Chinese mechanised brigades artillery choises

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

Junior Member
VIP Professional
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

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

Junior Member
VIP Professional
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

Captain
VIP Professional
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.
 
Last edited:

Mightypeon

Junior Member
VIP Professional
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.
 
Top