thanks Capy for the video , I was so frustrated with the election , Left , Right , I was wondering did china got it right? and we f****up , well then your told me about social credit . I am happy with our system ... I would rather have free speech .
@@lawyermahaprasad rofl, my answer to you that we do not have fr. spch - I gave several examples - was auto-dlted by yt. Well, there you have it, your fr. spch. I left out a few "e" in the hope that this post will go through.
Since the Russo-Ukrainian war, I realized that the only countries on this planet that can supply unlimited artillery shells are China and the United States (I'm not a pro-communist and I'm not joking). In the 80s, it was possible to transport containerized artillery shells to Pakistan and Afghanistan while maintaining an absolute artillery firepower advantage in the Sino-Vietnamese War 😮😮😮
11:42 "Nose bleed artillery" You stuffed the gas-generator in the wrong end of the shell! It is called *"base-bleed shell"* since the drag induced by the flat bottom of the shell is counter-acted by a small can of rocket fuel stuck in the *base* of the grenade. This rocket fuel deliberately does not burn fast enough to create thrust, but does generate enough gasses to fill out the vacuum behind the shell that slows it down over distance. It was designed by the Royal Artillery Bureau in Sweden in the 1960's to give the coastal artillery (fortified and mobile both) a longer reach, and came into active stocks in 1967.
The 200mm shell seems quite substantial, especially when considering that WW2 battleships had guns with a minimum caliber of 350mm and some even had shells upwards of 400mm.
I guess you never heard of the P.R.C. invasion of Vietnam after the U.S. withdrawal? You won't be able to find out anything about it on the internet, China has teams that scrub it from Wikipedia multiple times every day, for instance. I know about it, because Vietnam vets I knew thought it was a hoot, how bad the Vietnamese kicked the ass of the million-man army the P.L.A. sent in, and then the final terms of the peace treaty Vietnam imposed. So, go ask some Vietnamese people in your community if you get the chance!
@@TaskandpurposeThe total number of field guns supplied was 500 which included lighter Type-63 MRLs. Chinese total gun inventory in 1973 was 8,700, including 300 152mm guns and 7,400 122/130mm guns, with the remaining 1000 being a mix of soviet mrls and light tubes with short range. Hope this is helpful!
The 155mm is not american. It was a work from France and Germany to develop a common shell format. It was better than alternatives at the time and was accepted as a NATO standard as well as adopted by the USA.
hes just coping because he's not general and make fun of a legendary leader of china. i dont care how bad mao zedong was. but this man who own this youtube channel is just propaganda tool. a cope mechanism for american people in which their army is actually a joke and full of trans and dont even have epic military parade to show. usa has no charisma anymore and soon they are doom and have internal civil war.
Dunning-Kruger ain't just for demonstrating that idiots equipped with an inadequate amount of knowledge will be overly confident, but also the self-doubt and questioning of ones intelligence one gains as they begin to gain more knowledge but have not yet mastered an art.
1M/year? That even not reach firework's consumption. In 2024, Chinese new year fireworks consumed 0.8M tons explosives. And this data is already in restricted state (fireworks inside Cities are restricted). I think a 155 shell won't heavier than 800kg. cause this mass can't be lifted by muscle. We joke Ukraine-Russia war total explosives consumption is less than our fireworks consumption. And from this, China REALLY didn't support Russia like a lot of guys think. Things won't be such boring like now if we support Russia like US support Ukraine. Seem like a lot of guys have no clue about Chinese heavy industry capacity. Currenty steel productivity is already in low capacity and still be asked to cut the capacity. BTW, For bombarment Taiwan, Artillery or rocket artillery are poor efficiency. Best way is using UAV throw JDAM, energy provided by high-efficient and reusable engine, cost is only fuel and explosives. And no risk of losing pilot. Chinese idiom: more sweat for less blood. (hmmm, social credit score... hahahaha)
“More sweat, less blood” is a slogan emphasizing the importance of rigorous training, not equipment. It means that the harder soldiers train, the fewer casualties they will suffer in real wars.
@@Shadowless_Kick my fault. This slogan have both meaning you said and mines. I hide some words. The correct form is: more workers sweat on rear for less soldiers blood on frontline.
Thats fucking scary to think about. Its like that one german realizing the nazis had no chance because an american soldier had a cake in france delievered from america in under a week. We see the chinese as weak just as the Axis powers saw america as weak during ww2, little did they know we were a dormant industrial powerhouse. China is what we were in ww2.
Bull was designing a huge artillery piece for iraq, who had no one but Israel to aim it at at that point. Its not a big surprise he was "taken care of"
I think that the PLA is in love with arty because their original mentor, the Red Army of the USSR, was in love with arty. ETA: It's been pointed out to me that the PLA grew its emphasis on artillery entirely on its own, _not_ due to Soviet influence.
Yes and no. In the early history of the Chinese Red Army (the Chinese Communist Party’s armed forces had different names at different times, so here we refer to them as the Chinese Red Army), they were very short of heavy weapons and this caused many problems. For example, during the Anti-Japanese War, the Japanese built a large number of outposts in order to consolidate their rule in the occupied areas and block the Red Army’s bases, and the Red Army needed to destroy these outposts in order to break the blockade. But even at the end of the war (1944-45), the Red Army found it difficult to do this because the Red Army’s regular army was extremely short of artillery, shells and explosives, and the militia and guerrillas lacked even qualified light weapons. For the same reason, the Red Army was extremely short of offensive capabilities and often failed to capture cities. In contrast, in the subsequent civil war, after winning the decisive battle in Northeast China, the Red Army seized a large number of artillery and some armored vehicles from the Kuomintang army, which greatly increased the Red Army’s strength. In the subsequent Battle of Tianjin, the Red Army used these weapons intensively and quickly captured Tianjin, a city with a large number of fortifications. This made the Red Army more deeply aware of the importance of artillery. The same was true in the subsequent Korean War. The powerful firepower of the US military made the Red Army realize the importance of artillery and eager to develop its own artillery. In the 1950s and 1960s, China carried out rapid industrialization and established a national defense industry, truly gaining the ability to use artillery on a large scale, and then manufactured and stored a large number of artillery and ammunition in response to possible wars. In the war with Vietnam in the 1980s, the Chinese army's use and preference for artillery can be said to have reached a crazy level, which further strengthened the Chinese army's emphasis on artillery. I think that "PLA is in love with arty because their original mentor, the Red Army of the USSR, was in love with arty" is a very contemptuous idea. This idea portrays the Chinese as a Soviet follower and thinks that China is just a copy of the Soviet Union. This is very incorrect and disrespectful. In fact, the development path of China and the Chinese army is explored based on its own experience. In the history of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese Red Army, there have been several mistakes of borrowing, each of which only led to failure. Therefore, the Chinese hope to take an independent route. We will understand and learn from others' ideas, but we will modify them to adapt to China's situation. The Chinese did study Soviet tactical thinking, but they didn't copy it. In fact, this rule applies to all countries, armies, and people. The Egyptians and Syrians hired Soviet instructors to train their tanks and then suffered heavy losses in their wars with Israel. Liberia copied the political structure of the United States almost exactly, and the results were almost disastrous. No rules apply to everyone, people need to make their own way. I apologize to everyone who reads this comment, I don't speak English, so I used a translation software. I'm sorry if you feel hard to read this.
@@tomwdzm6424 Excellent summarization of the history of the Chinese Red Army, and well written! Thanks! I'm sorry if you thought my original post was "a very contemptuous idea," but it didn't grow out of _contempt_ for the Chinese Red Army. It grew out of ignorance (which you corrected very well), and my familiarity with the Soviet Army, which I was trained to understand and potentially face in battle as a US Army soldier. For example, on the eve of the Soviet Army's Operation Bagration in 1944, the Soviets assembled an enormous force that included 32,718 guns, rocket launchers and mortars against the Germans' 7,760 field guns. It was (and probably still is) Soviet doctrine that artillery must be overwhelming. So I assumed that Mao had Russian advisors who would have emphasized artillery. Perhaps he didn't have any such advisors. I'm less familiar with the history of the Chinese Red Army than with the Russian one. Thank you for correcting my ignorance! It sounds like a history worth learning.
Your statement on who killed Bull is incorrect. Bull was killed by Mossad when he would not stop helping Saddam Hussein build his super gun. They tried to talk him out of it, but he was broke again and would not listen.
The super gun was just Bull’s dream project, a space launcher. Saddam was funding this for him in return for his development of steerable re-entry warheads for Iraqi scud missiles. Those, along with Iraq’s nuclear weapons program were the two things the Israelis were really upset about. The death of Bull took care of one of those problems. Their bombing of the Iraqi reactor being used to create weapons grade nuclear material, likely plutonium, took care of the other.
China paid Trump millions of dollars in bribe. It was originally billions, but they wrapped them in fortunate cookies to make their transport less obvious, which has proven to be a misjudgement not accounting for Trump's appetite and lack of taste.
@@leiregyp5814 Not quite. The sugar cookie recipe is Japanese in origin as a companion for tea. The "fortune" started in America. That piece of paper changes a generic sugar cookie into a fortune cookie and that started in California by imigrants from Japan.
