Chinese mechanised brigades artillery choises

[Gollevainen]

Well as i have promised, here’s an little essey of Chinese artillery and modern artillery trends in general. I will conserate mostly to the PLA mechanised brigades artillery branch as the mechanised brigades are the becoming (or at least they should) the main operational unit of Chinese land forces. The idea of this writing this topic came when i read Asko Sivula’s article (Military Technology 6/1998) about self-propelled artillery vs. towed artillery. He compared these two branch basicly thru cost-effective comparison. I’m going to use his calculations in bases of this post. By all means please feel free to comment and discuss about my statements, i would gladly take part on good artillery discussion wich we unfortunetly didn’t have in the old forum.


Chinese land forces are in the face of big changes as the old “quanty-over quality”- ideology is giving away to more modern military thinking. All branches of PLA are inflicted by these new winds and one of the most visible additions are the new mechanised brigades introducted along side whit the old-shcool divisions and regiments. These mechanised brigades are based on the idea of movment. Strategic mobility is a key element of these forces and it gives lots of new standarts for the equipment in use. Some of the older PLA vehicles and weapons just no longer cope whit these new regulations.
One branch wich clearly faces new proplems and challenges is artillery. No longer can PLA rely on the mass of soviet based towed artillery. Artillery of these new brigades needs to change and come to update along whit the other fields. Acording to Dongfengs main sites section “Army order of battle”, a typical mechanised brigade consist one artillery regiment that is divided to one tupe artillery battalion (122mm) and one MRL battalion. The 122mm tube artillery battalion is to my knowlidge supposedly armed whit Type 89 122mm SP howitsers. But before we take closer look to the PLA’s mechanised brigades artillery force lets have brief summary about artillery in general, it’s role in the battlefield and current trends of development.

Artillery is still the main way to provide instant fire support to infantry and armoured troops (as in finnish army, the armour is usually included under the infantry, so when ever i say infantry, i mean the front line field troops) . Although different kinds of SOWs and heavy infantry usually gets most of the puplicity in media thus igniting the imaginery of many young military enthustiastic, i like to remind that its the artillery that does the destroying and the infantry only manouvres. In all wars of the last century, the artillery has coused most of the damage inflicted in the battlefield. It has also been studyed that among the weterans of the WWII, the artillery fire consentrations were the most feared factor in the battlefield. Artillery can cheaply provide warpower able to destroy all enemy forces and installations whit in its range and therofore, in full scale warfare, no missiles or Ground support aircraft can replace the artillery branch.
As technology has gone forwards, so have the development of artillery pieces. After WWII self-propelled artillery have become the main issue in all artillery discussion by giving much improvments to the old towed howitzers and guns. If few to be mentioned, tactical mobility and crew protection are most significant ones. Althoug many rich western world country have almoust completely dropped towed guns and howitsers out of their inventory, exspecially light towed howitsers have managed to gain their popularity among countryes whit difficoult enviromental conditions. The cost of the SP artillery have also being great factor against them at least in less developted countryes.
One of the revolutionary introductions have been the auxiliary power unit for towed guns. It has given almoust equal tactical mobility to towed guns and howitsers compared to Self propelled ones. From here we get to the Asko Sivula’s article and based on that lest have a little comparison between SP guns vs. Towed ones.
The calculations where made based on that both towed and SP batteryes used 155mm/52cal Gun-howitsers. Here’s the exact prices of average SP and Towed batteryes:

155mm Towed Battery
6 x 155/52cal gun/howitzers US$5.0 mil.
6 x amoured haulers (6x6) US$2.4 mil.
1 x Battery commad vehicle US$0.5 mil.
1 x repair/recovery vehicle US$0.5 mil.
6 x ammo supply trucks (6x6) US$1.1 mil.
Total: US$9.5 mil.

155 SP battery
6 x 155/52 cal SP systems US$25.0 mil.
1 x battery command vehicle US$1.8 mil.
1x repair/recovery vehicle US$1.6 mil.
6 x Ammo supply vehicles US$6.6 mil
Total: US$35.0 mil.

All the calcualtions where made by assuming that single towed artillery battery would consist 75 mens and SP battery 40 mens. Sivula included the personal exspences to the total cost wich where made in four country groups: first group was wealhty country whit enlisted personel, seccond was wealthy country whit conscription system, third was unwealhty country whit enlisted personel and the last one was unwealthy country whit conscription system. China would fall tho the third group. In that country group based on Sivula’s calculations two towed artillery batteryes would cost 13% less than single SP propelled one.
Cost isen’t the only factor when choosing the proper artillery system. The one key element is the ability to provide continious, effective and longrange heavy firepower in all phases of battle. These elements are achived whit tactical mobility or by an adequte numbers of firing units. SP battalions capapility to achive these demands is the posipility to maintaining single battery in fire posistion while the rest of the battalion is on the move. But as the whit the prize of single SP battalion, one can assume that the two towed battalions can provide even more uninterrupted fire support as the one battalion can stay on the fire position while other is moving thus providing more fire via more tubes than the single SP battalion. The effective fire is mostly dependant on the munitions and as both these theoretical battalions uses the same caliber therefor same ammunitions can be used.
To be able to sustain combat readyness in the all phases of battles is also an key element. Towed battalion is more complex than the SP battalion and therefor deployed much more wider area. Thats more of an advatage than default as the fire positions are in wider scale and providing much more harder target to enemy aircrafts and guided munitions. SP artillery enjoys higher protection from splinters and artillery fragments and bomblets. In the other hand SP artillery provides more evident target to guided anti-tank munitions and enemy ground attack aircrafts than towed ones. Also if towed guns are hauled by 6x 6 amoured vehicles as in the calculations, the gun crew is provided and adequate protection at least in the movement phase. When the firing range is exeeded to 40 km, the need for artillery to stay so close to the foward edge of the battlefield isen’t no longer relevant.
Based on these facts the Towed guns seems to be far more rational choise for artillery battalions that the self propelled ones. That isen’t the case. Much is dependent on the operational unit wich the artillery battalion is asingned. In divisional and army corps level the towed artillery is the clearly the best choise. In other hands all amoured brigades and regiments gainmore by having SP artillery battalions as the whole brigade/regiments main units are also moved by tracks. (this essey mostly bases on the fact that most SP systems are tracked) In units where the wheeled APCs are the main infantry fighting units mobilition, the tracked SP systems no longer enjoys the avantage. The SP systems are needed to be hauled whit expensive special haulers when the brigade is on the move and therefor complicating the whole units fighting ability. In here the modern towed APU fitted gun battalions comes to its own. Whit the cost of single SP battalion, two towed ones could be included and therefor greatly increase the brigades capapilityes.
Form here we get back to the Chinese mechanised brigade. To my knowlidge the chinese mechanised units are mostly fitted whit the WZ551 wheeled ACPs, so the ideal artillery system would be Towed gun battalion. As stated previously the brigade is fitted whit single battalion for 122mm SP howitzers. The 122mm Type 89 is the newest of SP artillery systems introducted in PLA, but there is also reports that the new 155mm PZL-45 would soon been fielded by PLA as well.

