China Doesn't Need Missiles, They Have Artillery

[quote]In January 1995 the Chinese army unveiled a 21 m long supergun capable of firing large artillery shells into South Korea and Taiwan.

friends-partners.org/partner … iergun.htm

[/quote]

However, artilery uses trial and error for an accurate fix. Observers are needed to make sure artillery hits home.
Sophisticated artillery which uses sound waves to determine how far away shells are dropping and where they are hitting is only available to armies with advance technology. I therefore doubt that China has access to this.
Therefore I don’t see how much damage shells could do, apart from inducing widespread panic, as shells would hit random targets - if any at all.

With real time satelite imaging accurate artillery fire has never been easier.
friends-partners.org/partner … nnched.htm
The Paris gun of WWI fired blindly but was very effective at terrorising the inhabitants of Paris even with small capacity payloads. The USS New Jersey’s 16 inch guns fired 2ooo lb. rounds at a max. range of 20 miles. They are a fraction of the size of this thing.
Does it really make a difference if they aim for Mucha and hit Tien Mue.
These types of guns are not very good offensive weapons but they are very good defensive weapons. Low tech and cost effective, mounted at altitude they would stop any major assault before it even got started.

possible role for spies?

Assuming that China has this capability. Highly doubtful.

It’s use is only for psychological effect. Actual military effect is negligable. WW2 battleship guns were effective because they were concentrated in mass numbers in support of other military maneuvers.

Not really. Effective artillery tactics require close coordination with infantry maneuvers. By itself, artillery is ineffective compared to missiles.

Long-range artillery like this supergun is to make up for the lack of missiles. However, we know that China has missiles now and so this thing is going to be mothballed. It’s 1995 technology and getting old fast.

[quote]Effective artillery tactics require close coordination with infantry maneuvers. By itself, artillery is ineffective compared to missiles.

Long-range artillery like this supergun is to make up for the lack of missiles. However, we know that China has missiles now and so this thing is going to be mothballed. It’s 1995 technology and getting old fast.[/quote]

Absolutely.

Artillery is usefull at stopping offensive manouevers. However, a long range, inaccurate gun is not going to help against moving ships or land based assault battalions. Short range artillery is much better for the simple fact that by the time the long range shell hit (or perhaps missed) its target, the target would be back home watching tv after a successful invasion.

The long range gun is purely for blasting the inhabitants of a foreign land into pandamonium. Satellite technology works better with missiles due to the nature of the two technologies. Yellow Cartman is probably right when he says that the guns will be mothballed.

[quote=“Dangermouse”]However, artilery uses trial and error for an accurate fix. Observers are needed to make sure artillery hits home.
Sophisticated artillery which uses sound waves to determine how far away shells are dropping and where they are hitting is only available to armies with advance technology. I therefore doubt that China has access to this.[/quote]

China could very well have access to that kind of technology if Chirac and the French get their way …

I think the point would be to cause panic and terror, much like Scud missiles … highly inaccurate, but certainly have a psychological effect.

Speaking of big guns though … hehe … Taiwan has the largest known artillery in all of southeast Asia, the M1. It can deliver a 240mm shell to a target 14 miles away and requires 12 to 16 men to operate.

The M1 must be based on Jinmen then?