@@KuroNekoExMachina It will work. Because the range of 550km, can already be hit from the Chinese mainland to the eastern part of the central mountain range of Taiwan. And all the large cities in Taiwan are in the western plain of the island. Unless Taiwan has an Iron Dome system. Otherwise, it is extremely uneconomical to intercept a huge number of rockets with a limited number of Patriot missiles.
Considering that the current NATO estimates for Russian artillery production is ~3 million shells per year I think we can safely assume that China's capabilities exceed that.
Chris said China is probably capable of producing a million heavy artillery shells annually. It shows that he had no idea of Chinese military industrial capacity.
With the conflict with Ukraine, Russia is producing 3 million shells per year. With China's leading supply Chain, it can easily produce much more than that.
@@Sunopeek maybe he means if they were to start producing shells right now, of course they could probably ramp up to much more than what Russia is doing.
@@SunopeekAs a Chinese I assure u that Chinese military productivity is far beyond that. Last year China produced 4.58million tons of commercial TNTs. So if each bomb we use 4tons of tnt, the productivity is exactly 1M😂
usually a large missle only uses up to 450 kg tnt equivalent. So 10M missile equivalent probably is the reserving industrial potential. Current productivity is ~3M (for military use they don’t publish real number)
From 1950 to 1974, China assisted Vietnam with the following military materials: 2,138,000 guns, more than 70,000 cannons, 124,440,000 rounds of ammunition, 18,070,000 rounds of artillery shells, 176 ships, 552 medium-sized and land and water tanks, 320 armored carriers, more than 170 airplanes, 16,000 automobiles, 18,240 tons of explosives, 65,000 cable TVs, 35,000 radios, 11,170,000 sets of military uniforms, which could equip 2 million people, or about RMB 4.26 billion. 35,000 units, 11.17 million sets of uniforms ...... can equip 2 million people, which is about 4.26 billion yuan.
@sims2556 But China did not dare not to support it, because China was afraid that the US military would approach China's national border and force China to have another Korean War
@@sims2556all this claim that China livelihood were "pitiful" is not supported by the fact that chinese were better educated and have longer livespan than their Indian counterpart during this period of supposively "bad" period for China. it is an error to attempt to judge economic output by using GDP that is denoted in dollar, since China has very little volume of trade with US, the currency exchange rate is highly unstable and are impacted by only a tiny faction of the economy. this lead to bad data when you attempt to use it for further projection the entire economy as you would be effectively "double guessing". considering China did not have access to loan and it machinery was stolen in WWII, it performance in the 1950-1970 is still very respectable when you compare it to it immediate peer: India.
Back in 80s China was an US ally and had lots of technological transfers, so it make sense for China to adopt US/NATO standards in a hypothetical war with the Soviet Union.
True, they got to buy tank technologies from the West and that includes British gun, German engine, French transmission and collaboration with American engineers. But then 1989 happened and nobody wanted to work with them anymore.
Chinese here. I don't think towed artilary has better chance to survive than self-propelled artillery in any case. Yes, if you dig deeper, FPV will have lower chance to find you. However, artillery reconnaissance radar will find you anyway! A very persuasive counterexample is that there are not many active M777 units in Ukraine now. They were all destroyed!
the fact that you have to preface your comment with "Chinese here" as if ethnicity somehow matters. I get the need to preface a title related to the topic or occupation related to the control or command of artillery.,,, but ethnicity .. ok
@@ningshanwang831 Being Chinese is not a credential even if the topic is on Chinese weapons. Thats a fallacy to appeal using irrelevant authority. Being Chinese doesnt inherently provide someone with expertise in the technical operation of Chinese Weapon systems. For example, I am not an expert on US weapon Systems just because I am an American. A more appropriate preface is "I am a Chinese artilleryman" or "I am a PLARF Soldier" these are credentials not "I AM CHINESE"
@@urcompnioncube0213 On the contrary, my message is "conflict of interest is claimed" or "I could be biased, but please consider my reasoning if you are interested." If you are not talking about the video itself, I am not replying anymore.
Battle order did a good breakdown of pla artillery a wile back, The reason why so many pla guns are still 122mm is that they use 122mm at the maneuver brigade level and 155mm in Artillery brigades at the group army level
In January 1995 the Chinese army unveiled a 21 m long supergun capable of firing large artillery shells into South Korea and Taiwan. The gun could fire 85 mm shells over a 300 km range. Nothing further was heard of the weapon. BUT - Interestingly, China was one of the countries that retained Gerard Bull as a consultant in artillery design in the 1980's.
@@FrostbiteDigital watch other videos if you don't want jokes and just straight information, this isn't for your collage thesis, people other then the "serious, no BS" are watching
One million shells per year is too humble. I work in the manufacturing world. The China production rate can easily exceed 10 times than that I think and that’s still not their max production rate. Factories can work 24/7 and it doesn’t take them long to build new factories.
China not only has the most numbers of artilelry, BUT (this might be surprising to many people) they also have the best quality artillery in the world too; Let me explain China has the *PLZ-05* which is a highly modern and very advanced Self-propelled Artillery Gun system with modern *digital Fire-control equipment* (equal to the German PzH 2000) It can also fire very modern ammunition, for example the *GP155A* guided anti-tank round, which is a copy of the German SMART-155, it contains 2 separate Anti-tank guided EFP warheads, able to accurately hit and destroy enemy tanks from over 30+ km away. This is basically a long-range anti-tank sniper. In addition to that, China also has the *WS-35* GPS precision-guided artillery round, which is acopy of the American Excalibur shell, but with longer range; But it doesn't end there, this is where it gets even more shocking: in the video you only talk about Cannon-artillery; BUT even more important is the *ROCKET LAUNCHER* artillery, which is even more powerful than the cannon-artillery. Because ROCKET LAUNCHER artillery have much more range and more destruction power with bigger warheads and explosive power (for example it can fire 300mm ROCKET compared to only 155 mm cannon artillery gun). And this is where China has become especially superior over any other nation in the world; China has been developing the most powerful Rocket launcher artillery in the world, for example the new Chinese *PHL-16 (PCL-191)* carries 8 x 370mm missiles with a range of 220 km! This PCL-191 greatly outranges the American M270 (HIMARS) which has only a range of 70~90 km (with standard rockets, or 150 km with special ammuniton, but still much less than the Chinese system) And as if this isn't already enough, China also has the *A300* Rocket launcher too, which has a range of 290km! But this isn't even the best Chinese artilelry yet. Even more impressive than the A300 is the new Chines *WS-2D* Multiple-Rocket-Launcher is currently the most powerful "conventional" aretillery system in the world. It carries 6 x 425mm missiles with a range of 400 km! This is literally *Tactical Ballistic Missile* range, but with 6 launcher tubes on a truck (compared to the American ATACMS which can only carry 1 or 2 TBM with a range of "only" 300 km which is much less than the Chinese system) What makes the Chinese *WS-2D* unique is the fact that it can also shoot drones (contained inside the missile as a sub-munition) so that the Chinese Rocket Launcher can release dozen of drones on the targeted area, swarming and overwhelming the enemy position with dozen of killer drones. Doesn't this sound absolutely terrifying? This shows that China has currently the most powerful Artillery arsenal in the world right now. America is only 2nd in this category today.
dont tell that to americans. you are destroying their cope mechanism. let them think that other military is weak and nothing can defeat american soldier with exosuit like nomad from crysis 1. USA always underestimate other countries to cope with their broken country that full of drugs and high homicide rate and paranoia. dont tell them these otherwise they hate asians more for no reason
Naming any Chinese made equipment with any European made equipment is a LOT. Especially German ones…with a ER base bleed 155 grenade VULCANO has a max range of 70km. Keep coping Wumao
"There is a common misconception that China operates a nationwide "social credit score" system that assigns individuals a score based on their behavior, leading to punishments if the score is too low. However, this is not true. Western media reports have sometimes exaggerated or inaccurately described this concept." From Wikipedia
Not to mention USA has the WORST financial credit score system in the world. a little number on a page heavily affects your chances of getting a loan, and how much you pay in insurance, which makes your score even worse.
During 2020 India-China standoff, Chinese forces had deployed towed artillery in the dug outs. But Ladakh is not similar to Ukraine. There is negligible tree cover to protect towed pieces from FPV drones.
it is mountain area, good luck to try offensive operation there, even for chopper the place is not nice for them china can deploy mines, their own drone and target the area with their artillery
If you have not personally and directly worked in the design, development and testing of these China- made systems then how do you justify that your analytics of them is accurate? The analogy is judging a book by its cover which is more often than not, very inaccurate !
The US report on China is probably more academic than practical.... If the US understands the Chinese tactics, it would have not lost the direct and indirect conflicts with China, China 1949, Korea 1953, Tibet 1955, India 1962, Vietnam 1975, and SCS 2021...
As I understand it, saying that "artillery is the key to understanding the Chinese ground forces" is more than a slight understatement. Their military even controls whole economic areas that are responsible for producing certain military goods and if I understand correctly, their military enjoys a bit more autonomy than most other militaries do when operating within their home country. Really, China's military isn't just an artillery-launching machine... Their whole economy is also an artillery production machine. I think their philosophy seems to be that it's more important to have an unlimited supply of artillery than of anything else. It seems like they expect to lose a fairly significant chunk of their population in the event of a major war, and are designing their military in such a way that they can keep doing damage for a pretty long time regardless of the losses they take. They seem to have realized that tanks are problematic because their crews are irreplaceable and tough tanks are not easy to design on the first try. But once you have artillery that tracks and fires almost entirely using a computer, it's not quite as hard to produce a lot of those and have them be fairly easy to use as long as the people operating them only need to know how to load them and press the button, and more specialized crews that locate targets are inputting the coordinates for strikes remotely and remaining mobile enough that they don't take unacceptable losses. Although, I can't say I know how chinese artillery handles, so that last part is speculation. Tanks can be made to traverse the complex and varied terrain in China, but producing a lot of boom tubes is much easier and probably cheaper too - and China wants to become a capable military ASAP.
