List of the 5 best artillery systems in the world

[Communism]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532932926182043648

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532936731950870529

First battalion of 16 will go online next year. The M1299 will be the most capable artillery system in the world.

Would make more sense to simply reduce cost of rocket artillery rounds (i'm talking about proper rockets, not rocket assisted cannon shells) and guidance systems for them instead of spending so much time on something that is nearly obsolete.

The longer the range of unguided artillery shells, the worse the actual effectiveness in modern combat due to how hilariously inaccurate they are.

With drone swarms pretty much being a thing soon, precision artillery is going to be exponentially more effective in actual war due to the availability of essentially endless cheap spotters.

The only benefit from gun artillery over rocket artillery has traditionally been continuous fire, but with counter-battery radars being pretty much ubiquitous now, that advantage is gone in a proper war.

 

[yugocrosrb95]

North Korean Koksan cannon 170 mm

View attachment 851731

The gun entered production in the late 1970s. For several years, the “Koksan” was the longest-range artillery system in the world with an estimated engagement range of 65 km.

The system has less mobility than its counterparts, and little is known about the types of munitions that these guns can use, but they have been significantly improved, as new models have been spotted in military parades.

"New rocket-propelled grenades were designed for the cannon with a range of about 100 kilometers".

From what hole where sun doesn't shine you pull out those numbers of range of Koksan?

Anyway most modern self propelled howitzer from North Korea and confirmed range of 40 kilometers.

​

 

[jhungary]

Would make more sense to simply reduce cost of rocket artillery rounds (i'm talking about proper rockets, not rocket assisted cannon shells) and guidance systems for them instead of spending so much time on something that is nearly obsolete.

The longer the range of unguided artillery shells, the worse the actual effectiveness in modern combat due to how hilariously inaccurate they are.

With drone swarms pretty much being a thing soon, precision artillery is going to be exponentially more effective in actual war due to the availability of essentially endless cheap spotters.

The only benefit from gun artillery over rocket artillery has traditionally been continuous fire, but with counter-battery radars being pretty much ubiquitous now, that advantage is gone in a proper war.

I beg to differ

Is Russo-Ukraine war a proper war?

The problem with drone swarm is, you need to be able to pin point their location before you can send it a swarm, it just cannot materialise out of nothing, and if you can see where they fire from, effective COUNTBAT would have been suffice to take on the incoming Artillery.

That would make Tow Artillery out of sync, not SPG. Because by the time your Drone got there, the SPG firing at you are long gone (Depends on range, it's generally take 20 minutes for drone to travel 10km)

On the other hand, you cannot replace heavy volume of fire to saturate a target. Which mean low cost solution is still going to be needed in order to satisfy battlefield need, take Ukraine War as an example, the area is too much and too vast for you to do precision strike only. While I would agree Precision Strike are needed to reduce Ukrainian Defence effectiveness, but that would not do if you require a sustained rate of fire to cover your troop or to suppress enemy position. You will want to use unguided round to denied a general area, not just a single point.

 

[Communism]

I beg to differ

Is Russo-Ukraine war a proper war?

The problem with drone swarm is, you need to be able to pin point their location before you can send it a swarm, it just cannot materialise out of nothing, and if you can see where they fire from, effective COUNTBAT would have been suffice to take on the incoming Artillery.

That would make Tow Artillery out of sync, not SPG. Because by the time your Drone got there, the SPG firing at you are long gone (Depends on range, it's generally take 20 minutes for drone to travel 10km)

On the other hand, you cannot replace heavy volume of fire to saturate a target. Which mean low cost solution is still going to be needed in order to satisfy battlefield need, take Ukraine War as an example, the area is too much and too vast for you to do precision strike only. While I would agree Precision Strike are needed to reduce Ukrainian Defence effectiveness, but that would not do if you require a sustained rate of fire to cover your troop or to suppress enemy position. You will want to use unguided round to denied a general area, not just a single point.

I'm talking about 2 different concepts.

1st concept is drone swarm for precision target acquisition

2nd concept is counter battery radar which effectively puts a cap on any salvo time before counter battery lands back at you.

The 1st concept is pretty simple so there's no need to rehash it.

The 2nd concept theoretically makes any salvo time longer than the time that counter-battery radar sees the first round go off plus the time to aim your counter battery artillery plus the travel time of your counter salvo being the longest time that the initiator artillery can safely use, and is also included with time to get out of the area of effect of the counter-battery.

The 2nd concept theoretically makes any salvo longer than a few minutes suicide.

