Battle of the Big Guns: Archer or PzH 2000?

Battle of the Big Guns: Archer or PzH 2000? - In modern artillery, firepower and mobility are key. Imagine a battlefield where speed meets precision, and one devastating barrage can turn the tide of war. In this video, we pit two of the most advanced self-propelled howitzers head-to-head: Sweden’s Archer and Germany’s PzH 2000. Both are powerful and deadly, but which one truly dominates the battlefield? Dive into the details with us and see which artillery system stands at the top of the artillery food chain.

00:44 - Origins and Development
02:30 - Technical Specifications
03:51 - Mobility
04:34 - Firepower and Range
05:19 - Survivability
06:39 - Cost and Logistics

Subscribe Now :

[nukkinfuts]

Perhaps the actual PzH can take a beating but the crew chilling outside the PzH at the back dont like shrapnel that much.
Less maintenance, lower cost, less crew, less logistics the Archer is the clear winner..
PzH is a specialized system, engine, drivetrain etc and the Archer use regular Volvo 6x6 parts that make them extremely reliable.

[Bluedis]

Only important part of thsese two are that its not American systems :)

[CRH.Williams]

RCH 155 and on a tracked chassis would definitely outperform the tracked PzH 2000 in terms of ''ease of use'' and ''operational flexibility''.
The PzH 2000 is less easy to use but has better protection, which it also needs because; in contrast to the RCH 155 and Archer, it's a manned system, it also can carry more ammunition.
The RCH 155 on a wheeled chassis would be comparable to the wheeled Archer; good in urban environments and on roads, but less so when used off-road. When the same chassis is used as on the Archer (Volvo 6x6)
It performs better than most wheeled trucks would perform in terms of off-road.
Most trucks only do well on roads and in urban environments but the Volvo 6x6 is a little bit exceptional in that case.
Both RCH 155 and Archer are chassis/platform agnostic in that sense.
The PZH 200; less so. But it's very good off-road due to its tracked chassis.
Unfortunately, it's not easy to clean and gets dirty fast because of it being a manned system. All these three are very precise in terms of long-range firepower compared to other systems. But they are more sensitive than most other self-propelled howitzers in terms of the durability of barrels and other components.

[byched]

Also, note that the BAE Archer is fully automated and never have the need to leave the cockpit. It's also safe from NBC- Nuclear, Biological and Chemical.

[AgnesSmartGirl]

Ukrainian soldiers call the Archer an "assault cannon". Very useful in battles in Kursk.

[rolyantrauts]

Says in 1st sentence 'Fire power & mobility' Archer a mile ahead the PzH 2000 that struggles to shoot & scoot.

[periculosumadversario]

Archer is the more modern system. It can be operated by 1 person if needed, 3 usually, the newest shells can reach around 70km, and it can fire 21 rounds in 3 min (though usually said able to to fire 10 rounds/min). Tracks or wheels? The Archers wheels are NOT Ceasar-wheels. Stand by them and a person 1, 85m tall will see it is about as tall. Six of those gets you around in grueling terrain. Tracks have their pro's, as we know.

[fjn]

I think Europe will benefit very much in having both in its arsenal

[staffanemren]

Why didn't you put more focus on Ukraines experiences with these vehicles? They have dubbed Archer "sniper of artillery", and use it extensively for counter battery fire.

[scyphe]

The Archer is an amazing piece of artillery. It can scoot even before the shells have reached their target. It's just as accurate as the most accurate modern artillery systems from other countries. None of them comes close to the Archer when it comes to shoot and scoot. It's also a very 'comfortable' system for the operators who stays in the warm and protected cabin. The thing is, the Archer and the PzH 2000 have different strengths and thus uses. Archer is a surgical tool with very high survivability. The PzH 2000 has longer range, can fire up to 10 rounds/minute compared to Archers ~8/rounds per minute. The PzH can go most places in most terrains while the Archer can move a lot faster on it's 6x6 wheels. In the end both artillery systems are among the best in the world and they complement each other on the battlefield with their different characteristics.