Your comment about dedicated personnel getting coordinates struck home. All the illegal Chinese crossing the Soithern border into USA are doing just that. ICBM's with nuclear capability are just modern long range artillery
I presume China would rather go on the defensive than invade. From a defensive pov, it makes sense investing in artillery. America focuses on air and sea power because they love invading.
@@danielch6662 I think that the ultimate goal of any military operating under a large government with great-power-ambitions is to achieve the kind of expeditionary capacity and power projection the US can wield. The only reason China *isn't* pursuing the same technologies and capabilities the US uses boils down to two things: 1. The US has a massive head start on the infrastructure, and technology and skilled labor needed to build carriers that can actually hold up against what the US can throw at them 2. China knows as well as the US does that investing in *new* technologies is the only way to topple the cutting edge of existing technology. When, in modern history, has a force with a technological head start been bested by its own technology? It's almost always a new element on the battlefield that changes the expected outcome of a war between large, powerful nations. The time when geography alone can decide a battle is over - the use of satellites by every major military power should enable any reasonably careful aggressor to understand the terrain they'll be fighting on and prepare accordingly. And any defender should already know their own country's terrain - any good military will have it's soldiers training in as many regions of their country as possible to ensure their military can operate anywhere a foreign military might choose to invade or put down any revolt no matter where it occurs. If China *just* wanted to defend it's own territory, it wouldn't be investing so heavily AND *exclusively* in mobile artillery systems. It would do something closer to what Switzerland has done. It would create layers of fortified positions, build hidden bunkers accessible by tunnel in it's mountainous regions, and focus more on being able to hold positions against any kind of assault. Instead, their focus seems to be on remaining as flexible as possible and being able to move their firepower anywhere it needs to - as long as there's a basic road that isn't impassable due to weather conditions. Though, to be fair, I think China's roads make the mobility of it's units a bit of a moot point. Or rather, the propensity their rivers have to flood the roads - probably leaving them more-or-less passable once cleared of debris but a flood at a bad time could be disastrous if it happens during a significant incursion by one of China's enemies (if it were ever truly at war, I mean). I suspect their belt and road initiative is as much an effort to ensure they can utilize that mobility under any circumstances as it is an effort to build relationships with other countries. In a war, they would need not just an army of soldiers, but another army of construction workers and heavy equipment operators to clear roads and ensure the roads that needs to remain clear are always fully accessible for the military. In a country as large and geographically complicated as China, they'll need as many skilled civil engineers and competent construction workers as they can get. In the event of a war, maintaining their internal shipping infrastructure will be as important as fighting off any would-be invaders and holding the line.
The reason china can produce so much shells is because of their resource reduction initiative. This is also the reason why Chinese shells are reusable.
@@cattysplatRussia was cut off from the "world" but still could easily procure all its required resources. Western supply lines are convenient, not a necessity.
Historical mistake from the beginning: the French occupier lost in Dien Bien Phu from Vietnam because China could release so much artillery , after their victory to liberate Korea.
Ryan, Were holding reeducation classes in your area. Please register with your districts Regional Oppression Officer. This offer is completey voluntary, but you are required to participate until completion.
Nice video as always it made me laugh. I do wonder why so many Army guys are afraid of the water? In the CG we love the water and need to take you on a ride in rough weather for some surf training or dropped offshore and need to swim home
122mm artillery isn't obsolete, it holds a different doctrinal use than 152 or 155. It's light artillery rather than medium. The US still uses the M119 105mm.
Read the following story in a book about WW2. I'm not completely sure whether this really happened or was just a joke by the author. A British general does an inspection of a team of British soldiers firing a gun located on the British coast and trying to hit German positions across the English Channel in France. After the gun is fired an observer with a powerful telescope shouts loudly, "It's a hit!". The general asks, "What did we hit?". The observer says, "Europe sir. We managed to hit Europe". Though I seem to recall that one reason why Gerald Bull liked guns so much was that he thought they were more accurate than missiles. There are a lot of interesting things about Bull. He built a super sized gun in Barbados to try to send objects into space. When he was young he was inspired by the WW1 long range German gun that could shell Paris from a great distance and he always felt that it was painfully obvious that in any military confrontation the combatant with guns with greater range had the advantage because they can fire at an enemy who couldn't fire back at them.
To answer the actual thumbnail question: Basically, a lot of Rocket Artillery can hit Taiwan from the chinese mainland, there's very little chance of any type of dumb-shell artillery having that range (150 km, roughly), but maybe some large pieces with specialty shells could. Also, of course there are naval guns that probably could... But --- well, they're mounted on ships. It kinda makes the question pointless. Gets a little more spicy if you imagine China maybe occupying some of the islands in the Taiwan strait, and building artillery parks. Pengiju islet is just 80 km (50 mi) from Downtown Taipei.
122 isn't obsolete any more than 105 is. It just has to be used differently. Self propelled 105s can be fired by a crew as small as 2 and are incredibly mobile and easier to move through heavy cover like cities and forests would offer. 105mm, low-recoil guns on wheeled chassis are likely to become extremely important for their higher mobility than 155 guns. With all that said, I don't see them being nearly as in demand as 155.
@@DM-dn7rf yep. They aren't as flexible in munitions and aren't as effective against hardened targets, but for an advance force or rapidly deploying light infantry, it's indispensible.
For all the hype of the 155mm M777, it was never designed to fire the amount of rounds that the Ukrainians have been employing it. It's lightweight construction to give it's airlift capability is proven to be it's shortfall.
That is why the United States 🇺🇲 LOST to Vietnam 🇻🇳 and Afghanistan 🇦🇫 too two countries that didn't have weapons to defend themselves they won with sticks and rocks
@@dannyzero692 ohh really? Hollywood's most patriotic and celebrated movies and BBC's documentaries say it was sticks and hoes. Are you calling then liars?
As opposed to handcuffing themselves with limiting their air campaigns and not going into Cambodia, where a sizeable amount of viet Cong stored supplies and manpower
GHN-45 (Gun, Howitzer, Noricum), which was offered in a variety of options like the APU and fire control systems. The first foreign sale was an order for eighteen guns with ammunition to the Royal Thai Navy for use by their Marine Corps. Other "aboveboard" customers included China, Singapore and Israel. All of these companies worked on local production under a variety of names, the Soltam 845P in Israel, ODE FH-88 from Singapore, and PLL01/WA021 in China.[6][7] Got it?
The big elephant in the room, or should I say bear in the room, is Russia. Biases aside, you can't talk about arty without talking about Russia; arguably the biggest artillery powerhouse on the planet today. Just 3 points out of many: 1) Russia produces more than 1.5 million shells per year (estimates range up to 3 million) while the USA sits at around 250 thousand. 2) US Excalibur will be all but worthless in GPS-denied environments while its Russian counterpart, Krasnopol, uses laser guidance and cares not if GLONASS is jammed or not, for it to be guided accurately. It is much easier to jam GPS/GLONASS over a large area (see current conflict in Ukraine which is primarily a artillery/drone war) than to disrupt laser-guidance. 3) Best US barreled artillery (M109A7 Paladin) vs best Russian counterpart (2S35 Koalitsiya-SV): Both 152.4-155mm. Ru 70km range VS USA 30km range (can be extended to 40km with Excalibur). Ru 16 rounds per minute US 4 rpm. Before anyone starts fanboying and flaming me, as I already suggested, put your biases aside and have an objective look.
@@EroticOnion23 The taliban didnt even reside in afghanistan for half the conflict. Whenever talibans were spotted they were killed. The US simply left because they had no inention to stay there forever. Seriously did you think the US will stay there forever?
@@benjaminnagy3007So who killed all the US and it’s allied soldiers inAfgan?Allied forces had about 600k troops, Talibans had about 100k troops. Allied losses was 77k Taliban losses were somewhere around 55k Did that went well?
I couldn't help but think the production numbers for artillery are a bit conservative given Chinas current manufacturing status in the world. Their output compared to the 1950s must be enourmous.
Since there're no "red lines" in Russia and their borders, China has been eyeing that territory north of Mongolia, for a very long time. Perhaps now, is that... time?
After the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, China & Vietnam still engaged in border skirmishes. If Wikipedia is accurate, the Chinese were using lots of artillery. In 1985 alone the Chinese fired one million shells into Vietnam.
We have to be careful regarding lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. There, drones are used extensively as counter-battery devices because of the shortage of artillery and the lack of air dominance. If on the other hand there's sufficient artillery and sufficient aircraft, drones (which aren't very effective) will be replaced by much more devastating counter-battery operations and a static target, no matter how dug in and protected by anti-drone shelters, will be a much easier kill than self-propelled artillery pieces.
