Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
May 29, 2022 ā€¢ 26 tweets ā€¢ 9 min read ā€¢ Read on X
Angry thread about M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS šŸ§µ

and a bit about BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch too.

Angry, because every M270 and M142 thread I have seen on twitter so far is FULL OF MIND BOGGLING ERRORS... because all of them (!) use as source of their "knowledge" the

1/n ImageImage
error-filled M270 wikipedia article... šŸ¤¦ā€ā™‚ļøšŸ¤¦ā€ā™‚ļø

Let's dive in. First: M270 and M142 are technologically decades ahead of their Soviet-era counterparts: BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch. See the red arrows I painted? Yes, those are optical sights...

2/n ImageImage
Uragan and Smerch have to be sighted optically... and in the case of the Uragan soldiers have to adjust elevation and deflection by turning wheels.

Even Uragan's two outriggers have to be lowered and emplaced by muscle power.
3/n
Optical sights means that it takes the 10-12 minutes to measure and prepare a launch sites and sight a launchers.

Firing dumb rockets with optical sight also means that the Uragan and Smerch's accuracy is atrocious... i.e. when a Smerch fires its 12 rockets,
4/n ImageImage
then the circular error probable (CEP) is 170 meter. This means only 50% of rockets fall within a 170 meter radius of the actual target... the other 50% will come down even further away than 170 meter from the target.

Meanwhile US GLMRS missiles have a CEP of 5 meters.
5/n
This is the reason russian forces fire mostly rockets with cluster munitions. They know they can't hit a target, so they saturate the area around a target with cluster munitions, hoping that at least something will hit...

Photo: remnants of Uragan cluster munition rockets.

6/n Image
And reloading the Uragan and Smerch is a time-consuming drag... It takes 20 minutes to reload a Uragan and it takes 5x russians 40 minutes to load 12x rusty rockets into a Smerch.

7/n
Ukraine also uses Uragan and Smerch, but russia has bombed Ukraine's rocket factories and as no allied nation produces Uragan or Smerch rockets, Ukraine desperately needs M270 and/or M142 launchers with their more accurate missiles.

8/n
Besides the accuracy of their missiles, what else makes the M270 and M142 so much better?

For starters: the speed of reloading. Both use rocket pods pre-loaded at the factory with either six GMLRS missiles of the same type or one ATACMS missile. Trucks bring the pods to

9/n Image
predesignated ammo supply points, where M270/M142 exchange their used pods for new ones in 5 minutes thanks to their built in cranes.
Meanwhile the truck is already on its way to get more pods.

And if you're in a hurry - the M270 can reload its pods simultaneously.ously.
10/n
And how do the M270 and M142 aim their missiles?

Well, with a top-secret tool called "keyboard". This must sound like magic to russian soldiers with their sights and collimators.
All M270s in US/NATO service and all M142 fire GPS-guided missiles, which are aimed via the

11/n Image
M270A1's Improved Fire Control System (IFCS - left photo) or the M142's Universal Fire Control System (UFCS - right photo).

Since 4QFY21 the M270A1's IFCS is being replaced by the Common Fire Control System (CFCS), which will allow upgraded M270A2 to fire the

12/n ImageImage
future Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). Which brings us to the types of missiles that exist (or existed or will exist) for the two systems:

ā€¢ M26
ā€¢ M28
ā€¢ M30/M31
ā€¢ M39/M48/M57
ā€¢ PrSM

13/n Image
The M26 series were unguided, cluster munitions rockets. The US Army acquired 506,718 and used around 17,000.
The M26 and the extended range M26A2 were carrying M77 submunitions, which had a fail rate of more than 5%. The M26A1 was an extended range version of the M26

14/n
carrying the more advanced M85 submunitions with a dud rate of about 4% (pictured).
However in 2008 the Bush administration instituted a policy to retain and use only cluster munitions with a dud rate of less than 1% or less after 2018.

