and NATO when it's a war between Russia and Ukraine, because NATO forces are not involved.

JSouthworth wrote:
The war between Russia and Ukraine is much more than a limited war, but less than a total war….

Do you now understand why everyone here picks your bullshit posts apart? Although you have shown an incredible propensity to be able to shoot down your own arguments time and time again. In this example you managed to do it all in the same sentence. Something that is not total in scope by definition is limited in scope. Once again you illustrate your intellectual dishonesty, your lazy researching skills and your continued inability to discuss a topic honestly in favor of more regurgitated word salad that as usual makes no sense. Do better or quit.

JQuest wrote:

"Limited war" and "total war" are concepts first defined by Clausewitz in his famous book, "On War" (1832). You might like to read it sometime. Or you might prefer to continue advertising your ignorance. Your choice.

JSouthworth wrote:

"Limited war" and "total war" are concepts first defined by Clausewitz in his famous book, "On War" (1832). You might like to read it sometime. Or you might prefer to continue advertising your ignorance. Your choice.

Speaking of ignorance, cite ONE reference to "total war" in Clausewitz.

JSouthworth wrote:
You're again making the mistake of characterizing the Ukraine war as a conflict between Russia and NATO when it's a war between Russia and Ukraine, because NATO forces are not involved.

Simplistic and inaccurate. Putin knows exactly who he is fighting, and will not likely dare provoke NATO into escalating the conflict further, his military's ineptitude exposed for the world to see. Having totally overestimated the damage his asset, donnie dumbass, may have done to NATO unity, Putin now risks the possibility of catastrophic defeat and regime change - in Russia.

JSouthworth wrote:
"Limited war" and "total war" are concepts first defined by Clausewitz in his famous book, "On War" (1832). You might like to read it sometime. Or you might prefer to continue advertising your ignorance. Your choice.

There's a lot of ignorance on display in this thread. I would love to see you tell a Ukrainian that they're not engaged in a total war so I could laugh at you as I watched your teeth rattle all over the floor when you were very deservedly punched in the mouth by that same Ukrainian.

Focuspuller wrote:
Speaking of ignorance, cite ONE reference to "total war" in Clausewitz.

He can't because Clauswitz never used the phrase. Once again JSouthworth puts his intellectual dishonesty, inability to research a topic and the substitution of his own opinion as fact on full display.

JQuest wrote:

He can't because Clauswitz never used the phrase. Once again JSouthworth puts his intellectual dishonesty, inability to research a topic and the substitution of his own opinion as fact on full display.

Do you know anything about defense? Anything about anything?

JQuest wrote:
There's a lot of ignorance on display in this thread. I would love to see you tell a Ukrainian that they're not engaged in a total war so I could laugh at you as I watched your teeth rattle all over the floor when you were very deservedly punched in the mouth by that same Ukrainian.

No, if they were fighting a total war they'd be putting everybody in uniform, women and children included, and sending them to the front to fight the Russians. Like the Germans at the end of WW2. Total war means 100% utilization of everything for military purposes.

Some people like to claim a distinction between Clausewitz's concept of total war, which he calls "absolute war" and 20th century wars, which I think is false because if you look at a conflict before Clausewitz, the 30 Years War in the 17th century, the slaughter was incredible. Eight million dead, mostly civilians, at a time when the total population of Europe was a small fraction of what it is today.

Erich Ludendorff was in fact the first to use the term total war (totaler krieg) in 1935, but the difference between absolute and total war is not a huge one in purely semantic terms.

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you know anything about defense? Anything about anything?

Let’s see do I know anything about anything? I know YOU don’t know anything about it as you have so amply illustrated with your every subsequent whinging rant. I have for sure learned absolutely nothing from you. You the self described master of defense who believes that an infantry man in a trench with a rifle is a match for an M1A1 Tank. A dolt who believes state of the art manned fighter aircraft are obsolete but WWII Missouri Class Battleships are the answer to all things naval.

