Pros and cons of rocket artillery
At first glance, the M270 launcher paired with M26 missiles sits in the same family as many Soviet MLRS systems. Its most famous early model, the BM-13 Katyusha, showcased a rapid-fire concept: 16 rockets could be unleashed in about 10 seconds, after which the system swiftly repositioned to avoid counter-battery fire. This rapid response idea influenced many later designs and underscored why rocket artillery became a defining feature of mobile warfare in the mid-20th century.
Rocket propulsion relies on simple, sturdy construction. A basic rocket projectile is a welded cylinder filled with powder that burns and creates thrust through a nozzle. The rails that launch these missiles can be made from a wide range of materials, provided they meet the basic mechanical requirements. The economy and simplicity of rocket artillery proved attractive to many armies, especially when speed and massed fires could overwhelm defensive positions.
After World War II, the Red Army developed a lineage of cheap, rugged systems built on the same conceptual foundation—BM-14, BM-21 Grad, BM-27 Uragan and others traced their roots back to Katyusha. Similar concepts appeared in the West as well, such as the German Nebelwerfer and the American T34 Calliope, though in these cases rocket artillery generally occupied secondary or niche roles rather than becoming the backbone of an army’s firepower. Western forces often pursued more precise, gun-based systems, leading to a long period where rocket artillery was treated with caution or skepticism.
The main drawback of unguided MLRS lies in accuracy. When fired from a modest range, misalignment and dispersal can push shells hundreds of meters from the intended point of impact. To compensate, armies relied on large volumes of fire—mass production, rapid delivery, and stockpiling close to the frontline. In some historical instances, a direct-fire approach was employed as a workaround. The T34 Calliope represented an attempt to create a direct-fire rocket platform on an armored chassis, delivering a heavy volley at relatively short distances. Still, the appetite for precision remained a defining trait of American doctrine, which favored accuracy and guided munitions over field-deployed field artillery with a broad spray of projectiles.
What is unique about the M270?
The key question is not simply the M26 missile alone, but the M270 launcher that was developed after the conflict in 1973 between Israel and its regional adversaries. During hostilities, Israeli missiles demonstrated effectiveness against large-area targets such as anti-aircraft systems and front-line artillery batteries. The United States took notice, especially given NATO’s need to compensate for potentially fewer artillery tubes in a European theater against the Warsaw Pact. Hence, in 1974 Washington launched the program that would become the MLRS family, initially under the General Support Rocket System designation.
American engineers sought to preserve accuracy within the MLRS concept. The theoretical ideal is clear: perfectly level rails, identical rockets, and stable weather should yield tightly grouped impacts. In practice, manufacturing tolerances, weight variations, propulsion inconsistencies, center-of-gravity shifts, and aerodynamics introduce deviations. Weather adds another layer of complexity with wind shear at different altitudes, temperature, humidity, and air density all influencing flight paths.
Advances came through two avenues: higher craftsmanship and a sophisticated fire-control computer. Onboard processing collects weather data, models air density at varying altitudes, and accounts for gravity changes due to altitude. The navigation and targeting system automatically links with terrain data, so the operator only needs to input target coordinates in digital form. This integration made the M270 stand out when it entered service, enabling efficient communication with reconnaissance systems and other intelligence assets.
The rate of fire for the M270 is modest compared with some single-tube systems. A volley of 12 missiles takes about 48 seconds, and there is a four-second interval between launches. By comparison, a system like the BM-27 Hurricane fires one missile at a time. The difference lies in how the M270 can sustain rapid volleying through pre-loaded cassettes, significantly shortening reload times to roughly five to eight minutes, a practical advantage on the modern battlefield.
Why is the M270 often called “steel rain”?
The system first earned battlefield fame during Desert Storm in 1991, when it engaged Iraqi targets using M26 cluster rockets. The M26 variant offered ranges up to 32 kilometers, with extended-range versions reaching 45 kilometers, and delivered hundreds of submunitions designed to saturate wide areas. Western assessments have often noted that the M270 with M26 guidance and dispersion characteristics could outshoot many contemporaries in terms of accuracy, especially when supporting indirect fire missions. Tactical manuals have emphasized the importance of precise targeting to minimize collateral impact while maximizing effect on enemy formations.
During the 1991 conflict, the M270 gained a reputation for delivering heavy, sustained strikes that disrupted enemy artillery and armored formations. It demonstrated how a mobile system could threaten enemy reserves and counter-battery positions with rapid, accurate volleys. As platforms evolved, the M270 also demonstrated flexibility by mounting on different chassis and adapting to varying mission profiles. The later M142 HIMARS introduced a six-rail configuration and prioritized guided munitions higher on the priority list, shifting the balance toward precision-guided effects and longer-range capability.
Will the M26 be a game changer for Ukraine?
Some observers have argued that large stocks of unguided rockets could decisively alter a conflict, citing potential capacity to overwhelm defenses and open breaches in minefields. Yet such projections often reflect political rhetoric as much as military analysis. The central point remains: unguided rockets are cheaper, available in large numbers, and can be deployed quickly, while guided munitions offer precise effects at longer ranges but come with higher costs and more complex logistics. The intended role of the M26 in any theater would likely emphasize counter-battery operations and suppression of integrated artillery networks, rather than attempting a single, definitive breakthrough.
In commentary, analysts note that the value of cluster munitions depends heavily on the layout of defenses, the presence of protective trenches, and the ability of troops to hide from line-of-sight targeting. The debate over whether such weapons can decisively end a conflict typically centers on factors beyond raw firepower, including logistics, morale, and strategic objectives. In practice, the effectiveness of these systems hinges on how they are integrated with reconnaissance, targeting, and electronic warfare assets. The broader assessment remains that while a large supply of missiles can influence dynamics, it is not a magic solution to complex, protracted battles.
Experts have also emphasized political and humanitarian considerations surrounding the deployment of cluster munitions, noting that civilian safety concerns persist in any conflict zone. The discussion continues to revolve around balancing strategic aims with international norms and the implications for civilian populations where such weapons are employed.