Ground News said I didn't need to do a pinned comment but I think they're genuinely good news aggregator. It puts all of the big news agencies in one place so you aren't limited to just one clickbait headline. For a while I casually used the default news on my phone and was better off not reading it. I saw a lot of people in the newsy, OSINTy space use Ground News before, so it seemed like a good fit. Try it out and you'll be helping the channel too: ground.news/battleorder
Your information about Chinese artillery and MLRS is very outdated and skimpy. But most people among your uninformed audience won't be able to tell that you're selling them outdated info. ROTFLMAO!
for china, those existing towed howitzers not exactly retired. they have been transferred to reserved units (for training to retain skills) and militias.
The big difference is evident mainly in how the countries use their armies. The US deploys overseas around the world so a relatively light towable artillery is better for transport needs across oceans. For Russia who doesn't really deploy all over the world tracked SPG's work better on their terrain. The same applies to China as you see how they deploy more mortars because of the terrain. Different countries have different doctrines and needs based on the environments they deploy. So looking at numbers and different types are obviously going to be different from one country to another. The same goes if you evaluate numbers of active duty personnel or their Navy and Air Force active ships/aircraft. It is all based on the countries needs and where they face conflict or a threat of conflict.
@@ryananggoro493 , China and U.S. Army fought to a standstill in the Korean War(1950). At that time China didn't have either artillery or tank support.
@@shermanpeabody6102 The US and UN forces also had no directive to push beyond the 38th parallel. McArthur did it the first time against Truman’s wishes and it’s part of what got him fired
@@ryananggoro493 USSR only sent little Air support at early stage of war, later they sent nothing, this betrayal is the fuse of the later Sino-Soviet split.
The correct translation for "Group army" (Chinese 集团军”） is "combined arms corps". This is used in the official English translation of the Chinese defence white paper.
With the US 101st Airborne elements stationed in Europe I’d love to see a breakdown of their force structure and equipment. Love the page great stuff as always!
a side note on the M-46 130mm gun: for a long time, it used to remained one of the longest land artillery around, with a range of 27km with conventional shell, and 38km with rocket-assisted/base-bleed shell it and the 152mm D-20 howitzer are still the main stay of vietnamese artillery at division/army corp level
Bharat is one of Vietnam's only allies. Do you think modernization of the army to match the PLA, PLA rocket forces will help? I think standardization on 155mm caliber, with the Bharati ATAGS, mounted on a truck, will help considerably in any artillery duel. Vietnam will also need drones that they can optionally also purchase from us if they feel like it. The Pralay - 500km range missile, and Pinaka will help against the PLA's missile artillery. They still have a thousand plus cruise missiles. That is a difficult problem to solve because of the MTCR, but Vietnam can definitely develop its own cruise missile. However the Pakistani Babur cruise missile has a foreign father, so can Vietnam's cruise missile.
@@datoolz0 China's long-range rocket launcher is second to none in the world. If China is the second and no country is the first, as for the defense industry, only China has a complete defense industry chain, which Vietnam cannot match.
China has been producing large-caliber artillery shells, and its inventory has been increasing. Compared with its economic strength, Vietnam's inventory is not enough for China to put its teeth between its teeth. In the counterattack against Vietnam in self-defense, China's artillery was fired for a long time. The barrel was red, and the shells were loaded directly from the transport vehicle. According to the Vietnamese army, the artillery intensity of the people's Liberation Army was higher than that of the US military after the war. Since the War to resist US aggression and Aid Korea, China has always paid attention to the delivery of artillery forces. The artillery of each unit has surpassed that of the US military, and now it is the first in the world.
@@zhiyangzhang1077 Probably so judging by the video here. I think Vietnam must modernize its artillery too, and while it has options here, its cheapest option would be purchasing the K9 from Chosun and ATAGS artillery. Probably MLRS artillery too. It's clear that a future war with the PLA will be hard to win without enough firepower.
The video is done very carefully, but there are some mistakes. The PCL191 rocket launcher has a caliber of 370mm and a range of 350-400 kilometers. The PCL03 300mm rocket launcher has a range of 150 kilometers
Ch1na has LOTS of artillery systems, from lighter to heavier. Even enormous quantities in storage, of rocket projectors, SPGs (self propelled guns/howitzers), and towed systems. Same with armored vehicles and tanks (MBTs and LTs), and other systems. They've reorganized their forces, but still have a lot, when including reserves and paramilitary formations, and all the stored-away equipment. Ch1na still has ample quantities of PL-66 (152mm) among other systems of that caliber, as well as new 155mm designs.
A fantastic analysis, impartial and based on available statistics without deviating into hypothesis. This is the kind of rational thinking we need more of.
US Army could potentially match China's new artillery if they go through with new artillery as well. US Army is currently testing Patria 120mm NEMO mortars to be installed on Strykers, OMFV and AMPV (those can go into ABCT and SBCT's). US Army is also testing Hawkeye 105mm howitzer which can go into IBCT(air borne forces), and SBCT's (potentially even USMC). In addition, US Army is also in the process on developing/acquiring 155 wheeled SPG for SBCT's ans potentially for Airborne forces & USMC (best option is mounted on a 6x6 truck like Nexter CAESAR or Elbit ATMOS 200 and should be able to be airlifted by C-130). The M777 would also need an upgraded variant potentially with a longer barrel similar to wheeled 155 SPG with 155/52 howitzer. For the ABCT's, they will have the newest M10A9 with ERCA 155/58 gun but there's some sources that US Army is having problems especially on them squeezing a lot more range out of it. A 155/55 similar to what they tested on M777 could also be an alternative meanwhile the wheeled SPG and upgraded M777 would use 155/52 which is becoming a new NATO standard 155 howitzer (it also as advantage to having commonality between the two platforms).
yeah except we have air.. and you cant believe what communist say.. look at what russia went on about for years.. and look at the force they put to use.. its a joke. and china gets most of the gear and tech from russia. most of the stuff china said or people claime they have its just propaganda..
