Was the US Army/USMC Abandoning Heavy Artillery a Mistake?

Father Maryland

So during WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the First Gulf War the US operated multiple systems of heavy tube artillery systems of 175mm and 203mm calibers. The Military decided to retire these systems and not develop replacements leaving the heaviest tube artillery available being either towed or self propelled 155mm gun.

So was this a realistic appreciation of changes in need, doctrine, and technology? Or was this a short sighted mistake. While the heavier systems like the M110 were getting on in years so is the M109. Should the military have designed an upgrade to keep them in service or developed a replacement?
 

vl100butch

The Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) took over a great deal of the mission set that was formerly assigned to the 175mm, 8 inch, and the Honest John rocket...

This is a capability to put more firepower on target with a lot less manpower required.
 

Matt Wiser

And the M-110 8-inch howitzer was procured mainly as a "Shoot and scoot" nuclear delivery system. There were HE, CBU, and RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) HE rounds, but the main mission was tactical nuclear. The last shots fired in anger by U.S. Army M110s were in 1991 with HE and CBU rounds being expended.
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

The heavy artillery can only fire a few shots before it has to pack up and move to avoid counterbattery fire. The MLRS fires a salvo of 12 rockets, each with a larger unitary warhead than an 8-inch shell or with much more effective DPICM, guided rockets, or SADARMs. Newer rockets also have much better range than the heavy tube artillery pieces had.

The current Russian kill-chain for counterbattery fire takes about six minutes, so any artillery piece has to fire its mission and then displace a sufficient distance in that time. The M110 could probably fire about 12-15 rounds in that time, but then it would be caught in the open when the counterbattery fire arrives. Displacement of the piece takes a few minutes, so the gun would have only 2 or 3 minutes of firing time, so a maximum of six shots might be viable, compared to the MLRS putting out 12 shots.

Back in the early 1980s, the Soviet counterbattery kill chain was probably closer to 15 minutes, so the M110 would be closer in performance to the MLRS, which has to go down to reload for about 5 minutes. This would allow 3 MLRS (36 shots) salvos in 10 minutes with plenty of time to displace (not that they would sit there to reload in the real world) compared to a similar amount of shells from the M110, although I don't know how long the M110 can sustain the rapid fire before the barrel gets hot and it has to switch to the lower sustained fire rate.
 
Last edited:
marathag

marathag

Banned
Father Maryland said:
While the heavier systems like the M110 were getting on in years so is the M109. Should the military have designed an upgrade to keep them in service or developed a replacement?
Click to expand...
Replacement.

Look how South Africa Arty performed 30 years ago, after Bull's help, to the current US tube systems.

Double or triple the range of most US systems, and exceeded the old, long since retired 175mm by 5 miles in range and far less dispersion
 

muskeg13

Re: M110(A2) 3 rounds for 2 min max, 1 round every 2 minutes sustained. I doubt you'd ever have to worry about the barrel getting too hot when you have to manually load a 200 pound (plus) shell and a hefty separate powder charge on the loading tray prior to hydraulically ramming. You'll wear out the cannoneers far quicker than the cannon.

There's one thing the 8 inch could do that the MLRS and lighter tube artillery couldn't do as well, or at all (other than fire a Hiroshima-sized nuke). This was told to me by Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. Commander during the Second Gulf War, and was my (1st Cav) Division Artillery Commander when I was a battery commander. Franks said that in anticipation of having to breech defensive fortifications, the U.S. Field Artillery School was concerned that the U.S. military might not possess anything to effectively deal with (Iraqi) trenches and bunkers. This was in the time before widespread use of very expensive precision guided munitions and unitary MLRS warheads. They constructed a series of field fortifications to serve as targets for different weapon systems and proceeded to try and reduce them with 105mm, 155mm and 8 inch howitzers and the MLRS. It was quickly determined that the 105mm and MLRS were completely ineffective. The unguided MLRS lacked the precision, and neither its bomblet submunitions nor the lightweight 34lb 105 HE shell lacked the oomph to penetrate deep enough or displace much dirt on exploding. The 95lb 155mm HE shell did a little better, but it would have taken a heck of a lot of shells to make any headway reducing field fortifications, especially given normal dispersion patterns. You'd run out of ammo first. Only the M110 A2 Howitzer, firing a 200lb or so 8 inch HE projectile had the power and accuracy to defeat the target fortifications with a reasonable expenditure of ammunition.