But is china on the wrong tracks? Well my personal view is that it isent. When looking for china there’s always have to be remembered that the modernisation programe wich affects all branches of Chinese military is still just getting started. The whole mechanised brigade is one part of that big and timeconsuming project. The main issue for chinese artillery modernisations is the adaption of the 155mm calibre and thus gaining the possipility to western modern artillery munitions and systems. The type 89 towed gun is the first step, and there is already a export model fitted whit APU. So i personally belive that in some times of the future China will introduct that weapon or perhaps a modified one for PLA service and the mechanised brigades gets the most suitable artillery system what there is.

[Totoro]

It really is a shame artillery is getting sidetracked in modern armies. But with the lack of a big enemy who you might fight in a costly and long war, quality over quantity, even at an expense of a great financial strain, does seem to reign supreme. In case of a large scale ground war, I am pretty sure artillery would prove it's worth, after large portions of cruise missile and guided bomb stocks have been used up.

Greatest advantage of towed artillery is it's small weight. Even though on the battlefield itself it's less maneovarable than SP, making quick short to medium range transfers by helicopter or packing in dozens of artillery pieces in a C-17 for example is something not achievable with SP artillery.

Thing is, SP artillery through history, and this counts in even modern wars like the gulf war, has rarely been used to maximize its advatages. A battery of guns gets deployed and then it remains at station, firing rounds just like towed artillery would. Yes, deployment time is shorter than towed, protection is greater, but over the average time such a battery is engaging the enemy the number of projectiles is more or less the same as it'd be with towed artillery pieces.

Basically, towed artillery has its uses and i don't see it disappearing. It is on the commander and the strategists to decide which artillery would be more useful in which situation.

A question for the Fin. :) While i see the logic behind repair vehicle being more expensive in a SP artillery battery, why do you say the command vehicle and especially the ammo supply vehicles would be so much more costly than their counterparts in a towed battery? I mean, 6.6 mill compared to 1.1 mill?

[Gollevainen]

A question for the Fin. While i see the logic behind repair vehicle being more expensive in a SP artillery battery, why do you say the command vehicle and especially the ammo supply vehicles would be so much more costly than their counterparts in a towed battery? I mean, 6.6 mill compared to 1.1 mill?

Well in the calculations it was assumed that all the vehicles in the Sp battery are tracked, so thats the main reason. Also whit the towed battery the command vehicle is typicaly command version of the general APC wich is also being used as hauler and the supply vehicles where just normal trucks...tough when i did my military service our batterys bran new command post vehicle based on the XA-200 series ACP went bit offroad and we had to use these comon cargobox converted to serve as commandpost and be hauled whit normal truck. Also our guns where never hauled by the APCs but plain cross-country trucks and im pretty sure that even in wartime some of the towed batteryes are fitted similar ways. That way the cost of the towed battery is even lower...touhg these kind of "low-tech" batteryes and battalions would be assinged to the lowthreat units and not in the FEOBF.

[Totoro]

Still, i don't think it's necesarry to have tracked, heavy vehicles as ammo carriers, unless the point is to have all the vehicles in the battery armored. SP that use tracks use them cause they're too heavy. A truck that carries ammo would not be in the above 40 ton range, so it'd do, capable to follow the artillery vehicles. Only exception could be really soft marshe like ground.

Also, what about wheeled self propelled artillery? modern south african systems, french, swedish, czech for example - they're all long barelled, heavy 155mm on a truck chassis. even the british self propelled m777 based system was to be wheeled. We could definitely use the proposed 1.1 mil supply vehicle for those. :)

So, using simpler wheeled vehicles, for command supply the wheeled self propelled battery would cost little under 30 million. (with the 6 SP systems going for 20 mill, i'd say that's a safe cost cut, since a wheeled vehicle is simpler and lighter than a tracked one)

[Gollevainen]

Also, what about wheeled self propelled artillery? modern south african systems, french, swedish, czech for example - they're all long barelled, heavy 155mm on a truck chassis. even the british self propelled m777 based system was to be wheeled. We could definitely use the proposed 1.1 mil supply vehicle for those

yes another trend thougth not battle proven and wery little have come to my way about the true benefits if these guns, but basicly they offers the same ammout of protection as typical APCs so they usually simplyfies the towed gun solution. but, maybe they are futures choise against heavyer armoured/ tracked platforms, i cant really say as i havent operated one or seen one in the action??

