Recent Developments

Gollevainen said:

SP artillery poses really a myth more than anything truely practical innovative leap over normal Artillery, expecially now as the APU allows same level tactical mobility (not to mention the allready existing superior strategical mobilty that truck towed artillery poses over tracked SP).

Click to expand...

Umm, no. APU does not allow same level of tactical mobility, it helps
guns in deploying from towing vehicle to a firing position. APU
mobility is limited just to few km/h's. On SPH's protection
and camouflage I think you're concentrating too much on details
while forgetting the whole picture. First, it's true that
if a FH position is fortified it allows same level of protection
as SP gun to a crew. But that's just a small part of the whole
picture. In a SP gun the gun crew is already under protection
when the first rounds (the most deadly ones) hit. With an APU
the gun crew is outside protection. Fortifting a gun position
is not a small project, even with powered tools it takes time.

On issue of camouflage (and protection) you must also remember
that a APU FH cannot operate independently. It does not carry
it's own ready ammunition (except perhaps just a few rounds) etc.
In practice the towing vehicle and munitions vehicle have to remain
quite nearby. They have to be camouflaged and protected too. A
modern SPH has quite large ammunition stowage, it's own comm gear
and of course it's own means of transportation. True, it must
be refurbished with ammunition too but not as often as a
APU FH. PzH-2000, for example, has enough space for 60 rounds.

APU FH's don't also offer multiple-round-simultaneous-impact
or as fast firing capabilities as modern SPH's do. This really
multiplies their capability. While you need a battalion of 18
howitzers to deliver a volley of 18 shells to a given location
at the same time just six, perhaps just four PzH-2000's are
demanded for the same task.

Finally, there is also middle ground between FH's and SPH's
nowaday, such as FH-77AD, Giat Industries Caesar etc. While
they lack the protection of a true SPH they offer much better
operational mobility with less cost.

Modern munitions do make a difference. Priority mission of artillery
is not to deliver as much iron as fast as possible but rounds
which have effect, either direct kill capability or suppression
effect. Smart munitions offer capability of direct kill with
less rounds fired. In suppression missions modern firing
techniques combined with improved conventional munitions offer
more capability with less rounds fired. This is through the effect
that less shells go astray and cluster munitions can cover a
larger area with a single impact. Impact on logistics
is tremendous. Just one four round fire mission from a battalion
of 18 155mm howitzers weights around 3100kg's just in shells.
(charges and packages not included.) While unit cost of a smart
munition or improved conventional munition is higher than that
of a conventional HE shell, they are worth it.

Also, I think current western armies have a healthy mix of artillery
in their TOE's. It is just that the total number of troops
they have is diminishing. Modern artillery is much more effective
than second world war artillery.

Sorry, for length

Umm, no. APU does not allow same level of tactical mobility, it helps
guns in deploying from towing vehicle to a firing position. APU
mobility is limited just to few km/h's. On SPH's protection
and camouflage I think you're concentrating too much on details
while forgetting the whole picture. First, it's true that
if a FH position is fortified it allows same level of protection
as SP gun to a crew. But that's just a small part of the whole
picture. In a SP gun the gun crew is already under protection
when the first rounds (the most deadly ones) hit. With an APU
the gun crew is outside protection. Fortifting a gun position
is not a small project, even with powered tools it takes time

Click to expand...

The tactical mobility which is the most cruisal is the transition in and out of fire positions. If you look the idea from the counter-fire perspective, the only thing that matters is the time getting out when you fired your shots. We managed to do that (transfering the gun from firing mode to driving it out of the theoretical enemy target area) with 155K98 in 2-3 minutes. I can assure you that no guncrew, SP or Towed can perform the counter-battery fire in that time. First you receive the data from the counter-battery radar. Then you calculate the co-ordinates and send them to the fire batteries. That time takes 10 secconds in optimal conditions and thus everyone thinks that the enemy artillery hasen't got a change. BUT....most people tends to forget how much time it takes in the guns to get them firing.

First thing is to prepare the ammunitons. You have no idea where you are going to shoot before the counter-battery radars gives you the location of the enemy. So you cannot make the ammunitions forehand. Artillery ammunitions aren't like in tanks where you just take them of the shell. The projectiles alone doesen't take time, but the charges will. Even one charge tooks at least few minutes to prepare and you never shoot just one round. From the moment the counter-battery radar has calculated the data to the point when you can fire your "piggies" to the air takes minium of 5 minutes from very good guncrew (and there's never three good guncrews in single battery ).

And no artillery battalion that operates against enemy that has counter-battery capacity, fires simulateniously with all tubes blazing. One battery at maxium will shoot its strike, then scoop as the seccond battery makes the move. There are allready multible optional fireposition in the battalions deployment area. This stepped system can be taken place inside the battery as one of the platoons will fire only...

Offocurse the SP system does it bit more faster. But not that faster compared to APU fitted towed guns. There is time enough for APU fitted guns to take of from the firing positions. In other cases the mobility issue is merely theoretical. Yeas tracked vehicles can move in more robust terrains than wheeled vehicles but unless you are fighting in Amazon rainforests, in deeps of Siberian Taiga or in Himalayas, theres always enough roads to make towed artillery viable.

The protection issue is like I said also a thing that is looked too much from the theorethical view. 100m sprint is still the best protection against indirect fire and those sardine cans can only offer protection against snarbelz, but they cannot survive direct hit nor full artillery consentration any more better than towed artillery (nor against anything fitted with 20mm plus main gun). They arent tanks, they just look like ones.

APU FH's don't also offer multiple-round-simultaneous-impact
or as fast firing capabilities as modern SPH's do. This really
multiplies their capability. While you need a battalion of 18
howitzers to deliver a volley of 18 shells to a given location
at the same time just six, perhaps just four PzH-2000's are
demanded for the same task.

Click to expand...

The guns are same, the SP has just funkyer chasis. Both guns can fire exactly the same ammunition. Pzh 2000 can give theorethically 12 rounds in minute and with 155K98 we managed to gain nine to ten rounds in minute. So the difference is marginal. SP batteries usually have four guns against the six of normal (APU) fitted battery and they still cost 30% of SP batterys prize.

But I agree that the new gun on the back of the truck chasis gives new and intresting aspect to this, but they still shares the SP systems biggest fault. If the chasis (engine, suspension) mailfunctions the whole system is then useless, but if the towing truck brokes, You just take some extra truck from the supply units and the game goes on...Even if the APU brokes, the gun can still function as normal towed gun whitout any proplems.

But offcourse im 100% biased to advocate APU fitted guns couse they are the only ones I have served. (non APU fitted 122mm Howitzers are the blocked trauma memory issues ) And I'm not saying that you shouldn't have SP guns at all. In armoured divisions where everything else is also tracked, SP guns goes just fine but with normal mechanized units with wheeled AIFVs, tracked SP guns just slows them down. It's far more cost-effectly to have APU fitted towed guns. With army the size of China, its foolish to ignore the benefits that APU guns presents.

And never mind the lenght of your posts, to have something to say is far desirable factor

Gollevainen said:

The tactical mobility which is the most cruisal is the transition in and out of fire positions. If you look the idea from the counter-fire perspective, the only thing that matters is the time getting out when you fired your shots. We managed to do that (transfering the gun from firing mode to driving it out of the theoretical enemy target area) with 155K98 in 2-3 minutes. I can assure you that no guncrew, SP or Towed can perform the counter-battery fire in that time. First you receive the data from the counter-battery radar. Then you calculate the co-ordinates and send them to the fire batteries. That time takes 10 secconds in optimal conditions and thus everyone thinks that the enemy artillery hasen't got a change. BUT....most people tends to forget how much time it takes in the guns to get them firing.

First thing is to prepare the ammunitons. You have no idea where you are going to shoot before the counter-battery radars gives you the location of the enemy. So you cannot make the ammunitions forehand. Artillery ammunitions aren't like in tanks where you just take them of the shell. The projectiles alone doesen't take time, but the charges will. Even one charge tooks at least few minutes to prepare and you never shoot just one round. From the moment the counter-battery radar has calculated the data to the point when you can fire your "piggies" to the air takes minium of 5 minutes from very good guncrew (and there's never three good guncrews in single battery ).

And no artillery battalion that operates against enemy that has counter-battery capacity, fires simulateniously with all tubes blazing. One battery at maxium will shoot its strike, then scoop as the seccond battery makes the move. There are allready multible optional fireposition in the battalions deployment area. This stepped system can be taken place inside the battery as one of the platoons will fire only...

