Will the U.S. Army's M270 rocket launcher replace its body-barrel artillery?

In fact, this question is tantamount to asking whether rockets will replace body-barrel artillery. From the birth time of the two, as well as the history and current equipment situation, the rocket will not replace the body tube artillery. However, the U.S. Army's m270 rocket launcher will replace the body tube artillery problem to analyze and discuss first. Compared with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army's sense of existence is really very low, even now in the Middle East in the localized conflicts among the Marines who have been reduced to the fourth class visibility is stronger than the Army. The m270 rocket launcher is a piece of equipment of the army, but the status of the overall combat system in the United States is actually a bit embarrassing.

Since the United States military strike system inside the air force and air force perfect and abundant air strike capability, that is to say, meet the opposite side. There are heavy firepower or armored forces, the United States artillery support is not to call the army's artillery, but the first to call the air strike. This almost surgical room air strike capability is in the United States since the Vietnam War has been used in the way of combat. Since the Vietnam War, the U.S. military has been experimenting with frog-hopping maneuvers, which use helicopters to transport troops directly around the back of the other side to strike, and hit-and-run to give the other side any chance to counterattack. So and airborne combat very similar to the ability to attack often deep behind the enemy, rocket artillery such a bulky guy simply can not transport up, and it is impossible to do a rapid mobile withdrawal, so the U.S. military would rather use helicopters to lift the m777-type ultra-light artillery to follow the troops to maneuver combat.

On the range and radiation range of rocket artillery is impossible to fly in the sky compared to the warplanes, and rockets can only provide a short period of intensive firepower and accuracy is poor, usually can only hit a face of the scope of the situation must be required to withdraw from the battlefield and the opposite side of the battlefield and combatants can not be in contact with the other side, or this kind of attack on a large area is very easy to injure their own personnel. The U.S. military has been using is the close to the ground attack support, is in contact with the two call for air strikes, air support over the ground troops immediately pounced on the enemy, the U.S. military this trick has been tried and true. Like the bright sword in the Kong Jie evaluation of the U.S. military said? Dare to throw incendiary bombs in the distance of 30 meters between the two armies scattered line? So that's why the US army doesn't like to develop rocket artillery much.

And the United States this air-to-ground point-to-point strike is different, China inherited from the Soviet Union artillery doctrine, not only emphasize a short period of time the intensity of fire but also requires firepower continuity, so China in the field of rocket artillery development to far beyond the United States and Russia. But even so, China in the massive development of rocket artillery, but also did not give up the development of the body tube artillery, in addition to the traditional towed howitzers, China's self-propelled artillery as well as vehicle-mounted artillery in the world's forefront. The reason for this is not simply because of the development of financial considerations, which is between the rocket artillery and the body tube artillery each have their own advantages and disadvantages, while the equipment can be at the same time to obtain the advantages and make up for the disadvantages.