Only faults that comes to my mind if that the truck that carryes the gun brokes, it means the same as whit other SP systems buth in traditional towed gun, you simply get another truck to haul and the gun itself can be used...

[utelore]

Great essay, gollevainen. I believe you have to look at the future progression of the PRC military and their continued ideas of modeling the current U.S operational art “in some cases” I believe the PRC fully understands that in order to “win” conflicts you must gain air supremacy . I believe that once air supremacy has been achieved the battle will then shift to fixed wing and helicopter gunship which can have “eyes on” target while at the same time delivering very heavy fire power. I think the days of a mass 40 tube 155mm arty fire mission are coming to a end. I think you will see the PRC deploy its new attack helo with PRC special forces working in conjunction with those aircraft while at the same time using smaller 120mm mortar fire with laser designators with GPS assist. I have a very close friend who is a CAV scout who works with forward aircraft controllers. His opinion based on direct engagement with enemy forces are that it is much easier and effective to talk with a Attack Helo pilot as they both look at the same enemy from different view points on the battle field while engaging them. Like I have mentioned before many of the U.S army 155mm arty bats are being converted at least manpower wise to other military occupational specialties which are more effective in this new and progressing age of air/land battlefield unification. So, in closing I believe it would greatly benefit the PLA to expand its use of attack helo with the combined use of special forces and smaller more mobile units of indirect fire…….cheers ute

[Gollevainen]

Well, i'm not so eager to dig the grave for PLA artillery. The developments in USA doesen't have so much effect on china as PLA isen't able to do those kind of reforms...yet. Attack choppers and more improved groun attack ability is propaply at the pipeline, but in chinese scale it isen't enough to totally surpass the artillery.
There propaply will be quite big reforms in PLA artillery, but mainly by changing from mass-ex-soviet tubes to more modern 155mm pieces whit sophisticated fire controll and location devices. I'm itching to see when PLA will field a true APU powered 155mm/52 cal. Gun/howitser whit TALIN-type (the aiming& location device in our K98s...made by raytheon) systems.

[utelore]

the development of the U.S armed forces has a huge impact on what the PRC does with its future development of its armed forces. Believe you me that the PRC is working as quickly as possiable to field and deploy a smaller, more professional and LETHAL fighting force. I firmly believe within 3 to 5 years you will see a PRC military that has the same war fighting ability for local conflicts that could match to some extent the abilitys of the U.S military. The down sizing of large cumbersome Arty and older tank Bats are a huge part of this. I believe the air surpemacy part of the PRC plan is for the most part in place. I think you will see now the deployment of fixed wing and helo that will deliever the PGMs for the 70-100% situaltional awarness conflict.

[Gollevainen]

Well but its already evident in chinese miltary, all these new 'rabid reaction troops' and modern mechanised brigades. And not to drift so far away from the topic, the US military devolpment hasent got SO straigth influence for those new chinese formation's artillery choices...

[Mightypeon]

In general, I think that a Brigade can only move as fast as its slowest unit.
Therefore, the deployment of towed guns could significantly reduce the mobility of the entire unit.
So, general mobility is, in my eyes, one of the defining criteria for a proposed candidate.
The 2nd Criteria is the firepower. With Firepower i mean the product of distance, impact and rate of fire of the vehicle.
The 3 Criteria is, can the thing "shoot and scoot" or not.
In this case, there are 3 possible classes:
1: Towed guns, there shoot and scoot abilities roughly equal the ones of a drunken reeindeer.
2: "Old" SP-Howitzers like the M109A3-5. These vehicles can shoot and scoot under speicific conditions, which, amongst other things, consist of good training and the absense of fire finder radars on the other side.
3: "Really Shiny" SP-Howitzers like the PZH-2000. The ability to shoot, hit and move out without beeing tracked by fire finder radars is certainly fun, as is the ability to take "some" hits (A PZH needs a direct hit, most other SP-Artillerys can be taken out by inderect bomblet fire).

I would propose the following:
Equip some elite brigades with "really Shiny" type howitzers. By going like that, they wont limit the speed and maneuverability of the brigade.
In addition, these brigades would also have a distinct advandadtge against comparable american forces, which could turn out beneficial.
They could be rapidly deployed and pose as the "Rapid reaction force" of China.

However, anti insurection duties and fights against significantly weaker opponents can be done as well by towed artillery, actually, the ability to be airmobile (which f.e. a PZH2000 or AS-90-Braveheart does not have) enable them to be more mobile on the strategic scale.

Therefore, I think that towed and SP-Artillery are for pretty different things, and should be employed according to the specialisation of their brigades.

A military as big as the Chinese should have enough room for that kind of specialisation.

[Gollevainen]

Sorry to not reply earlier, been bit busy elsewhere...

It seems that we both represent the too major schools in artillery, towed, o SP both having served with the corresponding type of the school that we hold better.

What comes to the mobility and the the fact that Brigades speed depends on the lowest unit in fact towed guns have far greater benefit over SP guns. SP guns are often tracked system, so their speed is far slower than those moving on wheels. Basicly the SP systmes are so low that they need special trailers to move them along which is highly expensive and still much more slower than towed guns. You see towed guns are, like the name indicates, a towed systems so they need a hauler. Hauling truck can haul the towed gun actully far faster than many other mobile unist in average mechanised brigade. From personal expereince I can tell that the 14 ton 155K98 can be towed over 110 km/h althoug not recommended. In general normal roadspeeds of 80 km/h can be ahcived.

I agree with your criterias and here's few add form my own wievs...

Like I said above about the fist criteria, SP guns do however have an advantage in this field and thats the tactical mobility. As beeing tracked systems, they have better off-road abilityes and deployment is easier as they are if looked as purely mobile platforms much more simple than towed gun and hauler combination.

