Artillery Discussion Thread

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jan 2012 23:10

The D-30 (122mm) had the unique firing position because it also doubled as anti-tank gun firing over flat trajectory. The firing position allowed the gun to swivel fast.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jan 2012 23:14

Apparently, there are (were?)some 20 odd regiments of D-30.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 04 Jan 2012 03:29

JOBS at a Barrow weapons factory set to be extended by 18 months after India revealed plans to buy 145 guns.
Last updated at 16:34, Tuesday, 03 January 2012

The M777 light howitzer gun is built at BAE Systems’ Global Combat Systems factory in Barrow (pictured right), alongside the shipyard, with final fitting and testing completed at Hattiesburg in Mississippi.
The procurement was stalled after a report on the trials was released, but the program is back on track now, according to the defence ministry in India.
In a press statement, Indian defence minister AK Antony said user trials of the gun have been completed, with maintainability testing and an evaluation by the Director General of Quality Assurance still to come.
An agreement is expected to be made between the US and India by the middle of 2012 and a formal contract between the US and BAE signed afterwards.

Last line in the report..
India has not bought any artillery guns since the 1980s

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 04 Jan 2012 10:03

anishns wrote: There used be 3 types of 75mm gun, the Yugoslav one, the American one (pack howitzer), and the Indian 75/24.

The 100mm field gun which I took a picture of on a recent trip to Devlali. From the second picture, the gun was phased out in just 2 years

looks like a token order to satisfy the bear

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 04 Jan 2012 11:22

Per idrw, project Bhim might be reborn. Although there is no finalizing the gun yet

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Jan 2012 12:41

Surya wrote:Thanks schowdhri

Our resident russophiles have anything to comment??

Ah yet another example of your bias is clearly evident here; so can you point out the issue with D-30 in IA service (even Schowdhri has not listed any

)? The Russophiles at least don't resort to taunts and shoot and scoot.

D-30 is a cold war era design basically an evolution of the M-30, I don't know if Ru shoved it up our throat but I know we didn't have the capability to build a gun in that class in those days nor were we on favorable terms with the west; finally having heard/overheard a bad thing or two about a platform from someone in service does not mean the platform was not acquired after following the norms of the day.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 04 Jan 2012 15:42

Recently I had a brief conversation with an uncle of mine who retired after forging, casting and tempering many a truck/heavy vehicle engine. The discussion was basically how those engines were developed incrementally based on the manufacturing capabilities of the day and how new developments were made on the backs on the existing technology only to ensure continuity of production as well have a degree of confidence in the end product.

This conversation has set me thinking on how the same might be applicable to the arms industry esp. small arms and arty. I wonder why the mortars, guns and howitzers were developed only in 50/51,60, 75, 81/82, 100/105, 120/122/125, 130, 155 etc. Our own Pinaka has 214mm rockets, not 210mm or 220mm, why? I am just curious to know more about the developments of these calibers since some may be restricted by manufacturing tech of their times and some maybe developed after numerous ballistic studies. Any of you think on these lines find any answers...

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Jan 2012 18:15

Kailash wrote:Per idrw, project Bhim might be reborn. Although there is no finalizing the gun yet

As good as not there.... no point thinking about it and getting BP high when there wont be any progress for atleast next 10 years.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 04 Jan 2012 19:50

Negi,
I guess you would have read the Wikipedia entry on the 122mm. The description will tell you where the problem was - it was too complex, and therfore, reliability was a 'bit' of an issue.

Why would we need to build a gun in that class? The 75/24 was the standard mountain gun, 25pdr was the standard field gun (to move to IFG later), and 130mm was becoming the standard mountain gun (replacing the 5.5inch - the one with the donkey ears). The 122mm & the 100mm had to be force-fitted.

Same with the 100mm - we did not really need it. Not sure how it could have contributed other than some jazzy stuff like achieiving airburst effect by ricocheting an HE off flat ground. The 25pdr was a decent anti-tank gun, and one Indian troops were very familair with. The 25pdr could also do (more practical) jazzy stuff like firing without being unlimbered from the FAT.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Jan 2012 22:42

Ah yet another example of your bias is clearly evident here; so can you point out the issue with D-30 in IA service (even Schowdhri has not listed any )? The Russophiles at least don't resort to taunts and shoot and scoot.

Err I have no problem with the 130 mm and commented on the 122 mm.

So how does that indicate a bias???

Just to feed you a little summary

Mig 21 - love it
Su 7 - love it

mig 27 - love it

Mig 29 - love the aircraft hate the problems they created for us - the start of my disenchant with Soviet\Russian mil Ind complex

SU 30 - need i even comment??

BMP 1 - no complains other than the fuel laden doors which most people now avoid

Tin Cans - would not prefer them

Russian warships - am fine especially since the Navy does its mish mash of western tech to keep them uptodate

130 mm gun - love it - wish it was a howitzer -

Kilos - no complaints

Still think there is a bias??

from future prospect - yes there is less to love so thats a bias??

Regarding whether it was forced on us - no reason to doubt schowdhri - and the fact that the 100 mm was phased on less than two yers say enough

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Jan 2012 08:01

^ Boss you are now arguing just for the heck of it ; I have no interest in stretching this matter as I myself do not know about issues with the D-30, my query was simple as to how can you make such a strong opinion without any data ? Chowdhuri sir had not even furbished any info at that point in time and now he has clarified that it had a 'bit' of reliability problem.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 06 Jan 2012 10:44

The so called strong opinion is regarding being forced to buy something which we never wanted. whether gun was abit unreliable or terrible was not thefactor. (note: all I asked why was it forced down our throat - not whether it was bad etc) yes that is purely based on schowdhris statement.

I was puzzled by this gun especially when sometimes OFB has been shown as manufacturing this ammo and we rarely see or know much about it in indian service. what chowdhri said makes some sense. the plaque of the 100 mm is even more interesting.

When i run across an arty guy - i will ask more.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 06 Jan 2012 14:42

surya ji

all i could find is it is a derivative of a naval gun modified into an anti tank gun and we bought some 350 of them currently in reserve according to BR land forces page

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Orbat.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jan 2012 23:06

Marut wrote:Recently I had a brief conversation with an uncle of mine who retired after forging, casting and tempering many a truck/heavy vehicle engine. The discussion was basically how those engines were developed incrementally based on the manufacturing capabilities of the day and how new developments were made on the backs on the existing technology only to ensure continuity of production as well have a degree of confidence in the end product.

This conversation has set me thinking on how the same might be applicable to the arms industry esp. small arms and arty. I wonder why the mortars, guns and howitzers were developed only in 50/51,60, 75, 81/82, 100/105, 120/122/125, 130, 155 etc. Our own Pinaka has 214mm rockets, not 210mm or 220mm, why? I am just curious to know more about the developments of these calibers since some may be restricted by manufacturing tech of their times and some maybe developed after numerous ballistic studies. Any of you think on these lines find any answers...

Short answer

Classifying artillery by caliber is a European thing. The Brits used to classify them by weight of the shell 6 pounder, 25 pounder etc and diameter in inches for mortars and mountain guns. The 50/51mm is the 2" mortar with 3" mortar as battalion weapon.
All modern artillery can be traced to the French 'soixante-quince" or 75mm. It was so successful that even the US adopted it as their field gun in WWI and started adopted the practice of identfying the guns by caliber.
It became the field gun and 105 mm was the medium gun and the 155mm was the heavy gun by WWI. In WWII the 105 mm became the field gun and now its the 155mm.

During WWII the combatants captured a lot of stores and ammo and were able to use them. The Russians came up with a solution of having a 1 or 2 mm over or under to prevent that. Hence they have 82mm mortars, 152mm guns etc. Note their 82mm mortar can and will fire the 81mm captured ammo. but not other way.
The Russian also have a preference of have the same carriage for guns and howitzers.
So their 122mm gun has same carriage as the 130mmm howitzer.

