HIMARS rockets alone won’t win the war for Ukraine

HIMARS Is An Important Piece, But Not All That Is Needed For Ukraine – The war in Ukraine has been fought to a bloody standstill. After Russia’s plan to blitzkrieg their way in Kharkiv, Kyiv, Kherson, Mariupol, and other cities failed with heavy losses in troops and equipment, their tactics changed. 

They concentrated their Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs) in the east and would saturate small areas of terrain with concentrated artillery and missile strikes (about 5,000-6,000 rounds per day) and edged slowly forward as they sought to take Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts that comprise the Donbas.

Artillery, the god of war

Since the days of Peter the Great, who Russian President Vladimir Putin compares himself to, and through World War II, the Russians have traditionally used that same tactic of massive, indiscriminate artillery fire. Stalin once called artillery “The God of War.”

In Ukraine, they have attacked civilian population centers, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, medical treatment facilities, schools, and government buildings. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been killed in the shelling, with many far from the frontlines.

According to Ukrainian officials, they have used more than half of their cruise and precision-guided weapons. This means they have been resorting to more of the massed, more inaccurate, artillery fire. 

But the war changed again once the U.S. introduced the HIMARS missile system and the British sent M270 MLRS systems in different aid packages. Both systems use the same ammunition, and the accuracy of the weapons is far beyond anything that the Ukrainian or Russian armed forces have. This allowed the Ukrainian military to effectively stop the Russian advances, destroying artillery positions, ammunition dumps, and headquarters elements. HIMARS has a range of 50 miles.

Related: Why recapturing Kherson is so important to Ukraine?

However, the Ukrainians asked for the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), some of which have a range of 186 miles. But Washington denied that request. 

“We don’t want to take steps that widen the conflict, and so some of the assurances that we’ve asked for in context of these particular systems are mindful of that, of not wanting these systems to be used to attack Russian territory,” Colin Kahl, U.S. undersecretary of defense said.

Back in July, U.S. Army General Mark Hertling (ret) said that the HIMARS system has been a “game changer” against Russia, adding that Moscow’s forces are now “in dire shape.” 

But is HIMARS a true game changer? Yes and no. The HIMARS systems have been hitting well above their weight and have been highly effective. This is why the Russian Ministry of Defense is trying to use propaganda, constantly claiming to destroy HIMARS launchers. 

But with the few (16) HIMARS systems supplied by the U.S. and just six of the U.S.-made M270s given by the UK, they are not going to win Ukraine the war. 

Related: Ukraine launches second counteroffensive in the east

Many more HIMARS and M270s are needed by Ukraine

The relatively paltry number of precision missile systems supplied to Ukraine has allowed Kyiv to grind the war to a standstill but is a far lower number than they’ll need if they are to retake the territory seized by Russia.

Oleksii Reznikov, minister of defense of Ukraine, said back in July that the HIMARS had “significantly slowed the Russian advance, but the country needed more. 

“We would need at least 100 [HIMARS to retake Ukrainian territory], I think. That would become a game-changer on the battlefield,” he said. 

“We are using HIMARS systems precisely, like…surgery, because we will not use the Russian strategy of, how we call, meat grinder,” he added, referring to the imprecise Russian shelling that has led to hundreds of civilian casualties.

Related: Drone boats are joining the Ukraine war. But will they matter?

What else is needed by Ukraine

HIMARS alone won’t win the war with Russia. They need other artillery systems, which are replacing obsolescent Soviet-era artillery guns with less range. Those legacy systems have nearly run out of ammunition. 

The U.S. M777 155mm howitzer, French CAESAR, German PzH 2000, and other systems are coming in, which gives the Ukrainians better and replenishable firepower. The U.S. is also sending 16 105mm howitzers and 36,000 rounds of ammunition. The UK military sent 19 L-119 105mm howitzers. 

Also needed is more self-propelled artillery; we’ve mentioned several times that the U.S. has plenty of M-109 155mm self-propelled artillery systems in depot storage in Germany. These, plus M1A1 tanks, which are outdated but more than a match for the current crop of Russian armor, would be needed for a counteroffensive. 

Ukraine needs more drones, although the ones they have are being used significantly. They have the Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2, and the U.S. has sent the Phoenix Ghost drone as well as the Switchblade, a kamikaze drone with a small explosive warhead that can be flown into the target. More is needed. 

So, is HIMARS a true game changer? If the U.S. can get the Ukrainian 100 or more of them, in conjunction with other needs, the answer is yes.

This article by Steve Balestrieri was originally published by 19FortyFive.com.

Feature Image: HIMARS (Lockheed Martin)

Read more from Sandboxx News

• Is the Sub 2000 the perfect rifle for guerilla warfare in Ukraine?
• What is a carry handle and why do rifles have them?
• Watch: How the Ukrainians are trolling the Russian military with the M142 HIMARS
• Letters to Loretta: Getting news from the Pacific War
• Operation Devil Eyes – That time the CIA and G.I. Joe teamed up