The criteria two is unrelevant to comparising SP and towed systems as they both can have the same tubes and use the same ammunitions. The actual weapon is the heart of all artillery systems and it's doesen't matter which platform they are fitted. The rate of fire is another matter, but the presence of APU can give the towed guns similar autoloader capabilityes as SP sytems.

The third criteria is the most important in the face of SP and Towed systme comparison. Shoot and scoop. It's true that SP systems have a great avantage in this field, or at least the had. The APU (auxiliary power unit) fitted in modern towed guns pretty much eats the advantage of SP systems to very minium.

The shoot and scoop tactic is important when facing enemy with counter battery radars. So firing and getting out of the firepositions is highly important.
So lets look this form the Towed APU fitted guns spectrum, 155K98 for example:

The APU enables the gun moving around by itself for short distances with soem 12 km/h. It also gives power to various hydraulic systmes which reduces the time needed to put the gun in action and taking it off. The deployment to the fire position is the most time consuming phase of the entire artillery operations. 155K98 as able to be deployed in about 5 mins when arriving to the fire position. The gun itself, changed from the driving mode to the shooting mode is made in 2 minutes by three to four mens. The most timedraining task is to spade the gun down to the ground (tough some singaporean towed guns have found spadeless solution to stabel the gun). But the deployment is rahter irrelevant as the counter battery fire is only isseu when you have fired your first rounds. The disaseemble of the gun is the more relevant matter.
155K98 can be disasembled and driven out from the fire position propaply faster than oldest SP guns. In few minutes. It's slower than let say PZH2000 but still quite faster than non-APU guns like D-30, which needs about 10 minutes. I don't know exactly how fast is the counter battery firing, but asemble the ammunitions and charges plus aiming the gun needs few minutes at least so the time is just enough...

Lets look at another important priority still unmentioned, the ability to give continious fire support (which is the main task of all artillery)
The lower cost of towed guns ables 6 gun batteries and 18 gun battalions. This gives the posipility to rotate the guns deployment and shooting rate more than in 4 gun SP batteries and 12 gun battalions. Lets look this more closely form one batterys eyes:

The batterys two fireplatoons are disperenced in such a wide area if enemy counter battery fires at one platoon, the other is safe from the hits. THe first paltoon comes to the position and fires a quick burst of few rounds each and then scoops out as fast as possiple. Then when the firts paltoon is on the move or already deplying to next pre-selected fire positions, the seccond platoon does the same thing and so on. In battalion level the rotation can be made that one battery fires and other is on the move. The ammount of tubes firing have considerable effects on the very effectivness of the artillery fire.

But like you said both SP and Towed systems have their palce in the battlefield and army the size of PLA sure can afford the both systems. To which unit having which type is the key issue. As the mobility is the number one priority, the selection of the proper artillery system should be made on the fact which type of brigade you have. Amourd brigades tends to have tracked vehicles as a main mobilisation solution so tracked SP systems are naturally the best choise. But these mechanized brigades that orginally were the topic of this thread are another thing. In chinese case they are mostly fitted with the wheeled WZ551 ACPs which are naturally more faster than tracked IFVs and ACPs. So in light of this the towed artilery (with modern systems with APU) is more ideal choise. Sadly, china currently doesen't posses such a systems.

[Mightypeon]

I have to confess that my knowledge on APUs is close to nonexistant, but I could enlighten you a bit about conuter battery fire.
In general, the enemy has to be located, the artillery has to move to aim and to fire.

Ill go in for Tube Based counter artillery first.
Moving Aiming and Firing speeds depend on the artillery system used. A PZH gets the Job done in about 1 minute.
After this minute, the ammunition has to travel to the enemy and (hopefully) hit them. This varies with the distance and (slightly) with the used projectile.

The other side is actually locating the fire.
To do this, there are 2 possible options:
A: Standart (active) Fire Finding radars.
These radars can pick up artillery shells on the fleight (with varying degrees of reliablity), transmit these to their command and than issue conuter battery fire. However, this is an active system, and therefore can be easily detected by counter radar units.
B: Seismic: Another way is to track the kinetics of the rounds when they hit earth. Using sophisticated measures, the direction and distance the artillery shell came from is extractable from the information recorded on the impact.
This system is passive (emits no signs to be traced by the enemys anti radar) but takes a bit longer (enemy position is know when the shell hits, with basic fire finders its known when the shell is fired) and is a bit less reliable (it also relies on semi exact wind/weather data for example).


The detection system for MLRS/MARS like missle artillery are practically the same, they get additional range and a very heavy effect on impact but loose the ability to deliver sustained fire.

On of my gripes with towed artillery is the difficulty in dishing out counter battery fire. It is true that the time to deploy does not count as much during a normal fire setup, but in a CB-Situation this time is critical (well, towed vs. towed artillery is a race who can assemble or disassemble his gun faster).

Of course, a Battalion or Platoon of guns may sit a firing position and wait till the other side exposes themselves, however, chances are that a fast SP-Artillery can still be to fast or to hard for them.
Although I would still rather not been hit, a PZH can theoretically stand Bomblett and not direct HE hits.
In addition, sitting with a towed gun in a firing position is not something you should do if you are up against an actual enemy army.

If going for towed artillery, one may counter this disadvantadge by utilizing rocket systems to compensate, but this would (as, ifrc rocket launchers can be quite expensive).

To sum it up: If you are up against modern (really shiny type) Howitzers, Counter Battery fire can hit in (1 minute for going in and firing, 15 secs for getting information, lets say 20 secs shell flying time) under 2 minutes.
If you are the one counter firing, you can, against towed forces, propably dominate the artillery battle and thus gain a significant advantadge.