Let them ride in their own Hollywood fantasy land.... China is much more powerful than back then today... People who brag about western military don't have any clue as like their military... They never faced any peer competitor after ww2. Even in ww2, it was the Soviets that did the work relieving pressure on western front after launching an offensive on the eastern front
The USA has been fighting with someone somewhere for the past 100 years. USA not only has the tech but it also knows the why. China has been trying to copy 50 year old USA tech and still cant get it right. They simply can not do anything on their own. Only advancements they get that are simply stolen from the west are bought from the russians.
Its been decades and China still cant attempt to invade Taiwan. Meanwhile US invades wherever it wants. I would also estimate this country at this point.
the problem with modern artillery is the emergent drone issue. They're sitting ducks for a small swarm now and if their ammo dumps are anywhere near the cannons, good luck
Tbh China and U.S. likely also are working on drone tech now. Most drones used in Ukraine by both sides are made in China or use Chinese parts funny enough
@@joshuabonilla3491 Good that the US is FINALLY working on drones, because I won't buy a drone for personal use if they're made in China which means, NO DRONE FOR ME YET!
The most famous artillery piece is the M46 130mm, shoots 32 km bests every one except the US 175mm but the US gun is limited to 400 rounds between tube changes.
~@10:30 I think the idea that they're going to design these artillery pieces to fire nuclear weapons is absurd - but, I also think you're right that they wouldn't necessarily involve that particular entity if they weren't going to involve some kind of nuclear activity... I think that if they want to achieve "super duper range", they're going to need to achieve hypervelocity speeds. And if they want to achieve hypervelocity speeds without using a sort of light-gas-gun type of design, I think the only option is to use a nuclear propellant. My guess is they're probably detonating a very, very, very small nuclear charge inside the firing chamber in the presence of a highly evaporable material. If done right, it could lead to a more uniform, continuous acceleration. I think that's going to be the tech behind China's new super-long-rage artillery.
i hate break it up to you guys but a country can not invade his own territory, even the U.S. recognize taiwan as a part of china, at least "de iure". We all know that "de facto" is another matter...
China have one identical military strategy. They both love "canon-fodder" tactic. In the Battle of Yultong (Korean War) 1,000 Filipino troops battled 40,000 Chinese troops. The Filipino troops routed the Chinese and North Koreans. Eventually, the Red Chinese retreated.
Gerald Bull was made a US citizen so he could work on the HARP project. The man was a genius with anything to do with ballistics and guns. He helped the US send weapons to South Africa when they were fighting (and loosing to) Angola. When the operation was busted, the US gvt pretended they did not know anything about it. So Bull was prosecuted (there was a weapons ban in effect against South Africa at the time) and jailed in the US. When he got out of jail, he was so pissed off that he said he would now sell to the highest bidder no matter who it was. He got involved with Saddam's Irak, including Project Babylon. That was the Super Gun project with a 1000 km range that Israel was not very fond of...
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D3 | Fall | รู้ผลทีมแชมป์ พร้อมตั๋วสู่ PMGC](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7NxsN0Ch6vk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching spare parts army! PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at PDSDebt.com/task23
As the circle of illumination expands so grows the contact of darkness. paraphrased from Einstein who was apparently very smart
thanks Capy for the video , I was so frustrated with the election , Left , Right , I was wondering did china got it right? and we f****up , well then your told me about social credit . I am happy with our system ... I would rather have free speech .
They might be preparing for India in the high mountains of Himalayas. It's just my opinion
@@lawyermahaprasad rofl, my answer to you that we do not have fr. spch - I gave several examples - was auto-dlted by yt.
Well, there you have it, your fr. spch.
I left out a few "e" in the hope that this post will go through.
🪖💣💥🧨
Fun fact: you can see the "made in china" on the shells after they land
Clever way of saying they're all duds.
Thank you for making me literally laugh out loud. A rare treat.
@@donny6775America loses lots money buying duds in various product ranges from China
Better to be making it than reading labels on them
Since the Russo-Ukrainian war, I realized that the only countries on this planet that can supply unlimited artillery shells are China and the United States (I'm not a pro-communist and I'm not joking). In the 80s, it was possible to transport containerized artillery shells to Pakistan and Afghanistan while maintaining an absolute artillery firepower advantage in the Sino-Vietnamese War 😮😮😮
-99999999 social credit
That joke's old
@@samsonsoturian6013 not as old as ur mom
@@Sidewinder1996 Is this channel full of 15 year olds?
@@samsonsoturian6013China currently has a social credit system
@@KonradvonHotzendorf Last I heard of it was a couple years ago
11:42 "Nose bleed artillery"
You stuffed the gas-generator in the wrong end of the shell!
It is called *"base-bleed shell"* since the drag induced by the flat bottom of the shell is counter-acted by a small can of rocket fuel stuck in the *base* of the grenade.
This rocket fuel deliberately does not burn fast enough to create thrust, but does generate enough gasses to fill out the vacuum behind the shell that slows it down over distance.
It was designed by the Royal Artillery Bureau in Sweden in the 1960's to give the coastal artillery (fortified and mobile both) a longer reach, and came into active stocks in 1967.
I know he was saying "towed guns," but I kept thinking "toad guns" and... THEY'RE MAKING THE FRICKIN' FROGS GUNS!
Small things amuse small minds
Moses goes brrrrr, old testment style
The 200mm shell seems quite substantial, especially when considering that WW2 battleships had guns with a minimum caliber of 350mm and some even had shells upwards of 400mm.
“Yo Vietnam now that we don’t want to support you how about you uh… give back all those guns we gave you?”
“Hmmm… No”
I guess you never heard of the P.R.C. invasion of Vietnam after the U.S. withdrawal? You won't be able to find out anything about it on the internet, China has teams that scrub it from Wikipedia multiple times every day, for instance. I know about it, because Vietnam vets I knew thought it was a hoot, how bad the Vietnamese kicked the ass of the million-man army the P.L.A. sent in, and then the final terms of the peace treaty Vietnam imposed.
So, go ask some Vietnamese people in your community if you get the chance!
China Vietnam relation in a nutshell
"I mean you can have the bullets back... *cough* "
Well, they did return some of the shells, just not in the way China wanted
Is there anything except their oppressed workforce that actually works in east taiwan (china).
62,000 artillery pieces to Vietnam? That must include 82mm mortar tubes. Which is misleading in the context of the video.
Now that you mention it , you’re right I didn’t think of that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention
@@TaskandpurposeThe total number of field guns supplied was 500 which included lighter Type-63 MRLs. Chinese total gun inventory in 1973 was 8,700, including 300 152mm guns and 7,400 122/130mm guns, with the remaining 1000 being a mix of soviet mrls and light tubes with short range. Hope this is helpful!
@@ravenmusic6392it is.
As an 0341, I take offense to your statement. (Not really)
Been watching this channel for forever, it’s 6.2 million arty pieces
The 155mm is not american. It was a work from France and Germany to develop a common shell format. It was better than alternatives at the time and was accepted as a NATO standard as well as adopted by the USA.
Nice
@@yaxiongzhao6640 The nukes.
Allied, like the 75mm, and...
@@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine both Albert Einstein and Oppenheimer were all German jew😂😂
@EmpireOfLies-s5v. Oppenheimer was born in NYC.
“Only someone with my special kind of tism would get excited about “ 🤣🤣🤣🤣 had be rolling
hes just coping because he's not general and make fun of a legendary leader of china. i dont care how bad mao zedong was. but this man who own this youtube channel is just propaganda tool. a cope mechanism for american people in which their army is actually a joke and full of trans and dont even have epic military parade to show. usa has no charisma anymore and soon they are doom and have internal civil war.
Glad they pointed out 233mm was bigger than 155mm otherwise I might have missed that.
My ex was too comfortable using other men’s cannons.
Yea, I'm sorry about that. She said she just needed a bigger caliber😂
@@blakecrosby5123 with a bigger load :)
meow meow
:(
And I thought that I was the only one who had one like that 😂😂😂😂
"No matter how much I learn, I learn how little I've learned. You Humble me" lmaoooooo
Man, if this ain't the truth!!!
Dunning-Kruger ain't just for demonstrating that idiots equipped with an inadequate amount of knowledge will be overly confident, but also the self-doubt and questioning of ones intelligence one gains as they begin to gain more knowledge but have not yet mastered an art.
"Comfortable using other men's cannons" -- LOL
😂
"Keep doing it until I get tired" damn, that brings back memories.
The idea of using nuclear artillery on an island you want to invade is ridiculous. 😂
Why not? The US did that to Japan. Both cities are fine today. They were fine 70 years ago.
@@robertthomas5906 We didn’t invade those cities.
“Strive to be more powerful have fun at Sarah Lawrence” made me spit burrito at my phone. THANKS HOMIE😂
Why'd you spit your burrito at your phone? Seems kinda dumb, burritos aren't cheap.
The US should say they're switching from 155mm to 157mm and cause China to switch all its artillery.
The day China stops copying and starts making their own stuff will be a scary day
I dont think that wilwork whit the amount of spying china does bud if it works that would be realy nice bud only if we did it just before a war
Gotcha!!😂
USA has no money to play these cheap tricks.
@@Mar-ec7et Oh we do. It would just be incredibly dumb to actually do it. That's why he said we should just claim to.