The 2nd concept makes salvo launched rocket artillery pretty much superior in any conflict that I would envision where quality of equipment matters at all.

You are forgetting that rocket artillery are even better for counter battery than gun artillery due to the salvo fire nature which puts more payload weight to the target before the target can respond.

Cheapness per round is pretty meaningless compared to cheapness per pound of payload.

Rocket artillery compares pretty favorably in terms of cheapness per pound of payload.

Cheapness per pound of payload should theoretically be cheaper for rocket artillery than gun artillery as the gun artillery is a hypersonic round while the rocket artillery is only a super sonic round and therefore should at least negate the loss of efficiency in rocket vs gun.

 

[doorstar]

all you clever and lucky experts, poor ole me, I only know L118 light gun a 105 mm towed and/or underslung artillery piece.

 

[dBSPL]

Each caliber group has separate doctrinal foundations and uses on war theatre. Putting all artillery systems in one bag is not the right approach. I do not even mention the differences between tactical wheel and tracked vehicles in self-propelled artillery systems...

 

[vishwambhar]

What type of artillery? Towed or SP??? If both then where is DHANUSH from India and M777 from USA in this list???

 

[jhungary]

I'm talking about 2 different concepts.

1st concept is drone swarm for precision target acquisition

2nd concept is counter battery radar which effectively puts a cap on any salvo time before counter battery lands back at you.

The 1st concept is pretty simple so there's no need to rehash it.

The 2nd concept theoretically makes any salvo time longer than the time that counter-battery radar sees the first round go off plus the time to aim your counter battery artillery plus the travel time of your counter salvo being the longest time that the initiator artillery can safely use, and is also included with time to get out of the area of effect of the counter-battery.

The 2nd concept theoretically makes any salvo longer than a few minutes suicide.

The 2nd concept makes salvo launched rocket artillery pretty much superior in any conflict that I would envision where quality of equipment matters at all.

You are forgetting that rocket artillery are even better for counter battery than gun artillery due to the salvo fire nature which puts more payload weight to the target before the target can respond.

Cheapness per round is pretty meaningless compared to cheapness per pound of payload.

Rocket artillery compares pretty favorably in terms of cheapness per pound of payload.

Cheapness per pound of payload should theoretically be cheaper for rocket artillery than gun artillery as the gun artillery is a hypersonic round while the rocket artillery is only a super sonic round and therefore should at least negate the loss of efficiency in rocket vs gun.

You completely missed my point.

I am not saying Rocket Artillery are not better for COUNTBAT. It is, it's quick, it's precise. I am saying you can only send in the drone swarm and swarm enemy Artillery IF you can find them, and even if you have found your target, you still need to get your drone there to attack, otherwise COUNTBAT with whatever would have suffice. On the other hand. Mobile Artillery (such as SPG, Airborne Artillery and Rocket Artillery) concept have made Counter Battery redundant, because the moment your enemy can start their COUNTBAT, you are already scooped out of the Area.

Another point I made is as the nature of Ranged Support goes, you cannot saturate target with Rocket Artillery. I can put 20 rounds a minute per gun on a target consistently until my supplies run out. You cannot do that with Rocket Artillery, you can only get 1 salvo before you need to recharge your rocket for the next 3 to 5 minutes. So no, Artillery, especially SPG is not irreverent as you said. Because you still need the sheer volume in Artillery to suppress your enemy, like what the Russian do with their SPG in the war.

 

[dBSPL]

Anyway most modern self propelled howitzer from North Korea and confirmed range of 40 kilometers.

For several years, the “Koksan” was the longest-range artillery system in the world with an estimated engagement range of 65 km.

Today, flight course of more than 40 km can be reached by using a base bleed unit in most 155mm modern artillery shells.

IMHO, the main making the difference factor is fire control systems, accurate and fast ballistic calculation and the accuracy of the projectile. In other words, when evaluating artillery systems, the main thing we should take note of is that fast ballistic calculation, short set-up time, rate of fire, precise engagement to the target and ofc shoot&scoot, rather than the maximum distance that the projectile can reach.

For example, most armies today are trying to acquire Range Correction Kits. In the need of precision marking, tactical UAVs are tried to gain integrated mission capability. These systems are now capable of real-time data processing with a tactical data links. As the battlefield is constantly moving towards a more complex structure, the artillery class is also evolving towards the system of systems, as many other class.

I don't know if you are following the Russia-Ukraine war, but dozens of footage and documents that can serve as a lesson on artillery war are all over the social media, and they are a great treasure for those who know how to evaluate.