[Mightypeon]

Addendum: Regarding the rate of fire, SP-Howitzers can limit the quantiative disadvantadge by spending less time with scooping and thus more with shooting.
Bascially, you fire, get the heck away, go to another position and fire again, this is usually done in 4-5 minutes, compared to the propably quite more minutes towed guns would need.

I do not know how good towed guns are at conducting MRSI (Multiple rounds Same impact, you shoot several rounds with one gun, which, due to some fancy calculating, hit their target at the same time.) maneuvers, but I recon that this propably is a bit more difficult if the firing system is not computerrized
However, towed artillery probaply still has an advantadge in alpha strike (fire everything you got at the same time) situations.

[Gollevainen]

You raised good points. In this counter battery fire issue, the biggest thing that intress me is the complete time from the first rounds fired by the enemy artillery, the time of detecting them, calculating the fire and get that information to your own units, repreard the ammunitions and fire them agaisnt the enemy.

Most important in my wievs are the time that it used in your own artillery units to aim the gun and most importantly, reprear the ammunitions and charges. I'm not sure how exactly it is done with the PZH2000 but in both D-30 and with 155K98, the basic idea was that you prepare the ammunitions and make the proper charges when you know where to shoot, in practice the Hq gives you command to prepare 10 number 2 charges for instance.

In counterbattery firing, you cannot know where the target is untill it fires it's first rounds. Then only can the calculators count the needed charges and pass that order to the firing units. Preparing the charges takes, depended on the ammount of need 1-3 minutes. The more rounds you need to fire, the more time you need to prepare more charges.

So it takes at least 5 mins (in my obinion) when the counterbattery fire can be started so that gives at least theoretical changes to APU fitted towed guns to scoop out, as they are in effect a some sort of "self-proppelled guns"...without APU, there is no change against effective counterbatteryfire.


Addendum: Regarding the rate of fire, SP-Howitzers can limit the quantiative disadvantadge by spending less time with scooping and thus more with shooting.
Bascially, you fire, get the heck away, go to another position and fire again, this is usually done in 4-5 minutes, compared to the propably quite more minutes towed guns would need

Thats true as towed artillery, regardless of the APU needs almoust ten minutes to deployment. Getting out of the fire positions can be done in mere minutes if using APU, but getting in the new fire positions needs lot more time. This disavantage can be however compensate with higher ammount of tubes in single battery or battalion.


I do not know how good towed guns are at conducting MRSI (Multiple rounds Same impact, you shoot several rounds with one gun, which, due to some fancy calculating, hit their target at the same time.) maneuvers, but I recon that this propably is a bit more difficult if the firing system is not computerrized
However, towed artillery probaply still has an advantadge in alpha strike (fire everything you got at the same time) situations.

The D-30 used tradditional optical aiming devices, but 155K98 uses Talin-2000computerized navigation, positioning and aiming system. We never practiced that MRSI type of shooting so I cannot say wheter 155K98 can do it.

[Mightypeon]

Some points about the PZH-2000. Please bear in mind, that this propably represents german only technology.

Charges: Although the older British and American Charge Systemns (We called the Beutel or Stabladungen, the stuff everyone else is using) are still in use, the actual system is the "Modulares Treibladungsystem". It consist of up to 8 identical charges, which you can attach on each other like in a Lego Set.

A PZH has some 200 in it, which are just taken out and stitched together.
This drastically reduces the preperation time.

You can just plonk them together, and it can also be done while driving (if its not to shaky). The PZH targetting computer can be directly fed with the targets data and also starts calculating while driving to the firing position.
Once there, the Gunner hits the "Auto-Aim" button and the turret automatically (and pretty quickly) moves where it is supposed to be. The Shell (PZH loads some 70 rounds iirc, and the computer knows which round is where) is automatically loaded, the loader inserts the charge (loading is a matter of 4 seconds per shot) and you are ready to fire.

Under exercize conditions, we needed one minute to fire off, you can add the time intervall for the flying rounds and the time intervall from transmitting the information, but its still fast enough to get someone who needs more than 2 mins to move out.

You can also load the shell (which will propably be Bomblett or HE) before any fire oder gets in and drive around with it in the barrel, gets you another 2-3 seconds.

Its not like with the M109 where you had to manually get the turret into the right angle (which is quite difficult), you drive in, stop, rotate the turret and fire.
This is the actual point for the PZH, counter battery fire in less than 2 minutes, + near immunity to CB fire because of armour/scoot out speed.

[Gollevainen]

Thanks for the information...We used bit similar system with the 155K98 and in fact almoust all western 155mm artillery systems uses these individual charges. We called the system a "finnish system" as the opposite was the "russian system" which we get used with the D-30. The Finnish system was like you descriped but we had to first unload the bags form their containers (tough this was propaply a peacetime safety meassures, in war more compact storing methods would be used) and tie the bags of powder together. The aiming of the gun was done manually, but with the TALIN-2000 system you just moved the wheels untill it says "good" in the terminal.

The russian charge system was bit different...The D-30 used these old cartus-type of charges where the bags of powder was stuffed in these metal shells. Preparing those took lots of more time as did the preparation of ammunition (The russians had this weird habbit of stuck this extremely poisonous crease to everythin made from metal so we had to scrats the directional circles (the swalloed part of the ammunition) clean before they could be stucked to the tube...Also the numeratical system regarding the charges where different in the "finnish" and "russian" systems, in the finnish one, number one charge was the smallest eg. one bag of powder and in the russian system, the number one charge was the third largest (largest beeing the full charge and seccond the serial charge) eg. one bag taken of from the charge...Using those two systems paralel was bit confusing as they often don't choose no spacescientist to artillery;)


But i'm actullay quite impressed of the PZH2000 performances, but then again it's propaply one of the best SP systems in service anywhere in the world...

