In May the British Army retired its 89 AS90s, handing them all over to Ukraine. The Third Assault Brigade received at least 12, replacing their Soviet-era 2S19 Msta-S. They are pleased with their new weapon.

...

“When the enemy begins pushing toward our infantry, we engage to stop them from even getting close,” Skrypa said. “I had a situation where about 30 [Russians] started gathering in a tree line, preparing to attack our guys — storm troopers. But they didn’t make it. We fired several shells, and that was it, none of them wanted to come back.”

...

Initially the UK planned to send only 30 [AS90] howitzers, which were transferred in January 2023. Yet the Ukrainian crews have proved so capable they were gifted all of them. The artillery systems, designed in the 1990s, were retired by the British Army because of their age and their lumbering lack of mobility for the modern battlefield. But they are still proving their worth in Ukraine and have become a high priority target for Russian drones designed in 2025.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago (9 children)

More that "obsolete" doesn't mean useless. It just means its unable to adequately fulfill all the roles in all of the potential situations that the British may want for their arty. It can still perform a lot though.

Plenty of obsolete things can still be very useful.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

I don't understand how you can be in charge of one of the most powerful expeditionary militaries in the world and conclude you don't need an armored, tracked self-propelled 155mm howitizer from what you see happening in Ukraine. They are either misguided or they are quietly figuring out how to procure more 155mm self propelled tracked howitzers medium term (either way I am happy for Ukraine). There is no third option of "they have correctly realized they don't need them anymore" it makes no sense honestly. Wheeled artillery is superior in many cases but it is also predictable in ways tracked artillery isn't (vice versa too).

Edit it looks like they are looking to procure more 155mm cannon self propelled artillery such as the Archer and RCH 155 so nvm, they still realize the value of them, at least wheeled cannon artillery but I think now more then ever you need tracked AND wheeled 155mm artillery working together to keep enemy counter artillery assets guessing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCH_155

A lot of use of tracked, armored cannon artillery like the M109 paladin in Ukraine is in entrenched firing positions, and in this role tracked armored artillery has vital advantages over wheeled artillery (tracks beat tires for mud) and towed artillery (a m109 is a towed howitizer surrounded with protective mobile armor from chemical weapons, shrapnel, fpv drones and small arms fire).

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The us has enough airplanes that we think we can use bombs to do most of what artillary does for russia. the us does have artillary but not much because it is thought the role is limited.

ukraine doesn't have as many airplanes as the us does and so is useing artillary for things the us would use a bomb. either will do the job for most tasks.

if you are any country other than the us you don't have enough airplanes - but nato can probably count on the us should they need them. The rest need to learn the artillary lesson.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

All you’re saying is that you have an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of what modern warfare entails.

[–] Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

What is it that their understanding is lacking?

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)