@@kevinchang6979 Patria 120mm NEMO mortar and Mandus Hawkeye is still on testing phase and it's not yet sure if they got adapted. The wheeled SPG is US Army wants to test most of available ones now and look what are their options if they want to adapt it or develop their own version (which is a stupid idea since a lot of mature 155 wheeled SPG are already good enough). ERCA for M10A9 is still on early stages of development and they haven't even tried installing the autoloader. They tested an extended M777 with 155/55 howitzer but after that there's no program as of yet. A lot of things I've mentioned is still years away.
What are everyone thoughts on those 122 mm MRLS at the brigade level? Does the benefit vs logistic cost pan out? It is a lot of munition to push forward. Unguided and at around 50km range, feels kind of awkward. Presumably the benefits is its range over tube arty but would there be concentrated target in that 50km edge worth the brigade to lug that ammo around?
If you put the MLRS 10-20 km behind your forward line of troops, they can reach 30-40 km behind the enemy lines and the howitzer gun line (~30-40 km range). Counterbattery radars are imprecise so it can be good to just dump a load of submunitions on saturation bombing against detected points of origins for artillery or radar. The MLRSs can be more effective if there is aerial assets to the brigades that can reach 40-50km behind the enemy forward line of troops. With today's drones pushed down to squads and platoon levels, there's no reason why they can't have one.
I think it stresses the logistics train too much. Standard truck can carry at most 1 reload. Where as same truck can carry many times more the ammunition for tubed artillery. Being unguided they are too imprecise for brigade level action, better at division or corps level.
@@VT-mw2zb Thanks for your thoughts. I get the proposed counterbattery purpose and the ranged advantage, but wouldn't a guided munition coupled with the UAV scouting be more cost efficient? I'm not questioning its utility, I am inquiring the cost benefit balance at the brigade level. I get a sense the 122mm MRLS were a hold over from the soviet era where their attacking regiment is saturating concentrate opponents located forward edge of advance. Does this still hold sway in modern times?
@@syjiang you have 5 minutes between the CBAT radar giving you a point of origin grid and the guys who were just at said point just leaving, if he's good at his job. MLRS is a fast saturation solution, but it's faster than the drone flying over there. Now, drones are not magical birds that are invulnerable and see everything in God's Kingdom. Occasionally in the drone footage, you can see the zoomed out view vs. The really zoomed in view and helpful red circles. Try and see if you can spot something in the zoomed out view. With drone footage, you are looking at a few minutes of success vs. hours and hours of nothingness. A company-sized unit may have a front of 3km, a depth to the enemy gun line of 10kn and have 1-2 company level drone. The modern battlefield is very empty
Brilliant video as always! Would it also be possible to see a video on the naval mine capabilities of the US and China respectively? It's a much neglected area and has sunk more ships in combat than any form since WWII. Certainly, it's one of the doctrinal priorities for the Chinese navy
@@TheShadow812 yes it's true. China's focus is access denial. They may have the largest navy in the world at the moment. However, they can't really go anywhere with it besides home waters, and friendly neighboring ports. The power projection capabilities they possess is only for Taiwan, and somewhat Japan. The Indian Navy by itself can block China's energy needs coming from the middle east. If that were to happen, the PLA Navy will be as useless as the German Navy in WW1.
At the type of 120mm mortar, China has a new product which can auto reload and aim on the light vehicle. But the military does not seem to be interested in purchasing.
It's very similar to LAV EFSS. I think the issue is that the autoloader is expensive but doesn't really provide much benefit other than less personnel. Where in the US that extra person is hard to bring it, it might not be a issue for China.
I think the only units that will realistically equip them are the light CABs which are supposed to be entirely based around Mengshi tactical vehicles. With the heavy and medium CABs fielding 120mm gun mortars and seeing it is possible to put 122mm howitzers on Mengshi vehicles, I bet the PLA is exploring the possibility of a Mengshi based 120mm gun mortar for their light CABs.
Another takeaway from this is China's willingness and ability to have multiple platforms based on expected combat conditions and needs. Their procurement is sufficiently indigenous they don't have to rely on Soviet leftovers or licensed variants. Even more telling is that corruption is not so out of control that the PLA is only getting useless equipment nor is procurement being hindered by politicians interfering for their own purposes. That speaks to a professional and institutionaly trusted leadership.
The CPC is structured and well-organized. One-party means only one common goal, and the system of meritocracy ensures only competent people becomes CPC/government members instead of just being born into a wealthy family with pre-existing connections and "lobby", then pay massive dollars for ads and take money from "donors" for your campaign to run more ads to get exposure and more votes while indebting you to those "donors" in the process to run their favors. That is why American military R&D spending and everything else is so god damn expensive whereas China can produce the same quality if not higher with a much smaller budget. Everything has to go through "middlemans" that takes a bit out of the budget here and there before finally getting the money to where it belongs. It also goes to show Xi's anti-corruption campaign for the last few years paid off very well. When was the last time an American politician was arrested for corruption anyway and how far and few in between is that? You can get news of a CPC member being fired or dismiss weekly.
@@saint8257 That is such a blatant lie. Dictatorships always promote loyalty over merit when it endangers the party and Xi's anti-corrutpion campaign heavily focused on removing political rivals. There is this fantasy that dictatorships will work towards the common good and that it can be better achieved because there is no itnerference. Not only do dictatorships make rash and bad decisions because the party does not tolerate dissent it also promotes a culture of yesmen in addition.
