volume of fire is hardly the key to winning high intensity conflict anymore. If you want volume for "breakthorughs'" might as well use a nuke. In fact the chinese probably have nukes lined up for precisely thinking on these lines.
And NATO most feared WARPAC SP tube artillery because they were nuke capable and even today Russia has several tactical nukes ready for action.
Precision targeting and electronic attack are however central to warfare today. Airpower will quickly finish off all the high volume shooters. its like this , if high volume firepower has to be generated at a sustained rate "massing" will be required and this will always be susceptible to modern air attack. In kargil, apart from a few PGMs acquired from abroad, we had precious little of what is considered contemporary RSTA capability or precision fires. A single CBU-105 will take out a whole unit of 122mm D-30 clones being fielded by the Chinese.
We also suffered to counter battery fire because the Pakis had Fire finders while we did not. So if they could detect us and we could not, our artillery proved rather "immobile" and susceptible in the mountainous terrain, did it not?
Now imagine if we have the latest sensor capability in the air ( which we are trying to acquire) along with bunker busting ammunition and training. we will decimate opposing forces even before they can begin to respond. this is why the PLA is afraid to take us on even now. they are not attacking because they know they'll have to look at nukes just a few days into any conflict. their precious PLAAF will lose the skies to the IAF within a week and then the real dance will begin.
Even South Korea is only today beginning to build up the instrumentation ranges required for such capability. we are doing the same with Kalaikunda at the core.
On the other hand if ground based fires opt for a more shoot and scoot approach , then the point becomes moot anyway. even then airpower is the key. laser guided artillery shells haven't done to well in the mountains. and for a Ballistic missile or rocket to do very well it needs to approach the capability of the ATACMS T2Ku version in development right now.
yes I am cognizant of MBRL mobility. and in the pancake terrain they are even bigger sitting ducks to airpower. At 50 km/hr you are still a bunny to modern precision fires. at least in the mountains they have some cover
Armies sometimes start acquiring ground based interdiction capability through long range MLRS and BMs to pressurize their own airforces on CAS.
Of course I am hardly arguing about why IA needs motorized howitzers/ SPH etc when it begins a tank assault on the PA. we are dedicated to the China front here.
And by the way I haven't confused anything. My post clearly says we should continue acquiring them. So of course their procurement should continue. but they are hardly the war winning tool they are made out to be.