Artillery: Tubes vs. Rockets

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Artillery: Tubes vs. Rockets

Posted: 5/20/2003 1:47:49 PM EDT

In the spirit of my pervious Carriers vs Battleships question, I'm now asking about land Artillery. What do you want behind you when the SHTF?

155mm Howitzers

or

MLRS launchers?

Posted: 5/20/2003 2:00:52 PM EDT

[#1]

Either would do for me. I actually got to be about 3 miles away from the receiving side of an MLRS ATACMS round once. Really cool, long thundery roll after white smoke puffs all over the ground.

Posted: 5/20/2003 2:26:55 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Either would do for me. I actually got to be about 3 miles away from the receiving side of an MLRS ATACMS round once. Really cool, long thundery roll after white smoke puffs all over the ground.

View Quote

The Iraqi's call it "Steel Rain"

Posted: 5/20/2003 2:42:16 PM EDT

[#3]

I'd go with howitzers. More versatility, less to go wrong, and a "bullet" is more difficult to shoot down. So far, the US is the only country to successfully do so, and that technology is still in testing.

Of course, I'm a bit biased. Most of my time in the FA was with tubed artillery. Only had a basic intro level "Look at what we got" course on the MLRS. Actually, it was the HIMARS, but the same rocket is used for both.

Cpt. Redleg

Posted: 5/20/2003 7:02:34 PM EDT

[#4]

MLRS is for wussies who can't handle a REAL piece of artillery.

M110A2, or M109A3 all the way!!!

Posted: 5/20/2003 7:32:33 PM EDT

[#5]

If you want close infantry support with inexpensive sustainability hour after hour, day after day when the Mongolian hordes are coming for you, go with the tube. Go Crusader.

Posted: 5/20/2003 9:23:30 PM EDT

[#6]

(whee! gets to put Arty background to use!)
I'd say I'd like to have BOTH on hand. But if forced to choose, rather have a 6-gun towed battery.
And still prefer the hammering ability of good ol' HE.

Posted: 5/20/2003 11:11:41 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
(whee! gets to put Arty background to use!)
I'd say I'd like to have BOTH on hand. But if forced to choose, rather have a 6-gun towed battery.
And still prefer the hammering ability of good ol' HE.

View Quote

...or if it's infantry you're hitting, a good, old-fashioned "shake n bake" (HE, with a little WP thrown in) does the job pretty well.

Posted: 5/21/2003 7:56:06 AM EDT

[#8]

Tube artillery all the way! More versatility with the many types of rounds available. MLRS/HIMARS has several types of payloads, but nothing compared to good ole 155mm. 155mm can do just about anything MLRS can do plus more. I said just about 'cause it can't do ATACMS.

DPICM, HE, WP, Smoke, rocket assist, killer junior, and several new rounds in development. Plus, there are certain situations infantry/armor guys could easily find themselves in that MLRS can't shoot. You know, danger close and all that. If you need to put a bullet on someones head and they're buried in several feet of bunker, go with HE delay fuze. Can't do that with MLRS.

Posted: 5/21/2003 8:14:15 AM EDT

[#9]

Man, a regiment of BM-21 122mm rockets on a TOT strike is some [b]pain[/i]!

Posted: 5/21/2003 8:29:18 AM EDT

[#10]

In another life I was both a 13B (Tube) / 13M (MLRS). 155mm can do direct fire, doesn't need electricity to work and is $600 a pop. MLRS rockets cost $6,000 or the missiles are $26,000 a pop, needs a computer, and can't fire up close to do direct fire.

If you need to level grid squares though the MLRS is more effective per vehicle hands down. If you are after something flexible the tube has it in spades.

Posted: 5/21/2003 7:53:43 PM EDT

[#11]

Depends:

against armor: 155mm

against infantry: MLRS

IIRC, the MLRS rounds air-burst (hence 'steel rain') and are highly effective against anything *but* heavy armor... Plus, when combined with radar shell tracking, the electronic targeting system is very effective at counter-battery work...

Posted: 5/21/2003 8:29:13 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Depends:

against armor: 155mm

against infantry: MLRS

IIRC, the MLRS rounds air-burst (hence 'steel rain') and are highly effective against anything *but* heavy armor... Plus, when combined with radar shell tracking, the electronic targeting system is very effective at counter-battery work...

View Quote

The 155 can have its' fuse set for airburst, also. The only thing the MLRS can do better than tube artillery is in the general support role, and THAT's only because the 8-inch howitzer is no longer in service (which is a damn shame, too). That's just my opinion of course, which is heavily biased, since I was in the [b]REAL[/b] artillery. With the advent of the M109A5, and its' integral GPS/fire direction, the MLRS just isn't as good an option.

Posted: 5/21/2003 8:42:57 PM EDT

[#13]

I believe the high speed- low drag GPS/fire direction stuff is found on the 'A6 aka Paladin, not aboard the M109A5.

The real question is towed versus SP.

Can you say M198?

Posted: 5/21/2003 9:00:11 PM EDT

[#14]

Yeah, I believe you're right about the A6...My bad; I dunno why I keep thinking "A5".

Btw: SP, definitely; in a '109, you have walls and a roof over your head. (getting rained on gets pretty old, fast)

Posted: 5/21/2003 11:04:30 PM EDT

[#15]

somebody say 8"?

FtCarson, CO, circa '90 -

[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~rayra/rpftemp/sp8inchftcarson.jpg[/img]

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Artillery: Tubes vs. Rockets

General » General Discussion

Win a FREE Membership!

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.

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us