Pinaka 214 mm could be due to the tube dia. Dont know.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 06 Jan 2012 23:35

What is the difference between a mortar, howitzer and field gun? Also what is the difference between 155/39 and 155/52? Does the latter number refer to the length of the barrel?

Perhaps newbie thread?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Jan 2012 23:43

^^As per my understanding 155mm/52 caliber means that the internal diameter of the barrel (bore) is 155mm and the length of the barrel is 155X52 = 8060 mm (about 317 inches). The caliber (52 here) is the barrel length to bore diameter ratio. I could be wrong though so wait for gurus to confirm.

The longer barrel length of the 155mm/52cal over the 155mm/39cal or 45 cal gives a higher muzzle velocity and greater range.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 06 Jan 2012 23:49

The longer barrel length of the 155mm/52cal over the 155mm/39cal or 45 cal gives a higher muzzle velocity and greater range.

Dumb question: why does it give greater muzzle velocity and range? I thought the propellant is the one that decided that? I can understand increased accuracy...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jan 2012 23:49

A mortar is tube in which high angle/trajectory shells are lobbed. Its lightweight and is usually with infantry troops. It comes in light mortar (2" and 60mm), medium mortar (81mm to 120mm) and heavy mortar (160mm). The object is to provide short range shells to the infantry without having to call the artillery support.
A howitzer and field gun are both operated by artillery troops. A field gun has high velocity shells fired in direct and indirect(high trajectory) mode. A howitzer is usually low velocity and gets its range from high angle lobbing. Howitzers are now passe as current field guns do the same job.

The numbers after the caliber are the length of the barrel. The 155/39 has a barrel 39 times the caliber and same with the 155/52 which is has length of 52 times the caliber. The longer the barrel the more the pressure force has time to develop behind the shell. The late Gerald Bull who got killed before Desert Storm found out that 155/45 is the ideal for that caliber. Hence his designs are called 155/45 Gun Canada models. These guns performed very well in Angola for the South Africans.
The 52 caliber length is new research and I dont know.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Jan 2012 23:51

As for mortar, howitzer and field gun, the mortar has a very short barrel length, is always used in indirect fire roles, is compact and has a shorter range.
Field guns I think are more used in direct fire roles as opposed to howitzers which are used in indirect fire roles like mortars. Howitzers of course are much larger than mortars with long barrels.

Edit: Didn't see ramana garu's post. He has explained it much better.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Jan 2012 00:13

Tanaji

The howitzer can fire at steeper angles

The 130 mm gun is a field gun and cannot fire above 45 deg angle.

vinayg - thanks - (no need for ji

)

regards

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jan 2012 00:20

khan 5" naval guns are mostly 55cal. our 100 and 127mm naval guns seem to be shorter.

but the new Oto 127mm gun we are buying for the P17 and P15A onward are 55cal probably.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 07 Jan 2012 04:26

ramana wrote:During WWII the combatants captured a lot of stores and ammo and were able to use them. The Russians came up with a solution of having a 1 or 2 mm over or under to prevent that. Hence they have 82mm mortars, 152mm guns etc. Note their 82mm mortar can and will fire the 81mm captured ammo. but not other way.

If Vladimir Rezun (Viktor Suvorov) is to be believed, there was another, more important reason for the strange calibers as well.

In the confusion and mayhem of the Second World War, there was a good chance that the wrong projectile would be delivered to a military unit because an order for 130 mm shells got misinterpreted as one for 130 mm rockets instead. The fact that hastily recruited conscripts with minimal training -- and suffering from fatigue due to all the fighting -- would be issuing and processing these requests for ammunition would have only served to make things worse.

