Artillery Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sudeepj »

The entire comparison should be between smart rounds launched from tubes, vs. smart rounds launched from an MLRS. Tube launched smart rounds require a lot of engineering, which will not be needed for a rocket.

With the proliferation of artillery locating radars, smart rounds, and networked arty, batteries will not have the luxury of unloading round after round, sitting in one place like in Kargil. Even in Kargil, enemy counter battery fire was pretty bad. If it wasnt for ridges providing protection from shells on a ballistic trajectory, it would have been worse. I read somewhere that at Kargil, enemy arty took 14 minutes to start counter battery fire. How much time would we have today? If the battle was being fought in the plains, our M46s and IFGs and perhaps even the Bofors would have been sitting ducks.. They also would not have had the luxury to unload shell after shell for hours on end. It would have been shoot a few rounds for a few minutes, then relocate and so on..

Do you guys recall the shells and the charges lying around in their tens around the Bofors and the IFG batteries? Would our arty men have the luxury to arrange their shells in the open like that, if they were within range of enemy artillery?
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_22539 »

sudeepj wrote:The entire comparison should be between smart rounds launched from tubes, vs. smart rounds launched from an MLRS. Tube launched smart rounds require a lot of engineering, which will not be needed for a rocket.

With the proliferation of artillery locating radars, smart rounds, and networked arty, batteries will not have the luxury of unloading round after round, sitting in one place like in Kargil. Even in Kargil, enemy counter battery fire was pretty bad. If it wasnt for ridges providing protection from shells on a ballistic trajectory, it would have been worse. I read somewhere that at Kargil, enemy arty took 14 minutes to start counter battery fire. How much time would we have today? If the battle was being fought in the plains, our M46s and IFGs and perhaps even the Bofors would have been sitting ducks.. They also would not have had the luxury to unload shell after shell for hours on end. It would have been shoot a few rounds for a few minutes, then relocate and so on..

Do you guys recall the shells and the charges lying around in their tens around the Bofors and the IFG batteries? Would our arty men have the luxury to arrange their shells in the open like that, if they were within range of enemy artillery?
You are assuming that the enemy counter battery fire will be doing their stuff unscathed, they will have to scoot too. If that is the case, why haven't the Chinese, Pakis, or US of A transitioned to all self-propelled artillery (tube or rocket). Some times some targets need to be pounded on for hours, and no shoot and scoot is gonna allow that. If the enemy fires in retaliation, we fire back. This is how people fight wars. Scooting is not the be all and end all of artillery warfare.
schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by schowdhuri »

Rocket salvo's has always been used as a saturation weapon against static troop concentrations. They are too expensive to be at the beck & call of the Infantry Brigade Commander (who has a Field Regt CO sitting with him and at his beck & call).
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

IMO, some of the counter arguments have not taken into consideration of the Israeli example posted by me few posts above. Had it been a pure Howitzer vs MBRLS debate, I would have understood the debate.

However, we are talking about 'rethinking' 155mm arty on mountains.

Less tube MBRL for launching a smart munition that can correct its course based on GPS/Laser/Trajectory control system can not just cut cost of deployment, but also the speed that an enemy can be taken out. Costs come not just in expendable ammo. What about the time cost and other efforts (also than setting up arty gun there). Some areas, guns took 2 days to establish.

For example, for smoking out paki rats in Kargil holes, we used plethora of arty, aircrafts etc. Army was asking for a Chopper that can go almost go at same height as the rat bunkers and lob a missile. IAF said it was suicidal as it would be shot down before it gets a chance to launch.

The entire Kargil exercise was trying to get the explosives in the rat hole, but were not able to in most places. Look at the cost. had we had an ammunition that could have been guided from nearby areas (instead of a/c from very high), we could have won this faster.

JMT.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

sudeepj wrote:Do you guys recall the shells and the charges lying around in their tens around the Bofors and the IFG batteries? Would our arty men have the luxury to arrange their shells in the open like that, if they were within range of enemy artillery?
You are right on that question. At the same time, IMO the stacking of arty cartridges is part of the procedure of firing the gun. Its part of SOP. Unless, rest every one has been killed and there is no one to stack it, the stacking will go on.
Not if you have smart rounds.. that will reduce the number of rounds required to defeat any target. For comparison, a 155mm shell weighs 40kg, and the propellant weighs 10-20kg. 60kg for a round. The Pinaka rocket weights 276kg, but it also carries a warhead that's twice the size of the 155mm shell.
Right! Also, as I mentioned the 165 mm (or so) has more HE than 155mm Bofors and earned a praise.
Arun Menon wrote:You are assuming that the enemy counter battery fire will be doing their stuff unscathed, they will have to scoot too.
That could be a normal situation. What if the parity is not in our favour in a particular area and its crucial? It is war, we never know what happens and prepare for worse.
Last edited by chackojoseph on 27 Mar 2012 13:33, edited 1 time in total.
Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Snehashis »

Chacko, army now have Krasanpol rounds to blast those rat holes. In the Kargil war all of the Bofors gun were towed by trucks/tractors a pretty difficult task due to the sharp ridges in that region. Their movement were slow and some of the guns were lost in the ridges while transporting. But now with advent of truck mounted gun and guided shells it can perform most of the tasks if not all as you propose with RC MBRLs ?


Now when IA can induct a truck mounted gun is another question.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

Add to that.... Precision attack on such a towed gun arrangement can render the entire battery useless.....
Just adds to the case of MRLS or mounted Arty to be used in mountainous areas. Hilly tarrain unlike plains have very less real estate where a battery can be deployed. This IMO should also be noted by the enemy and all he should do is to fire at this location at the right time.

This applies to both the sides, however, Pak is in a better shape due to its better placed mounted Arty.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Snehashis,

Krasanpol and likes is what we are any way referring to.

However, that does not solve the 155mm question in Kargil like or mountainous situation. What can truck mount do if you cannot get the correct trajectory. You will have to still rely on a smart munition, right?

Less tubes MBRLS could be even helio lifted and need not be tuck mounted. it could be mounted even on a big tripod. Try doing that with a 155 mm.
Last edited by chackojoseph on 27 Mar 2012 14:27, edited 1 time in total.
nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nikhil_p »

Both the Tube Arty and rocket Arty have their advantages and disadvantages. Much like a few years ago when missiles came into being some great thinkers felt a cannon/MC had outlived itself on aircraft, we are having a discussion on the Tube vs Rocket.

To make a simple correlation, consider a soldier carrying a rifle (single/TRB) and one carrying a grenade launcher/ rocket launcher. Both have the same effective range (200-300 yards). While the grenade/rocket launcher will kill/maim in a 10ft radius (say 4 soldiers) the same can be done by the rifleman, ensuring the kills by TRB's in vulnerable parts. (e.g. neck). Now, the reload time of a rocket launcher/ grenade launcher is aroung 10-15 seconds and the soldier can carry 5-6 rockets or 20 grenades. The rifleman will be able to carry 300 bullets easily. Also the logistical requirement is lower as the bullet is cheaper to manufacture.

Now, in the Tube/rocket argument.

Yes, the rockets (MLRS like Pinaka) can launch a salvo in 40 seconds, scoot, reload and be back in 15 minutes to fire off another round. How many reloads can be carried in the reloader? (lets say 60 -100?) So for a battery of say 4 vehicles (launchers), you will need atleast 4 supply vehicles carrying a total of 400 rockets.

In total you will get -
20 shots per vehicle x 4 vehicles = 80 shots, followed by rearming etc...so in an hour you will get of 4 rounds of shots = 320 rockets.

so total

Now consider tube arty. The 155/39 we have does about 10 shells per minute sustained firing. A FAT can easily carry 200-250 shells. So 4 FAT is like 800 - 1000 shells. So the 155/39 in an hour can shoot off 300 shells (allowing 15 mins time to cool after 15 mins of sustained firing). 4 Guns can do aroung 1200 shells??

Okay, maybe the numbers are off, but you do the math. Also, with 4 guns it is easier to keep a sustained attack rather than using an MLRS. Also, shells are smaller and easier to transport than rockets.

Even an SPG (Archer) carries 40 shells, if an FAT is supporting it, it can easily do more damage.

The Rocket arty is mainly for area suppression whereas the Tube is better for sustained operations.
JMT.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

nikhil_p wrote:Yes, the rockets (MLRS like Pinaka) can launch a salvo in 40 seconds, scoot, reload and be back in 15 minutes to fire off another round. How many reloads can be carried in the reloader? (lets say 60 -100?) So for a battery of say 4 vehicles (launchers), you will need atleast 4 supply vehicles carrying a total of 400 rockets.

In total you will get -
20 shots per vehicle x 4 vehicles = 80 shots, followed by rearming etc...so in an hour you will get of 4 rounds of shots = 320 rockets.
Good argument, especially the rifle/grenade.

Why will you have to reload a MLRS with a smart warhead so many times? Doesn't defeats the purpose of using a smart munition?
nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nikhil_p »

chackojoseph wrote: Good argument, especially the rifle/grenade.

Why will you have to reload a MLRS with a smart warhead so many times? Doesn't defeats the purpose of using a smart munition?
CJ, you are a BRFite! :)

I am not just referring to attacks on Sangars or Hardened bunkers (which IMHO are sitting ducks if attacked by some pinpoint Pinaka rockets. It is also to the attacks by land based troops in APC's, trucks who will be moving targets. A pinaka strike will be effective, however they will lie low/ pull back and reattack. In sucha case sustained fire will keep their heads low.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

does anyone know the kind of impact Grad rockets had in kargil ? even a limited number of pinaka was reportedly fired off by DRDO scientists.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Singha wrote:does anyone know the kind of impact Grad rockets had in kargil ? even a limited number of pinaka was reportedly fired off by DRDO scientists.

Grads did a great job. They wiped a lot of supply lines, admin areas in the radius. Very effective.

Three things worked in tandem on ground via artillery. Grad + 120 and 160mm Mortars + 155mm arty.

nikhil_p,

i suppose you are mixing plains too.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

nikhil_p wrote: Yes, the rockets (MLRS like Pinaka) can launch a salvo in 40 seconds, scoot, reload and be back in 15 minutes to fire off another round. How many reloads can be carried in the reloader? (lets say 60 -100?) So for a battery of say 4 vehicles (launchers), you will need atleast 4 supply vehicles carrying a total of 400 rockets.

In total you will get -
20 shots per vehicle x 4 vehicles = 80 shots, followed by rearming etc...so in an hour you will get of 4 rounds of shots = 320 rockets.

so total

Now consider tube arty. The 155/39 we have does about 10 shells per minute sustained firing. A FAT can easily carry 200-250 shells. So 4 FAT is like 800 - 1000 shells. So the 155/39 in an hour can shoot off 300 shells (allowing 15 mins time to cool after 15 mins of sustained firing). 4 Guns can do aroung 1200 shells??

Okay, maybe the numbers are off, but you do the math. Also, with 4 guns it is easier to keep a sustained attack rather than using an MLRS. Also, shells are smaller and easier to transport than rockets.

Even an SPG (Archer) carries 40 shells, if an FAT is supporting it, it can easily do more damage.

The Rocket arty is mainly for area suppression whereas the Tube is better for sustained operations.
JMT.
My observations.
Taking F77H, it can deploy a warhead weight of ~40Kgs. Rate of fire is 3 rpm for 20 min sustained. 20x3=60 rounds. It then needs a cool down time for its barrel and crew.

Pinaka OTOT, has a warhead weight of 100 Kgs. Can fire 12 Rockets at max range in 44 sec and reload time of 4 min. There wont be any comparable crew fatigue here.

In one continuous hour, a single Howitzer can fire around 120 to 145 rounds where as Pinaka can fire 120 rockets. with no cool off time included.
Adding a 10 min cool off time in between it will be able to manage around 100 rounds.

The Howitzer would have managed to deploy 120 x 40 = 4800 Kgs of Explosives where as pinaka would be deploying 100 x 100 = 10,000 Kgs of explosives.

I have not taken gun/launcher alignment times.

