Both have a crew of three, both fire the same missiles, both do not need a Fire Direction Center to compute their missions.
3/n
The M142 HIMARS exists in only one version. No updates so far - this version is called M142A0.
The M270 MLRS exists in three versions:
β’ M270A0
β’ M270A1
β’ M270A2
You can distinguish the A1/A2 from the earlier A0 by the GPS antenna on the launcher (red arrow). 4/n
The M270A0 can only fire the M26 series, M28 series training rockets, and M39 rocket (photo: a M28 launch). As of 2022 no country fields the M270A0.
The M270A1 can fire all current missiles, but its processing power is too slow to fire the future PrSM missile.
5/n
Therefore Lockheed Martin is currently overhauling and upgrading 160 stored M270A0 with new engines, transmissions, launcher-loader modules, and the new Common Fire Control System (CFCS) - this version will be known as M270A2.
These 160 new M270A2 will equip the currently
6/n
active ten US Army and US Army National Guard artillery battalions, which all use the M270A1.
When these 160 M270A2 have been delivered Lockheed will begin to overhaul and upgrade the existing fleet of 225 M270A1 launchers to the new M270A2 standard.
7/n
Once the overhauled M270A1 leave the Lockheed facilities as M270A2 the Army will raise new artillery battalions and increase the number of launchers per battalion.
All this means that Ukraine can only get either M142 or M270A1 launchers, because the M270A0 can't fire the
8/n
GPS guided GMLRS missiles in the US inventory, while the M270A2 is the pinnacle of US military tech and its CFCS is top secret.
This leaves the M270A1 as only possible M270 variant, and luckily Lockheed is right now delivering the first M270A2 to US Army artillery units,
9/n
which are concurrently retiring their M270A1.
As for the M142: more than 540 have been produced so far and the US Army and Marine inventory is around 450 systems, with approximately 335 in active units.
In short: the US could donate a lot of either system to Ukraine,
10/n
as of both 100+ are available and as both systems can be replaced by the US defense industry.
The main difference between the two systems is that the M142 carries only one missile pod. As pods contain the same 6x missiles (either 6x M30A1, 6x M31, or 6x M31A1) this somewhat
11/n
limits a artillery commander's options... unless he has two M142 loaded with different missiles.
The M270A1 carries two pods and so can fire unitary warheads (M31/M31A1) and alternative warhead (M30A1) rockets in the same fire mission.
Photo: a M31 launch in Iraq 12/n
Both systems can fire a LOT more missions per hour than russian systems.
As mentioned in my earlier tweet it takes 20+ minutes to reload the Uragan (photo) and 40+ minutes to reload the Smerch.
M142 and M270A1 reload time: 5 minutes. 13/n
Then the russians have to measure and set up their firing positions, plot a fire mission with their outdated maps, sight their launchers optically (photo) - this and their slow reloading time mean that the russians can fire one volley per hour at best...
14/n
The M142 and M270A1 need 1 minute to stop, set up and fire their missiles:
drone spots a russian target - sends GPS coordinates to the M142 - gunner enters GPS coordinates into the UFCS - launches missiles - moves on.
A M142 or M270A1 can fire 5-6 volleys per hour (!). 15/n
Not only are M142 and M270A1 faster to reload, quicker to fire, and massively more accurate than russian rocket launchers - their missiles also fly further than russian missiles.
Officially GMLRS missiles have a range of 70 km... I can tell you that this is not true.
16/n
Just how much further their real range is I cannot disclose, but the russians are about to make painful discoveries soon.
We now know which launchers and missiles Ukraine will receive... now let's look at how these missiles will deliver a lot of hurt to the russians.
17/n
Let's look first at the Kherson front.