[Norfolk]

With the PLA converting more and more from Soviet- to Western-type artillery, Fire Control and Communications are going to be major challenges, as I'm sure the PLA is by now well aware of. Progressively retiring older Soviet-type pieces and replacing them with NATO-type pieces means far more than just physically replacing artillery pieces and retraining crews. It means changing over to an entirely different concept of warfare.

It's relatively easy to get adequate fire support from great masses of towed guns, but replacing many towed guns with fewer self-propelled guns (in armoured and mechanized formations anyway) while still getting at least a similar (and preferably better) level of fire support means very heavy dependence upon communications nets, satellite GPS (ideally), and large numbers of munitions vehicles and lots of repair and recovery teams. It is unclear that China (as yet) is able to defeat Western-type electronic jamming of its artillery communications nets, not to mention any satellite GPS system it may rely upon. And I have seen no information on how the PLA organizes its Fire Control Direction Centres or on its Artillery communications and fire control procedures (amongst other things).

Presumably, the PLA has been working on such problems for a while now, but there is a great gap to be bridged between the Soviet-style system (with armour and infantry units being restricted to calling upon only the commander of the artillery battery firing in their support for fires, thus greatly reducing the radio communications issues involved) to the NATO-style system with complex radio communications nets, relatively sophisticated fire control planning and procedures, and the measures taken to counter electronic jamming - and I'm not even going to get into NATO-type artillery logistical support. It's a tremendous transition, and it will take a lot of time, trial and error to get it right.

It has to be said that the old Soviet-style system of artillery support had its advantages. One, the Soviets often used preplanned barrages straight out of the World Wars, with even the guns themselves arranged in a straight battery line for ease of plotting fires and laying guns. Of course, the Soviets also surveyed battery positions manually (much, much slower than GPS, but invulnerable to any jamming), and often used the Self-Propelled Guns in the direct-fire role, thus negating not only most jammming, but in fact dispensing with practically any need for pre-planning of fires at all, just moving along behind the tanks and firing over open sights at anything that moved. Granted, SPG losses would go way up, but direct fire is a few times more effective than indirect fire, and short of destroying the SPGs themselves, such fires cannot be disrupted by electronic jamming. And the Soviets had plenty of SPGs to replace any that they lose in any case. Plus, Soviet radios used vaccuum tubes, so EMP couldn't really harm them much.

THAT said, the self-propelled artillery that the PLA is re-equipping its mechanized brigades with is necessary given their potential areas of operation. Central Asia is frequently suggested as a possible battlefield for China, given the vast petroleum deposits in the region. A threat to those deposits might compell Chinese intervention (possibly under SCO auspices, most members of which are the very Central Asian countries with those deposits). Western China and Central Asia feature both hard rock and soft sand deserts, as well as rugged plateaus and mountains; much of the region is not only passible to heavy armoured/mechanized forces, it is positively conducive to them. Some of the "Light Mechanized" units that China is forming and experimenting with appear designed to operate in the mountains as well as Light Infantry. The SPGs that the PLA is re-equipping its armoured and mechanized brigades with are the Type 89 155mm tracked SPG (126 per mechanized Group Army) and the SH-2 122mm wheeled SPG (36 per mechanized Group Army).

If the PLA has access to satellite GPS (or at least something approaching it), then it can dispense with having to survey battery positions prior to battle (or even worse, having to survey them immediately prior to occupying the battery position). SPGs make this much easier than towed guns (though that advantage is somewhat negated by inceasing automation for towed artillery).
Self-propelled guns do offer much greater tactical mobility if they are tracked (and are subject to significantly lesser hull and suspension stresses than wheeled SPGs). Wheeled move much faster on roads than tracked SPGs, and as such are perhaps better suited to General Support than Direct Support roles, as they may have greater opportunity to use roads and less need to move cross-country with the armour and infantry forces. It is interesting that the armoured/mechanized Group Armies that the PLA is reorganizing and re-equipping are being equipped with both tracked and wheeled SPGs.

As to whether wheeled SPGs are suitable as Direct Support Artillery for mechanized brigades equipped with armoured cars (wheeled APCs) rather than tracked APCs or IFVs, I have to say that, while it may be logical, I do not see any reason to have mechanized brigades equipped with wheeled armoured vehicles, unless such formations are restricted to internal security tasks. Heavy, tracked IFVs can do practically anything a wheeled APC can do, and have a much better chance of survival on the battlefield. The PLA's emulation of Western, especially NATO, concepts appears to extend to the Stryker Brigade, and for the aforementioned reasons, as well as many others, I do not see it as being a good idea. Slavish emulation of Western armies' ideas does not ensure the acquisition of Western standards; conversely, it can lead to adoption of Western errors and mistakes.

Notwithstanding what I have just written, in at least two senses, however, the PLA has broken with Western/NATO concepts here. The reorganization of the armoured/mechanized brigades of the heavy Group Armies has been along the lines of the Soviet Unified Army Corps, or Operational Maneouvre Groups (things that 20 years ago or so used to give some in NATO nightmares), but composed of almost US-style Brigade Combat Teams. As a result, the PLA's heavy Group Armies have gone from a more conventional composition of 3 Armoured Divisions and a Mechanized Division to a strange Soviet OMG/US BCT hybrid of 2 Armoured "Brigades" and 2 Mechanized "Brigades", along with a brigade each artillery, engineers, etc, air-defence battalion, etc. A very eclectic synthesis of concepts, but I fear that it they may be mismatched, especially given the coupling of heavy/tracked armoured brigades with the wheeled fighting vehicles and SPGs of the mechanized brigades. This is not WWII.

