SinoDefence Forum

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

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 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.

__________________

Mightypeon

Personally, I would also try to look at the conventional challenges the PLA may be facing.
This could be either the Russian or the US army.

Given the fact that M109A6 Howitzers are no longer the most shiny thing around, it may be very worthwhile to attain "qualitative superiority" of the US with using a really shiny class Howitzer for some specific formations. The USA may easily overestimate its technological advantadge in a land war against a major power, leading to misconception that could be exploited.
Concerning the Russians, the staple SP-Gun Akatksaya is supposed to be very formidable (means better than the M109GA3), at least according to my former Hauptfeldwebel who also served in the NVA (East German army) and was in a Russian equipped SP Batallion.

adeptitus

I think we have a couple guys here who served in artillery regiments?

I'm curious as to what the mobility restrictions are for towed guns vs. SP guns? My assumption is that SP guns can traverse irregular terrain better and at faster speed, since most towed guns that I've seen are wheeled and towed by trucks.

Mightypeon

We did a fair bit of cross country with the PZH2000.
I mean, it is on a Tank chassis, so it goes everywhere where a Tank could go.
However, bear in mind that while moving on streets etc. an SP gun is not neccessarly faster than a towed variant, and its certainly more fuel intensive.