I used @Nrg8000's brilliant maps for these:
β’ in the 1st image I added two blue circles with the range of M777 howitzers with M795 projectiles
β’ in the 2nd image I added a yellow circle with the "official" range of a M31A1 rocket
18/n
Just one M142 or M270A1 can not only fire at almost every russian position in Kherson Oblast, it can also hit the choke points of russia's two supply lines:
β’ the Antonovskiy Bridge near Kherson and
β’ the Kakhovka Dam near Nova Kakhovka
19/n
Send up a drone:
β’ find russian supply point - hit it with a M30A1
β’ find a russian command post - hit it with a M31A1
β’ find a russian battery - give it a taste of both
β’ find russian infantry - one M30A1 will hit them with 160,000 scorching hot, 3 Mach fast shrapnels
20/n
Now let's look at Kharkiv.
In blue the range of a M777 with M795 projectile, and in green the range of a self-propelled CAESAR howitzer.
In yellow the "official" range of where a M270A1 or M142 can make the russian's life hell. 21/n
The entire russian supply line using the railway from Vovchansk to Kupiansk is in range. The russian supply point at Kupiansk, which supplies the russian salient at Izyum is in range.
And there is no need to worry about counter battery fire: M142 and M270A1 fire their
22/n
missiles so quickly that whatever russia fires in return will hit long after both vehicles are gone.
The M142 crew doesn't even have to get out of their vehicle to reload. The only risk to them are drones. So both vehicles need air defense close by.
23/n
And now we look at the Donbas front. Two M777 in blue and one CAESAR in green... and compare this to what one M270A1 or M142 can cover.
A handful of M142 moving constantly around in the Donbas area, stopping only to fire or reload can hit attacking russian troops anywhere.
24/n
If a russian battery or air defense system is spotted deep behind russian lines - drive closer to the frontline, fire the missiles, move back out of russian artillery range.
Then reload and repeat. 25/n
M270A1 and/or M142 are definitely going to change the dynamics of this war.
Every russian attack will get smited, every russian supply point will get destroyed. And we already know that russia can't move further than 80-90 km supply points.
26/n
But Ukraine needs a lot of M270A1 or M142. As @nicholadrummond already said: 48x launchers is the minimum. Plus lots and lots of missiles, and drones to spot every russian position.
Send this to Ukraine NOW and we can wrap this war up before Ukraine's independence day.
27/n
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In February 2022 putin declared war on Europe & his army marched on Kyiv.
Since then European EU/NATO nations have added and/or are forming these active (!) battalions to their armies:
(Worst 2 countries are of course the two loudmouths)
Europe has to realize that there are two global military powers that it will have to find an arrangements with to safeguard its future security:
πΊπΈ the US
πΊπ¦ Ukraine
These two have the highest defence materiel production output, and troops from these two are present in the 1/9
highest number of nations around the globe (Ukrainian troops are fighting russians in every nation, where russia has allied with the regime; a will to fight our enemies that is sorely lacking in the rest of Europe).
Minor powers like the UK or middling powers like France,
2/9
can't provide as much security (troops, defence equipment, tech innovation, will to fight, etc.) as Ukraine or the US.
While Ukrainians fight, innovate and produce vast amounts of war materiel, Europe continues to fiddle as the fire of war spreads across the continent.
3/9
Fellow Europeans on here claiming that Europe doesn't need the US to fight off russia are delusional:
Does Europe have enough cruise missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
Does Europe have enough tanker aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
1/6
Does Europe have enough maritime patrol aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have any ballistic missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough SEAD/DEAD aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
2/6
Does Europe have enough logistic units aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough air defence? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough recon satellites? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? A bit.
3/6
On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
3 days (!) later a π¬π§ Royal Navy task force left the UK to retake the islands.
That task force included: 2Γ aircraft carriers, 8Γ destroyers, 16Γ frigates, 6Γ attack submarines... a fleet bigger than today's Royal Navy. 1/8
22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships provided logistic support... in total 127 ships sailed, and the Royal Navy still (!!) had enough destroyers, frigates, submarines to fulfil its NATO obligations.
It was an awesome display of military power, professionalism, courage and grit. 2/n
On 28 February 2026, after weeks of tension, the Iran War began... and even though the UK had been asked by the US for bases weeks earlier, the Royal Navy was caught wholly unprepared... and then it took the Royal Navy 10 days (!) to get 1Γ destroyer out of port, which after
3/n
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
These are the π¬π§ UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9