Chinese mechanised brigades artillery choises

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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 qualityâ€- 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 battleâ€, 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.
 
Last edited:

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

Major
VIP Professional
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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...
 
Last edited:

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

Junior Member
VIP Professional
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

Junior Member
VIP Professional
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.
 
Top