"It's the kind document that only someone with my special kind of tism would get excited about"
This is pretty relatable
1M/year? That even not reach firework's consumption. In 2024, Chinese new year fireworks consumed 0.8M tons explosives. And this data is already in restricted state (fireworks inside Cities are restricted).
I think a 155 shell won't heavier than 800kg. cause this mass can't be lifted by muscle.
We joke Ukraine-Russia war total explosives consumption is less than our fireworks consumption. And from this, China REALLY didn't support Russia like a lot of guys think. Things won't be such boring like now if we support Russia like US support Ukraine.
Seem like a lot of guys have no clue about Chinese heavy industry capacity. Currenty steel productivity is already in low capacity and still be asked to cut the capacity.
BTW, For bombarment Taiwan, Artillery or rocket artillery are poor efficiency. Best way is using UAV throw JDAM, energy provided by high-efficient and reusable engine, cost is only fuel and explosives. And no risk of losing pilot.
Chinese idiom: more sweat for less blood.
(hmmm, social credit score... hahahaha)
The dumbest take was saying these small calibers would be fired across the Taiwan Strait. Then again, all these theories about a Taiwan war are.
“More sweat, less blood” is a slogan emphasizing the importance of rigorous training, not equipment. It means that the harder soldiers train, the fewer casualties they will suffer in real wars.
@@Shadowless_Kick my fault. This slogan have both meaning you said and mines. I hide some words.
The correct form is: more workers sweat on rear for less soldiers blood on frontline.
Thats fucking scary to think about. Its like that one german realizing the nazis had no chance because an american soldier had a cake in france delievered from america in under a week. We see the chinese as weak just as the Axis powers saw america as weak during ww2, little did they know we were a dormant industrial powerhouse. China is what we were in ww2.
this channel knows nothing about PLA capacity, 1M a year? maybe 2 M a month!
Bull was designing a huge artillery piece for iraq, who had no one but Israel to aim it at at that point. Its not a big surprise he was "taken care of"
I think that the PLA is in love with arty because their original mentor, the Red Army of the USSR, was in love with arty.
ETA: It's been pointed out to me that the PLA grew its emphasis on artillery entirely on its own, _not_ due to Soviet influence.
Yes and no. In the early history of the Chinese Red Army (the Chinese Communist Party’s armed forces had different names at different times, so here we refer to them as the Chinese Red Army), they were very short of heavy weapons and this caused many problems.
For example, during the Anti-Japanese War, the Japanese built a large number of outposts in order to consolidate their rule in the occupied areas and block the Red Army’s bases, and the Red Army needed to destroy these outposts in order to break the blockade. But even at the end of the war (1944-45), the Red Army found it difficult to do this because the Red Army’s regular army was extremely short of artillery, shells and explosives, and the militia and guerrillas lacked even qualified light weapons. For the same reason, the Red Army was extremely short of offensive capabilities and often failed to capture cities.
In contrast, in the subsequent civil war, after winning the decisive battle in Northeast China, the Red Army seized a large number of artillery and some armored vehicles from the Kuomintang army, which greatly increased the Red Army’s strength. In the subsequent Battle of Tianjin, the Red Army used these weapons intensively and quickly captured Tianjin, a city with a large number of fortifications. This made the Red Army more deeply aware of the importance of artillery. The same was true in the subsequent Korean War. The powerful firepower of the US military made the Red Army realize the importance of artillery and eager to develop its own artillery.
In the 1950s and 1960s, China carried out rapid industrialization and established a national defense industry, truly gaining the ability to use artillery on a large scale, and then manufactured and stored a large number of artillery and ammunition in response to possible wars. In the war with Vietnam in the 1980s, the Chinese army's use and preference for artillery can be said to have reached a crazy level, which further strengthened the Chinese army's emphasis on artillery.
I think that "PLA is in love with arty because their original mentor, the Red Army of the USSR, was in love with arty" is a very contemptuous idea. This idea portrays the Chinese as a Soviet follower and thinks that China is just a copy of the Soviet Union. This is very incorrect and disrespectful. In fact, the development path of China and the Chinese army is explored based on its own experience. In the history of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese Red Army, there have been several mistakes of borrowing, each of which only led to failure. Therefore, the Chinese hope to take an independent route. We will understand and learn from others' ideas, but we will modify them to adapt to China's situation. The Chinese did study Soviet tactical thinking, but they didn't copy it.
In fact, this rule applies to all countries, armies, and people. The Egyptians and Syrians hired Soviet instructors to train their tanks and then suffered heavy losses in their wars with Israel. Liberia copied the political structure of the United States almost exactly, and the results were almost disastrous. No rules apply to everyone, people need to make their own way.
I apologize to everyone who reads this comment, I don't speak English, so I used a translation software. I'm sorry if you feel hard to read this.
love? no, because it's cheap
They seem to be following the same patterns
@@tomwdzm6424
Excellent summarization of the history of the Chinese Red Army, and well written! Thanks!
I'm sorry if you thought my original post was "a very contemptuous idea," but it didn't grow out of _contempt_ for the Chinese Red Army. It grew out of ignorance (which you corrected very well), and my familiarity with the Soviet Army, which I was trained to understand and potentially face in battle as a US Army soldier. For example, on the eve of the Soviet Army's Operation Bagration in 1944, the Soviets assembled an enormous force that included 32,718 guns, rocket launchers and mortars against the Germans' 7,760 field guns. It was (and probably still is) Soviet doctrine that artillery must be overwhelming. So I assumed that Mao had Russian advisors who would have emphasized artillery. Perhaps he didn't have any such advisors. I'm less familiar with the history of the Chinese Red Army than with the Russian one.
Thank you for correcting my ignorance! It sounds like a history worth learning.
🥰伟大领袖毛主席不需要苏联专家指导，早在红军革命时期的博古李德等人就已经脱离第三共产国际的控制啦😘
Your statement on who killed Bull is incorrect. Bull was killed by Mossad when he would not stop helping Saddam Hussein build his super gun. They tried to talk him out of it, but he was broke again and would not listen.
yes there isn't confirmation though, no one knows for certain who killed him. people believe it was mossad
@@TaskandpurposeSaid I'm super done.Had a full 360° traverse. Iran,Saudi Arabia, Syria and the Soviet Union could all be suspects
Well, don't speak the name, it's you know who.
The super gun was just Bull’s dream project, a space launcher. Saddam was funding this for him in return for his development of steerable re-entry warheads for Iraqi scud missiles. Those, along with Iraq’s nuclear weapons program were the two things the Israelis were really upset about. The death of Bull took care of one of those problems. Their bombing of the Iraqi reactor being used to create weapons grade nuclear material, likely plutonium, took care of the other.
@@Taskandpurpose That's correct. But I might be able to find out. ;-)
''China is a bit of a mystery wrapped in a ... in a fortune cookie''
😅
China paid Trump millions of dollars in bribe. It was originally billions, but they wrapped them in fortunate cookies to make their transport less obvious, which has proven to be a misjudgement not accounting for Trump's appetite and lack of taste.
Strangely enough, you won't find fortune cookies in China. Those started as an American thing.
错，美国对中国了如指掌，一定都不担心中国！😊
@@georgebulbakwa9017 wrong they originate from japan
@@leiregyp5814 Not quite. The sugar cookie recipe is Japanese in origin as a companion for tea. The "fortune" started in America. That piece of paper changes a generic sugar cookie into a fortune cookie and that started in California by imigrants from Japan.
The ultimate firing range of the artillery was only 30 km. And the PLA has a long-range rocket artillery range of up to 550 km.
Mainland to Taiwan is 325km. So tube artillery no; rockets yes.
Repeat after me: "If it even works."
@@KuroNekoExMachina it will work
@@gentlemans7579 The narrowest point of the Taiwan Strait is only 130km. The average distance fluctuates around 210km.
@@KuroNekoExMachina It will work. Because the range of 550km, can already be hit from the Chinese mainland to the eastern part of the central mountain range of Taiwan. And all the large cities in Taiwan are in the western plain of the island. Unless Taiwan has an Iron Dome system. Otherwise, it is extremely uneconomical to intercept a huge number of rockets with a limited number of Patriot missiles.
Considering that the current NATO estimates for Russian artillery production is ~3 million shells per year I think we can safely assume that China's capabilities exceed that.
its gonna be real awkward when the ccp starts asking their civilians to start picking up any american artillery shells they can find
"No a_s no brammo, Drill Sgt!"
Well, if it's 155mm (more common that any other American artillery piece), they wouldn't have a shell to collect.
In WWII, China produced 45000 ton steel in eight years. Now, consider China is the largest steel producer, you won't see what you said.
That won't ever happen. They're destroying us from the inside already.
@@hdm4825yea but most of that steel has proven to be very brittle & low quality, so it’s far from military grade
I just got whiplash from that intro my man, keep up the great work.
He was Bing chilling
@@svenrio8521
Ping Chi Ling
"At this point they were very comfortable using other men's cannons"
Chris said China is probably capable of producing a million heavy artillery shells annually. It shows that he had no idea of Chinese military industrial capacity.
With the conflict with Ukraine, Russia is producing 3 million shells per year. With China's leading supply Chain, it can easily produce much more than that.
@@pugster73I think he means China is capable of much more than 1 million annually?
@@Sunopeek maybe he means if they were to start producing shells right now, of course they could probably ramp up to much more than what Russia is doing.