Seriously your stupid replies just make you look like more of a witless nimrod every time you post. You should seriously consider shutting the fuck up, everyone here is tired of your misinformation (The Unions are in league with the Kremlin! Oh my!) Your pseudo-esoteric bullshit posts on the meaning of total war mean exactly that to the people actually fighting the war. You’ve been completely and totally exposed as the purveyor of fraudulent arguments and lies that you are. Own it.

JSouthworth wrote:

Where is your quote?  Where is your reference?  It is one thing to signal the ignorance of others.  It is another to be in the position where your condemnation matters- and you are not.  It is always fascinating how you project power without knowledge.  No, not fascinating- tedious.  You have established yourself as being an unreliable purveyor of information.  You contradict yourself.  You dodge and switch arguments as your points are decimated and you refuse to quote and cite to support your vast reams of psuedo-knowledge.

"On War is divided into eight books. It was written over many years and some books are more complete and integrated than others. Also, although Clausewitz attempted to write a timeless treatise, most of the technologies and tactics mentioned in On War are now obviously obsolete. Therefore, readers should focus only on books One through Three and Book Eight. These are the most complete and applicable to war as we see it today." 1. Also, there are issues that are related to his death occurring prior to final editing.

Furthermore, the terms total war and limited war are not without extensive writings.  I will quote some things for you, but you expect us to take your unsupported word as fact regarding various things, all the time.  Which brings us to crux of the problem.  You make a post where you declare something to be true and then the only reasoning you give is when you say, "I think ...."  But we have been looking at your crappy posts for way too long.  You aren't speaking from experience.  You aren't using the expert opinions of others.  You aren't providing quotes and references.  "I think" is not evidence, especially from you.  Your thoughts are not proof.  What you think isn't admissible in court or adequate to substantiate an argument when you consistently have your points mocked, shredded and disqualified.  What you think has been underwhelming.

"Limited war is a subjective and relative term that has gained currency chiefly to distinguish certain conflicts from wars fought for ends and by means that have impressed men as extreme."

"The great majority of all international wars have been fought for ends far short of domination or annihilation and by means far short of the complete destruction of the enemy’s armed forces or his society. In these respects even the two so-called total wars of this century—World War I and World War II—were significantly limited."

"The concept of limited war is also old and ubiquitous in history. Primitive tribes, as well as the knights of the Middle Ages, have been conscious of explicit customs and rules of mutual restraint in the conduct of warfare. In ancient China, as well as eighteenth-century Europe, there were laws explicitly formulated to regulate warfare." 2

Consequently, that you brought up the concept of Total War and Limited War was an indication that you don't know what you are talking about.  If WW2 is considered a limited war, then what would it take to have a total war?  You want to say that it is throwing everything you have at the enemy. The allies did not throw everything they had at the axis?  Because not every Ukrainian is in the war effort, it is limited?  But that makes false assumptions.  There is no point in putting every person on the line just to be cannon fodder.  It takes time to build the capabilities back up.  I am sure the Ukrainian home front would vehemently disagree with your characterization of their war effort.

Furthermore, Ukraine is fighting against a perceived attempt to annihilate Ukraine.  Russia, from the start, has attacked civilians.  Russia has attempted to freeze the Ukrainian population to death by attacking civilian electric grids. They have taken Ukrainian people, adults and children, to Russia to erase the Ukrainian identity of the people.  Russia has already demonstrated that it will fill the Ukrainian land with Russians.  The only way to perceive this war as not a total war based on the premise the Russian goal is annihilation of the Ukrainian culture and people is because NATO is restraining Ukraine from attacking Russia within Russia's own borders and Russia is restrained by a potential NATO response.  Otherwise Russia has threatened nukes and is using weapons that are banned and techniques that are banned.   Which are "means that have impressed men as extreme," and could be interpreted as total war. That being a better definition and a definition that comes from a more reliable source than what you use.  If you have bothered to share a definition.  But you want- no demand- to make what by definition is a subjective term into what you think the situation is and you insist that your unsupported words and opinion represent the only possible interpretation of the facts.  You aren't qualified!  You fail to present reasoned and rational points of view for discussion.

In the scheme of things, how does it matter if the war between Russia and Ukraine is defined as a total or limited war other than to fulfill your desire to puff yourself up as knowledgable?


