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
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

RajitO wrote:
From sole advantage you have now gone to sole USP. A Unique Selling Proposition by definition is "sole". The M777's USP is light weight but its sole advantage is not light weight. There are multiple advantages.

How do I know? Because I did some homework not involving brochures (hence the term brochure-ware), as have some other posters...who have posted information here for everyone's benefit!

As for posts made half in jest, with the word serious discussion in it, yeah that can get a little confusing.

Note: Edited for further clarity

You have nothing that shows the M 777 as superior to the FH 77. Where I concede that its sole advantage Or USP to be its weight (making it air transportable). But that is not a game changer when contrasted with the Fh 77 and its established capabilities. As people seem to have discounted air transportability post one of the posts on this forum, made subsequent to a discussions with a service man.

When it comes to being towed to the firing position, where ever M 777 can be towed the fh 77 be towed as well. The FH 77 can do whatever job the M 777 can be tasked to do.

So why buy a weapon system that brings no unique advantages to the table. Just because it is available?

When one is responding to man portable Prahar and Iron man. I can see your confusion and don't really blame you for that.

On a serious note, why remain wedded to a long metal tube, whether weighing 4 tons or 10tons. When you can have man portable Prahar and Iron man.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Why is it that when one is dealing with the wight of the gun, no one is seriously looking at the matter of the shell and its weight & volume. What effects a guided shell will have on the future of Artillery.

Has the Indian army ever published a document suggesting the need for precision guided munitions for its heavy artillery post krasnopol purchase.
Last edited by Pratyush on 22 Sep 2013 10:42, edited 1 time in total.
member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_23455 »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At least one has got you from sole USP to USP. The rest will follow...in baby steps.

Nice to see you have so much faith in inputs that come from "a service man", specifically an ex-artillery man. There is one such comprehensive non-brochure evaluation by an artilleryman posted a few pages back on this very thread, though he is a Yank.

Don't take my word for it or wait for me to show you anything. Read it yourself and then maybe, just maybe one can have a serious discussion. Cheers!
member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_23455 »

Pratyush wrote:Why is it that when one is dealing with the wight of the gun, no one is seriously looking at the matter of the shell and its weight & volume. What effects a guided shell will have on the future of Artillery.

Has the Indian army ever published a document suggesting the need for precession guided munitions for its heavy artillery post Karsnople purchase.
Is this a post made half in jest as well?

"precession", "Karsnople" ???
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Keep on focusing on single word in a post and we will most definitely have a serious discussion.

Cause nothing that I have seen written or other wise, That shows M 777 as a game changer over the Fh 77.

Now if you wish to contrast it with M 198, then I am game and can provide you with multiple ways where the M 777 is better then 198. But spare me the sales pitch, that the M 777 is better then Fh 77, or represents any advantage over the Fh 77. Other then air transportability.
Last edited by Pratyush on 22 Sep 2013 10:34, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

RajitO wrote:
Is this a post made half in jest as well?

"precession", "Karsnople" ???
What do you think?
member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_23455 »

Pratyush wrote:
RajitO wrote:
Is this a post made half in jest as well?

"precession", "Karsnople" ???
What do you think?
I think it reflects a haste and lack of diligence symptomatic of the larger points that you make.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Big words upon big words, without having a single point to make. Nor are you able to explain why the nation ought to spend close to 1 billion on a weapon, that has not advantage over the existing systems of the indian army. Or options that are available within the nation.

Please tell me that you can do better then that. Cause I am beginning to think that you are trolling me.
member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_23455 »

Is "than" a big word for you? Because that is how it is spelled, not as "then".

Unfortunately some of us like to be accurate and specific both in our discussions and spelling. The last few pages have covered all your points at length, but you will have to take the effort to read posts, some of them with big words. If you have resources to share, not just your opinions, which come from "experts" please share them to enrich the discussion.

If asking you to do all that is "trolling", please have the good sense to stop feeding that "trolling" behaviour and stop responding, including to this post. I have a feeling you will not...
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by John »

Pratyush wrote:
John wrote: For what it is worth there are few more advantages M777 also requires much smaller crew of 5 to operate versus 10-14 for FH77 and can put into action in couple minutes versus more than 10 minutes for typical Howitzer.
The fh 77 can be operated by a crew of 5 as well. I suggest that you study the IA video of m 46 emplacement available on the you tube. You will me amazes to learn that it can be emplaced in 90 second s flat. Which is a totally manual gun.
Since you are weapon's expert after seeing some youtube videos i will take your word for it. Just for the fact IA has firing crew of 8 for FH 77 and as per guide emplacement time for m 46 is 6 minutes.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

I have no problem what so ever with term SDR – Sudh Desi Romantics. Now I would like to point out that SDR suggestions are actually more practical and suggests more sophisticated indigenous options unlike 1960s design concept like Chinooks.

