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:
โข M270A0
โข M270A1
โข 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:
โข in the 1st image I added two blue circles with the range of M777 howitzers with M795 projectiles
โข 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:
โข the Antonovskiy Bridge near Kherson and
โข the Kakhovka Dam near Nova Kakhovka
19/n
Send up a drone:
โข find russian supply point - hit it with a M30A1
โข find a russian command post - hit it with a M31A1
โข find a russian battery - give it a taste of both
โข 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
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Air Force reductions in Europe 1989 - 2024
A look at ๐บ๐ธ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฉ๐ช๐ซ๐ท๐ฎ๐น๐ง๐ช๐ณ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด๐ธ๐ช๐ซ๐ฎ๐จ๐ฆ๐ต๐น๐ช๐ธ
Let's start with fighter bases in Germany:
โข left 1989
โข right 2024
#Transnistria asking putin to annex it to russia is insane.
The center of Tiraspol, the capital of this russian created fake state, is barely 10km from Ukraine... and there are 0 geographical obstacles between Ukraine and Transnistria.
The six Ukrainian brigades currently 1/4
in the Odesa region (20,000+ battle hardened troops) outmatch the approximately 4,000 Transnistrian troops and 1,000 russian troops. And half of the Transnistrian troops are in the north, while half of the russians are on the other side of the Dniester in the city of Bender,
2/4
with just one bridge connecting Bender to the rest of Transnistria... not to mention that if Ukraine goes in, then so will Moldova and Romania, which will see the few Transnistrian troops attacked from ALL sides.
Ukraine has the easiest route to enter Transnistria: this image 3/4
Wrong. The British needed arms and ammo to withstand a German invasion in 1940.
Every British soldier in this photo is equipped with US "surplus war supplies", that Roosevelt allowed to be shipped to the UK on 1 June 1940. Included were: 900 field guns with half a million 1/4
shells, 80,000 machine guns and half a million rifles with 125 million rounds. This allowed the UK to build up its forces after the defeat at Dunkirk.
Britain needed US materiel to survive the first two war years. Without this US help Hitler would have taken London.
2/4
If the US had refused to help the UK, US troops would have had to land on the beaches of England before Normandy... and at least 300,000 more Americans would have been killed.
Like Lindbergh Vance wants to hand a US ally over to fascists, without understanding that this will
3/4
US Air Force fighters based in Europe in 1989:
โข A-10 Thunderbolt: 144
โข F-4G Phantom II: 58
โข F-15C Eagle: 96
โข F-16C Falcon: 244
โข F-111E/F Aardvark: 186
Total: 728 fighter. 2/4
And the number of US Air Force fighters based in Europe in 2024: