TMR Artillery Brigade's PCL191 has 8 tubes (1 vacant slot each in 2 pods) against standard 10 (2 pods of 5 tubes each) to manage weight for mobility in HAA. This article reconfirms 2 155mm, 3 PHL03 and 1 PCL181 battalion with TMRIf we consider this article with other articles, at least 5 PCL191 Battalions already with 71st, 72nd, 80th, 84th (XMR) and 85th (TMR) Group Army Artillery Brigades
Yankee, Ayi and Xi Yazhou's assistant (but not Shilao lol he was away) talked about this issue recently because they too were very surprised when that photo came out showing the center tube wasn't a launching tube. According to Yankee, he asked around and was told this is to do with disposable vs reloadable modules. The export 300mm rocket modules are intended to be fired and discarded as you would think with a modular MLRS. The four cell 300mm rocket module is intended to be fired and reloaded and they work with existing stockpile of 300mm rockets for PHL-03. The fact that they are intended to be reloaded and used again and again necessitate some structural reinforcement which is what the center tube is for.So this article is confirming that the PCL191 launcher can optionally fill the central 370mm rack depending on operational requirements whereas earlier assumptions think that rack is just a supporting frame for the other 4 rockets?
But why? Wouldn't a reinforced and reusable module be more cost-effective, resource-saving and logistics-friendly than a disposable one?According to Yankee, he asked around and was told this is to do with disposable vs reloadable modules. The export 300mm rocket modules are intended to be fired and discarded as you would think with a modular MLRS. The four cell 300mm rocket module is intended to be fired and reloaded and they work with existing stockpile of 300mm rockets for PHL-03. The fact that they are intended to be reloaded and used again and again necessitate some structural reinforcement which is what the center tube is for.
*to only procure 370mm (and 750mm) modules for their PHL-16s? There is no need for the reusable 300mm modules at all, with the 370mm module offering a better choice.But why? Wouldn't a reinforced and reusable module be more cost-effective, resource-saving and logistics-friendly than a disposable one?
Also, if one 300mm module carries the same number of rockets as one 370mm module, wouldn't it be better for the PLAGF to only procure 370mm modules for their PHL-16s?
According to Yankee, reloadable and disposable is a change of way to think about MLRS. Previously it's thought of as a different flavor of artillery. So the launch tubes are the guns and the rockets are ammo. When you need to fire you (re)load the tubes with rockets.But why? Wouldn't a reinforced and reusable module be more cost-effective, resource-saving and logistics-friendly than a disposable one?
Also, if one 300mm module carries the same number of rockets as one 370mm module, wouldn't it be better for the PLAGF to only procure 370mm modules for their PHL-16s?