Self Propelled Gun/Rocket Launcher

sndef888 said:

A long range gun seems a lot more vulnerable to counter artillery strikes considering they'll likely have to be extensively stabilised and would definitely be much heavier than PHL-16 trucks

With China's extensive manufacturing it's probably easier to stockpile thousands of 300/370mm reload rounds than developing a new gun system

Click to expand...

Counter artillery would have to be conducted by cruise missile by most adversaries.
In the case of Taiwan, they would only have SLAM-ER, giving the artillery truck about 30 mins to pack up and go

tankphobia said:

The gun imaged in that article, the m85 costed a whopping $800,000 to build 65 years ago, that kinda just illustrates how incredibly expensive this endeavour would be compared to a rocket launch systems which is comparitively more simple. you would be trading ongoing cost for upfront costs.

The fact that the US found it infeasible and overlapping with other projects might be a hint that the cost gap between guns and missile is not enough to warrant fielding an entire new system.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the calculation of cost advantage is depending on the # of shells fired. Perhaps the kind of ammo expenditure they are seeing in Ukraine is leading to the current piqued interest.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

What about this one?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also, is China having any projects right now that would resemble some sort of a "Super-750mm PCL-181" with firing range upward of 800-1000 km?

Click to expand...

I don't know what the texts say in the picture. But one of my Chinese friend shared this image in a group in a social media. Claiming that this rocket artillery might have 800-1000 Km range being assisted by electro-magnetic ejection system.

sndef888 said:

A long range gun seems a lot more vulnerable to counter artillery strikes considering they'll likely have to be extensively stabilised and would definitely be much heavier than PHL-16 trucks

With China's extensive manufacturing it's probably easier to stockpile thousands of 300/370mm reload rounds than developing a new gun system

Click to expand...

It should has less infrared signal during launch process in comparison with 370mm rocket. And 400km is too far for firefinger radar. So, they can only use satellite image to find it.

tankphobia said:

They do, but they can offer a large throughput of fires compared to a gun system in a short span of time, while the gun system is limited by fire rate. My main thought is that smaller gun (122,155mm) systems will have a much smaller logistical tail compared to a system that needs a crane just to reload, at that point you might as well just go for rockets.

Click to expand...

Quarter ton warhead can destroy some special target like dunker and bridge deck, 122/155mm gun and rockets can only carry approximately tens kg explosive charges. And the range of this system is longer than 370mm rocket. Moreover, to maintain the suppressive fire, they will need continuous ammunition supply. Long-range shells require less space of warehouse and capacity of truck in comparison with 370mm rockets.

by78 said:

Is this the outline you were referring to?

Click to expand...

Could it be modernized 203mm gun?

Broccoli said:

Could it be modernized 203mm gun?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I don't know.

A convoy of PCL-181s.

Zisan Artaxerxes said:

I don't know what the texts say in the picture. But one of my Chinese friend shared this image in a group in a social media. Claiming that this rocket artillery might have 800-1000 Km range being assisted by electro-magnetic ejection system.
View attachment 96029

Click to expand...

That thing looks longer than most TEL and that doesn't count what is blocked by tree. Seems a bit unwieldy for a MLRS.

Long range rocket artillery guided/directed by drone attacking a naval target.

kriss said:

I don't think there is a single case where 装药 would mean propellant charge as a noun despite what wiki page suggests. OTOH it almost exclusively refers to explosive in warhead (or demolition operation).

Also I don't see how explicitly set a number for propellant charge for an artillery shell would make sense as we all know tube artillery would adjust amount of propellant charge used based on the circumstance.

Click to expand...

In this context it certainly refers to the propellant. There is no way you can fit 230 kg of explosive in a 500 kg projectile. For reference, the US Navy's 12" (305 mm) HC shell from WW2 had a 36 kg bursting charge in a 426 kg projectile. You'd have even less volume for explosives if the projectile is saboted. I can see this 300 mm artillery piece being useful for long-range strikes against high-value (including underground) targets, but for saturated artillery bombardments on the front line, you really need the volume of fire that only 122 and 155 mm artillery can deliver.