15/n Image
Already in 2007 the US Army had begun a program to dismantle its M26 rockets by 2019 and by 2012 98,904 M26s had been dismantled.

In 2017 the Trump administration canceled the Bush administration's cluster munitions policy and as of 2022 it is unknown if - and if yes,

16/n
how many - M26 rockets are are still in US possession. However the US Army (and all NATO allies) have no M26 rockets in their active stockpiles for at least the last 10 years.

The M28 series are a reduced range practice rounds of no interest to us.
17/n
The M30 series consists of two GPS-guided missiles (GMLRS) with different warheads:

ā€¢ M30 - with M101 cluster munitions (2% duds)
ā€¢ M30A1 - Alternative Warhead, with 160,000+ Tungsten balls - it is like a giant shotgun

From 2004 to 2009 the Army bought 2,475 M30,

18/n Image
but because of the 2% fail rate of the M101 cluster munitions the army stopped buying the M30 in 2009 and focused on developing the M30A1.
All M30s cluster warheads were scheduled to be replaced by M30A1 Alternative Warheads by 2019.

19/n
As of 2022 it is unclear if, and if yes how many, M30 missiles are still in the US arsenal.

The M31 and M31A1 are variants of the M30 GMLRS missile with unitary high-explosive warheads.

Lockheed Martin produces about 11,000 M30A1 and M31A1 GMLRS missiles per year, and the

20/n
US military has as of 2022 at least 60,000 GMLRS in its arsenal.

In 2022 the M30A2 (aka XM403) and M31A2 (aka XM404) will replace the two A1 variants in production.

As the US does not plan to give Ukraine the longer range ATACMS missiles I will dicuss them only in brief:

21/n Image
ā€¢ M39 - with M74 cluster munitions (the "steel rain" of Desert Storm) - only non GPS-guided ATACMS
ā€¢ M39A1 - longer range, GPS-guided M39 variant with reduced M74 payload

The Army planned to have both either dismantled or rebuilt as M57 by 2020.

22/n
ā€¢ M48 - with unitary warhead, 176 produced in 2001-04, of which 58 were used during OEF/OIF
ā€¢ M57 - with unitary warhead, improved CEP, and new fuze, 513 produced 2004-13, 47 used

It is likely only the M57 (new and rebuilt M39/M39A1) remain in the US military's arsenal.

23/n
As of 2022 Lockheed is in the process of modernizing the ATACMS missiles to extend their service life until the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) enters service in 2027.

All of this tells us that Ukraine will receive M30A1, M31, and M31A1 missiles.

24/n
People tweeting that Ukraine will get M26 rockets, M30 missiles, XM403/404 missiles, GMLRS ER missiles, etc. don't know what they are talking about.

And yes, the arrival of M270 or M142 will be a turning point, as my next thread will show.
russian troops are doomed.

25/n Image
Part II of this thread - including maps about how the situation at the front will change with the arrival of M270A1 or M142 systems - begins with this tweet:

ā€¢ ā€¢ ā€¢

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
怀

Keep Current with Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @noclador

Mar 8
Please stop saying Europe should cancel weapons deals with the US.

Yes, we should not sign new weapon deals with the US; but canceling existing deals will hurt Ukraine and also Europe.

And there are 3 reasons for that. Let me explain.

1) Europe's armed forces have nearly
1/19 Image
0 spare equipment, as almost everything taken out of service over the last 35 years was either sold off or scrapped. Europe must continue to support Ukraine and therefore Europe needs to buy whatever weapons it can get it hands on to free up equipment to donate to Ukraine.
2/n Image
I.e. you can't demand that Belgium cancel its F-35A deal and demand that Belgium must donate its F-16 to Ukraine...
Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands could donate their F-16 to Ukraine, because they already received enough F-35A as replacement.
3/n Image
Read 19 tweets
Mar 5
I have to tell you when putin will attack next:

šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§ @Keir_Starmer is NOT increasing defence spending this year.

šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§ @Keir_Starmer is NOT increasing defence spending next year.

šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§ @Keir_Starmer is increasing defence spending FROM (!) April 2027 by 0.2%.

This means that for
1/7
the next two years the British Armed Forces get nothing. They will remain as broken as they are.

The British Army has 78,000 troops of which just 18,000 are combat capable (the remaining 60,000 (= 77%) lack the materiel, training, equipment, etc. to be useful).
2/7
The situation is even worse for the Royal Navy.

Next year the British Armed Forces actually get even LESS money than this year (inflation is 10 times higher than GDP growth and so inflation cuts into the defence budget).

Then from April 2027 the situation will begin to
3/7
Read 7 tweets
Mar 2
Yesterday I posted a thread about American weapons and components in fighter aircraft and how Europe has to wean itself off them.

Today let's look at transport, tanker, maritime patrol, and airborne early warning aircraft.
(Tomorrow then trainer aircraft and drones)
1/25 Image
Transport aircraft come in two sizes: for strategic airlift or tactical airlift.
Simplified: strategic airlift transports materiel between continents and tactical airlift within a theater of operations.
For strategic airlift the choice for Europe is easy: A400M Atlas, because
2/n Image
it is the only strategic airlifter in production (C-17 Globemaster production ceased in 2015) and because the French were involved in its design the A400M Atlas comes with all key parts "Made in Europe".
Yes, it carries only half the payload of the C-17 Globemaster, but for
3/n Image
Read 25 tweets
Mar 1
Let's talk about American weapons and how Europe has to wean itself off them.
Part 1 of a long thread; this one looking at fighter jets.

First and foremost: Europe has to get all American made components out of all weapon systems produced in Europe. If Trump can shut down a
1/24 Image
European production line by withholding a component, then that component has to replaced... and if that is impossible, then that weapon system has no future and production has to end.
As for the F-35... Europe has nothing even close in combat capability. Best course will be
2/n Image
to see the existing deals through and then focus on acquiring Eurofighters and Rafales, both of which are way more capable than whatever junk russia sends up in the air.

The main issue will be that the Rafale's production line is running already at full capacity, while the
3/n Image
Read 24 tweets
Feb 25
The Gripen was designed by Sweden for Sweden's Bas 90 air base system and - truly - Sweden built the perfect fighter for Sweden's Bas 90 system... which resulted in a fighter no one but Sweden needs.

Bear with me as I explain a few things @Saab doesn't want you to know.
1/29 Image
Bas 90 was developed in the 1970s, when the Swedish Air Force was flying the Viggen (and some upgraded Draken). Bas 90 consisted of some 30+ reserve air bases with a 2,000+ metres (6,600+ ft) long main runway and 2-3 short runways of 800 metres (2,600 ft).
2/n Image
Here are the airbases of Kubbe (63Ā°37'59.81"N 17Ā°56'10.79"E) and Jokkmokk (66Ā°29'48.43"N 20Ā° 8'45.17") with the short runways highlighted in red.

Some of the short runways used public roads, but most were built specifically for the Bas 90 system in the 1980s.
3/n Image
Image
Read 29 tweets
Feb 22
I set out to create a table showing the reduction in British Infantry units between 1989 and 2025...

After doing Scotland, Wales and Yorkshire - I gave up.

For three reason:
a) the sheer size of it! The British Army had 100 infantry battalions in 1989 (not counting the
1/8 Image
nine battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment).
b) the British Army's habit of reroling battalions every four years.
c) the disbanding of volunteer regiments in the early 1990s, then the merging of volunteer battalions into new volunteer regiments in the mid 1990s, and then
2/8
the disbanding of these new volunteer regiments some 5-6 years later, followed by the de-merging of some of the volunteer battalions.

In short: it was all very haphazard and chaotic!

So, instead here come the numbers about the British Army's infantry decline between 1989
3/8
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(