The costs however, I am clueless.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

Singha wrote:does anyone know the kind of impact Grad rockets had in kargil ? even a limited number of pinaka was reportedly fired off by DRDO scientists.
You mean the Artillery guys? Or is it really Scientists?
nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nikhil_p »

chackojoseph wrote:

nikhil_p,

i suppose you are mixing plains too.
Nope CJ. Not mixing plains. I am talking about soldiers moving in to attack our forward posts and bases in the mountains. During Kargil it was a defensive war for them (porkis) where they occupied the bunkers and holed up. But in an offensive you will have battalions on the move.
koti wrote:Taking F77H, it can deploy a warhead weight of ~40Kgs. Rate of fire is 3 rpm for 20 min sustained. 20x3=60 rounds. It then needs a cool down time for its barrel and crew.

Pinaka OTOT, has a warhead weight of 100 Kgs. Can fire 12 Rockets at max range in 44 sec and reload time of 4 min. There wont be any comparable crew fatigue here.

In one continuous hour, a single Howitzer can fire around 120 to 145 rounds where as Pinaka can fire 120 rockets. with no cool off time included.
Adding a 10 min cool off time in between it will be able to manage around 100 rounds.

The Howitzer would have managed to deploy 120 x 40 = 4800 Kgs of Explosives where as pinaka would be deploying 100 x 100 = 10,000 Kgs of explosives.

I have not taken gun/launcher alignment times.

The costs however, I am clueless.


Then a single Agni/Prithvi can deploy a tonne of explosives. But that is not the point. The point I was making is sustaining an acceptable rate of fire along with a smaller logistical footprint. Also a reload on the Pinaka requires the trucks to be aligned etc. The Gun, well, you know.

Also, you will be able to sustain the tube arty for longer as the logistical footprint is smaller and hence faster. Csost wise, the Tube arty will be easier to deploy and use than rocket arty.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

nikhil_p wrote:Nope CJ. Not mixing plains. I am talking about soldiers moving in to attack our forward posts and bases in the mountains.
You mean they climb up to our posts and bunkers. Then it will be reverse situation of what we found in kargil.
nikhil_p wrote: however they will lie low/ pull back and reattack. In sucha case sustained fire will keep their heads low.
I am sure, they will be dispersed over an area. here again, we need MBRLS.
Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Snehashis »

koti wrote: My observations.
Taking F77H, it can deploy a warhead weight of ~40Kgs. Rate of fire is 3 rpm for 20 min sustained. 20x3=60 rounds. It then needs a cool down time for its barrel and crew.

Pinaka OTOT, has a warhead weight of 100 Kgs. Can fire 12 Rockets at max range in 44 sec and reload time of 4 min. There wont be any comparable crew fatigue here.

In one continuous hour, a single Howitzer can fire around 120 to 145 rounds where as Pinaka can fire 120 rockets. with no cool off time included.
Adding a 10 min cool off time in between it will be able to manage around 100 rounds.

The Howitzer would have managed to deploy 120 x 40 = 4800 Kgs of Explosives where as pinaka would be deploying 100 x 100 = 10,000 Kgs of explosives.

I have not taken gun/launcher alignment times.

The costs however, I am clueless.

Koti, a 155mm shell can deliver 6kg - 9kg warhead.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

^^Link?
Mine says 40Kg HE.
Let me check again.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

Maybe the weight increases if we add the Fuse and Casing weight.

My logic was that since 155mm Krasnopol weighs ~50 Kgs with a 20Kg warhead a normal 155mm payload should be also around 40-50 Kgs
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

I think that the effect of Pinaka would be equivalent to 3-5 rounds of 155mm gun. A round from 155mm gun should cost around US$ 2000 for the shell, fuze, propellant, BB, depreciation of gun (US$ 2 million) . The accuracy is around 0.5% of range.

Pinaka cost is not known by me but I guess around US$ 10,000 for unguided round and accuracy is around 1.0% of range. My guess of guided round cost is around US$ 50,000 with accuracy of 10m to 100m.

Therefore the costs are reasonably aligned.
member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_22906 »

chackojoseph wrote:A dug in troop in mountain can no way be low value, IMO. See, that was Kargil war about. Dug in men took 10 + days, few hundred soldiers, arms n ammo and international attention.
CJ, dug in troops can be very much low value if they are not in the main route or unable to create any major damage or obstruction while the primary battle objectives are being worked on. As stated earlier, it all depends on what are your primary and secondary battle objectives...