Stalin himself, after being witness to such an incident during the trial of a new rocket launcher (this could very well be hyperbole) issued an order: every new Soviet weapon thenceforth, be it a howitzer, an anti-tank gun, or a rocket launcher, was to be designed with a unique calibre. Thus, the Red Army had 130 mm field guns but 132 mm rocket launchers in the war. During the Cold War, they deployed 122 mm field guns and SPGs, but their tank guns were 125 mm ones. The PT-76 had a 76mm gun, but the BMP-1's main gun was a 73 mm unit. And so on...

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 07 Jan 2012 13:48

Ramana & Mihir, thanks for response.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jan 2012 14:11

Snippets from Army Chief interview to FORCE source

Given the shortfall of artillery, how does the army intend to meet the firepower requirements of both the contact and depth battles in the mountains and plains?

The fire power should be viewed as a joint concept which includes effects delivered by land, air and maritime weapons. In the current operational milieu sequential battles are outmoded. Modern warfare will entail delivery of multi-dimensional fire power to maximise shock and disruption, employing direct firing weapons, UAVs, attack helicopters, aircraft, missiles and rockets along with fully-networked combined arms team of manned and unmanned ground systems.

There is no significant shortfall of artillery guns. However, modernisation has suffered some setbacks and is consequently getting delayed. Efforts are afoot to acquire and productionise better guns to enhance our firepower both in quantity and quality. A well thought out strategy has been put into effect to address the issue. We are also in the process of increasing exponentially the precision and lethality of artillery ammunition. We have acquired much better surveillance and target acquisition means to look deep and engage targets with precision. The lethality and devastation by fire has increased manifold with induction of missiles and multi-barrel rocket launch systems like BrahMos, Smerch and Pinaka.

A multi-pronged modernisation programme of artillery visualises induction of terrain and role-specific 155mm gun, rocket and missile systems. Procurement processes for induction of 155mm 52 cal (Towed), Mounted Gun Systems, Ultra Light Howitzers, Self Propelled (Wheeled & Tracked) guns, long range mortars, MBRLs and missiles are in various stages. With fructification of these acquisitions, the range and lethality of artillery will enhance manifold, taking adequate care of contact and depth battles in all types of terrain obtaining in the context of our operational requirements.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 07 Jan 2012 14:30

The difference between mortar, guns and howitzers is primarily their range and mode of fire. As explained by others before,

Mortar: Short to medium range, indirect fire weapon, elevation of 30*-85* only, smoothbore, man portable in light & medium versions.
Guns:Short to Long range, direct & indirect fire weapon, elevation upto 45* only, can be fired in depressed angles as well, rifled bore for use in indirect fire but smooth bore can also be used for direct fire viz. tank main guns.
Howitzer: They are basically guns but with the ability to fire at high angles upto ~70*. Used primarily in indirect fire mode. This helps them lob shells over obstacles such as mountain tops, etc. The howitzers were developed primarily to provide plunging fire onto massed troops due to their high angle of fire. Howitzers were a separate class of artillery in the earlier days but in today's world any gun elevating above 45* is commonly referred to as one.

Tanaji,
Higher calibre guns give longer ranges for a given bore dia. This is due to the extra space available for the propellant to burn and expand giving the shells higher muzzle velocity leading to longer range. But you end up with a weight penalty with higher calibers and hence need to plan your orbat accordingly. Here is the earlier discussion on similar lines - http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1182185 You may find it helpful.

Surya,
The 130mm could never become a howitzer due to lower ground clearance at the breech end for the recoil system to function as designed. Thus it can't be elevated beyond 45 degrees and even that was only possible in the portion of its traverse angle only. This was due to the split trail carriage arms fouling with the recoil of the barrel. Even after the Metamorphosis upgrade, the M46 won't become a howitzer. It is a pity since it was 52cal giving you a pretty long range for the 130mm shell.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Jan 2012 21:35

marut
thanks i know thats why I said it was pity. Its a fine weapond and has been the saving grace for our depleted arty arm

There is no significant shortfall of artillery guns. However, modernisation has suffered some setbacks and is consequently getting delayed.

