The eight inch guns?

Question

Anyone know why the marine corps discontinued the use of the eight inch guns, they were more accurate than the 155 mm howitzers.

Answer 1

I think it has some to do with Clinton downsizing and some to do with trying to make everything lighter and quicker.

The Marine Corps tries to make evrything helobourne capable. 8 inches cannot be airborne. They are no conducive to the whole rapid deployment attitude. I believe heavy artillery has its place, but moreso in the army.

Additionally, when Clinton downsized, they got rid of the 2-platoon structure in Marine artillery batteries. They had a left and right platoon. One was 8 inch, one was 155mm. 8 guns altogether.

Now it is six 155mm in one platoon with one FDC.

uhgrant1, I could be wrong, but ...
I disagree that MLRS replaces heavy artillery because rockets geberally cannot engage targets in defilade. They also have guided cannon projectiles like Copperhead and Excaliber. I supported the Crusader as it could fire Oscar Mike and the battery essentially laid itself and didn't require survey.

Answer 2

They were really too big and too slow to be effective. Slow rate of fire, less range overall. MLRS replaced it and MLRS can do eveything it did its role plus more.

While they were more accurate then the 155s before, the 155s today have individual computers that greatly increase their firepower. Not to mention GPS guided rounds the 155s and MLRS have now.

The difference in accuracy in a 8in and 155 doesn't really matter in the scope of things anyway, both have accuracy thats whithin the blast radius in general.

Basically, there just isn't a need for it. This was the same with the 175mm.

Leroy,
With GPS guided MLRS, it now has the capability to presion strike to include delayed fuses that can penetrate bunkers as well as do aerial bursts like VT. These have proven effective in Iraq already.

Answer 3

Just like everything else they discontinue deals with money, technology, and lobbying.