Anyways, usage of artillery guns is not only in direct fire mode (since the GPS based rockets can also cater to that role). By the way, our very own 130mm are very good in direct fire mode and can be used in anti-tank role effectively. On a different note, I vividly remember a deflected shot technique that was developed wherein at a specific angle, the round deflects off the ground before hitting the final target (something like when you deflect a stone over water, except here it is only once)

Coming back to the topic of guns, they are fairly effective in Infantry support, counterbattery fire etc from a logistics tail and cost point of view. Pls also note that your OP officers move with infantry, and they are one of the primary sources in providing data for the GP officers. In mountain terrain, this in all probability will not be in line of sight scenario. Thats where your SATA radars etc come in and a lot of the logic is based on triangulation (which is still not very accurate down to a precise GPS position - IIRC) especially in a shoot and scoot mode adopted by the enemy.

UAV also provide coordinates but again to spot in mountains is based on very accurate scanners, etc. Therefore, here again there is a fair amount of approximation that happens.

No one is discounting the role of MRLS, but today's economics, scale and technology ain't good enough to replace 155mm in mountains
Last edited by member_22906 on 27 Mar 2012 19:08, edited 1 time in total.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

Nobody is denying that 155mm artillery is needed but we are saying that "some" roles can be taken over by advanced 105mm and Pinaka/Prahaar which have the benefit of being cheap and Indian
schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by schowdhuri »

vic wrote:I think that the effect of Pinaka would be equivalent to 3-5 rounds of 155mm gun. A round from 155mm gun should cost around US$ 2000 for the shell, fuze, propellant, BB, depreciation of gun (US$ 2 million) . The accuracy is around 0.5% of range.

Pinaka cost is not known by me but I guess around US$ 10,000 for unguided round and accuracy is around 1.0% of range. My guess of guided round cost is around US$ 50,000 with accuracy of 10m to 100m.

Therefore the costs are reasonably aligned.
A battery of Pinaka will be = few regts of med arty. It's not just a weight comparison - you need to also see the effect of a salvo (or even a ripple) going in together as opposed to med arty shells. If you just see it you will know the difference - I mentioned that before in an earlier post. In the old days 1 BM21 regt was considered = 14 med (130mm) regts. Concentrating the number of guns required to be equal to a Pinaka battery will not be easy. Also, Pak CB & TA have always been very excellent.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

schowdhuri wrote:A battery of Pinaka will be = few regts of med arty. It's not just a weight comparison - you need to also see the effect of a salvo (or even a ripple) going in together as opposed to med arty shells. If you just see it you will know the difference - I mentioned that before in an earlier post. In the old days 1 BM21 regt was considered = 14 med (130mm) regts. Concentrating the number of guns required to be equal to a Pinaka battery will not be easy. Also, Pak CB & TA have always been very excellent.
What I observed in replies is that folks want to refill and use MBRL's just like 155mm arty, without understanding what you are saying.

So logically they say "do you know the cost?" "Do you know how much time for a refill?" etc.

They simply can't fathom what a single ripple can to to brown pants vs what 155mm can.
Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Snehashis »

Chacko, I am for anything which can effectively neutralize the enemy bunkers. IMVVHO to take out hardened bunkers at LoC we need air delivered bunker blaster with tandem warhead type LGBs. Then we can use our guns MBRLs to deny the enemy to rebuild /recapture.
member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_22906 »

chackojoseph wrote:
schowdhuri wrote:A battery of Pinaka will be = few regts of med arty. It's not just a weight comparison - you need to also see the effect of a salvo (or even a ripple) going in together as opposed to med arty shells. If you just see it you will know the difference - I mentioned that before in an earlier post. In the old days 1 BM21 regt was considered = 14 med (130mm) regts. Concentrating the number of guns required to be equal to a Pinaka battery will not be easy. Also, Pak CB & TA have always been very excellent.
What I observed in replies is that folks want to refill and use MBRL's just like 155mm arty, without understanding what you are saying.

So logically they say "do you know the cost?" "Do you know how much time for a refill?" etc.