1) https://mwi.usma.edu/war-books-clausewi … 0obsolete.
2) https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sci … imited-war

JSouthworth wrote:

No, if they were fighting a total war they'd be putting everybody in uniform, women and children included, and sending them to the front to fight the Russians. Like the Germans at the end of WW2. Total war means 100% utilization of everything for military purposes.

Some people like to claim a distinction between Clausewitz's concept of total war, which he calls "absolute war" and 20th century wars, which I think is false because if you look at a conflict before Clausewitz, the 30 Years War in the 17th century, the slaughter was incredible. Eight million dead, mostly civilians, at a time when the total population of Europe was a small fraction of what it is today.

Erich Ludendorff was in fact the first to use the term total war (totaler krieg) in 1935, but the difference between absolute and total war is not a huge one in purely semantic terms.

Total War is an abstract concept and there isn't any universally accepted definition of it, so I don't think it's worth making too much of the theoretical difference (if any) between absolute war and total war.

JSouthworth wrote:
Total War is an abstract concept and there isn't any universally accepted definition of it, so I don't think it's worth making too much of the theoretical difference (if any) between absolute war and total war.

Really?  No.  You brought it up.  You accused others of being ignorant, and you refuse to support your comment?

There you go with justifying yourself, again, based on what your thoughts are.  You are telling us that "the difference between absolute and total war is not a huge one in purely semantic terms."  No.  Back it up.  Give us the definitions you used and the sources. 

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you know anything about defense? Anything about anything?

Put up or shut up.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
"On War is divided into eight books. It was written over many years and some books are more complete and integrated than others. Also, although Clausewitz attempted to write a timeless treatise, most of the technologies and tactics mentioned in On War are now obviously obsolete. Therefore, readers should focus only on books One through Three and Book Eight. These are the most complete and applicable to war as we see it today." 1. Also, there are issues that are related to his death occurring prior to final editing.

Furthermore, the terms total war and limited war are not without extensive writings. 



"The concept of limited war is also old and ubiquitous in history. Primitive tribes, as well as the knights of the Middle Ages, have been conscious of explicit customs and rules of mutual restraint in the conduct of warfare. In ancient China, as well as eighteenth-century Europe, there were laws explicitly formulated to regulate warfare." [/i]2

Consequently, that you brought up the concept of Total War and Limited War was an indication that you don't know what you are talking about.  If WW2 is considered a limited war, then what would it take to have a total war?  You want to say that it is throwing everything you have at the enemy. The allies did not throw everything they had at the axis?  Because not every Ukrainian is in the war effort, it is limited? 

Furthermore, Ukraine is fighting against a perceived attempt to annihilate Ukraine.

The Russian objective in Ukraine is to annex it's territory and thereby terminate it's existence as an independent state.

Clausewitz considers "absolute war" as an abstract condition that never exists in practice, so he tries to relate the difference between absolute and real war to aims and means in war, using practical examples to illustrate the relationship between objectives in war and the means employed to achieve them.

In theory a total war would be a war in which the participants utilised all their resources as efficiently as possible for military purposes. But in real wars there are always controversies as to what is efficient. So for example it may or may not make sense to recruit people as combatants as opposed to employing them in arms production.

JSouthworth wrote:
Total War is an abstract concept and there isn't any universally accepted definition of it, so I don't think it's worth making too much of the theoretical difference (if any) between absolute war and total war.

Then you went ahead and discussed it again, anyway.

JSouthworth wrote:
The Russian objective in Ukraine is to annex it's territory and thereby terminate it's existence as an independent state.

Clausewitz considers "absolute war" as an abstract condition that never exists in practice, so he tries to relate the difference between absolute and real war to aims and means in war, using practical examples to illustrate the relationship between objectives in war and the means employed to achieve them.

In theory a total war would be a war in which the participants utilised all their resources as efficiently as possible for military purposes. But in real wars there are always controversies as to what is efficient. So for example it may or may not make sense to recruit people as combatants as opposed to employing them in arms production.