Counter reaction in 50 seconds, how Tos-1 neutralized in front of russian journalists

 

[Communism]

You completely missed my point.

I am not saying Rocket Artillery are not better for COUNTBAT. It is, it's quick, it's precise. I am saying you can only send in the drone swarm and swarm enemy Artillery IF you can find them, and even if you have found your target, you still need to get your drone there to attack, otherwise COUNTBAT with whatever would have suffice. On the other hand. Mobile Artillery (such as SPG, Airborne Artillery and Rocket Artillery) concept have made Counter Battery redundant, because the moment your enemy can start their COUNTBAT, you are already scooped out of the Area.

Another point I made is as the nature of Ranged Support goes, you cannot saturate target with Rocket Artillery. I can put 20 rounds a minute per gun on a target consistently until my supplies run out. You cannot do that with Rocket Artillery, you can only get 1 salvo before you need to recharge your rocket for the next 3 to 5 minutes. So no, Artillery, especially SPG is not irreverent as you said. Because you still need the sheer volume in Artillery to suppress your enemy, like what the Russian do with their SPG in the war.

2 posts and you spent them building straw men instead of responding to either of my posts.

Both of your posts totally ignored my points entirely.

You somehow think that only 1 side can counter-battery.

You somehow think that drone swarms are only useful for counter-battery.

Area suppression is inherently worse than precision strikes.

You are completely ignoring that lbs of payload is the measurement stick that matters, not rounds on target.

You are totally blind to modern warfare.

"On the other hand. Mobile Artillery (such as SPG, Airborne Artillery and Rocket Artillery) concept have made Counter Battery redundant, because the moment your enemy can start their COUNTBAT, you are already scooped out of the Area."

You are ignoring my points again.

You are pretending that you can just sit there and lob rounds while also pretending that you can scoot away in time always.

You cannot have it both ways.

In shoot and scoot, rocket artillery is king.

In counter-battery scenario, rocket artillery is king.

in precision strike scenario, rocket artillery is king.

You keep making scenarios where your side is already winning so hard that you don't have to deal with any of the counters of your strategy.

As I said, at that point, the quality of equipment doesn't even matter and the discussion is moot, just send in field guns and you will have the same effectiveness.

 

[jhungary]

2 posts and you spent them building straw men instead of responding to either of my posts.

Both of your posts totally ignored my points entirely.

You somehow think that only 1 side can counter-battery.

Where did I say that?

You somehow think that drone swarms are only useful for counter-battery.

Where did I say that?

Area suppression is inherently worse than precision strikes.

You are completely ignoring that lbs of payload is the measurement stick that matters, not rounds on target.

You are totally blind to modern warfare.

Again, that's why I ask "Whether you consider Russo-Ukraine war" is a modern war.

You don't just use your ranged artillery to attack. you also need to use them to do a whole lot of stuff, like soften up the rear of an enemy, or suppress enemy fire position, or give a layer of protective fire. All of which require sustained effort and when that goes, you can of course unload rocket artillery on it but how much would it cost for 100 rounds of 155 per gun on target where I don't need to care about where they land vs 100 rocket per vehicle where I still don't care where they landed?? That is if you can put 100 rocket on target continuously to begin with. You can't because if that is a BM-30, you can fire 40 rockets then you will need to wait 20 minutes to reload. OR if you are using HIMARS, you will fire 6 then you will need to wait 3 to 5 minutes to reload.

Modern Warfare is just that, you try to one up your enemy, be it for you to fight at another dimension, angle or other battlespace. So no, Rocket Artillery is not superior than Shell Artillery nor making them irreverent altogether.

Aren't You ethnically Chinese Yourself?

So? Should I blindly follow something that is false knowing that is false?? Because it was for China?

I am here to discuss, not cheer.

 

[Communism]

I keep forgetting that a cia troll's only job is to cheerlead and pretend that whatever is the current thing is god and ignore anything that might counter that point.

3rd post of yours where you completely ignore my point, cherry pick my comments and build a straw man.

I remember talking to trolls like you about how 100% worthless the stryker procurement was/is and that they needed to get MBT protection level heavy IFVs.

CIA trolls trolled for the next 4 years.

Turns out, Pentagon was working on exactly what I advocated and predicted would be the correct course of action.

And now that that is public now, CIA trolls ignore that entire period of time.

We are literally seeing the U.S.'s tactics for artillery getting absolutely destroyed by Russia right now in Ukraine despite Ukraine starting with a larger military force in theater with more vehicles and ordinance in theater, arguably better intel in theater, direct support from the U.S. military in all domains.

And you are still ignoring that entirely.