@@rick7424 lol Your entire premise is false since the beginning because you are premediated on the "China is a dictatorship", hence a preconceived bias which immediately makes you uncredible. Do you even know how the Chinese governance system works or are you just going to parrot brain dead CIA propaganda? Did you spend even 5 minutes to research into this independently without touching Western corporate media? If you can't say yes to either one of those question then stfu. Chinese, Vietnamese are amongst the people who considers their country very democratic - that is, the government is working just as they want them to (see: Latana Democracy Perception Index; Harvard's study 'Taking China's pulse'). This is in complete opposite of the "Western democracies" where government approval ratings are all down in the sh*t hole. This means all you and the rest of the dumb CIA drone Westoids calling China a "dictatorship" or "authoritarian" are literally just projecting your own insecurities and flaws onto other countries whilst you sit on a couch thousands of miles away reading CNN or its affiliates newspapers. Contrary to your complete ignorance, Chinese people do actually vote for their government. They vote at a local levels within villages/towns/cities on who gets to become their representative, then their representative who won would proceed to work within the CPC and have their performance recorded by another branch. If the rep. meets/exceeds the target goal, they are promoted and once they are in the big circle, they themselves can vote for who gets to be the General Secretary. Every members within the CPC are evaluated by performance and meeting the goals set out for them before they can be promoted. This is as opposed to your "Western democracy" where your government just appoint anyone they like, that's why in the US you get transgender nuclear advisors and military advisors, one of which was a thief to put on a circus show to the public for "LGBTQ representation" 🤡🤡😂😂 Literal laughing stock of the world. Call Xi's anti corruption campaign however you like, but the fact is most Chinese interviewed and surveyed even by Western papers admitted to perceiving visible improvement in corruption levels. Culture of 'yesmen'? That's pretty racist of you, but I wonder how a culture of 'yesmen' can have over 500 protests per day and the CPC actively work to address them which is part of the reason why their approval rating is so high (yes, there is an actual article of it - China's 500 protests per day). Even the two most recent biggest protests about local banking frauds of one region which your WSM blew out of proportions and the COVID protests were quickly addressed and fixed within 1-2 weeks and immediate investigations followed by arrests were made. How many of your protests are ever addressed? 🤡 The BLM movement protest, which is one of the biggest in American modern history, actually produced ZERO MEANINGFUL policy changes or reforms. When was the last time a major government official of these shiny 'Western democracy' was arrested for corruption? 😂 Or are they so perfect that there aren't any at all??? Sad little man can't realize he's projecting his own country's 'authoritarianism' where their votes literally do nothing for decades except changing the mask of the government. 😂
I don't think they do translate to practice in this case. There are really no seemingly possible scenarios where the US and China would be in a conventional war where artillery would be used in mass. Such a war would be mostly in the air, at sea, and fought remotely. Artillery is more of a player if Russia and China went to war. The two countries massing artillery is a response to geography.
its more about india and china aswell as the possible taiwan invasion, the only time chinese and americans would fight would be a limited american force in taiwan which is very unlikely considering the risk of china's hypersonic anti ship missiles and the low incentive to defend taiwan.
@@somezsaltz6835 that can be manufactured elsewhere, stopping trade with our largest partner (china) and the risk of loosing an aircraft carrier is much more severe.
As a Chinese I would say you can get more info about chinese army in western website than from Chinese one cause they classify everything about it smh. Love your videos, Keep it up!
The size of their artillery is just astounding and quite frightening...because contrarily to Russia we know that they could maintain an industrial production capacity to sustain the materials for very long...
@@piojulian64 you have no understanding how american corruption works. 1. Russian and Chinese corruption results in poor quality equipment, training and leadership (you can buy a rank in the military as high as general). 2. American corruption MOSTLY results in overspending and buying too much equipment
As someone with no military experience, I find that there are a number of topics that I do not understand but I struggle to find any answers to, probably because it is obvious to those with military experience and so it is often overlooked. The main question I have, which I would love to see a video on, but might be able to just be answered in the comments, is what the different types of grenades and shells are, their history, organisation and use. For example, during ww2 it seems that every soldier was issued with hand grenades, but I have heard that the german stick grenades performed quite differently to the allied fragmentation grenades. And then what about smoke grenades, anti-tank grenades, white phosphorous grenades, illumination rounds and so on. Who were these munitions issued to and how were they used? I also have the same question about rifle grenades and light mortars in terms of what ammunition was supplied and used. I would love to understand the evolution of grenades, mortars, grenade launchers and other small arms indirect fire weapons over the past 150 years or so and how their organisation and use has changed. Great video as ever Battle Order, much appreciated
I was about to say.... These topics are complex and most grunts couldn't tell you, aside from that they are and what they're for. You'll want to look at Historians like Drachinifel, Military Aviation History Visualized, and The Chieften to find good books. Drach in particular does huge QnA videos and MAHV will be able to tell you about WW2 German and allied kit, including small arms tactics. These are the kind of things MilHistorians write books for. One of the ones I suggested should be able to tell you a good book if you're willing to look. To answer what a layman can... German Stick Grenades were Concussion grenades. Essentially, a frag grenade kills by sending a bit of metal through someone, and has a much smaller killzone on the pressure wave alone. The Potato Mashers (allied name for German Stick Grenades) were just extra explosives in a thin case. They killed almost exclusively with the pressure wave, and did this to try and perform better in trenches. It should be noted that nearly all Germans actually used traditional frag Grenades: Potato Mashers were rare. Edit more in as I think of it. Welcome to the hobby... You won't "know very little" for long asking these questions.