Offocurse the SP system does it bit more faster. But not that faster compared to APU fitted towed guns. There is time enough for APU fitted guns to take of from the firing positions. In other cases the mobility issue is merely theoretical. Yeas tracked vehicles can move in more robust terrains than wheeled vehicles but unless you are fighting in Amazon rainforests, in deeps of Siberian Taiga or in Himalayas, theres always enough roads to make towed artillery viable.

The protection issue is like I said also a thing that is looked too much from the theorethical view. 100m sprint is still the best protection against indirect fire and those sardine cans can only offer protection against snarbelz, but they cannot survive direct hit nor full artillery consentration any more better than towed artillery (nor against anything fitted with 20mm plus main gun). They arent tanks, they just look like ones.



The guns are same, the SP has just funkyer chasis. Both guns can fire exactly the same ammunition. Pzh 2000 can give theorethically 12 rounds in minute and with 155K98 we managed to gain nine to ten rounds in minute. So the difference is marginal. SP batteries usually have four guns against the six of normal (APU) fitted battery and they still cost 30% of SP batterys prize.

But I agree that the new gun on the back of the truck chasis gives new and intresting aspect to this, but they still shares the SP systems biggest fault. If the chasis (engine, suspension) mailfunctions the whole system is then useless, but if the towing truck brokes, You just take some extra truck from the supply units and the game goes on...Even if the APU brokes, the gun can still function as normal towed gun whitout any proplems.

But offcourse im 100% biased to advocate APU fitted guns couse they are the only ones I have served. (non APU fitted 122mm Howitzers are the blocked trauma memory issues ) And I'm not saying that you shouldn't have SP guns at all. In armoured divisions where everything else is also tracked, SP guns goes just fine but with normal mechanized units with wheeled AIFVs, tracked SP guns just slows them down. It's far more cost-effectly to have APU fitted towed guns. With army the size of China, its foolish to ignore the benefits that APU guns presents.

And never mind the lenght of your posts, to have something to say is far desirable factor

Click to expand...

You can always get a wheeled SP artillery system, which will keep up with a wheeled AFV division:

In this case, based off the LAV III platform, firing 105mm rounds.

Golly your analysis of counterbattery fire time is based on gun systems. Would it be different for MLR systems?

Ryz05 said:

Type XX 35mm Self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery
(scroll down)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

That looks more like 30mm, as the 35mm barrels are fluted and have differenf muzzle brakes/flash eliminators

Costas 240GD said:

That looks more like 30mm, as the 35mm barrels are fluted and have differenf muzzle brakes/flash eliminators

Click to expand...

The muzzle brakes are different from the Type 90 Twin-35mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery , but that is probably just a modification as opposed to a different calibre. It's more reasonable for it to be 35mm, since it might just be a self-propelled Type 90 AAA, and also to simplify logistics.

Golly your analysis of counterbattery fire time is based on gun systems. Would it be different for MLR systems?

Click to expand...

Well I dont know how the loading of those goes, So I cannot say certainly. To my mind, they are come in standard fit and they are theorethically cabaple to fire imideatly, but they are so inaccurate that they arent so well suited to any precision missions.

And what I said about guns and howitsers aplies only if those guns are using similar aiming/fire control mode as 155K98 where the co-ordinates comes directly to the guns fire controll computer and the aimer just aims the gun. If you are using more tradditional methods where you receive the firing data via radio and you have to manually set them to the aiming sight it will further increase the time that takes to get the counter battery fire up in the air.

Ryz05 said:

I heard they made a switch from WZ-551 mainly for better crew comfort. I assume it's pretty cramped in the old model, which makes soldiers tired more easily after a long drive to the frontlines. Also, the elongated front might provide for a bigger engine and better electronic equipments.

Click to expand...

The crew space part make sense: The only other wheeled APC to have such space efficiency is the Piranda II. Althought I find it hard to accept such a case from China.

As for the elongated front: Is it worth it to sacrifice performance for power? I doubt it in the fields. Plus, if you do this, can't you also move forward the wheels? They will be exposed, but they are suppose to! And when hit it has a tire system for a reason. (Gee, tracks are much more efficient.)

Gollevainen said:

And never mind the lenght of your posts, to have something to say is far desirable factor

Click to expand...

