New Chinese Artillery vs. U.S. Comparison

Other Platforms

Helpful English Resources:

Chapters:
0:00 - Overview
2:49 - Battalion Mortars
6:50 - Brigade Artillery
13:27 - Group Army Artillery
18:16 - Closing Thoughts

[ipfreak]

for china, those existing towed howitzers not exactly retired. they have been transferred to reserved units (for training to retain skills) and militias.

[jensenthegreen]

No political jokes or anything, Pure analysis and just the military, This kind of video is rare when it comes to comparing major superpowers, Respect!

[Conquistador]

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.

[tonglianheng]

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.

[mikellwehrer]

I REALLY appreciate the subtitles on the units giving us an approximate size. Thanks

[skillednoob]

The graphics just keep getting better and better

[lnbgbih]

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

[rainlord]

The Range of the PHL-16 you have are export variant, for domestic use the ranges are:
370mm: 300-350km
750mm: 400-500km

[cameronfoley]

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!

[tranquoccuong-its-orge]

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

[WangGanChang]

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.

[domokun]

A fantastic analysis, impartial and based on available statistics without deviating into hypothesis. This is the kind of rational thinking we need more of.

[dicksontong]

12:10 Chinese always display manpower training, called "trained in worst condition" assuming all-electric things are disabled.

[chesterlynch]

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).

[syjiang]

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?

[tritium]

I'm pretty sure ammunition would be easier to make than platforms, some of which were completely ignored in both areas.

[divneperello]

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

[chadkarr]

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.

[LostLT]

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.

[sasirut]

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