I also have a term for the foreign lobby posters. Ignorant Desi Import Obsessed Totally = IDIOTs
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ks_sachin »

So Vic could you back up your practical suggestions with as detailed a post as Rohit's.

He could well be wrong but if you wanted to be proved right go into some level of detail as to how the IA will be operating in the areas in question and how the FH77 can be utilised.

I think it is a bit harsh to call Rohit import obsessed.

Oh by the way - have you been anywhere near where we are talking about?
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

vic wrote:I have no problem what so ever with term SDR – Sudh Desi Romantics. Now I would like to point out that SDR suggestions are actually more practical and suggests more sophisticated indigenous options unlike 1960s design concept like Chinooks.

I also have a term for the foreign lobby posters. Ignorant Desi Import Obsessed Totally = IDIOTs
Bravo!!!

At least there is one area where you put an effort to think and post. I mean, something creative like above requires one to use his grey cells. I hope we see similar effort in your posts on topics related to weapon systems and stuff...
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20426

Here we go again!!!

Army begins fresh hunt for light field guns

Army's ambitious artillery modernisation programme has been derailed several times in the past but fresh thrust has now been given to hunt for new guns. The army is looking for replacement of its old 105mm light field guns with a mix of towed, mounted and wheeled artillery. Bids have already been invited for 155mm x 52 calibre towed guns whose trials were underway. The proposed acquisition is under provision to buy from abroad and make at home through transfer of technology.
Which guns competed in the towed category?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

We will keep on doing it, as long as domestic suppliers don't get up to speed. Cause who ever wins, the looser will shout corruption and the whole process will be back to square one.

IMO, What the IA tried to do with the FICV, project a few years ago, looks like the best way to solve this mess. Cause regardless of who wins in which category. The looser will get 1/3rd of the production orders, thereby, eliminating the incentive to shout corruption.
member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_23455 »

rohitvats wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20426

Here we go again!!!

Army begins fresh hunt for light field guns

Army's ambitious artillery modernisation programme has been derailed several times in the past but fresh thrust has now been given to hunt for new guns. The army is looking for replacement of its old 105mm light field guns with a mix of towed, mounted and wheeled artillery. Bids have already been invited for 155mm x 52 calibre towed guns whose trials were underway. The proposed acquisition is under provision to buy from abroad and make at home through transfer of technology.
Which guns competed in the towed category?
It's interesting that the army seems to be putting all its eggs in the 155mm basket. Lessons from Kargil? Influence of "shock" and awe" doctrines given the substantially greater effects of a larger shell? or just the pure range advantage...

Just a suggestion to those who want to discuss Helicopter X> Helicopter Y, it might be better to

a) do it in the appropriate thread
b) read After Action Reports and military history of GWII and Operation Anaconda of the pasting the AH-64 took. Helicopters, like Special Forces, are in for a world of hurt when the element of surprise is lost...
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by abhik »

rohitvats wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20426

Here we go again!!!

Army begins fresh hunt for light field guns

Which guns competed in the towed category?
The French Nexter Trajan (towed version of the Caeser) in partnership with L&T is one of them. Was developed specially for this. The other one is Isreali I think, can't be Soltam though.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Singha wrote: <SNIP>its purchase is being rushed through under a very flimsy argument of being able to lift the M777 which we are getting only 150 of. <SNIP>
That is the figment of imagination of people on this forum.

Though, I agree with you that they are most probably a windfall of US-India 'relationship'.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

abhik wrote:
rohitvats wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20426

The French Nexter Trajan (towed version of the Caeser) in partnership with L&T is one of them. Was developed specially for this. The other one is Isreali I think, can't be Soltam though.
Considering that Towed and Mounted gun categories are going to form the largest number, I hope we build commonality in the gun selection. Caesar is considered a good gun (from what I read on the net) and if Trajan fits the bill (even if it is not L1), we should use this combo. Whatever extra we may pay now will be more than taken care of in the long run.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Moved some of the helicopter posts to the LCH and other copters thread...
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

ks_sachin wrote:So Vic could you back up your practical suggestions with as detailed a post as Rohit's.