 

[jhungary]

I keep forgetting that a cia troll's only job is to cheerlead and pretend that whatever is the current thing is god and ignore anything that might counter that point.

3rd post of yours where you completely ignore my point, cherry pick my comments and build a straw man.

I remember talking to trolls like you about how 100% worthless the stryker procurement was/is and that they needed to get MBT protection level heavy IFVs.

CIA trolls trolled for the next 4 years.

Turns out, Pentagon was working on exactly what I advocated and predicted would be the correct course of action.

And now that that is public now, CIA trolls ignore that entire period of time.

Oh sure,

You expect me to respond to your point when first of all your point is not exactly what this topic is about, second, it was something I had never said.

But sure, you probably know best because I was a troll, right? May I ask how many year you have served in the Military and how many years you have been in War?? I have been in the Miltiary for over 7 years and served 2 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just so you know, in case you are missing the point of Stryker, it's speed, First of all, MBT level of IFV is useless (I was a 19A and commanded Bradley) you are just going to be a sitting duck seeing modern MBT itself is a sitting duck between Man Portable missile and Airstrike. Speed is one of the augment for unit to survive in battle, otherwise why we need Special Force and Light infantry, why not just equip everyone with 240Bravo or M249??

dude, if you think you are right, then you are probably insane.

 

[avenuepark57]

View attachment 851715​

A magazine specialized in news of weapons and military equipment, in a recent article, shed light on one of the most important weapons used in wars, which is artillery, where China and Russia topped the list.

Military Watch, a magazine specialized in arms news, considered that the current crisis in Ukraine, and the emergence of the prominent and increasing role played by artillery, has led to the recognition of many specialists, especially in Western armies, that such military equipment is still extremely important in the battlefields. In the twenty-first century, especially since the Western world has neglected this military sector after the Cold War.

Although the magazine considered that the howitzers (self-propelled) are considered a “success” for some countries that have invested in them, the American of these guns did not find any benefit in the face of Russian forces, as they are simply destroyed and targeted, on the one hand, and on the other hand, Howitzers did not enter its list published under the title of the 5 best guns in the world, in which China and Russia topped the list, and all NATO countries disappeared, and these guns are:

Chinese PLZ-05A / PLZ-52 self-propelled gun

View attachment 851720

The PLZ-05 cannon entered production in 2003, and was one of the first Chinese weapons systems that became the world's leading after a long line of Chinese weapons systems.

According to the magazine, it remains to this day one of the newest designs in the world with few competitors, as this gun entered service in 2008.

“The gun uses a semi-automatic loading system that can fire 4 shells every fifteen seconds, with a continuous firing rate of 8 to 10 shells per minute.

The system is unparalleled in terms of the engagement range with the ability to hit targets at a distance of 100 km using “WS-35” ammunition. The gun is equipped with a night vision system and the crew does not need to leave it during the reloading process.


“God of War”… Russia’s 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV

View attachment 851723

This gun was first revealed in 2015, and some Western reports described it as a “god of war” that has no equal in the world, and it was delivered to the Russian army the following year, where it was distinguished by significant improvements and very unique developments in all areas of performance.

“The Russian gun is distinguished by a much higher degree of accuracy than its predecessors due to its advanced laser guidance systems, and it has an engagement range of 70 km, with high-explosive shells of various types and armor-piercing. It is designed to increase accuracy by using targeting data from drones and other surveillance media.”


South Korean "Thunder K9A1" cannon

View attachment 851728

The K9 Thunder is one of the most successful artillery systems in terms of global production, with more than 1,800 units manufactured and currently operated by three countries.

“Among its most notable features are providing it with an automatic system of dealing with shells and shocks, a rate of fire of up to six shells per minute, and the ability to fire on different paths in short succession.”


North Korean Koksan cannon 170 mm

View attachment 851731

The gun entered production in the late 1970s. For several years, the “Koksan” was the longest-range artillery system in the world with an estimated engagement range of 65 km.

The system has less mobility than its counterparts, and little is known about the types of munitions that these guns can use, but they have been significantly improved, as new models have been spotted in military parades.

"New rocket-propelled grenades were designed for the cannon with a range of about 100 kilometers".


Japanese "Type 99" cannon

View attachment 851732

The gun entered service in 1999 and is a Japanese cutting weapon system that was produced in very small numbers and intended exclusively for domestic use. The system was considered by some estimates the most expensive ever, with a rate of fire of six rounds per minute. Only 117 guns were manufactured.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/155-mm-x-52-cal-advanced-towed-artillery-gun-system-atags