It remains unclear if the PLA, as it continues to re-equip its mechanized forces with SPGs has achieved at least a basic competency in NATO-style artillery operations. Even if it has, or will do so soon, it will still have some way to go to master more advanced NATO artillery concepts such as Dispersed Gun (which at least some in NATO have given up on because of the expense involved) and Silent Battery. Even much older, simpler, though less effective (though jam-proof) counter-battery measures such as flash spotting and sound-ranging that some NATO artillery troops still practice or have reintroduced over the last 15 years or so (due to issues with or the vulnerabilities of artillery- and mortar-locating radars) may or may not be in the PLA's repertoire. Given the PLA's clear emulation of many Western concepts, there may well be a great deal left for the PLA to master to bring it up to NATO standards, particularly in its armoured and mechanized/light mechanized brigades.

I would suggest that if the PLA is intent on being able to fight mobile, high-intensity land campaigns, that it invest in Heavy armoured forces with tracked vehicles and SPGs (Type 89 in many respects is much superior to M-109A6 Paladin, though somewhat inferrior to PzH 2000), and dispense with the "Mechanized (actually Motorized) - including Light and Amphibious" - Brigades and their wheeled vehicles and SPGs altogether (the SH-2 wheeled SPG is of only 122mm calibre, whereas Type 89 is 155mm/45calibre and has superior cross-country with its tracks, while SH-2, while of the superior 155mm/52 calibre, being wheeled, is suitable only for general, not direct, support). For regions in which Heavy forces are not suitable due to extreme climate or terrain, neither wheeled SPG is suitable, nor even desirable compared to towed artillery. I fear that the PLA, regardless of what its choice of piece for its mechanized brigades, so long as they are wheeled, is either way still barking up the wrong tree. And that is setting aside the matter of whether China is successfully mastering Western/NATO-style artillery operations and procedures in the first place.

[crobato]

Yes, the PLA has access to satellite GPS, even the US system. Notwithstanding, they may also have access to GLOSNASS. Not to say the least, they have their own, the Beidou system, which seems to be expanding and getting more accurate. The Beidou system also doubles as a communication system which is where it differs from GPS.

[Gollevainen]

Well my obinion about chinese future artillery directions haven't changed that much from what I tried to explain when I orginally started this thread.

Norfolk raised some good points and I wish to reply to few of them.

First is the general idea of wheeled vs. tracked vehicles based divisions/brigades. I agree, and I think its rather obvious that having only one alternative is more logical than mixed systems...to certain exeptions.
The thumbrule is that the divisions or brigades manuverings are tied to the speed and mobility of the slowest/lowest units. If the main manuverable units, eg. infantry battalions are using wheeled ACPs or IFVs, the firesupport, supply and communication elements should not use tracked vehicles as the strategical mobility of the wheeled vehicles cannot be fully utilizased.
Tracked vehicles can ofcourse be transported via trailers but against each vehicle, you need one hauler and one trailer and the logistical nightmare is just around the corner. Also you cannot use trailers in tactical transition phases which can however be almoust as long as strategical transitions. And even if the distances are shorter, you are still as slow in general retrospect as your slowest tracked units.
In divisions where the tracked vehicles are the main methods of transport, the situation against wheeled vehicles aren't fully adoptible as anotherway around. No matter what sort of division you have you cannot fully replace the common cross-country truck as the main vehicle for various support units. Also as the overall manuverability of the division/brigade is already tied to the slowness of the tracked ACPs, IFVs or MBTs, having units that are considerably faster isen't much of a factor.

As for artillery point of view, I personally see no real benefits of tracked vehicles. Their only real benefit is the better cross-country performance, but in reality it's not that much of signifigance. In enviroment where even the modest motorised units can operate needs some sort of roadnetwork to begining with. Places where it doesen't exist is rarely the place for so large scale engagements where you would need divisional level firesupport missions. Having said so the cross-country performances of modern trucks and even more so of the ACP hulls are ususally enough for places were there is even modest infrastructure.
For example we managed to get quite tight locations with our Rasi cross-country trukcs and where it couldn't go was already non-suitable for fire positions no matter what type of platform you were using. With the APU we could get the guns to be driven straight to the fire position if the passageway was too narrow for the hauler.

The main requirement for todays artillery is the mobility and I prefer the fast and longreaching strategical mobility far above some theoretical tacktical reach. Artillery units needs to be fast and be able to change fire positions rapidly and using all the possiple reach which the combat enviroment offers to you. So thus having wheeled artillery units are much more desirable even in divisions/brigades where the main manuveralbe unit uses tracked vehicles. At least the artillery gets in place right on time and the battalion commander has one stress-element deleted when he doesen't have to wait as the tracked SP guns changes firepositions.

I'll continue more about this alongside with the firecontrol/navigation issues later today.

[Norfolk]

Well my obinion about chinese future artillery directions haven't changed that much from what I tried to explain when I orginally started this thread.

As for artillery point of view, I personally see no real benefits of tracked vehicles. Their only real benefit is the better cross-country performance, but in reality it's not that much of signifigance. In enviroment where even the modest motorised units can operate needs some sort of roadnetwork to begining with. Places where it doesen't exist is rarely the place for so large scale engagements where you would need divisional level firesupport missions. Having said so the cross-country performances of modern trucks and even more so of the ACP hulls are ususally enough for places were there is even modest infrastructure.
For example we managed to get quite tight locations with our Rasi cross-country trukcs and where it couldn't go was already non-suitable for fire positions no matter what type of platform you were using. With the APU we could get the guns to be driven straight to the fire position if the passageway was too narrow for the hauler.

The main requirement for todays artillery is the mobility and I prefer the fast and longreaching strategical mobility far above some theoretical tacktical reach. Artillery units needs to be fast and be able to change fire positions rapidly and using all the possiple reach which the combat enviroment offers to you. So thus having wheeled artillery units are much more desirable even in divisions/brigades where the main manuveralbe unit uses tracked vehicles. At least the artillery gets in place right on time and the battalion commander has one stress-element deleted when he doesen't have to wait as the tracked SP guns changes firepositions.