If you are really curious you can look at the current published US artillery manuals. They have sections on all the different shell types, what they are used for, what systems use them, how well they perform according to experiments and how old each shell type is. Reports on foreign equipment exist too. They are harder to find. Other countries self report but much less than the US does. However you will find that many countries use the same systems or ammunition. The Abrams uses a 120mm from Reinmetal. You can guess where else that gun might show up. Modern armies are like Lego collections made up of 10 or so different kits being traded amongst a household of 12 to 14 particularly acquisitive siblings.
As others have pointed out, that's a huge topic. But the general gist of their purpose is: Fragmentation grenades kill by shrapnel(the grenade shell breaking apart) which has a larger kill radius. German stick grenades (not their primary grenade actually) primarily killed via blast pressure from the explosive itself. That can be quite effective in confined space as the pressure wave reflects. There was an extra fragmentation sleeve soldiers could put on the stick grenades though. Frag grenades are sometimes called 'defensive' grenades since their lethal radius is larger than typical throwing distance requiring you to take cover once thrown. Cover is usually available for the defender. "HE/concussion" grenades were more offensive since the lethal radius from the blast is smaller so the attacker don't need to take cover in theory. In practice, this distinction didn't really matter. Smoke grenades are used to provide visual obstruction between you and the enemy. You mostly want to throw at where the enemy is to obscure their vision, not yours but you can also make a case for the other way around depending on circumstance. Smoke is also used for signalling, either for air support, rescue operations, or historically artillery spotting. White phosphorus is related to smoke grenades. In fact white phosphorus is frequently used in smoke rounds. It's just a type of chemical used in either smoke, illumination, or incendiary rounds. They aren't mutually exclusive. Illumination rounds as their name suggest are used to illuminate something, usually the enemy at night. More common in the past than modern day due to advances in NVG. They have a timed/altitude fuze that sets it off in mid air and are slow burning so they can light up the area for a longer period of time than a singular explosion. Many but not all include parachute so they can stay in the air longer and light up a larger radius of area. Illumination rounds may be fired behind the target so they silhouette against the light, while not lighting yourself up. This is commonly done in naval battles prior to widespread use of radar directed gunnery. Anti-tank grenades can come in various type depending on it being thrown, or launched from a tube. But hand thrown ones weren't very useful since the warhead, usually a HEAT type require it to land at a specific angle. Some have magnetic attachment that allow you to stick it on a tank rather than throw it... Or a drogue chute so you can throw atop of a tank and let it land at a right angle on the roof of the tank. Better than nothing but better alternatives arrived soon after. Rifle grenades were the predecessor to grenade launchers. GLs weren't invented until later. Rifle grenades was the norm and they were shorter ranged with less explosive power than mortars. They did however provide longer throwing distance compared to hand grenade and could be carried by a single infantry. This gave squads and platoons some degree of "artillery" esque fire support where as mortars are at least company level. Rifle grenades required you to stick a grenade at the end of the rifle making it unable to shoot conventional rounds... and were hard to aim as you had to place the buttstock on the ground, and can't shoulder fire it. This led to the adoption of grenade launchers which could be shoulder fired but that mean another weapon soldiers had to carry until the underslung grenade launcher was developed allowing it to be one system with your rifle. Rifle grenades retain one key advantage over grenade launchers though. They can have a "oversized" projectile, much larger than the typical 40mm diameter of grenade launchers. In fact, rifle grenades can fire very powerful HEAT rounds not seen on typical infantry held grenade launchers. In fact, most light 60mm mortars don't have any anti-tank rounds comparable to those available to rifle grenades. But this advantage isn't needed anymore due to the prevalence of RPGs. Light 60mm mortars, are longer range than typical grenade launchers but more cumbersome. They can be carried by a single person though so can be given to lower echelon units compared to larger mortar types. Its just to give lower echelon unit organic indirect fire support capability. Its higher arc of fire means its harder to aim, and less accurate but can go over hardcover. Organic fire support is useful because response times are much quicker than requesting fire support from higher command. You also don't want to saturate higher echelon artillery with every dug out that's posing a problem.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Adding to this white phosphorus grenades/ shells disperse burning bits of phosphorus and it's probably one of the worst things you can do to a person. Then there are gas grenades of various sizes and roles, russia and probably some other nations have artillery capable of firing nuclear ammunition, then there is flechette (like a giant dart shotgun), airburst, GPS guided and list goes on, the list is vast. In ww2 alone there was like at least 3 types of different armor piercing grenades for tanks (modern MTBs don't have grenades against armor)
16:20 PHL16 or (PCL-191) long-range rocket launcher (hereinafter referred to as Xinyuanhuo) is the successor of the PHL03 rocket launcher, which can launch a variety of rockets and missiles. The effective range of the Type 16 launching 300mm guided rockets is 150 kilometers, the maximum distance of launching 370mm guided rockets can reach 300 kilometers, and the accuracy and range of launching 750mm short-range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles are higher and farther, according to rumors It can hit 400 kilometers away and the error does not exceed 10 meters.
The 152mm and 130mm are actually division and regiment level aty and the serve in the few divisions escaped brigatization during the last round of reforms.
What people always forget is simply , NATO doesn't fight if there is no chance of a AIR SUPERIORITY ... cause all training till 2022 was based on Air Superiority .. Thus they need less artillery but the artillery they deploy are state of the art for the simple reason , only counter artillery are dangerous. infact in 2022 this is the first real war that involves trenches and artillery slug matches again. where Air Power play a very minor role. instead of what NATO would do , with CAS and overwhelming shock and awe from the Air.
