![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Posted: 3/29/2024 3:22:39 PM EDT
GLOBAL FORCE 2024 US Army Futures Command head Gen. James Rainey today teased some details of the Army's highly anticipated tactical fires study and made it clear that towed artillery's future isn't bright. "I personally believe that we have witnessed the end of the effectiveness of towed artillery: The future is not bright for towed artillery," Rainey told an audience today at the Association of the US Army's Global Force symposium. Looking at large scale operations against threats like China, the US Army instead needs mobile, indirect fires, especially in its lighter Stryker formations, he added. View Quote https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/towed-artillery-has-reached-end-of-the-effectiveness-army-four-star-declares/?amp=1 |
|
Wars of the future will move too fast for the old tactic of fire bases. Just look at the past 20 years.
|
|
|
All you have to do is watch footage of the ware in Ukraine to realize hes not wrong. Just like technology surpassed the usefulness of fixed naval fortification artillery technology will do the same for towed versions as well.
|
|
I think thats gonna depend on the conflict. if you can set up a FOB and not worry about counter battery then a towed piece that can be fairly stagnant probably makes a lot of sense. But in a world where counter battery fire is fairly rapid i would imagine a self propelled system that can shoot and scoot is the preferred package. but those new systems are pricey AF.
|
|
I can't see towed artillery emplacements faring well against drone attacks.
![]() |
|
Quoted: Just like trenches were a WW1 thing........ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Wars of the future will move too fast for the old tactic of fire bases. Just look at the past 20 years. Just like trenches were a WW1 thing........ |
|
We are certainly watching warfare change and the only thing I know for sure about it is that it is going to cost us a lot of money to keep up with the changes.
|
|
|
|
Quoted: But aren't they using trenches in Ukraine? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wars of the future will move too fast for the old tactic of fire bases. Just look at the past 20 years. Just like trenches were a WW1 thing........ The end of the civil war included trench warfare, also. |
|
Set up good EW. Towed is for defending your trenches. Shoot and scoot is for taking out their towed and other assets. Have good EW.
Have good EW. |
|
|
Towed artillery has only one thing going for it, it's cheap, and even that is only if you consider equipment and not personnel costs. Otherwise it's slower to emplace and displace, requires a large crew, and has a fairly short range. A HIMARS battery has around 75 people for 8 launchers. An EAB M777 cannon battery has about the same number of people for 4 tubes. The long term cost of all those extra personnel to man half as many platforms is substantial.
Wheeled or tracked cannon will be the only ones to survive. The crew requirement is lower and they're more maneuverable, while maintaining the capability to shoot large numbers of cheaper unguided rounds for suppression at shorter ranges. |
|
Quoted: But aren't they using trenches in Ukraine? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wars of the future will move too fast for the old tactic of fire bases. Just look at the past 20 years. Just like trenches were a WW1 thing........ They could be using swords and riding horses but that doesn't mean it's still the most effective way to try to win a war. ![]() |
|
Quoted: Towed artillery has only one thing going for it, it's cheap, and even that is only if you consider equipment and not personnel costs. Otherwise it's slower to emplace and displace, requires a large crew, and has a fairly short range. A HIMARS battery has around 75 people for 8 launchers. An EAB M777 cannon battery has about the same number of people for 4 tubes. The long term cost of all those extra personnel to man half as many platforms is substantial. Wheeled or tracked cannon will be the only ones to survive. The crew requirement is lower and they're more maneuverable, while maintaining the capability to shoot large numbers of cheaper unguided rounds for suppression at shorter ranges. View Quote Ah you are doing math wrong. Now do it in 2024 terms. M777 is a whole lot better looking asset because it is easy to make and produce and the ammo is CHEAP. You cant lob himars at the same rate as 155mm ammo. |
|
|
|
Quoted: Ah you are doing math wrong. Now do it in 2024 terms. M777 is a whole lot better looking asset because it is easy to make and produce and the ammo is CHEAP. You cant lob himars at the same rate as 155mm ammo. View Quote There’s no reassign you can’t use an unguided projectile from a an MRL. Well HIMARS has some potential issues because it’s unstable but there’s always MLRS. |
|
|
|
Quoted: I think thats gonna depend on the conflict. if you can set up a FOB and not worry about counter battery then a towed piece that can be fairly stagnant probably makes a lot of sense. But in a world where counter battery fire is fairly rapid i would imagine a self propelled system that can shoot and scoot is the preferred package. but those new systems are pricey AF. View Quote Is there a way to throw off counterbattery effectiveness finding points of origin through RAP rounds or something? Not an arty guy, but seems like declaring "x is obsolete" usually ends up nuanced. |
|
FOBs and Firebases have not ever been front line tools in nerar-peer conflicts.
They're really good for ongoing occupations. |
|
They are only necessary when you need your fire support where there are no roads, like on the top of a mountain, in the middle of a jungle or deep into enemy territory following a vertical envelopment
The General is also forgetting parallel developments into IAMD and CUAS. |
|
soon artillery will be paired with microwave and or laser drone area denial weapons. For the most part we are giving Ukrainians 70's 80's and 90's technology.