@@SunopeekAs a Chinese I assure u that Chinese military productivity is far beyond that. Last year China produced 4.58million tons of commercial TNTs. So if each bomb we use 4tons of tnt, the productivity is exactly 1M😂
usually a large missle only uses up to 450 kg tnt equivalent. So 10M missile equivalent probably is the reserving industrial potential. Current productivity is ~3M (for military use they don’t publish real number)
From 1950 to 1974, China assisted Vietnam with the following military materials: 2,138,000 guns, more than 70,000 cannons, 124,440,000 rounds of ammunition, 18,070,000 rounds of artillery shells, 176 ships, 552 medium-sized and land and water tanks, 320 armored carriers, more than 170 airplanes, 16,000 automobiles, 18,240 tons of explosives, 65,000 cable TVs, 35,000 radios, 11,170,000 sets of military uniforms, which could equip 2 million people, or about RMB 4.26 billion. 35,000 units, 11.17 million sets of uniforms ...... can equip 2 million people, which is about 4.26 billion yuan.
Therefore, China's people's livelihood was so pitiful during that period.
@sims2556 But China did not dare not to support it, because China was afraid that the US military would approach China's national border and force China to have another Korean War
@@XkMeng All this is just the CCP’s fear of losing power and has nothing to do with the survival of the Chinese people.
And do they appreciate it? I have no idea, but according to notoriously unreliable media they don't. Not sure what to conclude there.
@@sims2556all this claim that China livelihood were "pitiful" is not supported by the fact that chinese were better educated and have longer livespan than their Indian counterpart during this period of supposively "bad" period for China. it is an error to attempt to judge economic output by using GDP that is denoted in dollar, since China has very little volume of trade with US, the currency exchange rate is highly unstable and are impacted by only a tiny faction of the economy. this lead to bad data when you attempt to use it for further projection the entire economy as you would be effectively "double guessing". considering China did not have access to loan and it machinery was stolen in WWII, it performance in the 1950-1970 is still very respectable when you compare it to it immediate peer: India.
Back in 80s China was an US ally and had lots of technological transfers, so it make sense for China to adopt US/NATO standards in a hypothetical war with the Soviet Union.
True, they got to buy tank technologies from the West and that includes British gun, German engine, French transmission and collaboration with American engineers. But then 1989 happened and nobody wanted to work with them anymore.
😢
@@dannyzero692 Nothing noteworthy happened in 1989. Especially in Tiananmen square, I assure you.
@@Sirius_A yup a tank definitely did not run over a student or anything
@@Sirius_Asame thing with Germany 1939-1945, everyone was on vacation
The story about Gerald Bull's demise reminds me that I signed a Non Disclosure Agreemen(NDA) that is legally binding!
You don't want to break that one!
Wikipedia implied Mossad was behind it because he was assisting Saddam with a project that was a threat to Israel.
So don't break it then 💀
The history of Gerald Bull is fascinating.
Chinese here. I don't think towed artilary has better chance to survive than self-propelled artillery in any case. Yes, if you dig deeper, FPV will have lower chance to find you. However, artillery reconnaissance radar will find you anyway! A very persuasive counterexample is that there are not many active M777 units in Ukraine now. They were all destroyed!
the fact that you have to preface your comment with "Chinese here" as if ethnicity somehow matters. I get the need to preface a title related to the topic or occupation related to the control or command of artillery.,,, but ethnicity .. ok
@@urcompnioncube0213 14:22 Turned out you have not watched the video through. Totally related
@@ningshanwang831 Being Chinese is not a credential even if the topic is on Chinese weapons. Thats a fallacy to appeal using irrelevant authority. Being Chinese doesnt inherently provide someone with expertise in the technical operation of Chinese Weapon systems. For example, I am not an expert on US weapon Systems just because I am an American. A more appropriate preface is "I am a Chinese artilleryman" or "I am a PLARF Soldier" these are credentials not "I AM CHINESE"
@@urcompnioncube0213 On the contrary, my message is "conflict of interest is claimed" or "I could be biased, but please consider my reasoning if you are interested." If you are not talking about the video itself, I am not replying anymore.
@@ningshanwang831 this circles back to the fact that you have to preface your ethnicity ..
Now military command can choose between "shoot and scoot" vs "fire on da move."
Awesome video! Love the care and comedy that go into these videos. Thank you for the info and the laughs!
Battle order did a good breakdown of pla artillery a wile back, The reason why so many pla guns are still 122mm is that they use 122mm at the maneuver brigade level and 155mm in Artillery brigades at the group army level
提高火炮弹药的能量就无需加大口径
现代军队最重要的是体系不是单一武器
You should definitely release a vid on rocket artillery soon, considering it's such an important part of the PLA artillery doctrine
yeah chinese rocket arty makes HIMARS look like a toy.
In January 1995 the Chinese army unveiled a 21 m long supergun capable of firing large artillery shells into South Korea and Taiwan. The gun could fire 85 mm shells over a 300 km range. Nothing further was heard of the weapon. BUT - Interestingly, China was one of the countries that retained Gerard Bull as a consultant in artillery design in the 1980's.
Yes, I agree the tank needs to TRANSFORM into a Battle Mech!
Chris you tryin to restrain yourself from doing a KungFu karate chop during the intro was visible lol..
😂😂😂 bro I thought the same thing
you know me too well haha
@@TaskandpurposeYou should cut the BS with these videos Cappy.
@@FrostbiteDigital watch other videos if you don't want jokes and just straight information, this isn't for your collage thesis, people other then the "serious, no BS" are watching
@@FrostbiteDigital shut up nerd
Favorite military TH-camr
By far, and I heard he doesn’t tuck, or use pronouns
@1tactundra140 as long as he's not a recruitment psyop I'm ok with it
@@1tactundra140you just used pronouns to describe this man. lol
@@1tactundra140~he~ doesn't use pronouns 🤔
@@patrickglaser1560No but he is a propagandist lol
11:50 It's base bleed, there is no such thing as "nose bleed" artillery.
@@Taskandpurpose It's okay slappy pappy, I forgive you
One million shells per year is too humble. I work in the manufacturing world. The China production rate can easily exceed 10 times than that I think and that’s still not their max production rate. Factories can work 24/7 and it doesn’t take them long to build new factories.
嘘，低调😅示敌以弱才能出其不意
嘘🤫
China can produce as much shells in a day as the United States does in a year
China not only has the most numbers of artilelry, BUT (this might be surprising to many people) they also have the best quality artillery in the world too; Let me explain
China has the *PLZ-05* which is a highly modern and very advanced Self-propelled Artillery Gun system with modern *digital Fire-control equipment* (equal to the German PzH 2000)
It can also fire very modern ammunition, for example the *GP155A* guided anti-tank round, which is a copy of the German SMART-155, it contains 2 separate Anti-tank guided EFP warheads, able to accurately hit and destroy enemy tanks from over 30+ km away.
This is basically a long-range anti-tank sniper.
In addition to that, China also has the *WS-35* GPS precision-guided artillery round, which is acopy of the American Excalibur shell, but with longer range;
But it doesn't end there, this is where it gets even more shocking: in the video you only talk about Cannon-artillery; BUT even more important is the *ROCKET LAUNCHER* artillery, which is even more powerful than the cannon-artillery. Because ROCKET LAUNCHER artillery have much more range and more destruction power with bigger warheads and explosive power
(for example it can fire 300mm ROCKET compared to only 155 mm cannon artillery gun). And this is where China has become especially superior over any other nation in the world;
China has been developing the most powerful Rocket launcher artillery in the world, for example the new Chinese *PHL-16 (PCL-191)* carries 8 x 370mm missiles with a range of 220 km!
This PCL-191 greatly outranges the American M270 (HIMARS) which has only a range of 70~90 km (with standard rockets, or 150 km with special ammuniton, but still much less than the Chinese system)
And as if this isn't already enough, China also has the *A300* Rocket launcher too, which has a range of 290km! But this isn't even the best Chinese artilelry yet.
Even more impressive than the A300 is the new Chines *WS-2D* Multiple-Rocket-Launcher is currently the most powerful "conventional" aretillery system in the world.
It carries 6 x 425mm missiles with a range of 400 km! This is literally *Tactical Ballistic Missile* range, but with 6 launcher tubes on a truck (compared to the American ATACMS which can only carry 1 or 2 TBM with a range of "only" 300 km which is much less than the Chinese system)
What makes the Chinese *WS-2D* unique is the fact that it can also shoot drones (contained inside the missile as a sub-munition) so that the Chinese Rocket Launcher can release dozen of drones on the targeted area, swarming and overwhelming the enemy position with dozen of killer drones. Doesn't this sound absolutely terrifying?
This shows that China has currently the most powerful Artillery arsenal in the world right now. America is only 2nd in this category today.
dont tell that to americans. you are destroying their cope mechanism. let them think that other military is weak and nothing can defeat american soldier with exosuit like nomad from crysis 1. USA always underestimate other countries to cope with their broken country that full of drugs and high homicide rate and paranoia. dont tell them these otherwise they hate asians more for no reason
Naming any Chinese made equipment with any European made equipment is a LOT.
Especially German ones…with a ER base bleed 155 grenade VULCANO has a max range of 70km.
