Question? Why buy towed artillery in 2025?

[Mike1976]

The Indian Ministry of Defense has contracted a pair of domestic firms for the collective procurement of 307 indigenously developed towed artillery systems.

At 69 billion Indian rupees (approximately $805 million), it is the largest domestic defense contract in the country.

It has been divided between Bharat Forge Limited and Tata Advanced Systems Limited in a ratio of 60%:to 40%. A total of 184 Advanced Towed Artillery Gun Systems (ATAGS) will be supplied by Bharat Forge for 41.40 billion Indian rupees ($483 million), while the remaining 123 guns will be provided by Tata Advanced Systems. The deal includes 327 high mobility 6×6 gun towing vehicles.

Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS)
View attachment 523402

This acquisition by India of towed artillery pieces got me thinking. With the threat of drones, counter-battery radars, accoustic detection, satellite feeds and other means of rapidly countering artillery what is the point of having a truck tow the artillery piece in 2025 instead of bolting the gun onto the truck?

Quite frankly I'm surprised it has taken this long for armies to come to that conclusion.

 

[muck]

Good question. It probably comes down to money and training.

I'm not sure how well-equipped Pakistan's army is in terms of drones, but presumably India expects static exchanges of fire among their demarcation line to be the default hostility for which they need to prepare. I mean, it's what they have been doing for decades. Could be someone higher up the food chain decided to buy the more affordable weapon for the most likely scenario.

Last not but least, manning a towed artillery piece is largely a mechanical process which conscripts ought to be able to learn in a couple of days. A mobile gun and the ability to "shoot and scoot" require more training.

Here in Germany, our arms-build up process led to a veritable culture war whether our airborne forces should be equipped with (airmobile) towed artillery or not. First it was a nay, than a yay, and now they're back to nay. Apparently, the prevailing doctrine holds that towed guns don't bring enough of an advantage compared to mortars to warrant their acquisition.

 

[PEMM]

Towed artillery is still better than noned artillery.

But this ATAGS already has engine to move it around, so I don't see much advantage over truck mounted, when it comes to price. After all you still need the truck.

There must be some price benefit, because other countries have procured similar systems through the years.

 

[NebrHogger]

When not on fire missions, SP guns sit around not good for much else than polishing occasionally or quarterly trips to the range. Trucks used to tow artillery, on the other hand are useful in many other ways and not nearly as expensive to repair and keep spares on hand.

I agree the expense angle is probably why they have more towed pieces than SP guns.

 

[Bombardier]

When not on fire missions, SP guns sit around not good for much else than polishing occasionally or quarterly trips to the range. Trucks used to tow artillery, on the other hand are useful in many other ways and not nearly as expensive to repair and keep spares on hand.

I agree the expense angle is probably why they have more towed pieces than SP guns.

Interesting point and something i had not considered. I agree that the cost implications are reduced if towed and to be honest armoured artillery seems fairly pointless if we think about the distances involved.


Edit
I guess the main benefit of armour is some protection from counter battery fire

 

[PEMM]

When not on fire missions, SP guns sit around not good for much else than polishing occasionally or quarterly trips to the range. Trucks used to tow artillery, on the other hand are useful in many other ways and not nearly as expensive to repair and keep spares on hand.

I agree the expense angle is probably why they have more towed pieces than SP guns.

Another mentioned advantage I've seen is that when the truck brakes down, with SPG the gun is also out. With towed you can take that truck for repairs and keep the gun in action.

Also back in the day Finnish army simply saved money on the trucks by expecting to confiscate civilian trucks for wartime. Problem is the lack for off road mobility of such trucks.