This test confirmed a lesson learned in WW2 urban warfare, but had been either forgotten or was dismissed as being outdated. This lesson was first learned in Europe, but was later really driven home during house-to-house clearing operations in Manila, during the reconquest of the Philippines. The best weapon to clear dug in troops occupying either field fortifications or resisting from urban structures was the biggest artillery piece firing the largest shell available. The preferred method was to employ a 240mm self propelled howitzer in direct fire mode, with the 8 inch howitzer or gun running as close second choices.
 

alspug

If you are using towed or self propelled artillery in CQ street battles your not doing well. A single 120mm HESH shell would be better and it was one reason to keep rifled barrels in the Challenger. The old 165mm demolition gun mounted on Centurion and M60 would make a better weapon for street battles and will demolish anything it hits pretty much. 29KG of Plastic Explosive is lights out for most target sets. Now it has a low velocity and short range so it's no good for hitting a target several KM away but that's what 155mm towed howitzers further back are for. In the modern world fortifications have been engaged with AT missiles and some AT missiles have the ability to use thermobaric warheads. I would also suggest that targets that formally got engaged by 8 inch and above can now be engaged more effectively by SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) and programs to ground launch them have begun.
 

Spencersj345.346

We really do need to replace the M109 and while we're possibly see if a M110 replacement is viable. Mind you we'll probably need to expand our one artillery tube production facility first(or make and/or reopen a second) if we're going for the second since it has only so many lines all of which are currently being used
 

Rickshaw

A target that most rocket artillery has great difficulty coping with is reverse slope ones. Only tube artillery does well against that sort of target. In Afghanistan, in particular, there is a lot of reverse slope targets. That is targets just on the other side of ridge lines. Enemy dug in there are harder to hit and harder to dislodge with rockets. The larger the artillery piece used, the more effective it is against that sort of target.

What the US Army and Marines require is a good SP system which large enough calibre guns. Yet is should be light enough to be airlifted into theatre. The M110 was a good system but it lacked protection. It was too easily for the enemy to take it out because the crew were operating in the open. The M109 is old. What is required is a replacement rather than an upgrade. Something similar to the German PzH 2000 system. Features automatic loading and it works quite well. The South African G6 is an excellent system as well.
 
Sanderford

Sanderford

MLRS, then later HIMARS and similar weapons took over the role previously held by the heavy tube artillery while using quite a bit less in the way of personnel to do it.

alspug said:
If you are using towed or self propelled artillery in CQ street battles your not doing well.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, as they can be used effectively in place of tanks or dedicated assault guns if you don't have any, or don't have enough. This was done to great effect in WWII, as has been said.
 

Belisarius II

muskeg13 said:
Re: M110(A2) 3 rounds for 2 min max, 1 round every 2 minutes sustained. I doubt you'd ever have to worry about the barrel getting too hot when you have to manually load a 200 pound (plus) shell and a hefty separate powder charge on the loading tray prior to hydraulically ramming. You'll wear out the cannoneers far quicker than the cannon.

There's one thing the 8 inch could do that the MLRS and lighter tube artillery couldn't do as well, or at all (other than fire a Hiroshima-sized nuke). This was told to me by Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. Commander during the Second Gulf War, and was my (1st Cav) Division Artillery Commander when I was a battery commander. Franks said that in anticipation of having to breech defensive fortifications, the U.S. Field Artillery School was concerned that the U.S. military might not possess anything to effectively deal with (Iraqi) trenches and bunkers. This was in the time before widespread use of very expensive precision guided munitions and unitary MLRS warheads. They constructed a series of field fortifications to serve as targets for different weapon systems and proceeded to try and reduce them with 105mm, 155mm and 8 inch howitzers and the MLRS. It was quickly determined that the 105mm and MLRS were completely ineffective. The unguided MLRS lacked the precision, and neither its bomblet submunitions nor the lightweight 34lb 105 HE shell lacked the oomph to penetrate deep enough or displace much dirt on exploding. The 95lb 155mm HE shell did a little better, but it would have taken a heck of a lot of shells to make any headway reducing field fortifications, especially given normal dispersion patterns. You'd run out of ammo first. Only the M110 A2 Howitzer, firing a 200lb or so 8 inch HE projectile had the power and accuracy to defeat the target fortifications with a reasonable expenditure of ammunition.

This test confirmed a lesson learned in WW2 urban warfare, but had been either forgotten or was dismissed as being outdated. This lesson was first learned in Europe, but was later really driven home during house-to-house clearing operations in Manila, during the reconquest of the Philippines. The best weapon to clear dug in troops occupying either field fortifications or resisting from urban structures was the biggest artillery piece firing the largest shell available. The preferred method was to employ a 240mm self propelled howitzer in direct fire mode, with the 8 inch howitzer or gun running as close second choices.
Click to expand...
Sounds like your making an argument for the return of Assault Guns, for urban warfare. Could you design a 203mm recoilless rifle, and mount it on an APC?
 

alspug

If reverse slope is what you want the SDB launched out of MLRS is perfect as it can fly over and then come in at whatever angle you want, can be fired from 100km away and hits as hard as an 8 inch without the vulnerabilities of the 8 inch howitzer. For urban warfare an M1 or any MBT fitted with the AMOS would suffice. The armour on a modern self propelled howitzer or gun is thin able to stop shrapnel and probably 0.50 rounds only. Using it for direct fire in an urban environment indicates a desperate situation.
AMOS - Wikipedia

The Philippine army recently had a major fight in which they used the old 105 mm howitzers for house to house direct fire, In response to that they ordered some 155mm SPG able to do the job from long distance.
 