Keep coping Wumao
@@d.o.g573 emma got 2 moms , you cope more
@@d.o.g573 3mm4 got 2 m0ms. cope more boy
@@d.o.g573 How about Railgun,?
Don't worry Cappy your social score can only go up from now on.
"There is a common misconception that China operates a nationwide "social credit score" system that assigns individuals a score based on their behavior, leading to punishments if the score is too low. However, this is not true. Western media reports have sometimes exaggerated or inaccurately described this concept." From Wikipedia
Not to mention USA has the WORST financial credit score system in the world. a little number on a page heavily affects your chances of getting a loan, and how much you pay in insurance, which makes your score even worse.
@@lapideous +1000 social credit
@@TripleOmega-2000IQ🧠
You have a talent for making awesome videos!
During 2020 India-China standoff, Chinese forces had deployed towed artillery in the dug outs. But Ladakh is not similar to Ukraine. There is negligible tree cover to protect towed pieces from FPV drones.
But China is the world's largest and most advanced drone manufacturer.
It's not about hiding. It's about getting to positions that ground vehicles can't get to, even though China has more of them too.
it is mountain area, good luck to try offensive operation there, even for chopper the place is not nice for them
china can deploy mines, their own drone and target the area with their artillery
@@vkobevk That place is only 400 kilometers from New Delhi. No need to deploy mines, just medium-range rockets is ok.
Doubt it
Excellent
Fascinating
Better than vast majority of media.
Keep it up
If you have not personally and directly worked in the design, development and testing of these China- made systems then how do you justify that your analytics of them is accurate? The analogy is judging a book by its cover which is more often than not, very inaccurate !
"Go pick up artillery shells until I get tired"
"No a_s, no brammo, Drill Sgt!"
That's very ambiguous
They are called "base bleed projectiles", not "nose bleed".... where did you get "nose bleed" from?
China seems to have more different types of artillery compared to the US that has the very old paladin and the 155 & 105 towed gun only
isnt the US searching for an new artillery
Going from the Soviet calibers which were many to two
Be lot of the older stuff around for years
The US report on China is probably more academic than practical.... If the US understands the Chinese tactics, it would have not lost the direct and indirect conflicts with China, China 1949, Korea 1953, Tibet 1955, India 1962, Vietnam 1975, and SCS 2021...
did i just hear tibet ?
As I understand it, saying that "artillery is the key to understanding the Chinese ground forces" is more than a slight understatement. Their military even controls whole economic areas that are responsible for producing certain military goods and if I understand correctly, their military enjoys a bit more autonomy than most other militaries do when operating within their home country.
Really, China's military isn't just an artillery-launching machine... Their whole economy is also an artillery production machine. I think their philosophy seems to be that it's more important to have an unlimited supply of artillery than of anything else. It seems like they expect to lose a fairly significant chunk of their population in the event of a major war, and are designing their military in such a way that they can keep doing damage for a pretty long time regardless of the losses they take.
They seem to have realized that tanks are problematic because their crews are irreplaceable and tough tanks are not easy to design on the first try. But once you have artillery that tracks and fires almost entirely using a computer, it's not quite as hard to produce a lot of those and have them be fairly easy to use as long as the people operating them only need to know how to load them and press the button, and more specialized crews that locate targets are inputting the coordinates for strikes remotely and remaining mobile enough that they don't take unacceptable losses.
Although, I can't say I know how chinese artillery handles, so that last part is speculation. Tanks can be made to traverse the complex and varied terrain in China, but producing a lot of boom tubes is much easier and probably cheaper too - and China wants to become a capable military ASAP.
Your comment about dedicated personnel getting coordinates struck home. All the illegal Chinese crossing the Soithern border into USA are doing just that. ICBM's with nuclear capability are just modern long range artillery
They also make missiles like candies
I presume China would rather go on the defensive than invade. From a defensive pov, it makes sense investing in artillery. America focuses on air and sea power because they love invading.
What I see is China seems to be optimizing their army to fight in or near China. The US military have completely different ambitions.
@@danielch6662 I think that the ultimate goal of any military operating under a large government with great-power-ambitions is to achieve the kind of expeditionary capacity and power projection the US can wield. The only reason China *isn't* pursuing the same technologies and capabilities the US uses boils down to two things:
1. The US has a massive head start on the infrastructure, and technology and skilled labor needed to build carriers that can actually hold up against what the US can throw at them
2. China knows as well as the US does that investing in *new* technologies is the only way to topple the cutting edge of existing technology.
When, in modern history, has a force with a technological head start been bested by its own technology? It's almost always a new element on the battlefield that changes the expected outcome of a war between large, powerful nations.
The time when geography alone can decide a battle is over - the use of satellites by every major military power should enable any reasonably careful aggressor to understand the terrain they'll be fighting on and prepare accordingly. And any defender should already know their own country's terrain - any good military will have it's soldiers training in as many regions of their country as possible to ensure their military can operate anywhere a foreign military might choose to invade or put down any revolt no matter where it occurs.
If China *just* wanted to defend it's own territory, it wouldn't be investing so heavily AND *exclusively* in mobile artillery systems. It would do something closer to what Switzerland has done. It would create layers of fortified positions, build hidden bunkers accessible by tunnel in it's mountainous regions, and focus more on being able to hold positions against any kind of assault.
Instead, their focus seems to be on remaining as flexible as possible and being able to move their firepower anywhere it needs to - as long as there's a basic road that isn't impassable due to weather conditions.
Though, to be fair, I think China's roads make the mobility of it's units a bit of a moot point. Or rather, the propensity their rivers have to flood the roads - probably leaving them more-or-less passable once cleared of debris but a flood at a bad time could be disastrous if it happens during a significant incursion by one of China's enemies (if it were ever truly at war, I mean). I suspect their belt and road initiative is as much an effort to ensure they can utilize that mobility under any circumstances as it is an effort to build relationships with other countries. In a war, they would need not just an army of soldiers, but another army of construction workers and heavy equipment operators to clear roads and ensure the roads that needs to remain clear are always fully accessible for the military.
In a country as large and geographically complicated as China, they'll need as many skilled civil engineers and competent construction workers as they can get. In the event of a war, maintaining their internal shipping infrastructure will be as important as fighting off any would-be invaders and holding the line.
The reason china can produce so much shells is because of their resource reduction initiative. This is also the reason why Chinese shells are reusable.
lol
They also get raw materials from Australia, who could turn off the tap when they feel like it.
@@cattysplat😂😂😂 What raw materials Aus have that Russia, India cannot supply? Or even Asia in whole context... You are really funny bro 😂😂
@@cattysplatRussia was cut off from the "world" but still could easily procure all its required resources.
Western supply lines are convenient, not a necessity.
The arc of artillery is long but it bends towards the enemy. - Sun Tzu
Hold up a minute.. I swear the thumbnail had a drooping barrel yesterday?! 😂
Historical mistake from the beginning: the French occupier lost in Dien Bien Phu from Vietnam because China could release so much artillery , after their victory to liberate Korea.
Damn Cappy, you keep rolling bangers can't keep up watching your stuff. BEASTMODE!
Ryan, Were holding reeducation classes in your area. Please register with your districts Regional Oppression Officer.
This offer is completey voluntary, but you are required to participate until completion.
Nice video as always it made me laugh. I do wonder why so many Army guys are afraid of the water? In the CG we love the water and need to take you on a ride in rough weather for some surf training or dropped offshore and need to swim home
122mm artillery isn't obsolete, it holds a different doctrinal use than 152 or 155. It's light artillery rather than medium. The US still uses the M119 105mm.
Read the following story in a book about WW2.
I'm not completely sure whether this really happened or was just a joke by the author.
A British general does an inspection of a team of British soldiers firing a gun located on the British coast and trying to hit German positions across the English Channel in France.
After the gun is fired an observer with a powerful telescope shouts loudly, "It's a hit!".
The general asks, "What did we hit?".
The observer says, "Europe sir. We managed to hit Europe".
Though I seem to recall that one reason why Gerald Bull liked guns so much was that he thought they were more accurate than missiles.
There are a lot of interesting things about Bull.
He built a super sized gun in Barbados to try to send objects into space.
When he was young he was inspired by the WW1 long range German gun that could shell Paris from a great distance and he always felt that it was painfully obvious that in any military confrontation the combatant with guns with greater range had the advantage because they can fire at an enemy who couldn't fire back at them.
Germans did the same
His worked on the same principle as a German supper cannon which the British bombed before completing
The problem of US underestimate china arsenal
To answer the actual thumbnail question: Basically, a lot of Rocket Artillery can hit Taiwan from the chinese mainland, there's very little chance of any type of dumb-shell artillery having that range (150 km, roughly), but maybe some large pieces with specialty shells could.
Also, of course there are naval guns that probably could... But --- well, they're mounted on ships. It kinda makes the question pointless.
Gets a little more spicy if you imagine China maybe occupying some of the islands in the Taiwan strait, and building artillery parks. Pengiju islet is just 80 km (50 mi) from Downtown Taipei.
Only rocket artillery has ranges greater than 50km.
The MOSSAD killed Gerald Bull.
122 isn't obsolete any more than 105 is. It just has to be used differently. Self propelled 105s can be fired by a crew as small as 2 and are incredibly mobile and easier to move through heavy cover like cities and forests would offer. 105mm, low-recoil guns on wheeled chassis are likely to become extremely important for their higher mobility than 155 guns. With all that said, I don't see them being nearly as in demand as 155.