Alright, cool we can create a robust anti air network to attrit and deter NATO airpower, and they just won't show up. Or they have to fight in a contested airspace and figure stuff out. Having trained with some US mechanized formations, they really do act as if they're the hottest game in town, pulling up on the top of the biggest hills without a care in the world. Quite similar to Turkeys operations at the beginning of their Syrian invasion in many ways. Tactics like this leave them very vulnerable to a near peer enemy
The US would have a tough time gaining air superiority in Asia as major US airports are within range of SRBM/other munitions from China. Also carrier groups would have a tough time operating due to proliferation of long range anti-ship missiles.
@@kevinchang6979 yeah Chinese missiles will make any conflict incredibly hard on the Americans. Home field advantage is real. Unlike the Russians, the Chinese will be able actually build more rockets when they run out.
I like the new graphics, but I think in instances where you're captioning the things you're saying, you need to keep more words on the screen. They were moving too quickly, and the section felt busy and off
16:40 PHL-03 actually have a range varie from 300 to 500 Kilometers. And China also have a series of rockets called WS series (卫士WeiShi meaning Guardian). who are used for the same purpose, but better, and only sold for export. PHL-03 and WS rockets are actually cheap.replacement of cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles, anti-submarine missiles, anti-ship missiles, anti-ship and submarine missiles, and many other surface to surface missiles, they are mostly used to fill the range gap between regular artillary guns and tactical ballistic missles. Even tho WS series are actually better than PHL-03, China didn't really equip the WS series, because China just filled that gap by using more TBM, China is selling WS to those third world countries who can't produce enough TBMs
5:57 82mm and 120mm........ 6:11 PLL-05 is a wheeled vehicle SIMILAR TO: [NONA -S] vehicle with (very good) anti armor ammunition....Penetration:+400mm Also look at [PLZ 10] 7:20 (ATGM BTY) 11:35 11:58 rocket detachable pods 14:10 PLZ-05AAT TOP ATTACK SHELL.....
5:00 isn't completely accurate. US light and Stryker infantry battalions use an "arms room concept" for mortars, meaning they can draw different size mortars depending on mission. Light companies can draw 60mm or 81mm, giving a battalion. It can maximize firepower over maneuver for 6x81mm mortars and 4x120mm mortars. The Stryker Bn often just draws 81mm. 9:00 US has ERCA now, giving 155mm M109A7s 70km conventional round range.
Self propelled artillery that are highly manueverable and capable of shooting and scooting within minutes seems to be the direction that modern armies are going in terms of their portable artillery capabilities. The widespread availability of drones creates large risks for static artillery as seen in the current conflict in eastern Europe. Nowadays, artillery units conducting operations against near peer adversaries must be able to perform a barrage and move out of dodge before the enemy does counter battery or even bring in surveillance assets such as drones could spot and track them.
You need to go that way if you want to survive in the modern battlefield. 30 seconds is what you have after shooting to GTFO or you're in the danger zone of counter battery.
From a historical point of view, China’s archers and strong cavalry have also been lightly protected by mail armor since ancient times. In Europe, plate armor and heavy cavalry are replaced by modern Chinese artillery. There are so many plains in the United States, I think it is the result of Germany fighting the Soviet Union in World War II
The biggest and maybe decisive advantage of chinese artillery with US army is its lang range rocket launchers. The new type 191 has a range more than 300km (only rockets, not its missil), with precision guidance and lots of warheads, including anti-tank, anti-radar, drones, ground penetration,anti-ships and even anti-submarine version. In the most proverbially confrontation scen between two ground force, the Taiwan Straight, PLA artillery can early cover all TW island, while US MRLS can not. It's very hard for US troops to do anything under the enemy intensive fire artillery fire power.
🇷🇺 is a great example of numbers, the 🇨🇳 lack battlefield experience lately. Fighting doctrine is also an issue🇨🇳 use of mass formation as in expendable - that is a major fault. A dead army cannot win you a war. We don't even know if the 🇨🇳 munitions work as advertised. The 🇨🇳 get in their own way. Look at their history. And the corruption that undermines moral.
@@dancemunkiThe United States has experience fighting Afghan farmers, and was defeated by Russia and Iran in Syria. When China and the United States are at war, the battlefield is not Taiwan, but Alaska and Canada.
Hello communist. Your entire comment is wrong. First, the Iraqi army was a large and well equipped military which we defeated in open warfare twice. The Iraqis were also using Russian equipment which large portions of Chinese military equipment is derived or copied from to this day. Also, would you like to discuss how well the CCP did when they invaded Vietnam after the US left? Second, the nearest thing to fighting Russians the US has done is when we killed or wounded 300 Russian trained/equipped mercenaries in Syria. The US did not fight Russia or Iran directly in Syria. You are lying. We fought numerous Iranian backed militias but never Iran directly. We fought Iran directly in 1988 and destroyed their entire navy. Finally, please show me the Chinese vessels capable of transporting an invasion force across the Pacific Ocean at all, much less under the threat of the US Navy. The Chinese will be lucky to make it to Taiwan at all much less Alaska. @@bingshao-cp5wk Sources: books.google.com/books?id=AeuLEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI#v=onepage&q&f=false www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-casualtie-idUSKCN1FZ2DZ www.google.com/books/edition/Iranian_Naval_Forces_A_Tale_of_Two_Navie/ZHfoAwBhkFgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=inauthor:"Office+of+Naval+Intelligence+(U+S+)"&printsec=frontcover
The Chinese are 100% right eliminating towed artillery. Lancets have been eating up towed pieces all across Ukraine because they can’t move fast enough. Lots of Paladin hits too, but nowhere near as many. Drones are the biggest thing glossed over here. Spotter drones turned ancient WW2 artillery into precision strike equipment without even needing to pay for advanced fire controls.
