No one expected the US to be involved in a land war where howitzers mattered much… now we’re all talking about it, because Ukraine and Russia are fighting a WW1 style war… no one realized how backward the Russian army is. No longer the second best army in the world, but now the second best army in tiny Ukraine with only 1/10 the economy.
I think why America was left behind in artillery development was they rely so much on their Air power,neglecting their artllery system....just my own personal opinion....
"left behind": the U.S Combined Force of Arms (i.e. Air, Naval and Ground) certainly made short schrift with the fourth-largest military in the world. (i.e. Saddams' Iraq) FWIW, the Bradley was the number one destroyer of armor, throughout Iraq... one-upsmanship is not what wins wars... it's the application of tools of the trade... the Sherman was also "inferior" to the Nazi Panzer... it was the B-17 and B-24s that defeated their Luftwaffe (Mustangs helped)
@@johnhopkins6260The US was left behind in artillery. There is no doubt about that. The M109 is easily out ranged by other countries' weapons. That means the enemy can stand off out of range and destroy US artillery. Range is king in artillery. Artillery is the single most powerful weapon on a battlefield. If your artillery is not up to the task then you will lose.
@@johnhopkins6260 yup totally agree,your combined arms tactic is what made American forces so lethal in war....If you face American forces expect that their fire support will come from air,sea,land & even under water.....but in artillery i think Americans need to field much modern artillery system..thats all.
Range means not much without precision. It makes no sense to shoot a projectile 100 km without hitting the target. The guided projectiles are very expensive and they have only half the amount of explosives, which in turn reduces efficiency. So this is much less bang for the buck. Compare the price of the M107 projectile that costs something like $800 to a guided projectile that costs $80000 each, but has only half the amount of explosives. Longer barrels seem to be part of the solution, but they have their own problems. They bend under their own weight, they are bulky and need a lot more space when transported, the gun itself gets very heavy as you need more counterweight to balance the system. I think the solution is to go to larger calibers and cargo rounds with shaped charges and guns that stick to something between 38 and 52 caliber lengths. Other than that, it might be better to switch to guides missiles for longer ranges instead of artillery shells. Artillery always had the advantage of firing lots of shells at low price instead of using aircrafts with bombs or missiles, which is very expensive but extremely effective. But the long range guided shells are both, very limited and expensive. Not the way to go in my opinion.
Again, one of the crucial benefits of accuracy is a lower demand on ammo supplies and less load on logistics compared to older dumb ammo where large amounts need to fired to blanket a target.
Whenever someone comes up, with a system full of new, untested components it reminds me of Alfa-class submarines . Extremely powerfull, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, prone to unknown technical difficulties .
It will be good to know the cost of each latest round compared to a missile or rockets. What's the point if a missile range is longer and a bigger payload.
Rheinmetall bring the same who inside the PZH 2000 so have significant more Range. Nexter worked last Year about 140mm and I think that will be came and with Special Ammunusion they have a unbelievable Range and they must about the Enemy they must Shocked are psychology also a big Point in Future and Wapon electromagnetic and many more it's possible to bring the Solders didn't move or take a Wapon that is the way and I know the American tested many about that also People their didn't know...
The 2000 has the standard NATO 155 mm rounds. Next, they did some tests which achieved about 67 km range (with the L52 barrel), and they are working now on to get the range on to at least 75 km which they already succeeded. For now the standard operation range is about 40+ km’s. Due to the use of Dutch first and later the Ukraine a few issues became clear. Even with NBC protection the units suffered from the amounts of dust in Afghanistan and due to the excessive use by the Ukrainians (more then 100 shells a day, with heavier load) structural issues became clear, those are being solved in Germany at the factory.
@@joostprins3381 In this video, they were using Miles as the measurement of distance, not Kilometers, so 67 km = 41.6 miles, and 75km is 46.6 miles in comparison, so it's NOT TRUE that the PZH2000 has "significantly more range." The M1299 howitzer is already shooting the XM1113 extended range round up to 74 MILES, not kilometers. 74 Miles = 119 Km. The XM1113 round has potential to reach even farther than 74 miles. Further testing continues. 1 Kilometer is significantly LESS THAN 1 Mile. 1.6 Km = 1 Mile.