They simply can't fathom what a single ripple can to to brown pants vs what 155mm can.
Err CJ, some of us have had the fortune to see in person what a single ripple does, vs what a 155mm does, vs what a 105mm does vs... Some of the logic being given comes from what gunners in field say or dont say. But then again aren't we all arm chair generals :D
member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_22906 »

schowdhuri wrote:A battery of Pinaka will be = few regts of med arty. It's not just a weight comparison - you need to also see the effect of a salvo (or even a ripple) going in together as opposed to med arty shells. If you just see it you will know the difference - I mentioned that before in an earlier post. In the old days 1 BM21 regt was considered = 14 med (130mm) regts. Concentrating the number of guns required to be equal to a Pinaka battery will not be easy. Also, Pak CB & TA have always been very excellent.
It will surely be the case. But you are comparing an area saturation weapon with a completely different weapon. They serve different objectives.

It would be like comparing a strategic bomber with perhaps a CAS aircraft
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sum »

VKS in his interview mentions that the army seems to draw up unbelievable specs for their stuff, esp related to arty due to which even local stuff wasnt being made and even if made, the specs keep changing ever so frequently that makes it tough for the manufacturer.

His interview almost seems to have come out of a BRF post!!
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

finally I get the picture. MLRS addicts wants a B52/B1 squadron to bomb tactical targets like were used to pound the talib held ridgelines above the Shomali plains north of Kabul?
TV showed a long line of explosions as 100s of 2000lb bombs came raining down from high level bombers. what you are asking for is a B52/B1 to delicately drop single JDAMs on tactical small targets?

here a B1 drops a few JDAMS in kunar province outside a khan firebase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHEZTj_l ... re=related
Last edited by Singha on 28 Mar 2012 10:23, edited 1 time in total.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Bala Vignesh »

May be he is a lurker in the mil history forum....:P
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Snehashis wrote:Chacko, I am for anything which can effectively neutralize the enemy bunkers. IMVVHO to take out hardened bunkers at LoC we need air delivered bunker blaster with tandem warhead type LGBs. Then we can use our guns MBRLs to deny the enemy to rebuild /recapture.
See, I expect 90% of bunkers to be hardened to various degrees. If enemy can hit with a 155mm gun, then the bunker builder will make bunkers to handle x number of hits from the particular weapon. Even Hamas does it , as displayed by Israelis. What I understand by the Israeli narration, the modified MBRL can actually bust a bunker which 155mm cannot. So, probably the newer weapon makes it easier to bust and makes it difficult for enemy to build bunkers to withstand hit.

As some are suggesting that 155mm repeated firings can help, but Israeli experience says otherwise. Even Kargil taught us that.
Ajay Sharma wrote:Err CJ, some of us have had the fortune to see in person what a single ripple does, vs what a 155mm does, vs what a 105mm does vs... Some of the logic being given comes from what gunners in field say or dont say. But then again aren't we all arm chair generals :D
Was an observation covering some. Hence I was not specific and will lead to tiff. I regret if that got miscommunication. The general point I want to make is that yes a single round of Smart MBRL Shell vs 155mm is costly. The cost of using them vs time, deployment, diplomatic window etc should be considered.
Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Marut »

Singha wrote:finally I get the picture. MLRS addicts wants a B52/B1 squadron to bomb tactical targets like were used to pound the talib held ridgelines above the Shomali plains north of Kabul?
TV showed a long line of explosions as 100s of 2000lb bombs came raining down from high level bombers. what you are asking for is a B52/B1 to delicately drop single JDAMs on tactical small targets?
Actually smart munitions addicts want the bomb to perform S-curve manoeuvre close to the target before before popping up to do a top attack on the enemy/jehadi scums head which should blast like a pumpkin with a firecracker in it!
chackojoseph wrote:
Snehashis wrote:Chacko, I am for anything which can effectively neutralize the enemy bunkers. IMVVHO to take out hardened bunkers at LoC we need air delivered bunker blaster with tandem warhead type LGBs. Then we can use our guns MBRLs to deny the enemy to rebuild /recapture.
See, I expect 90% of bunkers to be hardened to various degrees. If enemy can hit with a 155mm gun, then the bunker builder will make bunkers to handle x number of hits from the particular weapon. Even Hamas does it , as displayed by Israelis. What I understand by the Israeli narration, the modified MBRL can actually bust a bunker which 155mm cannot. So, probably the newer weapon makes it easier to bust and makes it difficult for enemy to build bunkers to withstand hit.

