# Bring On The Howizters



## TheGunDoctor (Sep 26, 2008)

I am sure most of you are already thinking-- "Why the hell are you talking about howitzers!? That's just a weapon for field artillery crews, we couldn't possibly put such a big gun to use."

Well guess what? It's entirely possible. Repairing and servicing howitzers is part of my job as a 45B, but it's a major heartache because they do require a lot of manpower to maintain, transport, operate, and even test fire.

So, throughout the past year I've been looking forward to the development of a new automated howitzer known as the Archer Artillery System and I must say that I am very impressed with it's current rapid mobility, functionality, all-terrain versatility, and highly simple operational capacity.

The Archer Artillery System is basically a wheeled 155mm cannon mounted on an armored vehicle that can be operated by two people while inside the vehicle. You heard me right, this howitzer does NOT require a team of 13 series crew members to set up and employ. Ladies and gentlemen, this mean machine is self loading. 

Here is a basic clip about the weapon that you should watch:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD9drOkviic&feature=related"]YouTube - Future Weapons ARCHER Artillery System Part 1 of 2[/ame]

Even after seeing this video, I'm sure many of you are still quite apprehensive about the idea of using such a weapon in SOF operations due to it's size. However, there are definitely scenarios in which the use of such a vehicle could provide a significant advantage even in unconventional warfare. Think of it as a sniper rifle on steroids and imagine being able to wipe out known hideouts from a safe distance or using it to stir panic and chaos before conducting an organized raid on an large target or complex. With a tactically-sound mission plan, such a vehicle could allow 12 man teams the ability to easily take out several dozen insurgents with a devastatingly swift stroke.  

I would like to see this weapon adopted by USASOC someday and for the 18Bs to be trained on using it masterfully. 


Big Target?....Use a bigger gun.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Sep 26, 2008)

Cool! :cool:

Supposedly the vehicle is armored; however, I wonder how it would stand up to land mines, particularly anti-tank mines or some of the larger IED type mines that insurgents use today.

IMO, I doubt such a weapon that will ever be part of an ODA's TO&E.


----------



## TheGunDoctor (Sep 27, 2008)

Trip_Wire said:


> IMO, I doubt such a weapon that will ever be part of an ODA's TO&E.



Yes, it's unlikely...  But it would be nice considering the lack of manpower it requires to operate. At least one Archer System per SOF company would be sufficient for use in missions requiring indiscriminate lethality and highly destructive tactical measures. Or at the very least, it could be available as a last resort option. 

My present career goal is to become a Chief Warrant Officer so that I can present and fight for ideas such as this amongst higher command as an official armament subject matter expert. I'm already working on my packet.

ODA operators deserve more options then what they've been getting from the Army. Because when it comes down to it, technological superiority often triumphs over individual adeptness on the battlefield.

Human prowess is overrated. It's best to have a combination of both: 
Great equipment and outstanding personal ability.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 28, 2008)

TheGunDoctor said:


> Because when it comes down to it, technological superiority often triumphs over individual adeptness on the battlefield.



I am going to disagree with this! 

Iraq has shown us how a couple of durka-durka retards can build IED in their half assed sheds, that cut right through our super technological advanced bullshit! To be real honest, Hajji is taking out $250,000 to $500,000 equipment with less then $100 worth of crap found in the local market...

Adaptiveness of the individual on the battlefield is what can make or break the fight. Time and time again we have seen it in past commanders, who were unable to adapt the strategies or tactics to meet the current demands of the battlefield.

Something like in the old days:

We have cannons and a butt load of Infantry, the best calvary in the world and with out question the best military the world has seen. However, a few country boys with muskets and good marksmanship skill's kicked our asses???

War of independence!;)


Just my :2c:


----------



## TheGunDoctor (Sep 28, 2008)

I completely understand your argument J.A.B. I also believe that the importance of well-trained soldiers outweighs the significance of well-made equipment. 

However, it does not overshadow it. I disagree with your implication that the primitive IEDs used by our enemies are totally undermining the technologies that we're employing against them, and I'll give you two reasons why:

#1. The electronic IED countermeasures integrated within our vehicles such as the DUKE system are saving hundreds of lives on a regular basis against signal-detonated devices. And we also have the recently-developed SPRUCE electronic countermeasure which has performed admirably in protecting several FOBs against similar threats and will eventually be fielded on many other compounds. I cannot give specifics on the protection radius it provides, but it's very impressive. While deployed to Afghanistan I had the fortunate opportunity of being exposed to these devices first hand while assigned as the C&E section supervisor and ARMT NCOIC. Technologies such as these are forcing insurgents to depend even more on pressure-sensitive detonators which result in a significantly decreased strategic advantage in their guerrilla tactics. 

#2. Our vehicle fragmentation armor are also being upgraded at a steady rate to keep up with the explosive ordnance used against us. Time and time again I've seen the guts and remains of suicide bombers splattered over a Humvee equipped with FRAG-5 kits without having even penetrated the vehicle. In my opinion, the RPG squad tactics that the Mujahideen once used against Soviet convoys is more of a threat than roadside bombs. 

But rest assured; the kind of half-assed, low-tech methods that they are using against us are NOT subverting the advanced equipment and present-day countermeasures that we have initiated against their malign attempts.

This is like a war against cockroaches: they are annoying, they are scattered, and they have no attainable objective other than to live and die. They are the insects and we are the giants. Simply put; the warfare technology of the US Armed Forces cannot be defeated by a few desperate terror fanatics.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 30, 2008)

The ECM's are good, but as you said only help with a small bit of the threat... The armor kits are crap IMHO, but then of course the MRAP is a bad mofo (155's X3 stacked and only left a few scratches)

However, how much of the enemy are we hunting down and killing, as we roll around in our $500,000 MRAP's???:confused:

Smart soldiers on the ground, who can adapt to the threat at hand and then close with and kill the threat is the way to go....


----------



## TheGunDoctor (Oct 1, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> However, how much of the enemy are we hunting down and killing, as we roll around in our $500,000 MRAP's???:confused:




Our primary intent is to help establish secure regions. So I'm not terribly concerned with hunting down militants unless they are high value targets. And by high value I specifically mean clever individuals that are responsible for coordinating major strikes against our forces. My reasoning is because no amount of corpses is going to stop the influx of insurgents from the surrounding areas in the Middle East unless you resort to nuclear cleansing.  

Also for the record, I am not a supporter of the MRAPS. They may have faired well in Iraq, but they were not very useful in Afghanistan. They simply can't handle the narrow roads and mountainous terrain.

Ultimately I believe that having smart soldiers on the ground to react to threats is a vital aspect in our operations. But at the end of the day, it's just not enough. Which is why we compensate with advanced measures and technology.


----------