They are also cheaper to make, easier to repair, have a longer barrel life, and have a higher rate of fire.
@@DM-dn7rf yep. They aren't as flexible in munitions and aren't as effective against hardened targets, but for an advance force or rapidly deploying light infantry, it's indispensible.
For all the hype of the 155mm M777, it was never designed to fire the amount of rounds that the Ukrainians have been employing it. It's lightweight construction to give it's airlift capability is proven to be it's shortfall.
I would say the Chinese switched to copying the 155mm standard because it would sell better in the export market.
Gerald Bull was Canadian 🇨🇦.
It had nothing to do with the Americans.
One thing i learned last years about armies and wars... dont believe these videos :D
That is why the United States 🇺🇲 LOST to Vietnam 🇻🇳 and Afghanistan 🇦🇫 too two countries that didn't have weapons to defend themselves they won with sticks and rocks
Bull's-eye
I don’t think the average taliban or viet cong fight with sticks and rocks.
@@dannyzero692 ohh really? Hollywood's most patriotic and celebrated movies and BBC's documentaries say it was sticks and hoes. Are you calling then liars?
As opposed to handcuffing themselves with limiting their air campaigns and not going into Cambodia, where a sizeable amount of viet Cong stored supplies and manpower
GHN-45 (Gun, Howitzer, Noricum), which was offered in a variety of options like the APU and fire control systems. The first foreign sale was an order for eighteen guns with ammunition to the Royal Thai Navy for use by their Marine Corps. Other "aboveboard" customers included China, Singapore and Israel. All of these companies worked on local production under a variety of names, the Soltam 845P in Israel, ODE FH-88 from Singapore, and PLL01/WA021 in China.[6][7] Got it?
"Have a good time at Sarah Lawrence." Made me involuntarily laugh out loud
The big elephant in the room, or should I say bear in the room, is Russia.
Biases aside, you can't talk about arty without talking about Russia; arguably the biggest artillery powerhouse on the planet today.
Just 3 points out of many:
1) Russia produces more than 1.5 million shells per year (estimates range up to 3 million) while the USA sits at around 250 thousand.
2) US Excalibur will be all but worthless in GPS-denied environments while its Russian counterpart, Krasnopol, uses laser guidance and cares not if GLONASS is jammed or not, for it to be guided accurately.
It is much easier to jam GPS/GLONASS over a large area (see current conflict in Ukraine which is primarily a artillery/drone war) than to disrupt laser-guidance.
3) Best US barreled artillery (M109A7 Paladin) vs best Russian counterpart (2S35 Koalitsiya-SV):
Both 152.4-155mm.
Ru 70km range VS USA 30km range (can be extended to 40km with Excalibur).
Ru 16 rounds per minute US 4 rpm.
Before anyone starts fanboying and flaming me, as I already suggested, put your biases aside and have an objective look.
"How Powerful is China's Artillery?" Half or less of whatever they say it is.
Same with USA (can't even beat Taliban and shamefully ran away)...
@@EroticOnion23 not, in usa you have to do it with the adquisition cost of the weapons
@@EroticOnion23 The taliban didnt even reside in afghanistan for half the conflict. Whenever talibans were spotted they were killed. The US simply left because they had no inention to stay there forever. Seriously did you think the US will stay there forever?
@@benjaminnagy3007So who killed all the US and it’s allied soldiers inAfgan?Allied forces had about 600k troops, Talibans had about 100k troops.
Allied losses was 77k Taliban losses were somewhere around 55k
Did that went well?
@@MrCastodian where the fuck did you even get 77k??? Nato losses were 3k. The fck are you on? Besides most of the deaths happened in the early stages
I couldn't help but think the production numbers for artillery are a bit conservative given Chinas current manufacturing status in the world. Their output compared to the 1950s must be enourmous.
All using iron ore from Australia too.
That’s an issue.
🦘🇦🇺👍
13:14 you welcome
Love the smell of cordite in the morning. Cordite makes you fart, I once made a shop assistant cry.
Since there're no "red lines" in Russia and their borders, China has been eyeing that territory north of Mongolia, for a very long time. Perhaps now, is that... time?
After the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, China & Vietnam still engaged in border skirmishes. If Wikipedia is accurate, the Chinese were using lots of artillery. In 1985 alone the Chinese fired one million shells into Vietnam.
You lost me at " if Wikipedia is accurate " lol.
Is that what they wrote to cope about why they couldn't take Chinese positions?
Also can you do a video on the Babylon space cannon in Iraq
North Korea does not care of big artillery, big tanks or submarines. they focus on ballistic missile nukes.
how many chinamen does it take for you to wake up in a bathtub full of ice with one of your organs missing?
Hope Republic of China and People's Republic of China soon be united.
What will you gain from this unification?
We have to be careful regarding lessons learned from the war in Ukraine. There, drones are used extensively as counter-battery devices because of the shortage of artillery and the lack of air dominance. If on the other hand there's sufficient artillery and sufficient aircraft, drones (which aren't very effective) will be replaced by much more devastating counter-battery operations and a static target, no matter how dug in and protected by anti-drone shelters, will be a much easier kill than self-propelled artillery pieces.
Keep underestimating them ! Westerns are a special breed of people 😂
yes they keep forgetting who produces their hight quality products too
Let them ride in their own Hollywood fantasy land.... China is much more powerful than back then today... People who brag about western military don't have any clue as like their military... They never faced any peer competitor after ww2. Even in ww2, it was the Soviets that did the work relieving pressure on western front after launching an offensive on the eastern front
The USA has been fighting with someone somewhere for the past 100 years. USA not only has the tech but it also knows the why.
China has been trying to copy 50 year old USA tech and still cant get it right. They simply can not do anything on their own. Only advancements they get that are simply stolen from the west are bought from the russians.
Its been decades and China still cant attempt to invade Taiwan. Meanwhile US invades wherever it wants. I would also estimate this country at this point.
Is this the Donger from 16 candles movie?
the problem with modern artillery is the emergent drone issue. They're sitting ducks for a small swarm now and if their ammo dumps are anywhere near the cannons, good luck
Tbh China and U.S. likely also are working on drone tech now. Most drones used in Ukraine by both sides are made in China or use Chinese parts funny enough
@@joshuabonilla3491 Good that the US is FINALLY working on drones, because I won't buy a drone for personal use if they're made in China which means, NO DRONE FOR ME YET!
The battle field, tomorrow's wars fought with yesterday's technology.
Said the same about tanks when AT weapons were made
The most famous artillery piece is the M46 130mm, shoots 32 km bests every one except the US 175mm but the US gun is limited to 400 rounds between tube changes.
The South African G-5 and G-6 is laughing right now.
~@10:30 I think the idea that they're going to design these artillery pieces to fire nuclear weapons is absurd - but, I also think you're right that they wouldn't necessarily involve that particular entity if they weren't going to involve some kind of nuclear activity... I think that if they want to achieve "super duper range", they're going to need to achieve hypervelocity speeds. And if they want to achieve hypervelocity speeds without using a sort of light-gas-gun type of design, I think the only option is to use a nuclear propellant.
My guess is they're probably detonating a very, very, very small nuclear charge inside the firing chamber in the presence of a highly evaporable material. If done right, it could lead to a more uniform, continuous acceleration. I think that's going to be the tech behind China's new super-long-rage artillery.
i hate break it up to you guys but a country can not invade his own territory, even the U.S. recognize taiwan as a part of china, at least "de iure". We all know that "de facto" is another matter...
ok CCP bot
China have one identical military strategy. They both love "canon-fodder" tactic. In the Battle of Yultong (Korean War) 1,000 Filipino troops battled 40,000 Chinese troops. The Filipino troops routed the Chinese and North Koreans. Eventually, the Red Chinese retreated.
Yah, the allies killed a billion Chinese, that’s why the war was a stalemate.
Bing Chilling
Edit: Xue hua piao piao bei feng xiao xiao
The Excalibur shell is a Raytheon-Bofors colab, which makes it an American/Swedish shell.
You are outdated. China is now No. 1 in missiles. Thats the reason why US aircraft carrier has to move out at least 2000km from China shores.
HAHAHA...China shill.
Gerald Bull was made a US citizen so he could work on the HARP project. The man was a genius with anything to do with ballistics and guns. He helped the US send weapons to South Africa when they were fighting (and loosing to) Angola. When the operation was busted, the US gvt pretended they did not know anything about it. So Bull was prosecuted (there was a weapons ban in effect against South Africa at the time) and jailed in the US. When he got out of jail, he was so pissed off that he said he would now sell to the highest bidder no matter who it was. He got involved with Saddam's Irak, including Project Babylon. That was the Super Gun project with a 1000 km range that Israel was not very fond of...
Yep. As far as I'm aware he helped Armscor (south africa) develop the G5 and G7 howitzer
SA didn’t loose in Angola
World option forced them out
He was offed by mossad and his supper cannon was bombed
@@tomhenry897 Never said SA lost in Angola... ???
I'm a 567lbs autistic with three moms. I recently joined the US Army and got promoted to Navy Seal due to inclusion and diversity.
With enough velocity, anything can have any range. Heck it could reach space with enough velocity.
TH-camr thinks he knows better than professional 😂😂
More then you