As some are suggesting that 155mm repeated firings can help, but Israeli experience says otherwise. Even Kargil taught us that.
if you can use MBRL instead of tube arty so can I reinforce the bunker to withstand multiple hits from that warhead. If you will hit me with bunker buster, I will design for it. It's a cat & mouse game. Futile to use this analogy. dumb munitions are here to stay notwithstanding the previous pages of discussions. dumb arty shells is a very cheap way of increasing the firepower delivered without making the escalation get out of hand spiralling into a full blown conflict.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Marut wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:So, probably the newer weapon makes it easier to bust and makes it difficult for enemy to build bunkers to withstand hit.

As some are suggesting that 155mm repeated firings can help, but Israeli experience says otherwise. Even Kargil taught us that.
Futile to use this analogy.
schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by schowdhuri »

Singha wrote:finally I get the picture. MLRS addicts wants a B52/B1 squadron to bomb tactical targets like were used to pound the talib held ridgelines above the Shomali plains north of Kabul?
TV showed a long line of explosions as 100s of 2000lb bombs came raining down from high level bombers. what you are asking for is a B52/B1 to delicately drop single JDAMs on tactical small targets?
A Soviet general had come to visit School of Arty, and was watching a demo. There was a hidden enemy bunker which took some time to locate. Then a ranging gun took some time to get the bearing. Then a regt opened up on the bunker (This was overkill designed to impress, in a real situation like that a full medium regt would be highly unlikely to be available). Later when when asked for comments, the general praised the shooting, but said the Soviets would have done it differently - bring up a 100 guns and just wipe out the mountain. The 100 gun concept came from the Soviets, and that was the original thinking behind the arty divs (because normally an arty brigade is spread out pretty thin). The thought of arty divs was there many decades before it actually came about.

The point of the story was if you have the money and resources, tube arty can be used (and has been used) similar to rocket artillery, and will get results much sooner. The pro's & cons of doing so have been discussed by others so I don;t want to repeat that.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ParGha »

Schowdhuri, the Soviets were using the 100-Gun concept to create fire-curtains and maneuvering infantry/armor in-between long before rocket-artillery became anything more than terror-weapons. It is incorrect to say that they massed the guns to substitute for the rocket artillery -- in fact the rockets still cannot safely provide the close fire-support/-cover that would enable you to sneak in the armor/mechanized-infantry.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ParGha »

For those who believe that rocket artillery can substitute for tube artillery, a simple question: if I conscripted you/your son into infantry, would you rather be ordered to advance under the cover of gunfire or rocket fire?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

I was looking at the orbat of the khan 1st armour div, a prestigious unit that was stationed in germany during cold war and fought in iraq.

apart from usual signals, command and transport elements, the teeth seems to be
2 x M109 SP gun regiments (could be 36-50 guns total)
1 x MLRS regiment (27 launch vehicles)
1 x aviation brigade (seems to be 3 squadrons worth of helis - mix of kiowa, blackhawk and apache)
3 x armour brigades, each of which has
1 x pure armour (abrams)
1 x cavalry (mix of abrams and bradley)
1 x infantry (bradley)
so likely atleast 100+ abrams tanks minimum, likely more if the mix is changed to a more "heavy" orientation prior to a engagement.


they operate at the level of brigades in terms of command and the div arty assets are distributed among the 3 brigades as needed.

as far as I could make out, they use NO towed or truck mounted artillery at all. maybe only the Marines operate the towed arty and are shifting to the light M777 enmasse now.

obviously such a highly mechanised force is unsuited for war in the high mountains where neither so much armour can move around and difficult to resupply. might be interesting to know the orbat of their 10th mountain division.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

the 10th mountain seems to have:
4 brigades + 1 aviation brigade
each brigade has
2 x infantry
1 x cavalry
1 x field artillery
not sure what the cavalry uses - Stryker or bradley or if they have tanks also.
Post Reply