He could well be wrong but if you wanted to be proved right go into some level of detail as to how the IA will be operating in the areas in question and how the FH77 can be utilised.

I think it is a bit harsh to call Rohit import obsessed.

Oh by the way - have you been anywhere near where we are talking about?
I am not trying to convince Rohit, He has an agenda and cannot be convinced. I am posting my view for evaluation or consideration by third party reader. I have made detailed posts giving my alternatives and also pointing out holes in Rohit reasoning. Rohit is making verbose posts but intentionally ignoring material points like:- How much infantry, support equipment & ammo is required alongwith each M777.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

rohitvats wrote:
vic wrote:I have no problem what so ever with term SDR – Sudh Desi Romantics. Now I would like to point out that SDR suggestions are actually more practical and suggests more sophisticated indigenous options unlike 1960s design concept like Chinooks.

I also have a term for the foreign lobby posters. Ignorant Desi Import Obsessed Totally = IDIOTs
Bravo!!!

At least there is one area where you put an effort to think and post. I mean, something creative like above requires one to use his grey cells. I hope we see similar effort in your posts on topics related to weapon systems and stuff...
I am impressed you can like a desi suggestion, don't you want to import an alternative, Shudh Import - SHIT?
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Manish_Sharma »

vic wrote:Rohit is making verbose posts....
This is too much. Rohit has always studied each and every case without any prejudice. If he found that T 90 import is wrong and Arjun is getting unfair deal he has written against tincan import, his posts are made after studying the matter deeply.

As for verbose posts...... :rotfl:

I mean if this is a verbose post:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1511791

I'd prefer this kind of verbose posts to the deeply researched, thoughtful posts made by Shri vic.
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by pragnya »

ramana wrote:The M777 are all parts Titanium alloy? I thought only the trail and fittings are Ti.

Investment casting Ti Alloys is not easy. Looks like they still weld some of the parts.

Welding Ti is also quite difficulty.

Ti alloys are low weight, high strength and has high fracture toughness.
this blogspot (by the ex-head of R&D div of Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd) might interest you. urge you to go thro' most of the articles - dealing with materials and innovations/history.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

I am very aware of how Ti is welded. Infact O2 pickup is a critical issue as he rightly points out Ti is reactive even at 500degrees which is relatively cool!. The argon gas has to be very pure and one has witness plates of Ti which change colour with O2 pickup.
Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1643
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Akshay Kapoor »

^^^

Dear Vic,

I seldom post and usually never like to make personal posts but as Lord Krishna said sometimes not speaking out against wrong is wrong. So apologies in advance but I have to say this. Rohit is a highly regarded poster for several reasons - competence, credibility and like a lot of us here a deep desire to contribute to national security. By making such comments you not only bring down the level of discussion on one of the only credible national security fora in India but also do a disservice to him. I am sure your intentions are good but by letting your ego come in the way of reason and facts you don't help the cause you no doubt hold dear. I don't need to tell you that egos and self interest have hurt our nation before. Some of us here should reflect on this. Will we loose much if our comments are constructive, well researched, honest and well thought out ?

On a lighter note I wonder why, but for some reason these self righteous rants from shri vic and others remind me of a comment from a lecture FM Manekshaw gave at DSSC a long time ago. He was talking in the context of politicians. He said 'can they distinguish a mortar from a motor, a gun from a howitzer, a guerrilla from a gorilla , though a vast majority of them.......;-)'

rgds
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

So much LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE for me :mrgreen: :P :mrgreen:

Maulana Diesel of Binori Madrassa wouldn't have received so much love and affection from his talibs..someone pass me the tissue paper box please! Can't control these 'tears of happiness' rolling down my cheeks...sniff sniff!!!

Guys - Chill. I don't take offense at all to what Vic says. His heart is in the right place. Thodi bahut garma-garmi to chalti hai! Bhaiyon ka pyaar hai yeh.

At the end, we're all on the same side.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ks_sachin »

Hi Rohit,

Any objections to me forwarding your Arty post to dad and some of his Arty mates.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

ks_sachin wrote:Hi Rohit,

Any objections to me forwarding your Arty post to dad and some of his Arty mates.
By all means!

I just hope they don't call it trash :P

On a serious note - all inputs from them are welcome. Especially, what is light by mountain standard? And their view of 105mm caliber.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Rohit,

What are your thoughts of the Metamorphosis IOB M46 FG, proposed as an upgrade for the M46. Cause the more I look at the upgrade package, the more I think that it ought to be used as the basis of an Indian 155 gun.