The tank to carry this gun needs to build bigger than Abram tank to balance its accuracy strikes and load more rounds. The range must reach at least 65 miles or 100 km in order for it to be a powerful weapon machine.
Well, like it was said, it’s on a standard M109 chassis, a little tweaked here and there, but essentially the same. Only the turret is totally new and designed for the new gun, which has an auto loading feature like many of the new SPG’s these days. So if you really looked at the vid, I don’t understand your comment.
The M1299 rounds are one heck if a lot cheaper. The US needs a weapon that can pound the shit out of the enemy for extended periods of time and still be affordable to operate.
@@kokomo9764 The real question becomes what is the cost of the rocket boosted shells and what is their availability and production rate. If the price is outragous like the ammunition for the Zumwalt guns, then this new artillary system won't see production past this small batch of prototypes.
In an environment like Ukraine, the M109 is still working, and this new self-propelled gun would fail in the Ukrainian environment. With that long barrel, it would be very difficult to camouflage among trees or buildings.
This channel produces more misleading crap than any I've seen. The ERCA/M1299 has already been canceled before initial production. The barrel was wearing too fast due to the velocities of the rounds, the internal storage of 155mm was lacking, and the US Army has decided to move in different directions, apparently with more truck-based mobile howitzers and making improvements to 155mm munitions (guided, ramjet, rocket powered).
I want to see it mounted on a satellite. Potential range is global with guidance and rocket assist. Cheaper then a missle.. and limited to available ammo.
No one expected the US to be involved in a land war where howitzers mattered much… now we’re all talking about it, because Ukraine and Russia are fighting a WW1 style war… no one realized how backward the Russian army is. No longer the second best army in the world, but now the second best army in tiny Ukraine with only 1/10 the economy.
I think why America was left behind in artillery development was they rely so much on their Air power,neglecting their artllery system....just my own personal opinion....
"left behind": the U.S Combined Force of Arms (i.e. Air, Naval and Ground) certainly made short schrift with the fourth-largest military in the world. (i.e. Saddams' Iraq)
FWIW, the Bradley was the number one destroyer of armor, throughout Iraq... one-upsmanship is not what wins wars... it's the application of tools of the trade... the Sherman was also "inferior" to the Nazi Panzer... it was the B-17 and B-24s that defeated their Luftwaffe (Mustangs helped)
@@johnhopkins6260The US was left behind in artillery. There is no doubt about that. The M109 is easily out ranged by other countries' weapons. That means the enemy can stand off out of range and destroy US artillery. Range is king in artillery. Artillery is the single most powerful weapon on a battlefield. If your artillery is not up to the task then you will lose.
@@johnhopkins6260 yup totally agree,your combined arms tactic is what made American forces so lethal in war....If you face American forces expect that their fire support will come from air,sea,land & even under water.....but in artillery i think Americans need to field much modern artillery system..thats all.
@@ronaldcardozaWell, technically, HIMARS is considered artillery. The cost per shot, though, is much higher.
@@fjalics totally agree👍👍
It sounds like a long overdue move 👍
Defend against Evil. 🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
Range means not much without precision. It makes no sense to shoot a projectile 100 km without hitting the target. The guided projectiles are very expensive and they have only half the amount of explosives, which in turn reduces efficiency. So this is much less bang for the buck. Compare the price of the M107 projectile that costs something like $800 to a guided projectile that costs $80000 each, but has only half the amount of explosives. Longer barrels seem to be part of the solution, but they have their own problems. They bend under their own weight, they are bulky and need a lot more space when transported, the gun itself gets very heavy as you need more counterweight to balance the system. I think the solution is to go to larger calibers and cargo rounds with shaped charges and guns that stick to something between 38 and 52 caliber lengths. Other than that, it might be better to switch to guides missiles for longer ranges instead of artillery shells. Artillery always had the advantage of firing lots of shells at low price instead of using aircrafts with bombs or missiles, which is very expensive but extremely effective. But the long range guided shells are both, very limited and expensive. Not the way to go in my opinion.
Again, one of the crucial benefits of accuracy is a lower demand on ammo supplies and less load on logistics compared to older dumb ammo where large amounts need to fired to blanket a target.
I'm glad to see it getting close to production. Long overdue upgrade. It seems BAE is reopening the M777 production too.
Whenever someone comes up, with a system full of new, untested components it reminds me of Alfa-class submarines .