You said, "The Russian objective in Ukraine is to annex it's territory and thereby terminate it's existence as an independent state."   I will question your goal in making that statement.  I postulated that Russia was trying to annihilate Ukraine.  Are you trying to parse some kind of difference into the comment by using the word terminate?  Terminate, annihilate.  Annihilate, terminate.  By jove!   The words could be synonyms!  The definition I supplied indicated that the term, a total war, is meant to "distinguish certain conflicts from wars fought for ends and by means that have impressed men as extreme."  One of those extreme scenarios is the annihilation of a country.  So, you are going to reach down into the bowels of your knowledge to dispute my postulation by saying Russia is trying to terminate Ukraine instead of annihilate Ukraine?  Or what?  What is your point?

I gave you a definition for total and limited war and gave you sources.  You still haven't provided the definitions that you are using.

Previously you said, ""Limited war" and "total war" are concepts first defined by Clausewitz in his famous book, "On War" (1832)."  (You didn't say which of the eight books.)  Then you said, "Clausewitz's concept of total war, which he calls "absolute war.""  So you attributed a term to him he didn't use?  Then you said, "Erich Ludendorff was in fact (it is questionable if this is in fact a fact) the first to use the term total war (totaler krieg) in 1935, but the difference between absolute and total war is not a huge one in purely semantic terms."  Not only are you contradicting yourself, you are not providing the meanings of the terms to which you are referring, when there are clearly competing definitions. You are also continuing to discuss something that you have said twice isn't worth discussing.  What is wrong with you?

You said, "No, if they were fighting a total war they'd be putting everybody in uniform, women and children included, and sending them to the front to fight the Russians."  Then you said, "it may or may not make sense to recruit people as combatants as opposed to employing them in arms production."  Maybe if you had a working definition you wouldn't be so confused?  Perhaps if you tried to develop rational concepts and engaged in reasoned discussion you might seem coherent?

Furthermore, I had established that Clausewitz' "On War" is "now obviously obsolete."  Where did I get that?  From a paper published on Clausewitz where the authors were, "Maj. Joe Byerly is a US Army armor officer, planner with the US Special Operations Command, and a non-resident fellow with West Point’s Modern War Institute. He runs a website called From the Green Notebook" and "Nathan K. Finney is an officer in the US Army. He is also the creator and co-founder of the non-profit organization The Strategy Bridge; founding member and executive committee member of the Military Writers Guild; and a term member at the Council on Foreign Relations. He holds masters degrees in Public Administration from Harvard University and the University of Kansas, as well as a BA in Anthropology from the University of Arizona."  It is clear that they have greater credibility than you.

As oft mentioned before, I am not interested in your unsupported opinion.  If you want to discuss what Clausewitz said, then provide quotes form Clausewitz with citations to the sources.  Your interpretations are useless without a known base in fact, as there is a great probability that you are distorting the words of Clausewitz.  Also, given your history, it is a reasonable assumption your conclusions are worthless.  Please act like you are competent by quoting and citing your sources or be quiet.

LightDreams wrote:
Meanwhile, not only are some military critics in Moscow (very publicly) furious, some Republicans are equally furious:

"This is incredibly insulting. Today on our President’s Day, Joe Biden, the President of the United States chose Ukraine over America....   I can not express how much Americans hate Joe Biden"   - Marjorie Taylor Greene

There were other Republicans, of course, that were equally upset.   Likely the same group that has pushed the pro-Russian bill stopping all support for the Ukraine and supporting Russia.  Fortunately the usual Russian nutcases in Congress aren't in the majority when it comes to the war in the Ukraine.

Like a good MAGAt, MTG's nose has apparently found some room in Putin's rectum not already occupied by donnie dipshit.

Focuspuller wrote:
Like a good MAGAt, MTG's nose has apparently found some room in Putin's rectum not already occupied by donnie dipshit.

I wonder...

Does Trump's nose keep growing just a little bit longer, every time he tells another lie?

Inquiring minds want to know!

LightDreams wrote:
Another, later tweet from Marjorie Taylor Green today:

"We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states" - MTG



Hmmm, I wonder if she's thinking "Queen" MTG...?

I suspect there may be a surprisingly large consensus in terms of letting some of the States go.  But, who knows.

