Thread by @Gabriel64869839

What is the Mobile Fires Platform meant to be? A General Support or Close Support howitzer? Some considerations on why sharing a 155/52 howitzer does not make different weapon systems equally adept at the same mission.

GS artillery is held at a high level and is employed at long range to suddenly Destroy targets that expose themselves, reinforcing lower level tasks as opportunity permits/moment requires. It is meant to switch between tasks frequently & ideally prove decisive when it steps in.

Close Support artillerymust lay down suppressive fire for as long as it takes for the infantry to get ONTO a target. It must LAST. It must supply smoke curtains. It must ideally be able to fire really close to friendly infantry to keep the enemy suppressed as long as possible.

That ARCHER, BOXER RCH155 and K9 are being considered for Mobile Fires Platform as if they were interchangeable suggests that GS/CS distinction is unfortunately not receiving adequate consideration. ARCHER is not a CS weapon; BOXER is kind of middle ground; K9 is the best as CS.

ARCHER only offers Level 2 protection; carries only 21 ready to fire shells and cannot be manually fed during firing, so once it is empty it must move and get a proper reload before coming back to task. It can't LAST. At max firing rate, it is empty in 2.5 minutes. It's no CS gun

BOXER RCH155 is "middle ground" in that it offers better protection (can certainly survive counterbattery better than an ARCHER) and carries some more ammo (30). It will still run out of shells very quickly trying to play the part of a CS gun.

AS90 is a purebreed CS gun, well armoured and able to last, carrying 48 rounds and able to keep feeding manually if not forced to move by return fire. K9 is the one mobile fires platform candidate with that kind of attributes (plus the K10 reload vehicle carrying 104 rounds)

Mobility is much less of a concern. Even ARCHER can move over some horrid terrain. For a GS gun, wheels are probably best: a wheeled GS gun will be better able to move quickly along the frontline to apply its effect where needed. Level 2 protection is also ok, for a GS role.

Carrying fewer rounds ready to fire is again ok, for a GS gun, but those rounds should be "special" for maximum effect: Precision or Near-Precision to maximize chance of Destruction; and sensor fused anti-armour (Sweden uses EXCALIBUR / BONUS on ARCHER for good reasons).

Ideally, you shouldn't be calling on GS guns to lay down generic suppressing fire or smoke. That's a waste. GS guns should step in once you have a good idea of where the enemy is, and quickly saturate the target area with precision. CS must suppress and supply smoke cover.

British Army's howitzer regts are now part of Deep Recce Strike BCT. They are a Divisional asset. Their positioning suggests they are to be GS guns, but they will only be able to be good at that if they get ammo natures to truly deliver effect AND if CS is covered by someone else

ARCHER for Mobile Fires Platform is fine, even as long term solution. The incoming XL12 course-corrected base bleed round will make near-precision the standard output with a sub-20 meters CEP. Need to add at least BONUS, or something similar, though. But what about CS?

Growing intest for turreted 120mm mortar for BOXER suggests that at least part of Army is not blind to CS problem. offering decent protection, carrying good number of shells, it's a fair CS solution. Sweden, again, fields a turreted 120mm mortar on its CV90s. THEY get it.

Poland, US, Germany are of course going all out by fielding 120mm mortars + 155 CS and other 155 for GS (US aiming to have ERCA extra long range for GS part). Germany is moving PZH2000 down to brigades, more than covering CS need, AND adding Boxer 155 at Div level as de-facto GS.

The British Army cannot afford to multi-layer. It does not have the budget and, worse, it does not have the manpower margins. But it DESPERATELY need to have a decent Close Support artillery solution in place, so the hunger for TURRETED 120mm mortars is perfectly sensible.

Mobile Fires Platform decision should not be allowed to be an isolated process that leaves CS considerations as someone else's problem to fix. There must be an actual concept behind the choice. A "pure" GS gun is fine, but only so long as savings are reinvested into mortars x CS.