M270/HIMARS MLRS-style launcher pod reload

[The Colonel]

IIRC MLRS doctrine used to be to fire it, and then change ground to avoid the counter-battery fire that was expected to be inevitable. I think the various launch vehicles would move through the reload point on their way to their next firing point. Of course since a big part of the MLRS role used to be counter-battery work, a very interesting sort of slap fight could result.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

IIRC MLRS doctrine used to be to fire it, and then change ground to avoid the counter-battery fire that was expected to be inevitable.

Pretty sure that's still MLRS doctrine. It's not like counterbattery fire no longer exists.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Pretty sure that's still MLRS doctrine. It's not like counterbattery fire no longer exists.

on the other hand, recent news shows people quite happily using towed artillery - and I recall when we got out of the towed artillery game because we were told it would never survive counterbattery fire in a modern environment. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that any branch of any armed forces developed a truth based on a decision ...

[ehrbar]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

and I recall when we got out of the towed artillery game because we were told it would never survive counterbattery fire in a modern environment.

Er, when/who was this? The US was procuring M198s through 1992, and Fort Bragg started testing the (then X)M777 in 1998. And we certainly have M777s in service now.

There may have been any number of "we're going to phase towed artillery out" declarations along the line, but the actual service of 155mm towed guns seems to be continuous since World War II.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

on the other hand, recent news shows people quite happily using towed artillery - and I recall when we got out of the towed artillery game because we were told it would never survive counterbattery fire in a modern environment. ..

Using WWII holdovers to lob HE in the enemy's general direction is both cheaper than buying the "modern" gear (dating to the 1970s) to do fast counter-battery fire and much simpler than training your artillerymen to use such gear.

Also simpler than setting up the sort of Regimental Combined Arms Teams the US used in WWII.,

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by ehrbar

Er, when/who was this? The US was procuring M198s through 1992, and Fort Bragg started testing the (then X)M777 in 1998. And we certainly have M777s in service now.

There may have been any number of "we're going to phase towed artillery out" declarations along the line, but the actual service of 155mm towed guns seems to be continuous since World War II.

We dumped all of ours in the late 90s - the only towed artillery we retained were the 105mm guns in the commando/airborne batteries that couldn't reasonably be replaced by AS90s.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Using WWII holdovers to lob HE in the enemy's general direction is both cheaper than buying the "modern" gear (dating to the 1970s) to do fast counter-battery fire and much simpler than training your artillerymen to use such gear.

Also simpler than setting up the sort of Regimental Combined Arms Teams the US used in WWII.,

Indeed, but we were told such things couldn't survive and would be rapidly located and neutralised ... and yet both sides continue to use towed guns, meaning that the counterbattery environment is not, perhaps, as dreadful as we expected.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The US launchers actually have cranes built in. If a pod is sitting there on the ground they can unload the old and load the new. Apparently in Ukraine they pre position pods at planned points so a system can shoot and scoot to the next dropoff site. Swap pods and move to the next planned firing location. So the logistics truck and the launcher are not at the same location to be targeted and you can pre load a days supply without having to run steady and trackable supply runs during the fighting.

Video showing how they reload. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnUk4n7BElE

There's an old (Czech, I think) Cold War 122mm rocket system that used packaged rockets to get this sort of reload rate, with each launching vehicle supported by another vehicle that carried several reloads. The Soviets never bothered with anything like that for their 122mm rocket systems, as they were the 'cheap and cheerful' systems.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Indeed, but we were told such things couldn't survive and would be rapidly located and neutralised ... and yet both sides continue to use towed guns, meaning that the counterbattery environment is not, perhaps, as dreadful as we expected.

It's worth noting that (per Oryx) at the time of writing Ukraine seems to have lost (at least) 83 155mm towed artillery pieces, 90 155mm self-propelled guns, and zero (of 61) HIMARS.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Sorta the high tech version of the trope of hiding a bunch of muskets around an ambush point and then just moving from one to the next. Makes it look like there are more of you than there actually are, makes it difficult to determine where you're at, and lets you reload (New York style) without having to haul everything from place to place. Not sure if it was ever used historically, but it shows up in stories and movies from time to time (I think there was a notable instance of it in The Patriot).

I'm not sure if it was historically used, but Alexander Dumas does have the heroes do the exact thing in the three musketeers. In order to find a safe place to plot their next move, the musketeers seize a small fort that is contested, they make it seem as if it's a foolhardy lark of theres, and they use lots of pre-loaded muskets to defend the fort against superior numbers. Dumas *is* closer to the time period than us, so...

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Indeed, but we were told such things couldn't survive and would be rapidly located and neutralised ... and yet both sides continue to use towed guns, meaning that the counterbattery environment is not, perhaps, as dreadful as we expected.

I've spent way too much time and way too many Sanity Points following the Russia-Ukraine War.

If the U.S. military was fighting itself, and everyone was on point, towed artillery would be consistently wrecked by fast and accurate counterbattery fire. Since high crew survival rates are built into modern U.S. military doctrine, it makes sense that the USMC and USA got rid of their towed artillery.

If both sides are using 30+ year old gear and counterbattery systems aren't as well developed, there's still a limited place for towed guns.

This is particularly true if you're willing to treat your people as expendable and accept a far lower quality of artillery fire. In that case, you can keep bringing towed artillery and heavy mortars onto the battlefield. The problem is that you'll be losing them at a rate of 15-40 per day against a competent foe, as the Russians are currently doing.

While both sides are justifiably being secretive about counter-battery warfare, it appears that counterbattery radars and other counterbattery systems are good enough to get a near instant range and bearing on the source of most artillery fire. At that point, the race is on between artillery mobility and counterbattery kill chain.

As an example, there was a Russian drone video released in the last two weeks where the Ukrainians screwed up and allowed a Russian recon drone to get very good visual fix on a HIMARS. Fortunately for the Ukrainians, their standard HIMARS battle doctrine saved their butts, since they've got "shoot and scoot" tactics nailed by this point. Meanwhile, crummy Russian counterbattery fire meant that they just lobbed a single Smerch (MRL) volley in the Ukrainians' general direction after the HIMARS had scooted into a nearby treeline. Lots of dead grass and smoking holes in the ground, but no dead HIMARS.