Terran
Well-Known Member
Interesting, although I question. The author seems to take the zero sum theory of Artillery Rockets vs Cannon artillery.Would be interesting in hearing opinions from members on this article. The author is very pro rockets versus cannons.
Time to Move Beyond Cannons | Small Wars Journal
In the US Army, a struggle with math is happening, particularly in the Field Artillery. For a combat arm which demands meeting the five requirements for accurate predicted fire (target location and size, firing unit location, weapon and ammunition information, meteorological data, and...smallwarsjournal.com
Well it’s true that rockets do lay down more destruction per volley vs cannon the price point on artillery shells is still fairly cheap and accuracy is still viable. They have a faster rate of reloading and Reality is almost never a zero sum game.
Since the Start of Ukraine war every armies commentary has been on the need of both Rocket and Gun Artillery. Especially on the shortages of shells and rockets not one over the other.
Now if we zoomed in on the US Army it’s in a major series of redevelopment and modernization in particular the Army’s “Big six” priorities which lists “Long range Precision fires”. A portfolio of programs that included ERCA (now canceled Extended Range Cannon Artillery XM1299) and AMDL (basically a HIMARS unmanned).
The Army picked its “big six” based on the assumption that in the Peer versus Peer conflict it envisioned the U.S. would be facing a foe at or just below the Current U.S. technology standards but in a strong numerical position. This is why when you look at the Army programs many include aspects that are clearly meant to “Overmatch”. Attempts at pushing technology so that the effective engagement ranges of U.S. military forces easily reach beyond and over power those of its foreign equivalent.
In the Artillery branch of the Army however the decades of post Cold War spending hit hard fast and decisively knocking the Army into a position where much of its capability are actually the inferior.
It’s not that the U.S. army hasn’t modernized its artillery systems. In shells MLRS/HIMARS even upgrades to the M109 and procurement of the M777 have taken place it’s that the pace and form is often been more of a push in a different direction from where the army feels it needs to be in a PVP conflict.
In the 1990s after the end of the Coldwar the Army shifted from a PVP focus vs the now defunct Soviet horde to the smaller more rag tag armies and forces of lesser satellite and despots that populate the former Soviet empire and Middle East. As part of this the XM2001 Crusader 155 mm 52 caliber gas turbine powered Self propelled gun system weighing in at 46 tons was scrapped as the Army started what would become the XM1203 Nonline of sight Cannon a 29 ton 38 caliber hybrid part of the FCS manned vehicles program. The aim being to try and produce a medium weight armored force that could Rapidly deploy to a crisis and provide just enough firepower to show of force out of a conflict. That program was of course it’s self canceled. The Army instead would modify the M109 to the A5 standard introducing the M284 cannon and a 39 caliber standard. At this point in time well the British made more or less the same decision with the 39 caliber 155mm AS90 the Germans were already on the PZH2000 with the L52 with many foreign M109 conversions to the L52 gun in the 90s and 00s.
Then upgrading the Chassis with the A7.
Right now the Army is in the rebound from the failure of ERCA, looking at its options of dropping a L52 in it or replacing M109A7.
(Personally I favor the latter with a Licensed Hanwha K9 variant and K10. When the Army was doing the XM1299 ERCA demonstration they found that the M109A7 was a little small and had to redesign their intended Automatic loader reducing ammo capacity.)
With the Bonus of deciding if it feels that it should buy in on a wheeled SPH like CAESAR or Archer to supplant M777s for lighter units.
That’s not even mentioning the Turreted Mortar demonstration.