Field artillery must move rapidly as well as shoot accurately in order to do its job. An important argument as to the best way to move cannon has been, and still is, the argument of towed versus self-propelled artillery. The purpose of this paper is to chronicle and analyze this argument in the U.S. Army prior to 1955. Chapter I describes the development of the materiel for mechanized artillery transport from 1916 to 1955. During this period there was very little change in the materiels and technology used for the development of artillery vehicles and cannon. As a result, there was very little equipment for the proponents of either towed or self-propelled artillery to consider. Chapter II recounts the history of the argument from its beginning until the United States' entry into World War II. The argument prior to World War II divides into two phases: 1919-1927, and 1923-1941, with the creation of the first U.S. Army armored forces being the divisor. During the first phase, rapid occupation of position was considered the chief advantage of self-propelled artillery, and lighter unit weight the chief advantage of towed artillery. By the end of the second phase, self-propelled artillery was considered almost exclusively for armored divisions, and towed artillery for infantry divisions. Chapter III describes the experience of World War II with respect to artillery transport. During the war, virtually all armored division artillery was self-propelled and infantry division artillery towed. The consensus was that self-propelled artillery was better for armored divisions. Chapter IV discusses the period from after the war until 1955. For the most part, the post-war analyses continued in the same vein as the experience of the war: self-propelled artillery for armored divisions and towed artillery for infantry divisions. The Korean conflict emphasized advantages of self-propelled artillery in protecting itself from ground attack. The chapter ends with descriptions of new concepts for self-propelled artillery, based on new technology. Chapter V summarizes, analyzes and concludes. The argument had changed very little during the period covered in this paper because the materiel had changed little. The analysis shows that, of the many reasons cited in the argument, only self-propelled artillery's advantage of rapid occupation of position and its disadvantage of heavy weight were significant reasons. The chapter concludes that by 1955 there was not a preponderance of opinion for either towed or self-propelled artillery exclusively, which was quite proper, as there were many improvements to be made to both forms of artillery transport. In order to obtain these improvements by the best use of technology, soldiers must establish characteristics desired in materiel, and require industry to meet these characteristics.

ADA 364867 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)