Microwave and laser area denial vehicles are already here. |
|
Quoted: Is there a way to throw off counterbattery effectiveness finding points of origin through RAP rounds or something? Not an arty guy, but seems like declaring "x is obsolete" usually ends up nuanced. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I think thats gonna depend on the conflict. if you can set up a FOB and not worry about counter battery then a towed piece that can be fairly stagnant probably makes a lot of sense. But in a world where counter battery fire is fairly rapid i would imagine a self propelled system that can shoot and scoot is the preferred package. but those new systems are pricey AF. Is there a way to throw off counterbattery effectiveness finding points of origin through RAP rounds or something? Not an arty guy, but seems like declaring "x is obsolete" usually ends up nuanced. Quoted: Quoted: Just like trenches were a WW1 thing........ Soldiers will always seek and/or build cover. Trenches are a natural result of 2 near peer militaries colliding. Towed artillery isn't mobile enough in the drone age. The comparison is silly. See bold. |
|
This now can be done my UAV |
|
UAVs have the momentum right now. I don't think they will maintain dominance as counter drone technogly develops and matures.
|
|
|
Quoted: This now can be done my UAV Really?I have no heard that. That's be a good idea. Manned Helicopters use up tons of manpower and maintenance hours. |
|
|
Quoted: I think thats gonna depend on the conflict. if you can set up a FOB and not worry about counter battery then a towed piece that can be fairly stagnant probably makes a lot of sense. But in a world where counter battery fire is fairly rapid i would imagine a self propelled system that can shoot and scoot is the preferred package. but those new systems are pricey AF. View Quote if you have a mobile gun that is as effective, you can park it in an FOB and shoot and scoot when required. |
|
|
Quoted: Really?I have no heard that. That's be a good idea. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: This now can be done my UAV Really?I have no heard that. That's be a good idea. ![]() |
|
Quoted: Ah you are doing math wrong. Now do it in 2024 terms. M777 is a whole lot better looking asset because it is easy to make and produce and the ammo is CHEAP. You cant lob himars at the same rate as 155mm ammo. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Towed artillery has only one thing going for it, it's cheap, and even that is only if you consider equipment and not personnel costs. Otherwise it's slower to emplace and displace, requires a large crew, and has a fairly short range. A HIMARS battery has around 75 people for 8 launchers. An EAB M777 cannon battery has about the same number of people for 4 tubes. The long term cost of all those extra personnel to man half as many platforms is substantial. Wheeled or tracked cannon will be the only ones to survive. The crew requirement is lower and they're more maneuverable, while maintaining the capability to shoot large numbers of cheaper unguided rounds for suppression at shorter ranges. Ah you are doing math wrong. Now do it in 2024 terms. M777 is a whole lot better looking asset because it is easy to make and produce and the ammo is CHEAP. You cant lob himars at the same rate as 155mm ammo. The more direct comparison would be M777 vs M109. |
|
Quoted: Is there a way to throw off counterbattery effectiveness finding points of origin through RAP rounds or something? Not an arty guy, but seems like declaring "x is obsolete" usually ends up nuanced. View Quote Not an artillertman, but I was an electronics tech while I was Navy, and I'm a physicist now... It depends on how complete your radar coverage is. If you can detect the shell within seconds of it leaving the tube, no amount of fuckery is going to help. Otherwise, rocket assist, etc will be helpful in complicating trajectory analysis. |
|
|
Quoted: Ah OK. Thought I was out of the loop on something. That'd be like some Command and Conquer or Starcraft RTS shit. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: We dont have one that can lift an m777 YET but we can make one. Ah OK. Thought I was out of the loop on something. That'd be like some Command and Conquer or Starcraft RTS shit. ![]() Fuck it, lets get some SC carriers already, though I'm not sure if we have enough pylons. |
|
Quoted: Towed artillery has only one thing going for it, it's cheap, and even that is only if you consider equipment and not personnel costs. Otherwise it's slower to emplace and displace, requires a large crew, and has a fairly short range. A HIMARS battery has around 75 people for 8 launchers. An EAB M777 cannon battery has about the same number of people for 4 tubes. The long term cost of all those extra personnel to man half as many platforms is substantial. Wheeled or tracked cannon will be the only ones to survive. The crew requirement is lower and they're more maneuverable, while maintaining the capability to shoot large numbers of cheaper unguided rounds for suppression at shorter ranges. View Quote It’s interesting - in less than a century, the people in the crew have gone from the least expensive, to the most expensive part of a weapons system. (Or second most expensive, considering the electronics suite in some systems). Do large vehicle mounted mortars make any sense at all, any more? The actual cost of the tube is trivial, compared to the vehicle and crew (for first world armies). |
|
Quoted: Ah OK. Thought I was out of the loop on something. That'd be like some Command and Conquer or Starcraft RTS shit. ![]() View Quote Yeah im going by swag here. Blackhawk can just about lift it. Strip all the human shit out of the equation. Any engineers here? Lifting 4000 kilograms lets say 50 kilometers? Better to use electric drone or helicopter turbine? |
|
Quoted: Yeah im going by swag here. Blackhawk can just about lift it. Strip all the human shit out of the equation. Any engineers here? Lifting 4000 kilograms lets say 50 kilometers? Better to use electric drone or helicopter turbine? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Ah OK. Thought I was out of the loop on something. That'd be like some Command and Conquer or Starcraft RTS shit. ![]() Yeah im going by swag here. Blackhawk can just about lift it. Strip all the human shit out of the equation. Any engineers here? Lifting 4000 kilograms lets say 50 kilometers? Better to use electric drone or helicopter turbine? ![]() 'Cuz drones don't or cant use other forms of propulsion..... "The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine (compared to the Predator's 115 hp (86 kW) piston engine)." |
|
Quoted: ![]() 'Cuz drones don't or cant use other forms of propulsion..... "The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine (compared to the Predator's 115 hp (86 kW) piston engine)." View Quote Well I am ASSuming you need a turbine engine because you will need a lot of compact ass to move 4000 kilograms |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.