Well, you said it, so here it comes

Well, rapid counter-battery fire is one thing which a modern SPH can do better than a towed gun. In PzH-2000, for example, both charges and shells are within autoloader carousel which has 60 ready shells. Charges are also
loaded automatically. In the future with liquid powder the things
are even simpler. And what you say about leaping batteries or
platoons is certainly true, which makes SPH special capabilities even
more important.

The other thing is that the enemy doing counter-battery isn't as blind as you say. Various reconnaissance means combined with old-fashioned intuition can quite accurately portray the generic area where enemy artillery units will operate. While this information is not sufficient to launch a fire mission the unit tasked with counter-battery fire will roughly know where their fire missions will be launched.

As you say, a SPH is not tank but it can survive VT fire mission
(a virtually standard fuze nowadays) which can annihilate a towed
battery. To destroy SPH's you need HE with delay (and to achieve
a chance hit), smart rounds or a blanket with ICM's. The difference is
great. That's why many armies which have to resort with towed guns
have looked upon very unconventional responses, such as the use of
various APC's as tracking and command vehicles. Even a sprint is
easier to achieve with either a wheeled or tracked SPH than with an
APU gun. After the final round is fired a SPH can move, while on
the other hand it means just the fact that the work has started
for the APU gun crew.

Yes, the towed guns themselves are cheaper. The problem is that
you need more trucks and much more personnel. More mouths to
feed and pay, more food and water to be transported over long
supply lines. Then there is also the traditional problem
every time humans are involved, fatigue. Changing positions,
loading guns and hauling ammunition is hard physical work (as both
you and I know ) Although operating a SPH is hardly a vacation
either they have a number of automated systems to reduce physical
stress. These include automatic carousel loading system, automatic
loading etc. While a well-drilled gun crew at their physical peak can perform all those things you say to reduce (but not to diminish) their vulnerability
compared to a SPH it's entirely different thing even after 24h of operations.

And the issue of breakdowns isn't that simple either.
One could about as well compare a towed anti-tank gun and a tank.
Yes, the chassis malfunctions are a risk but I'd still rather
have a tank...

Let's say until I personally first time saw a modern SPH I similarly thought they're just same guns with tracked carriage. This was true with M-109 era vehicles, but not anymore. They are simply not in the same class. Similar progress is at hands with mortars nowadays. Traditional mortars simply cannot be compared with newer ones.

First of all I must say that it's nice to have some real artillery discussion in SDF for change

Well, rapid counter-battery fire is one thing which a modern SPH can do better than a towed gun. In PzH-2000, for example, both charges and shells are within autoloader carousel which has 60 ready shells. Charges are also
loaded automatically. In the future with liquid powder the things
are even simpler.

Click to expand...

I cannot say exactly how the chanrges are prepaired for example in PZH2000, but the law is still the same, there isen't any universal charge to be used in all distances and as you cannot know beforehand the exact enemy location, you cannot prepare the charges beforehand either.

And what you say about leaping batteries or
platoons is certainly true, which makes SPH special capabilities even
more important.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. The idea that I tryed to present was that with more firing gun per units (wheter its platoon, battery or battalion), APU guns can use the stepped system more effieciently as there's always more tubes left for firing.

The other thing is that the enemy doing counter-battery isn't as blind as you say. Various reconnaissance means combined with old-fashioned intuition can quite accurately portray the generic area where enemy artillery units will operate. While this information is not sufficient to launch a fire mission the unit tasked with counter-battery fire will roughly know where their fire missions will be launched.

Click to expand...

Again true, but even the small changes of distances makes the different. For example during my conscription time when we fired from our homebase's target area (Pahkajärvi) where the overall distances were quite small scale. Still when we fired to the same target area from different fire postions, we had to use different type of charges. In real combat enviroment even the distances of the pre-selected fire postions are much lagrer than wew used in Pahkajärvi.
The time is pretty much same wheter you make number 1 or number 4 charges, so it's irrelevant where you are going to shoot, but when you don't know the exact location and you know it may be in the area of 100 sq km, you have no means to predict which charges you have to prepare.

As you say, a SPH is not tank but it can survive VT fire mission
(a virtually standard fuze nowadays) which can annihilate a towed
battery. To destroy SPH's you need HE with delay (and to achieve
a chance hit), smart rounds or a blanket with ICM's. The difference is
great. That's why many armies which have to resort with towed guns
have looked upon very unconventional responses, such as the use of
various APC's as tracking and command vehicles.

