Greater point being: if one side of a conflict is out of working 152 or 155 tubes, [and/or their ammo supply], and must try to substitute with 100 or 105 tubes, while the enemy still is firing the bigger guns....
That side in the conflict is LOSING. They are outranged. In a war with small battlefield drones directing impacts, the longer-range guns are going to slaughter the shorter range guns before they are even in effective range of the longer-range guns.
That’s what I meant by lipstick on a pig.
“We’re all out of rifle ammo, but here are some pistols and pistol ammo. Now, charge across that open field at those enemy troops armed with rifles.”
First, we were actually still using the M101A1 in the 80's. It's a nice little gun that can crank out 10 rounds/minute with a good crew.
Second, you can have different guns for different missions. Even when the M101's (usually just called "05's") were still a primary gun for direct support units, we had 155mm and 8 inch artillery for longer range/counter-battery fire. Those larger calibers tended not to be as good for direct infantry support as their rate of fire was slower, and they took longer to emplace/CSMO. The '05's were great for shooting and scooting in a direct support role, and the larger stuff was used for longer range/counter-battery fire.
Also worth noting that the light '05's can be used more effectively when there is mud/bad weather/bad roads, etc.. Much less likely to get stuck, more maneuverable etc..
Anyway, while using 05's certainly is not ideal in 2022, the criticism that they are outranged by some Russian artillery misses the point that they are not used for artillery v. artillery duels anyway. We have HIMAR's, M777, and other stuff for that.