Rickshaw

The problem with any gun that is not protected by armour is that well, the crew are very vulnerable. Recoilless rifles work but are good only for one shot before they need to scoot. Their backblast shows their position to the enemy. The Rheinmetall system is far better than the American one. You can build a automatic reloading gun far easier. The Germans developed a 20mm recoilless gun. It worked well on a Lynx AFV. However 20mm is a tad small. What is required is 120mm. The British developed in the 1960s one such weapon. It was mounted in a twin mount on an APC. The US attempted to develop a version of it's M114 with a 106mm RCL. The M114 was a disaster. The 106mm needed for the barrel to go forward before a new round could be inserted. The Rheinmetall frangible case base didn't have that problem.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
I would say that it was a necessary and successful compromise. The Peace Dividend meant the US Military was going to have to cut budgets and the 203mm artillery was a logical place to do it, under the assumption that there would be no peer conflicts before guided 155mm artillery becomes available en masse. As early as 2015 the US was firing 90% guided shells out of the 155mm guns, and there are very few targets that a 155mm guided shell can't kill that a 203mm can that aren't worth an ATACMS or airdropped PGM. Possibly if the US was expecting a peer on peer conflict before 2015 and guided artillery shells became standard, developing a replacement to the M110 might have been worth it, as it was the Peace Dividend meant that the money for developing and fielding such a system would probably have to come out of something else the US Military needed more
 

vl100butch

Matt Wiser said:
And the M-110 8-inch howitzer was procured mainly as a "Shoot and scoot" nuclear delivery system. There were HE, CBU, and RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) HE rounds, but the main mission was tactical nuclear. The last shots fired in anger by U.S. Army M110s were in 1991 with HE and CBU rounds being expended.
Click to expand...

Having commanded a M-110A2 battery in the mid 1980's I can tell you that our mission certainly wasn't primary nuclear...my GDP was on the north shoulder of the Fulda Gap
 

Raferty

alspug said:
If you are using towed or self propelled artillery in CQ street battles your not doing well. A single 120mm HESH shell would be better and it was one reason to keep rifled barrels in the Challenger. The old 165mm demolition gun mounted on Centurion and M60 would make a better weapon for street battles and will demolish anything it hits pretty much. 29KG of Plastic Explosive is lights out for most target sets. Now it has a low velocity and short range so it's no good for hitting a target several KM away but that's what 155mm towed howitzers further back are for. In the modern world fortifications have been engaged with AT missiles and some AT missiles have the ability to use thermobaric warheads. I would also suggest that targets that formally got engaged by 8 inch and above can now be engaged more effectively by SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) and programs to ground launch them have begun.
Click to expand...
If I recall, the Israelis were able to mass together around 11 Artillery Battalions for an operation in Gaza in 2014 and deploy a walking barrage to clear Hamas positions around the central tunnels in Shuja'iyya. I don't recall seeing much about what kind of concealment measures they were using to avoid counter-battery kills (the rocket fire by Hamas in this conflict was quite inaccurate), but I'd imagine they'd have had to keep mobile

The use of artillery for urban combat does lack precision necessary for clearing objectives at times, but theoretically in very dense areas, it could have good effect on target

On the flip side, artillery has been ineffective in Syria's urban combat battles over the last decade, and the same goes for Eastern Ukraine, so I'm not sure that a definitive statement can be made on it.
 

Crowbar Six

Raferty said:
If I recall, the Israelis were able to mass together around 11 Artillery Battalions for an operation in Gaza in 2014 and deploy a walking barrage to clear Hamas positions around the central tunnels in Shuja'iyya. I don't recall seeing much about what kind of concealment measures they were using to avoid counter-battery kills (the rocket fire by Hamas in this conflict was quite inaccurate), but I'd imagine they'd have had to keep mobile

The use of artillery for urban combat does lack precision necessary for clearing objectives at times, but theoretically in very dense areas, it could have good effect on target

On the flip side, artillery has been ineffective in Syria's urban combat battles over the last decade, and the same goes for Eastern Ukraine, so I'm not sure that a definitive statement can be made on it.
Click to expand...
There was a lot of work going on with 120mm gun/mortar turrets for APCs/Armoured Gun Systems which would be ideal for close support in urban environments. Instead they seem to have gone for upgunning APC/ICV's from existing 30mm to 40 and 50mm High Velocity systems. I suppose the idea is they have reduced explosive payload compared to a MBT which makes them more flexible and they have capability counter enemy light armour.

I sort of consider gun/mortars the spiritual successor the short barrelled 75mm for close infantry support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top