@@jic1 Infantry mortars. A lightweight 120mm mortar like the K6 the US uses can be carried by a pickup truck or even in the back of a regular car. A heavier towed 120mm like the French Mo120 RT offers the same kind of range as those gun mortars but can be towed by any small buggy like those things from Polaris. A gun mortar if used for direct fire forces you to put your mortar within line of sight which is a risk. You could take it and use the PCP-001 seen in the video but that's not great (and you would need a recoil absorption mechanism), especially if you can do the same with a CGM4 or a PF-98A. For bigger things (like 120mm), you also need a bigger vehicle which needs to be armoured and that means at the very least a 6x6 weighing about 15 tonnes. Not a problem for mechanised forces (which would likely use mortar carriers anyway) but very much so for light forces. Additionally, if you are in a heavy force using gun mortars, you may already have 120mm guns available to you through your tanks. If you are in a medium force however, it could be interesting as the presence of light tanks, assault guns or tank destroyers in not a guarantee (although it should be noted that the Chinese do use assault guns). That being said, in both cases, the gun-mortar provides an advantage over the mortar carrier independent from the direct fire capability, which is the ability to fire entirely from under armour instead of having to open the top of the vehicle. To my knowledge, only two other systems have that capability, namely the Mjolner used by Sweden and the Wiesel 2 mortar system used by Germany. On the other hand, you could counter that there is the 2S9 Nona present in Russian airborne forces but in this case, the Nona is not used as a battalion mortar system but as a regiment-level artillery asset in place of howitzers.
They are popular in some European nations. It is the US that do not use them mainly because infantry mortars are better suited for overseas deployment.
Sir, as always your videos are amazingly done and, from my limited knowledge, superbly researched. However, the strange 3D-ish format gave me quite the headache. I would suggest the older 2D presentation style format was more suitable. Thank you for the amazing content
I love how detailed these videos are. Very complicated topic but very easy to understand. That's what I love about RU-vid and especially this channel. Am I wrong or does it look like the US is moving more and more away from old-fashioned artillery (apart from the M1299, which is anything but old-fashioned) and more towards precision-guided munitions, including GMLRS systems? Ukraine has shown that it does not necessarily depend on how much and how strong artillery you have, but rather on which targets you can hit and how smartly this is coordinated. HIMARS is also ten times more effective than Russian artillery in some cases. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my impression at the moment.
I don't know if moving away from is the right word. The Army doesn't seem on reducing the number of howitzer battalions supporting its maneuver brigades. But some of the future developments with regard to HIMARS/MLRS do have more profound implications for supporting the corps and above, like PrSM and extended range GMLRS. With howitzers, other than extending the range like they're doing with M1299 or making ergonomic/survivability improvements like the US Army is considering with a potential self-propelled 105mms, it's hard to think of huge and necessary improvements that aren't incremental.
it's likely that Ukraine would still be more successful if it had greater numbers of western artillery systems, and they have been continually asking for more from NATO.
This is just a idea on a video What about a video on Ukraine artillery forces, like breaking down it Gis Arta c2 system how it's using it small inventory of guns to effectively beat Russian artillery force. I really like artillery video and love this channel keep the videos coming
@@asianamericancasestudies6434 agreed. A lot of the advanced tech sector in the US is propped up by a continuous influx of highly talented Chinese immigrants and their offspring. It was historically a brain drain from china but seems to be reversing recently with all the anti-chinese propaganda in the US. It's a fact not enough americans understand/appreciate
@@asianamericancasestudies6434 Immigrant success run deep in the history of the United States, same with the italians, germans, hispanic and various other ethnicities who migrated to the United States for opportunities. I wouldn't be too prideful about it if you ever were, it doesn't prove anything.
Regardless I understand if its hard for people to see the USA as anything cohesive when taken into fact that the US is practically a melting pot. and when people often picture "Americans" as caucasian peoples, rather then all of the above under 1 flag. Which mind you, is quite interesting considering most countries who were or are as large as the US, normally collapse in the 100-200 year mark.
Hey, quick question, How much worse would the mobility be for a towed howitzer (like m777) vs. an SPG (like m109) or trucked SPG (Like archer from Sweden or caesar from France)?
Tracked is going to have better offroad capability than most wheeled platforms, though the gap between the two has shrank a lot over the years. Wheeled SP and towed will have quite similar mobility, the big difference will usually be in pack/unpack time.
I think the numbers I've seen thrown around for a M777 is it takes less than 3 minutes to emplace and 2-3 minutes to displace. For a M109A6 Paladin, it takes about 30 seconds to halt and fire, and I'd imagine near instant displacement time (although someone else could probably comment on that). A Caesar requires a little set-up but it most likely shaves a minute or so off. The general standard for counter-battery moves is 3 minutes, so a modern towed piece with good ergonomics can do it but a self-propelled piece can be further away by the time the enemy can respond. But in terms of operational/strategic mobility, the towed pieces give more options for airborne and air assault/sling-loaded operations
If towed howitzers still have a place it's in the air assault operations. Especially for larger calibers since something like the M777, which was specifically designed to be very lightweight, can be sling loaded by a UH-60 Blackhawk. Lighter SPGs, ala Hawkeye 105mm, have potential in that area as well, though and I believe the US Army is looking into them as a potential lead in for a light gun replacement
DIVARTY currently (or since 2006ish) hasn't had any artillery battalions since they were transferred to the BCTs. They actually dissolved most of them and then started reforming them. When the DIVARTYs are made into proper artillery HQs, the arty battalions in BCTs will be transferred back to the DIVARTY but maintain direct support relationships with the BCTs. Marine Artillery Regiments are sort of a DIVARTY equivalent. Both have 155mm howitzers mainly, although Marine Arty Regiments also have HIMARS because the USMC doesn't have independent artillery brigades outside of the division. In the US Army, MLRS/HIMARS are in field artillery brigades, but can be attached in support of divisions under DIVARTY control in some circumstances.
