Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization

[COMMAR]

(I)
Oh, really? I tell you artillery duels might become as much the centre of arty thinking as they were in the 80's once a Western force faces a true threat instead of beating up some almost defenceless remote country. The sensor and communication technologies have improved and might sense and track hostile artillery quite Star Trek-like.
Why did you mention" stand-off" ad compared with the range of other guns if you didn't think of an arty vs. arty threat??

(II)
"system of systems". You seriously drunk that Kool-Aid. It's a gun made of expensive metals.

"mass fires". Seriously, you cannot "mass fires" with a single arty battery. That term has already a defined meaning, and everybody with understanding of military doctrine and military history should think of something entirely different when he reads "mass fires" than the MAGTF is capable of.
Besides; how does this "mass fires" fit to your earlier focus on Excalibur???
"The defining role of the MAGTF is to (...) mass fires at the time & place most advantageous to the MAGTF."
The snake bites its tail.

(III)
SPHs are sitting ducks compared to a towed howitzer? I've never heard a greater defiance of reality. The M777 can leave its firing position in no less than a minute or two, while SPHs do so in seconds after their last shot.
The M777 is less off-road capable and slower when towed than a SPH and utterly dependent on aerial transportation (and a air situation that allows for the use of rotor aviation!) for any fast movement.
The M777 is the sitting duck.

(IV)
You sure don't understand the potential or history of SPHs. Hint: They were first developed for and deployed by armoured divisions. They were meant for mobile warfare, not for anything associated with slowness. That were the towed guns.

(V)
"Fast-Moving Expeditionary Setting"? Seriously, there has never been an expeditionary setting that beats the operational or advance speed of conventional warfare. The advance to Baghdad in 2003 was about as slow as some of Napoleon's campaigns, for example - a far cry from feats like 300 km in four days as they were achieved against multiple hostile divisions with tanks of 40 km/h top speed and trucks of 60 km/h top speed along only two roads.
I don't see why SPHs which are mobile on their own should have any problems in high-speed ops if well-maintained. Meanwhile, I can easily imagine how a M777 battery waits for helicopters and doesn't get that kind of transportation because of the threats and competing demands (or takes away this rare asset from very important competing demands).

(VI)
Oh, really? MAGTFs have tanks, right? I see absolutely no problem with a self-propelled system in an MAGTF. They're incapable of facing first rate forces without their heavy vehicles in any mission but defence on closed terrain anyway, lacking combined arms qualities. Therefore they could limit themselves to mortars on 100% airborne missions.

To pick thru this line by line would be to long & annoying b/c your not going to read it to try & comprehend another view. All your going to do is try & pick thru where you can argue back.

No matter how many times I said that a C-A Maneuver Force, like say a MAGTF, would never line up its Arty to trade rounds; it wouldn't match up any like weapons sys.

Its greatest weapon is speed & spacing and its Combined Arms Nature.

Fighters say styles make fights. When you closely integrate Arty, Gunships, & CAS w/Infantry & each can seamlessly flow fr/Lead to Supported & back the same holds true.

Speed isn't Kuwait to Baghdad but to your next engagement or maneuver point. How quickly can you cover 20, 30, 60km to stretch the enemy & capitalize on a weakness.

Then, I MEF CMDR, CMC GEN Conway told Gen Franks that at anytime during the march to Bagh. if you need, I can disengage & LIFT 1,000 Marines over 100nm in 12hrs or less for any contingency; thats speed & flexibility.

And yes, the MEF did used tanks in OIF, but SP's aren't tanks & OIF was an Invasion a Full Campaign; one that was proceeded by nearly 6mths of build up, hardly Expeditionary.

SPs are a great Weapon System. They serve their purpose in the role they're designed for. But when you need to get your Guns 60km in x-amount of time & hop them again shortly after that then an SP ain't the Gun for you.

It reminds me of the pre-WWII Battleship v Carrier argument.. Until something can be done to Neutralize Airpower, Tailored C-A Unit deployments are the way of the future. SPs will play a huge role depending on the purpose to which your tailoring the force; but thats for an Army not a MAGTF.

This can go on & on back & forth there a so many variables.. but either way I'm done.