That is, if the OFB or any other party, can design the carriage for the gun?
Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 325
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Rupak »

Pratyush,
The Metamorphosis upgrade has the same basic restriction as the M46 design, namely restricted angle of elevation. This limits crest clearance when deployed in mountain areas. Plus, the basic design is now quite dated and we have access to the FH77 blueprints.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Rupak wrote:Pratyush,
The Metamorphosis upgrade has the same basic restriction as the M46 design, namely restricted angle of elevation. This limits crest clearance when deployed in mountain areas. Plus, the basic design is now quite dated and we have access to the FH77 blueprints.
Rupak,

My question was more, keeping in view the gun barrel, the breach mechanism and the recoil handling, developed for the upgrade.

But I see your point, WRT, M 46, and its age.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

Akshay Kapoor wrote:^^^

Dear Vic,

I seldom post and usually never like to make personal posts but as Lord Krishna said sometimes not speaking out against wrong is wrong. So apologies in advance but I have to say this. Rohit is a highly regarded poster for several reasons - competence, credibility and like a lot of us here a deep desire to contribute to national security. By making such comments you not only bring down the level of discussion on one of the only credible national security fora in India but also do a disservice to him. I am sure your intentions are good but by letting your ego come in the way of reason and facts you don't help the cause you no doubt hold dear. I don't need to tell you that egos and self interest have hurt our nation before. Some of us here should reflect on this. Will we loose much if our comments are constructive, well researched, honest and well thought out ?

On a lighter note I wonder why, but for some reason these self righteous rants from shri vic and others remind me of a comment from a lecture FM Manekshaw gave at DSSC a long time ago. He was talking in the context of politicians. He said 'can they distinguish a mortar from a motor, a gun from a howitzer, a guerrilla from a gorilla , though a vast majority of them.......;-)'

rgds
There is always more shades of grey when it comes to MoD than simple case of black and white. It is good to have more perspectives from more angles. I don't think vic is completely wrong nor I think whoever supporting the gun is entirely correct.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

In the Forum Feedback thread:
pragnya wrote:
..........
let me give an example by asking you a question -

is it possible to upgun 105mm LFG to say 115/120mm while keeping the weight to say less than 3500kg so it is still 'air portable' besides truck mounted/bmp mounted??

......

It all depends on the gun carriage strength of the 105mm LFG. Can the frame stake the stresses of the 115mm or 120mm barrel? It usually ends up with that question. The recoil cylinders will transfer the forces to the structural frame.
The Russians had a policy off designing a gun (fires shells in direct mode like Anti Tank role) and howitzer (lobs shells) with same carriage as the latter develops less forces.
The 130mm gun being upgraded to 155mm/45 calibers is an example of how robust gun frame allows such an upgrade path.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ks_sachin »

In theory yes,

But the logistics of it all!!!
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4080
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Lilo »

My poonch to gurus,

Can a recoil less 155mm artillery gun be possible with todays tech ?
I understand recoil less guns save lot of weight by eliminating the bulky recoiling mechanisms which in a conventional 155mm howitzer might make its weight light enough for heli transport in mountain warfare...
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by KrishnaK »

Lilo,
They call it rockets/missiles
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4080
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Lilo »

Aha ! remember them ... also realize that rockets need more propellant charge than a shell for traversing the same distance because of the lack of confined gasses ... a surprisingly shortlived light weight mountain fighting theory eye must say :oops:
Thanks krishnak ji.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Not really. A recoliless gun operates in having a back blast to compensate for the recoil. So the cartridge has perforations and the barrel has an exhaust. All this makes it inefficient.
The Germans were first to develop the Panzerfaust as a RCL. It was further developed as the Carl Gustav 84mm RCL and is with Indian Army. The US had devleoped the jeep mounted 106mm RCL which is the largest caliber so far and used in 1965 war and 1967 Nathu La. After that it wasn't found useful.

DRDO is pursuing electro-rheological fluids(variable viscosity with electric current) instead of the traditional oil to act as the recoil absorber.
member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_23455 »

ramana wrote:The US had devleoped the jeep mounted 106mm RCL which is the largest caliber so far and used in 1965 war and 1967 Nathu La.
Incorrect...Google "Davy Crockett + 155mm", for one of the more bizarre weapon systems the world has seen.
Post Reply