You have to account for how fast a country can manufacture ammunitions and military equipment once they run out. In addition, the cost to manufacture them are critical.
Not really. Polish 155 mm SP guns are attached to Division level Artillery Regiments. Each Artillery Regiment has 1 group of ~24 X 155 mm guns. Poland only ordered 120 of these 155mm gun systems, which is enough to equip their 4 divisions with 1 artillery group each plus some spares. Maneuver brigades use older soviet era 122 mm or 152 mm guns.
Missiles are most important. Cheap Easy Mass Production. A Carrier Cost 10 Billion Dollars. 10 Years to build. Missiles sink 10 Billion Carriers in Minutes.
Great presentation. I think the Ukrainian use of drones is changing how artillery will be used and how effective it can be. Artillery combined with drones is almost like having close air support to take out select targets.
Drone assisted artillery has been used for a while, you just don't get the videos leaking online from US military drones. But Ukraine is using this to devastating effect, and using civilians drones quite often.
It’s an old comment but Russia has beaten Ukraine in terms of Drone categories 😀 The Ukrainian MOD themselves admits that Ukraine is nowhere near the drone capabilities be it Spotting,targeting,surveillance,suicide etc. the Lancet-3 has been the greatest destroyer of Ukrainian M777/IFV/ Tanks and other equipments .
@@wallingnaga6563 I think we should have a comment section where we track entire history of utilization for certain types of weaponry. In last two months Ukraine has been able to show some breakhroughs in done warfare and were ramping up their drone production at triple pace, probably. Special mention to anti-mine drone warfare.
The issue is that artillery depends on calculation. These calculations depend on having an understanding of precisely where you are firing from to base the trajectories. Adding in the difficult factors of velocity of transit and you need naval-grade targeting computers, which are far from the level of accuracy of land based systems. Also the damage that artillery recoil will impart to an unbraced suspension and vehicle frame will cause either rapid decreases in efficency/capacity, or a level of reinforcement that will add tons of weight to a platform that increasingly diminishes the effectiveness of its mobility.
@Roland Griffin idk but based on the guy above's reply, naval based ballistic targeting system are less prone to fatigue & damage from the vehicle's own recoil, thanks to most naval platform's size that allows the gun and the targeting system to be put seperated from each other; with a more compact platform like a tank or a SPG, recoil shock is harder to mitigate additionally, naval platform's aforementioned size allows bigger systems to be installed, compared to land vehicles which cannot go up to the size of a Maus just to accommodate similarly bigger systems, for practical reasons
PLA artillery has been expanded after most of the earlier fights the PLA got itself in was against a foe with better artillery starting from the very beginning Naturally they know how it sucks to not have artillery and would like the situation to be reversed next time they go into combat
Fantastic video! I would also love to see a video about comparison between the us and Chinese helicopter force, and the future of the Chinese helicopters.
The current advance in Ramjet Artillery round design will increase the range of US Army Artillery by five times! Also, they have guidance systems so there will be no need for adjusting onto targets! This translates to far less ammunition being needed. Also, Ramjet rounds inflict LESS WEAR on the barrel of the Artillery piece as the round only needs to be propelled to the speed at which the Ramjet kicks in! The Ramjet Artillery round is a game changer.
PLA is only army in the world that went toe to toe with USA & NATO in korean war and Russian border wars that fought into a standstill with inferior weapons back then. Neither sides bragging / peep about it yet both resort to nuking threat being sore losers i pressume. Imagine what the outcome would be now with hi tech modern weapons of today. Ask the korean war vets, it s a embrassment to be beaten to a standstill with just ww2 poor equipment.😅
that was over 70 years ago, much has changed since then, it also should be noted that the PLA during the Korean war already had heavy combat experience fighting in their own civil war combined with heavy Soviet support, also "with just ww2 poor equipment," the Korean war started in 1950, ww2 equipment back then was MODERN EQUIPMENT, ww2 was only 5 years ago. Nowadays China hasn't fought in a conventional war for over 44 years, and in that last conventional war which it had fought it lost.
The Russians already proved that just having more artillery pieces doesn’t always confer an actual advantage in firepower. They constantly lacked the logistical trains necessary to all deployed pieces fed and the gunners supplied. I’d be curious to see how Chinas logistical systems compare at both lower and higher levels, especially given their expeditionary aspirations. Even if on paper the PLA has sufficient logistical tail, I would contend that given the complete lack of actual deployment experience in the PLA, especially under the new structure, there may be a lot of “bugs” in their structures and plans. Given the fact that a PLA exercises tend to be less about experimentation and testing to determine capabilities and weaknesses, and more about demonstrating to the cameras and party officials, there may be a lot of hiccups that won’t discovered until it’s time to do it for real.
Correct, but what can we say about China in this matter? First of all, they adapt, they are not stuck in old doctrine, they copy not only tech but also how to use it, personally I believe that Chinese logistic excel, they are historically very good at it in previous conflict, world war 2, civil war and Korea, and they are also very good in logistic in peace time, support during natural disasters and it is also a highly organised Asian society. China have watched the same tv clip as we have in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Syria or Iraq and lastly in Ukraine, they know the strength of west and weakness of old Russian doctrine, they have adopted, they are mobile, they have drones and radars, they are, and they will in the future be way more dangerous enemy then Soviet ever were.
@@MrCastodian Well Said... I think the big mistake people make with China is believing that very real weaknesses are permanent... They can't make chips now. NOW. They can't deploy a large enough force to attack Taiwan. NOW. Corruption is too deep for the army to function. NOW. But the war isn't happening NOW. The war happens after all those issues are looked at.