Click to expand...

Well I agree (and it's quite obvious) that SP guns have better protection, but again that protection is like I said theoretical. It's true that Towed guns are more vurnable to VT fuzes (or in fact to nearly anything loaded with TNT ) but thats pretty much it. There are still factors that you need to take under consideration. Towed guns can be camoflaged virtually to invicible which greatly decreases the change to enemy to aquire them as targets. Seccondly VT fuzes are not "standart" fuzes, only one option for one simple reason, money. VT fuzes are usefull against soft targets, but firing standart ammunitions as "sensitive" (removing the little cork atop the fuze) are equally destructive against anything in the fire zone and costs far less than VT fuzes. In wartime the ammount of artillery ordanance to be fired is huge and thus all expensive hightec stuff is preserved for use in special occasions, to use them against enemy artillery isen't one (as you can destroy it with much cheaper type of ammunitions).

So what I'm trying to say is that yeas towed guns are easier to destroy, but SP guns are (like you said also) also able to destroy with normal HE rounds which only needs to have the "cork" fitted (and as all the normal fuzes has the cork fitted as standart, it's even marginally easier to shoot the piggies "hard")

Even a sprint is
easier to achieve with either a wheeled or tracked SPH than with an
APU gun. After the final round is fired a SPH can move, while on
the other hand it means just the fact that the work has started
for the APU gun crew.

Click to expand...

The whole point with APU guns is that the time required for both deployment and exspecially to departing is ten times faster as normal towed gun. When APU fitted gun fires it's last rounds, it takes 2-3 minutes max to get the gun driving of from the firepostion. My thetis is that the time is enough to unvoid the counterbattery fire.

Yes, the towed guns themselves are cheaper. The problem is that
you need more trucks and much more personnel. More mouths to
feed and pay, more food and water to be transported over long
supply lines.

Click to expand...

Well there's this interesting calculations made by Asko Sivula (Military Technology 6/1998) the result is pretty much this:

• 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.

The material and unit cost of the entire towed battery (and it's basicly derivated to the battalion and regiment level as well) is over three times less expensive than with SP battery. Then main focus in Sivula's calculations was based on the different manning systems in various armies. He had the overall cost counted in 4 different type of armed forces (which took under consideration wheter it was a conscription army or proffesional and wheter in poor or in rich country). Only in the rich country's proffesional armies the SP artillery wasen't so much expensive than towed battery. But for example in China's case the APU fitted towed battery is 13% cheaper than SP battery.

Although operating a SPH is hardly a vacation
either they have a number of automated systems to reduce physical
stress. These include automatic carousel loading system, automatic
loading etc. While a well-drilled gun crew at their physical peak can perform all those things you say to reduce (but not to diminish) their vulnerability
compared to a SPH it's entirely different thing even after 24h of operations.

Click to expand...

Well in artillery all fireposition job is pure torture, wheter it was normal towed, APU or SP But the basic idea of APU is to reduce that very same physical stress. APU (Auxilliary power unit) not only makes your gun move on it's own, but it gives power to hydraulic which means that the only physically stressing task is the hammering of the spades (Junttaus) which is something thats horrors cannot be explained to those not experienced it. But there are cure for that also, for example all Singaporean designed APU fitted guns don't use separate spades any longer and the gun just reverses it's legs to the ground. With elinimating the spade-hammering the stress level of APU gun and SP gun is not that differend. (tough SP gun still has one benefit, warm interiors, a great importance in -20 degree)

Let's say until I personally first time saw a modern SPH I similarly thought they're just same guns with tracked carriage. This was true with M-109 era vehicles, but not anymore. They are simply not in the same class. Similar progress is at hands with mortars nowadays. Traditional mortars simply cannot be compared with newer ones.

Click to expand...

The gun is the same. SP gun has a box around it and that box is upon tracks. Modern SP guns has alots of electronics and highly automated operations but thats all due the fact that there is an engine to give power to all this. APU guns has engines also and thus they can have pretty much the same electronical devices (modern fire control computers and communication devices). The engine power also enables "automatic loader", or more properly, power-loading assistance. 155K98 had it's most biggest default in this area as back then when we used it, the autolloader was not yeat approved to service. But other APU systems has it and in fact some, (like the Swedish FH-77) has a hydraulic crane to handle the ammunitions.