Literally calling for civil war.

Of course, this is not original thinking on her part, she is just parroting old right-wing rhetoric. This is from the fine folks at the Federalist Society five years ago:

IT’S TIME FOR THE UNITED STATES TO DIVORCE BEFORE THINGS GET DANGEROUS

"Divorce is hard, but it’s easier than cutting the brake lines on your wife’s car. It is long past time for an amicable divorce of the United States of America. There is simply no common ground with the Left anymore. We are now the couple screaming at each other all night, every night as the kids hide in their room."

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/10/ti … dangerous/

Shadow Dancer wrote:
A bit OT perhaps (like I care) but there has been talk up here in the Great Northwest for a long time now about Northern California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia joining together and becoming Cascadia - an independent country.

MTG can have Georgia, good riddance.

Georgia is salvageable. Let her have Arkansas. SHS wouldn't mind.

JQuest wrote:
A dolt who believes state of the art manned fighter aircraft are obsolete but WWII Missouri Class Battleships are the answer to all things naval.

The USS Missouri was an Iowa-class battleship.

exartica wrote:
The USS Missouri was an Iowa-class battleship.

You are correct, I erred in my classification. The point I was trying to make remains unchanged.

JSouthworth wrote:
At the present time the front line in Ukraine is semi-static, under these conditions the use of artillery is emphasised. The Ukrainian army has some excellent medium and long range artillery rocket systems, some inherited from Russia, others developed in Ukraine.

Long range artillery systems are nowadays almost always rocket systems. A range of 70-90 km with a heavy warhead can be achieved whereas a gun which can fire a conventional shell with accuracy to even half that range, and which can be dismantled for ease of transport is an engineering challenge, the German 240mm K3 gun from WW2 is an example;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_cm_Kanone_3

Precision guided, gun launched long range projectiles exist today, but they are expensive, have small warheads and are only cost-effective against a limited range of high priority targets.

As the OP, you are free to populate this vanity thread with whatever minutia from your collection of field manuals and WWII factoids you feel compelled to disgorge for whatever reasons known only to you, but what is the conceivable relevance of the deficiencies of 80-year old artillery technology from WWII?

"WHAT IS YOUR POINT?"

JSouthworth wrote:
The German army in WW2 was the last Western European army to have a really effective long range gun artillery capability.

Bullshit.  This is the problem you have with your refusal to quote and cite your sources.  You talk like you are an expert, but what you say is easily disputed.

What determines how accurate an artillery piece is that is firing in an indirect support role?

"artillery is a system with a number of interacting components.  The gun is the most visible part, but the whole system must work well to make the gun effective.  Any analysis that does not examine all components of the system, and acknowledge that interference with any part of it can sharply reduce its effectiveness, is incomplete.

A component by component examination of American and German artillery shows that almost from the beginning of America’s participation in the conflict the U.S. Army had the superior system.  American artillerymen did not try to combat the enemy’s artillery by building bigger guns. The approach from the beginning was to build a better system and it worked.  That was clear to thoughtful observers at the time.  Viewing the Italian campaign, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commented, “The enemy’s tremendous superiority in artillery, and even more in the air, has broken the front open.”  During the Normandy campaign, Rommel added, “Also in evidence is their great superiority in artillery and outstandingly large supply of ammunition.”  By any reasonable standard, especially during the latter part of World War II, the American artillery arm was very clearly superior to that of the Germans."

https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german- … omparison/

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
What determines how accurate an artillery piece is that is firing in an indirect support role?

[i]"artillery is a system with a number of interacting components.  The gun is the most visible part, but the whole system must work well to make the gun effective.  Any analysis that does not examine all components of the system, and acknowledge that interference with any part of it can sharply reduce its effectiveness, is incomplete.

That's quite true, but we are discussing the accuracy of the weapon itself. Dispersion, rather than accuracy is the technically correct term to use and the standard measure of dispersion is the CEP, or circular error probable. In simple terms, the average miss distance.

Allied artillery in WW2 was superior to the German in the sense that they had far more guns and more ammunition.

Interesting historical article here;

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol133lw.html