> more about demonstrating to the cameras How would you know? Off course you have promotional materials like all armies do. There are tons of promotional videos of US arsenals, are we suppose to deduce they are just for show and that the US don’t test for weaknesses? Are you so privy with the Chinese military that you know they don’t test anything?
The root cause why Russian logistic system sucks is their poor economic power. But China is the largest industrialized country in human history ever, like the US in WW2.
As a Chinese, I am sure that China's rocket launcher is absolutely the world's first. The exported WS-2d has a range of 400 kilometers. The phl191 in the 2019 military parade has a range of 500+ kilometers. Not only that, the accuracy of China's rocket launcher is absolutely the world's first. It can also attack moving targets at sea.
I'm a conscript in a Southeast Asian country using legacy towed howitzers. I look with envy at the self propelled folks because they have an easier life. No need to download stores from the tonner, ram iron pickets and up the stupid camo net.
I would say the PLA has much stronger and all-rounded artillery than the US army for a total war between military strong powers. The PLA's artillery structure is clearly aimed for a war with strong and mechanized enemy that can strike back and pull up a fair fight. That's why everything is self-propelled. Because if it's US army they are fighting, the counter artillery fire or even air strike are pretty likely to have arrived within 3min. While the US army invest more funding on fighting asymmetric warfare. That's why they has the M777. If you are fighting the Taliban in mountain terain. That's a excellent piece of artillery because it's can be airborne. But you are fighting Russian army or the Chinese army. Who equipped ani-artillery radar system and has large scale artillery units. M777 is probably not a good choice.
Most importantly China has the industrial base to manufacture artillery shells by millions per year. The US can manufacture 14 thousand 155mm shells per month. Russians fire more in a single day in Ukraine.
It probably sacrifices some logistical streamlining at the group army and strategic (manufacturing/procuring) levels to streamline logistics at the brigade level, since the platforms share components with those used in the maneuver battalions. Also might be a political angle to do with manufacturers that i don’t know about
I think that in the next few years the West will have to consider bringing back the 203mm artillery and heavier 160mm mortars. With respect to the MLRS, land-based cruise missile launchers and hypersonic missiles will have to be considered directly. Thank you.
@@jxmai7687 As with everything, it is a compromise between performance and needs. If you go to an air-naval war it is logical to look for light forces. But in a war like Ukraine we see how heavy artillery , 203 mm guns and 240 mm mortars are used by the Russians and are very useful . Imagine these weapons in the hands of NATO and with modern technology.
@@arbelico2 loitering munitions are really proving their worth in ukraine, what costs under $50,000 is able to do the job that would normally require an entire battery of artillery or a million dollar cruise missile
@@arbelico2 those systems aren't cheap and would still be vulnerable to other forms of attack making losses even more expensive. If every land unit had to come equiped with EW suites, then equipment prices will soar. Its part of the reason why active protection systems, despite being proven to work, are still not widely adopted.
I have a question about the 127 mm naval guns with the VULCANO ammunition and the 155 mm AGS of the US NAVY, would it be possible for them to be used on land in a system similar to the ARCHER? . The features and ranges of these guns together with their ammunition could make important differences. Thanks .
Leonardo, in cooperation with Diehl, is producing a 155 mm version of the VULCANO ammunition for NATO artillery (mainly the PzH 2000 which is also in use in Italy), so there is no need for a land based version of a navalized gun. They are also working on an upgrade for the 127mm and 155mm ammunition types that combines the GPS guidance that is already present with a terminal laser guidance for increased accuracy if the target is lased.
@@Schnittertm1 I knew about the fact that they were working on the 155 mm VULCANO, but I didn't know about the laser guidance in those same ammunition. If I commented on the 127 mm, it was mainly because of the rates of fire that can reach 40 shots per minute and a certain anti-aircraft capacity that can be useful to shoot down drones. Thanks .
Main issue with American M109 Paladin is that it has shorter barrel than the rest of the NATO SPGs, there are reports from Ukraine that Excalibur round fired from Polish AHS Krab 155mm L52 gun has a range of up to 70km (43 miles).
@@arbelico2 current VULCANO ammunition for the 155mm SPG has slightly less range than that for 127mm naval gun, around 90km, but barrel length has very big impact on this range, so it will be 90km for German, France, Polish artillery with L52 barrel, but for US L39 barrel it will be significantly less around 60 km.
as i watch this i constantly ask myself, how does artillery prioritize fire, there are dozens of calls for arty support a minute who decides and what are the factors into those decisions?
As a idea and former Paratrooper, I’d love to see if any lessons have been made from the Russian failed Air Assault on Hostomel Airport and/or the near future adaptation of modern NATO airborne operations
@@shmeckle666 the VDF hold the airport for a few hours, then they were driven out by the national guard. One day later the russian main army arrived and took the airport. However the VDF suffed badly until then.
The VDV took the airport and soon lost it with both heavy in-air and ground losses. The interesting thing is what the VDV is textbook air assault landing seizure and we’re decimated. Find it interesting to see what we can learn from it
They've told us what we've known for a long time, airborne without a quick follow up from other forces are just airdropped POWs. Also MANPADS are incredibly dangerous for this kind of mission, just because you think you've cleared out enemy air defence doesn't mean you can just fly some helicopters deep in and not expect many of them to get shot down.
@@mechano6505 No. with most NATO AB and AA there’s a whole different tool set, equipment and capability and training involved down to section round for round compared to regular infantry. Pathfinders should hold and defend the DZ/LZ from enemy short range MANPADS. So interesting what the VDV got wrong
