Hi all,

Im a gunner from Australia and as most of you are aware we are going through a transitional phase.

I ask the question relating it to the modern day battle field is the PZH 2000 a better gun than the G6????

We can all look at the tabulated data of each gun and assume that the PZH is a better gun system. when in fact it is too heavy to be transported any where in the world across the sea and the air. Used in a defensive environment ( ie to stop anyone invading Australia) the PZH 2000 is a tracked vehicle that requires what seems more maintenance putting the gun system out of action for quite some time (changing track, turrents etc). Yet the G6 can be used well in a shoot and scoot environment moving about the battle field with great speed and ease. I acknowledge that the PZH 2000 has a greater range and protection for the occupants, but with range comes the greater risk for own casualties with the standard NATO ammunition.

To counter this MUST you push Met survey teams in to harms way trying to achieve 20kms further???

The PZH 2000 making ( i believe ) more noise than required, giving away positions.... possible fire bases.

So what is Artillery really used for?????

We are to support other arms and services. keeping up with the battle runs... of the abrams or the fast moving infantry maintaining effective fire support to destroy the enemy to win the war.

Who is better and what can destroy the enemy faster, the battle field is constantly changing. so this question I give you is the PZH 2000 better than the G6????

BUT remember this "Infantry kill people, Artillery kill family trees"

cheers chris

The PZH2000 is classical Howitzer. Tracked and heavy.

The G6 is light and should be fast. But only 5 km/h???

Time to fire the first round ist also very high: 60 sec. (PzH2000: 30 sec.)

For more air mobiltiy, look for the AGM nersion of the PZH2000. With full auto loader.

The G6 is a good concept, but a bad design.

wheeled artillery must be faster.

Mackie