Columbia International Affairs Online
CIAO DATE: 6/5/2007
Mechanized Tube Artillery as an Integral Element of Expeditionary Forces
May 2006
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract
Somewhat before the demise of the Crusader system, which would have been the world’s heaviest mechanized howitzer, a vivid debate on the future of artillery began. This has further intensified in the related debate between the proponents of solid armor and the advocates of ‘traveling light’.
Some military experts believe that artillery, particularly its mechanized variant, has lost much ground to the relatively simple and rugged mortar for indirect-fire support. They argue that the mortar is effective because of its organic integration with the lower levels of tactical ground mobility (i. e. battalions and companies), its short reaction time, its high rate of fire and, especially, its lower weight that lends itself to rapid transport over longer distances (strategic mobility). For these experts, the mortar’s advantages in the present strategic environment constitute a ‘renaissance of the mortar.
Mechanized artillery systems, which give protection to their crews, are said to be far too heavy to meet the challenge posed by contemporary scenarios that require speedy operational or strategic deployment. In contrast, mortars, weighing only several hundred kilos, can be used in paradrop operations and also issued to heliborne infantry. And it is suggested that in scenarios involving counter-battery fire (in other words, an adversary striking back at one’s own positions) mortars can be mounted on armored personnel carriers in order to give their crews some protection with a systems weight still considerably below that of standard mechanized artillery.
