Self Propelled Gun/Rocket Launcher

wssth0306 said:

Why PLA has decided for the most part to maintain 122mm as the bulk of it's artillery support on the brigade level when mature and good 155mm platforms exists and in service but it is kept at an higher level for the group army ?
Am I correct in my understanding that a 155mm SPG is going to be more capable then the 122mm SPG in almost every criteria except mobility and logistic footprint ?
These downsides isn't critical for PLA Army since it isn't seeking right now for a global deployable force.
My question is thus , given the modernization process of the of the whole PLA , why it was decided that wider scale of adoption of 155mm as a overall phasing out of 122mm for the brigade artillery was not the course that was chosen.
Is it because budget ? other limitations ?

Click to expand...

wssth0306 said:

Why PLA has decided for the most part to maintain 122mm as the bulk of it's artillery support on the brigade level when mature and good 155mm platforms exists and in service but it is kept at an higher level for the group army ?
Am I correct in my understanding that a 155mm SPG is going to be more capable then the 122mm SPG in almost every criteria except mobility and logistic footprint ?
These downsides isn't critical for PLA Army since it isn't seeking right now for a global deployable force.
My question is thus , given the modernization process of the of the whole PLA , why it was decided that wider scale of adoption of 155mm as a overall phasing out of 122mm for the brigade artillery was not the course that was chosen.
Is it because budget ? other limitations ?

Click to expand...

amchan said:

122mm artillery is always going to be significantly more available than 155mm. Why do you think NATO still operates 105mm howitzers? Why do you think nobody operates 203mm in large numbers anymore? You can mount 122mm to lighter platforms and airlift them much more easily.

Click to expand...

lcloo said:

Look at it at another angle, instead of 105mm commonly found in NATO, PLA preferes 122mm for more fire power and range.

155mm is actually a recent adoption by PLA instead of 152mm, initially 155mm was meant for export so that foreign customers can use NATO standard 155mm munition?

Click to expand...

wssth0306 said:

But the 105mm for the NATO is mainly used with Airborne\Air assault unit or mountain unit , meaning they are used when higher mobility is a must ,and notably , the 105mm that stayed in service can all be air lifted by a helicopter . they are not the the caliber used for SPG platforms that in mechanized unit.
PLA kept the 122mm tracked SPG platforms , and that is my question , why PLA kept 122mm SPG that can't be airlifted by helicopters ?
It already not air mobile by helicopter then why not increase it's capability with bigger caliber ?
If airlift was the consideration for the PLA , why not switch to an lighted 122mm ?
And it would seems that instead of lighter 122mm , at this stage PLA could try make an super light 155mm instead , since it will be a newly developed howitzer regardless.

Click to expand...

wssth0306 said:

But the 105mm for the NATO is mainly used with Airborne\Air assault unit or mountain unit , meaning they are used when higher mobility is a must ,and notably , the 105mm that stayed in service can all be air lifted by a helicopter . they are not the the caliber used for SPG platforms that in mechanized unit.
PLA kept the 122mm tracked SPG platforms , and that is my question , why PLA kept 122mm SPG that can't be airlifted by helicopters ?
It already not air mobile by helicopter then why not increase it's capability with bigger caliber ?
If airlift was the consideration for the PLA , why not switch to an lighted 122mm ?
And it would seems that instead of lighter 122mm , at this stage PLA could try make an super light 155mm instead , since it will be a newly developed howitzer regardless.

Click to expand...

wssth0306 said:

Why PLA has decided for the most part to maintain 122mm as the bulk of it's artillery support on the brigade level when mature and good 155mm platforms exists and in service but it is kept at an higher level for the group army ?
Am I correct in my understanding that a 155mm SPG is going to be more capable then the 122mm SPG in almost every criteria except mobility and logistic footprint ?
These downsides isn't critical for PLA Army since it isn't seeking right now for a global deployable force.
My question is thus , given the modernization process of the of the whole PLA , why it was decided that wider scale of adoption of 155mm as a overall phasing out of 122mm for the brigade artillery was not the course that was chosen.
Is it because budget ? other limitations ?

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

Your question is coming at this from the wrong direction because underlying your post, is the idea that 122mm tube artillery at the brigade level is procured at the expense of 155mm tube artillery.

A better set of questions is to first ask:
- how many 155mm tube artillery pieces does the PLAGF have relative to equivalent large ground armies
- and based on the above, a question can then be asked about the logistical and maneuver pros and cons of 155mm at the brigade level rather than 122mm


My overall answer to those two questions, and thus your previous question, is that the PLAGF views it as more beneficial to organize 155mm tube artillery in dedicated artillery brigades at the GA/Corps level. My view is that is meant to allow them the easy ability to concentrate fires and carry out "corps level artillery" coordination easier, but it also retains the flexibility to give individual 155mm tube artillery battalions if needed to be under the command of combined arms brigades when appropriate.

Meanwhile, the 122mm tube artillery in the artillery battalions of combined arms brigades are meant to emphasize mobility, and the ability to sustain combat independently for a longer period of time (where ammunition count per volume matters).
You've correctly identified logistics footprint and mobility as benefits of 122mm versus 155mm, and individual unit (in this case, combined arms brigade) operational autonomy. In the PLAs case, it means they value the ability of CABdes to fight more independently and in a more mobile way, which I think is pretty relevant to the kind of threats the PLAGF faces on China's frontiers and the fact that logistics lines from the interior may be disrupted at times (as the foes they face do possess the ability to carry out interdiction)

Click to expand...