[RatSlayer]

"Well, I'm a redleg, so color me very sceptical of replacing rifled tube artillery with a mortar."

IMHO, rifle tubed artillery has already been obsoleted by airborne munitions since it is much easier to call in an air strike than it is to transport howitzers into firing range of the rapidly advancing spear heads.

The only advantage I see for howitzers is that they cost much less per round delivered on target. But since were are the USA, the cost issue is much lower in importance to the mobility issue.

Assuming the mortar tubes will travel with the spear heads, this is probably a good thing, since it will give them some firepower they didn't have when airpower was grounded and when the howitzers were lagging behind.

So I think it is really airpower that they see as the howitzer replacement and the mortars are just a backup for when you get your tit caught in a wringer and an air strike isn't immediately available.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

IMHO, rifle tubed artillery has already been obsoleted by airborne munitions since it is much easier to call in an air strike than it is to transport howitzers into firing range of the rapidly advancing spear heads.

That does seem to be the crux of the argument.

For as long as most of us can remember, our most likely adversary thought of artillery as the God of War. He devoted enormous resources to outgunning us, and we devoted much effort at counter-battery and anti-armor munitions delivery. Both our artilery and his was considered the primary casualty producer.

That adversary is gone now. Artillery is now looked upon by some as a relic of industrial age warfare.

I think it premature to do away with tube artillery. The Air Force will never take care of you like your own Direct Support 155mm Battalion will.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Read Return of the Air Commandos: USAF Close Air Support for the 21st Century. You might change your mind about artillery being obsolete.