[abugina]

The PzH 2000 is a beast but a specialized beast from a different time. Comparing the Archer with the RCH 155 would be way more interesting.

[coenradus]

Price, low maintenance cost and fewer personnel are the winning formula.

Thus the archer wins.

For an army budget you can buy and maintain more equipment with fewer personnel.

More equipment also means more flexibility on the battlefield. Instead of having a crew of five at a location, you can have two crews at different locations.

Last plus factor for the archer. Most likely an army won’t even use them as the chances of a country getting into a conflict is very unlikely, Ukraine is just very unfortunate.

So keeping costs low means more spending on healthcare…

[muppstrom]

Archer, built so you can use any truck chassis

This variant is built on the most common mining truck in the world

Reliable, easy to serve and safe

[FestungEuropa.v]

The PZH2000 can have 5 projectiles in the air at the same time, not just 3!

[finscreenname]

An artillery shell is only going so far unless you add 100K enhanced shells (Excaliber cost a 100K per shot). Militaries are going to have to build light, fast and cheap everything as long as drones make pretty much everything just a target. Like with the Navy after WWII battleships were too expensive to build, to big of a target, to expensive to take care of, had a limited usage and you wouldn't want to risk losing one. So now its nothing but aircraft carriers and smaller ships. As I look in the future imho all of this super heavy equipment is going away. No reason to build a tank when you can build 5 APC's with big enough guns for the same money that all can be blown up by a $500 drone the same way. Why have a super expensive artillery system when a cheap drone can fly right in your front door just as far away and get video of the hit proving they did it. Worse yet most of these artillery systems use drones to spot where their target is and if they hit it. Starp a $3000 unguided 155mm shell to a drone and you now have an 100K Excalibur shell for about $3500 and don't need the big gun and truck to shoot it off.

[vik]

On range a quick google search, I´d say their range is pretty much the same info taken from the manufacturers pages.

PzH 2000
"This unsurpassed weapons system combines long range – it can fire standard NATO rounds up to 30 or 40 km and engage targets at distances of up to 56 km with enhanced range munitions – with excellent battlefield mobility."

Archer
"The range is 40 km with conventional 155mm ammunition and 50+ km with precision guided munitions like the M982 Excalibur. ARCHER carries 21 complete rounds ready to fire in fully automated magazines. The entire gun system is controlled by operators from the armoured cabin."

PzH wins in rounds per minute, but realistically how many rounds do you need to fire at a target to take it down, if you can hit it with 1 precision round I doubt you´ll need more only reason would be if you are firing at several different targets in one salvo.
I´d say Archer takes the win due to the shoot and scoot strategy, you typically don´t need artillery to go into mud and trenches you just need to get within 40 - 60 km proximity to the target shoot and scoot.

[koendeprez]

The PZH 2000 is an older system, even with upgrades . That's why Germany is going to replace it with the RCH 155 which can also fire on the move and also has only a crew of two .

[Mimer]

484 / 5 000
Some important facts are completely forgotten. In these drone times, it is important to quickly hide. The PzH200 cannot do that. When they have fired, their cannon barrel shines like a spotlight. The Archer's barrel does not. It is folded down under a heat-insulated hood so that not much IR light radiates from it.
I doubt the PzH2000's terrain characteristics with a weight of 55 tons, while the Archer with only 33.5 tons can get along on small forest roads and alongside these roads without sinking into the ground.

[pp-bbjj]

What are the possibilities of increasing the range of the gun to 80-100 km without costly ammunition?

[hollymorningwood]

With the Panzerhaubitze 2000 you have a 360° Turret and can turn around in the same place without endless shunt, which is not possible with the archer.

But on roads and wide ranges better use the archer.

So the RCH 155 on GTK Boxer or Mowag Piranha can be a good Remix of bove in the future.