Self Propelled Gun/Rocket Launcher

pesoleati said:

May be the future 300mm at theater level

Click to expand...

I think I know where you got that 300mm SPA idea from.

However, how are those 300mm shells going to be ferried and stowed, and how are the 300mm SPAs going to be loaded? The 300mm shells definitely weighs (in kilograms) in the triple digits - Meaning that only machines can handle them. This will also lead to increase in complexity, costs and risks associated with breakdowns and wartime damages.

If anything, given by how that 300mm SPA is based on a 5x5 chassis - If anything, it could be more feasible to develop a new type of modular MLRS that is based on the same 5X5 chassis used for the TELs of DF-16 and DF-17.

The width of the TEL chassis-based MLRS cannot be increased (otherwise they cannot be transported using trains), hence the caliber of the MLRS rockets/TBMs will most likely remain the same as those on the PHL-16. However, given the significant increase in length over the PHL-16 MLRS (~16 meters versus ~12 meters) - Theoretically, another stage can be added to those rockets/TBMs in order to increase strike range even further (perhaps even upwards of 1000 kilometers for the 750mm TBM).

Recently there was a great CG model of a 300mm SPG for a game that fooled Taiwanese news I posted more in the CG images thread

When people suggest things like doubling artillery calibers, we should always keep in mind the glorious square-cube law.
When you double the dimensions on the thing, you quadruple the surface area, and octuple the mass. Can you imagine how much more work it would be to lug around shells 8x the size of the already large shells?
And the same applies for the gun and vehicle, they will be ~8x heavier as well. Do you want to be the artillery crew responsible for moving such a heavy vehicle through mud, or any other bad terrain that may be encountered during war?
And all of this work will bring you little reward. The blast radius of a shell 8x heavier will not double, the fragmentary radius will not double. You are far better off bringing 4 smaller guns that are in total easier to move and reload, and yet have a more substantial effect.

In the Russo-Ukrainian conflict the 203mm guns seem to have some use. The 152mm is just too weak against reinforced concrete constructions. If you look at the Malka it also has hardware assists to load shells. The thing is, the best top end artillery systems already have autoloading of some kind. So manual loading isn't a major concern.

Against Southeast Asia this might not be a big issue. But if China ever gets into a conflict in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc in built up areas it might.

gelgoog said:

In the Russo-Ukrainian conflict the 203mm guns seem to have some use. The 152mm is just too weak against reinforced concrete constructions. If you look at the Malka it also has hardware assists to load shells. The thing is, the best top end artillery systems already have autoloading of some kind. So manual loading isn't a major concern.

Against Southeast Asia this might not be a big issue. But if China ever gets into a conflict in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc in built up areas it might.

Click to expand...

Are they of use because they are the optimal system, or just the only system available to those specific combatants at this specific time? There are so many more factors to consider than shell size. Rockets, bombs, missiles, etc, are all ways to deliver payloads to targets. Cost-efficiency, logistics, availability, and so on, decide whether a system is procured or not.

I could maybe see 203mm under the right circumstances, but anything bigger seems very unlikely.

If you look at WW2 weapons meant to destroy fortifications, you can also use rockets to do this. Like a multiple stage rocket with a last stage that speeds up faster and penetrates the reinforced concrete first before blowing up. But this is way more expensive than using large artillery.

Rockets typically are cheaper for lower volumes of fire than artillery. But when you needs lots of fire volume the artillery is more cost effective.

valysre said:

When people suggest things like doubling artillery calibers, we should always keep in mind the glorious square-cube law.
When you double the dimensions on the thing, you quadruple the surface area, and octuple the mass. Can you imagine how much more work it would be to lug around shells 8x the size of the already large shells?
And the same applies for the gun and vehicle, they will be ~8x heavier as well. Do you want to be the artillery crew responsible for moving such a heavy vehicle through mud, or any other bad terrain that may be encountered during war?
And all of this work will bring you little reward. The blast radius of a shell 8x heavier will not double, the fragmentary radius will not double. You are far better off bringing 4 smaller guns that are in total easier to move and reload, and yet have a more substantial effect.

Click to expand...

The point in the larger caliber munitions is because they are supposed a cheaper option than guided rocket munitions from a PHL-03 or a PHL-16 but still has the enough range to hit targets across to straight which could allow better suppressive fire capabilities at a cheaper cost. Not that I'm saying that a 300mm shell would actually be cheaper than a 300mm rocket, that's just the principle and yes logistically it would be very demanding, but 4 smaller guns would not have the range requirements needed for this specific task.

Drone guided artillery.

Does anyone know which drone they used? The drone probably used some sort of laser designator.

Is the shell being guided by the drone, or is the drone simply acting as a spotter? I know the title says "Drone guided artillery" but that may be a literal translation of the Chinese caption, rather than a true meaning.