I'll continue more about this alongside with the firecontrol/navigation issues later today.

If it is true that self-propelled artillery in general, and tracked SPGs in particular, are quite unnecessary and don't offer much in the way of practical advantages, then we could buy a lot more towed arty (up to a usable, supply-able point) and probably still save money (not just on the pieces, but also on al lot of spare parts, fuel, mechanics, tolls, equipment, etc.). I'm still not totally convinced that towed arty is preferable to self-propelled (and especially tracked) arty, but if the tactical advantages of SPGs to towed guns are at best marginal, then it only makes sense to go for the towed pieces.

[Gollevainen]

SP artillery has it role and place in modern warfare. The shoot and scoop ability is still its main advantage (tough with APU, towed guns can have it too, yet in more limited scale). Wheter to have wheeled or tracked SP guns is ofcourse another thing.

Reason why I am strongly advocating other solutions than purely selfpropelled based system is that the existence of APU (auxiliary power unit) gives towed guns alot of those abilities which once were SP guns privilegs. Unlike many people often belives, the actual weapon in both SP and towed artillery pieces are/can be the very same. Only the methods to move the tube and platform around is different. For example all soviet SP guns had their towed alternatives and many western systems have or at least have been proposed both variants. The type of ammunitions and charges are not anyway tied to the gun being selfpropelled or towed one.
The idea to bring more and more sophisticated electronics and computers to artillery pieces first started from SP guns for quite obvious reasons; SP guns had the vehicles engine to power hydraulics and giving recharging the batteries for radios and other electronics. APU basicly gives all this to towed guns as well. For example our 155K98 is set from firing mode to transport mode and vice versa by using 5 control sticks for various hydralics and the transition can be made in 2 minutes from transport mode to firing mode and even faster back to firing mode. Basicly it can be done by single man tough that ofcourse increases the time however. With normal non-APU fitted towed 14 ton gun needs at least 7-8 mens and takes 10-15 minutes to set in firing mode. This enable shoot and scoop ability tough not as fast as with most modern SP units, still IMO enough to avoid all but the most modern counterbattery fire. Alongside the hydraulic, 155K98's APU powers the Talin 2000 firecontrol computer and navigation set.

Our gun is just one example of APU fitted guns and there are many other availble some even slightly...well only the very modest...better than ours:p with some features that makes the shoot-and-scoop ability even better (like self-lowering spades and ammunition crane). Altough APU fitted guns wont mach modern SP guns 1:1, they still give generational leap compared to normal towed guns and their cost-effectivness exspecially with manpower intense armies like PLA compared to SP guns is so considerable that no general nor politican should surpass them.
PLA has hell of alot divsions and regiments which all need their organic artillery units. Most of PLAs current artillery is desperetly outdated. Aside the SP units, most of the towed pieces are based on post-WWII era soviet designs and some are even directly based on WWII era pieces. The PLL01 (155mm) is the only even modestly modern towed system that Chinese have introduced and even it hasen't yet entered full service. The task is huge and the expences will rise to astrodominal limits if all artillery is about to be replaced by the SP systems.
So given the size of the "fleet" which needs replacements the only reasonable mean to do it and at the same time retrain (or in this case obtain) the capability of modern artillery pieces is to go with APU fitted towed guns as the main divisional level system. For mehcanised units and tank units, SP guns are prefertable solution but for infatry divisons and motorised units the towed APU guns are the way to go.

About GPS and other navigational issues later on

[Norfolk]

Gollevainen:

So it would be fair to say that while tracked, armoured self-propelled artillery is necessary for Armoured Divisions (for obvious reasons), the advantages of SPGs (especially tracked) over towed artillery are otherwise marginal, while the advantages of using towed artillery in units other than Armoured Divisions are many. Therefore, towed artillery is the best practical choice for both Infantry Divisions as well as for Corps-level artillery general support units. Would you agree, or is this oversimplified?

[Gollevainen]

Well perhaps little bit oversimplifiedly said. Several variables have quite much effect on the modern artillery choises. As I described in my very first opening post in this thread, the cost-effectivity is much related to which type of army you have and from the overall development factor of the spesific country.
Towed guns are as a platform far inexpensive than selfpropelled systems, exspecially tracked ones. But however towed artillery units are much more manpower intense and alone the 6 gun per battery (compared 4 in SP batteries) means much more manpower required for. This makes the cost-effectiviness more trickier as you have to take acccount the different expenses of manpower. For countries with proffesional army and high salary costs, the towed guns cost-effectivness is suddenly marginal or even slightly more expensive than SP guns. On the countary in conscription armies in both developted countries and developing countries the cost-effectiviness is in favour of towed guns.
The general trend in wealthy countries with enlisted armies have been somewhat minimalizing the quantivity of artillery units. Many western europe army have practically given up all towed guns and have only handfull of modern SP systems. This quite logical in the light of cost-effectivness and the doctrines and enviroments in which the armies are mented to fight.
For chinese case the situation is different. Altough PLA is nowaday enlisted army, its still highly manpower-intense and its doctrines still rely on large scale land force conserations. This calls for alot of artillery and thus the cost-effectivness is important factor. Also large armies have the possibility to have dedicated systems for different type of units and roles (unlike in small armies where single artillery system takes care of all levels of artillery operations) so it can use the benefits of both towed APU fitted guns and SP guns.


I would like to point out that my "agenda" is not to state that towed APU fitted guns are the ultimate choise or that they are better artillery systems than SP units. I've only tryed to correct the false misinturperations that towed guns are relics of the history and that APU fitted towed guns have their place in mordern battlefield.