Extremely powerfull, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, prone to unknown technical difficulties .
I'm looking forward to seeing this navalized & mounted on US Navy surface combatant warships! If it can be done, that is!
It will be good to know the cost of each latest round compared to a missile or rockets. What's the point if a missile range is longer and a bigger payload.
thank you . ( 2024 / Feb / 09 )
God Bless USA 🇺🇲🙏🏼
You need less God and more education and understanding in this rotten and brutalized society
@@gerhardma4687 😂😂😂👍🏼
Artillery is the god of war.
King of battle is the slogan.
Send it to Ukraine
Rheinmetall bring the same who inside the PZH 2000 so have significant more Range. Nexter worked last Year about 140mm and I think that will be came and with Special Ammunusion they have a unbelievable Range and they must about the Enemy they must Shocked are psychology also a big Point in Future and Wapon electromagnetic and many more it's possible to bring the Solders didn't move or take a Wapon that is the way and I know the American tested many about that also People their didn't know...
The 2000 has the standard NATO 155 mm rounds. Next, they did some tests which achieved about 67 km range (with the L52 barrel), and they are working now on to get the range on to at least 75 km which they already succeeded.
For now the standard operation range is about 40+ km’s. Due to the use of Dutch first and later the Ukraine a few issues became clear. Even with NBC protection the units suffered from the amounts of dust in Afghanistan and due to the excessive use by the Ukrainians (more then 100 shells a day, with heavier load) structural issues became clear, those are being solved in Germany at the factory.
@@joostprins3381 In this video, they were using Miles as the measurement of distance, not Kilometers, so 67 km = 41.6 miles, and 75km is 46.6 miles in comparison, so it's NOT TRUE that the PZH2000 has "significantly more range." The M1299 howitzer is already shooting the XM1113 extended range round up to 74 MILES, not kilometers.
74 Miles = 119 Km. The XM1113 round has potential to reach even farther than 74 miles. Further testing continues. 1 Kilometer is significantly LESS THAN 1 Mile.
1.6 Km = 1 Mile.
The tank to carry this gun needs to build bigger than Abram tank to balance its accuracy strikes and load more rounds. The range must reach at least 65 miles or 100 km in order for it to be a powerful weapon machine.
Well, like it was said, it’s on a standard M109 chassis, a little tweaked here and there, but essentially the same. Only the turret is totally new and designed for the new gun, which has an auto loading feature like many of the new SPG’s these days.
So if you really looked at the vid, I don’t understand your comment.
Next video will be on the one thousand dollar drone that can travel 50 miles and destroy these multi-million dollar howitzers. 🤣
Damn... 🌵🌵💀💀👍👍🌵🌵
😉💥
M1299 vs. HIMARS? (i.e. how does the 1299 fill a gap in the spectrum of weapons systems? other than one-upsmanship vs. the bad guys.)
The M1299 rounds are one heck if a lot cheaper. The US needs a weapon that can pound the shit out of the enemy for extended periods of time and still be affordable to operate.
@@kokomo9764 The real question becomes what is the cost of the rocket boosted shells and what is their availability and production rate. If the price is outragous like the ammunition for the Zumwalt guns, then this new artillary system won't see production past this small batch of prototypes.
jdams are cheaper @@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63
How will this thing repel drones?
Increased rate of fire is useless without being able to mass produce shells as fast as you fire them.
I read somewhere that the Army wants to have one battery of M1299 for every 3 or 4 batteries of M109A6/7...
In an environment like Ukraine, the M109 is still working, and this new self-propelled gun would fail in the Ukrainian environment. With that long barrel, it would be very difficult to camouflage among trees or buildings.
This channel produces more misleading crap than any I've seen. The ERCA/M1299 has already been canceled before initial production. The barrel was wearing too fast due to the velocities of the rounds, the internal storage of 155mm was lacking, and the US Army has decided to move in different directions, apparently with more truck-based mobile howitzers and making improvements to 155mm munitions (guided, ramjet, rocket powered).
US should buy Archer 👍🏻
I want to see it mounted on a satellite. Potential range is global with guidance and rocket assist. Cheaper then a missle.. and limited to available ammo.
🤣🤣👍👍 Think about it 🤔🤔
they tried to copy the pz2000..