Some of the advantages are weight and length for transportation. You would have to look at the limiting factors of space and weight avaliable within the M108/109 chassis and turret for the gun selection. Something not taken into account is that you are comparing a early to mid 80s system (M109a6) with a late 90s system (PZH2000). A modified system compared to a ground up design. Comparing the PZH to the Crusader would have been more accurate/fair. The G5/6 cannot fire conventional 155mm NATO standard rounds and achieve those ranges. It uses a special base bleed projectile

I know it isn't a fair comparison, but trying to compare pieces that are in service together, rather then canceled prototypes. Although I'd love to compare PzH to Crusader...Rumsfeld has temporarily put Crusader away in the closet. We'll be using our Paladin in battle, and as such, have to compare our front-line stuff to more advanced pieces.

To mention that Germany still uses 262 M109 A3GEA2, the PHZ-2000 is an expensive one, for the moment there are 185 ordered, and up to now only 49 in service, in 2005 all 185 will be in service.

Found some nice pics of the PHZ-2000: ------------------------------------------ http://www.stellohfilms.de/tag-der-offenen-tuer-achim/pics-big/010_06.JPG ------------------------------------------- http://www.stellohfilms.de/tag-der-offenen-tuer-achim/pics-big/022_18.JPG --------------------------------------------- http://www.deutschesheer.de/relaunch/Contentbase2.nsf/a2359e1209b11a18c1256982003b7e87/7ebecc7008dcda8fc1256bb90032ed2e/body/0.7C?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg -------------------------------------------------- http://www.deutschesheer.de/relaunch/Contentbase2.nsf/a2359e1209b11a18c1256982003b7e87/bf06e94053bdbe2fc1256bb9003300e9/body/0.7C?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg -------------------------------------------------

Thankyou for answering the question i had about rail guns

The 39 calibre barrels were standard for NATO 155's until the 80's. New manufacturing methods allowed longer barrels to be produced, but the budget (or political will) to buy them wasn't there. Only the export success of the South African G5 family (which capitalised on those advances)and the superior range of the Soviet 130mm gun/howitzers shamed the West into catching up. The US govt could upgrade Paladin with 52 caliber barrels if they wanted to. Question is, do they want to?

No they won't. What are the advantages? We have pushed the conventional (non base bleed,ect) rounds to their accurate range limit. The army already has a problem with deploying artillery by air and the marines no longer use SPs. However if they did use them, and this applies to the army with MPF, no upgrades due to limited deck space. Tube arty in the US has ceeded the counterbattery mission to MLRS and aircraft. If its not going to be used for counterfire why the need for long range? Interdiction is a rocket and air mission. The US has decided that the limiting factors with a smallet tube are worth it.

Hopefully the SP can compensate for limited range by being having forward mobility. Isn't counter-battery with aircraft a bit dangerous? Sending aircraft against known enemy positions, against a OPFOR tha tknows the USA loves aircraft?

You guys are missing the value of the big SP guns in the direct fire role...Where range isn't really relevent. IT HAPPENS, CL

I do believe that the inherent risk associated with aircraft counter-battery missions is one reason for the development of the JSOW (joint stand off weapon).