Sigh... as wonderful as the T 90 is a superlative weapon answer

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jan 2012 23:45

So why doesnt the IA ask for a new carriage for the 130mm as a technology improvement? Should be easier than a whole new gun. Meantime DRDO develops and builds skills which can be used for the 155mm gun etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jan 2012 10:04

Also are Russian guns have barrel length usually 52 calibers? Both M-46 and the D-74 are like that.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Jan 2012 12:03

^^^ramana, the russian SP arty candidate was rejected way back exactly for the odd-ball caliber.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 12:22

I asked the same question on why does NATO use 155 mm and Russian uses 152 mm caliber gun and the answer i got was

The Soviet 152mm guns are actually 152.4mm calibre or a nice round 6 inches... which means that 155mm is 6 point something inches and is therefore the odd calibre.

155mm calibre is an old French calibre that was adopted by the US and then used since then in various new US guns.

There has been a long history of using artillery in calibre ranges... the 6 inch and 8 inch and 5 inch ranges rather popular for not being too big but big enough. Popular calibres in the 6 inch range include a few popular German WWII 15cm or 150mm guns, French 155m guns that go back to WWI, and Russian 152mm guns whose calibre remains in service to this day.

America was using the 155mm in the form of the Long Tom during WWII and that is the calibre they decided NATO should use. France was already using the calibre and the Long Tom and the Brits also got Long Toms from lend lease so it became the defacto calibre for NATO.

The Russians/Soviets didn't use 155mm, they had a 152mm calibre in service since before WWI and they stuck with their calibre with no reason to change.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 12:23

rohitvats wrote:^^^ramana, the russian SP arty candidate was rejected way back exactly for the odd-ball caliber.

If some one wants a 155 mm of Russian Gun they have export model in NATO 155 mm model for eg
MSTA-S 155 mm Self-propelled gun

http://worldwide-defence.blogspot.com/2 ... d-gun.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 12:37

One of future development in SPG , twin barrel gun Coalition-SV. I read the advantage is high rate of fire since barrel tends to heat up a lot after firing 4-6 rounds.

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 Jan 2012 12:17

As Army bares its artillery might, Bofors gun is the star

The Indian Army displayed its awesome artillery power at Exercise Topchi conducted at the School of Artillery, Deolali, on Tuesday in what is an annual exercise.

As it paraded its panoply of mortars and field guns, the star attraction -- among the uniformed gentry, the rookie cadets from National Defence Academy, Khadakvasla, and visiting international delegations, not to mention the media -- was the Bofors 155mm howitzers, the focus of a kickback scandal targeting former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in the late 1980s and which subsequently acquitted itself remarkably in the Kargil war 10 years ago.

Among the field guns India trotted out on Tuesday were 120mm mortars, 105mm and 130mm field guns, the 155mm Soltam and Bofors guns, 122mm and Smerch multi-barrel rocket launchers, all of which hit the designated target area unfailingly, with an unmanned aerial vehicle showing the images live to the audience below. India's own Pinaka MRBL too made a fleeting appearance at Tuesday's exercise.

Disclosing that delegations from Japan and Nepal were among those present to witness Exercise Topchi, Major General M N Kashid, deputy commandant of the School of Artillery, however told newsmen there was nothing more to be read into their presence in Deolali.

Watching its ease of manouevre (it can swivel 360 degrees, unlike other field guns on display which were anchored to the ground), the hydraulically enabled operations, and a barrel that can fire below ground level as well as up to an incline of 70 degrees, it is not hard to see why the Swedish howitzer is everyone's favourite.

Was it merely because of its impressive range, with officials saying it can easily hit targets up to 35 km away? If that were the case, Israel's 155mm Soltam with a comparable range would be a candidate for such open adulation, which it clearly is not. There is something about the Swedish gun that captures popular imagination quite easily.

There is a video in the link too!

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 11 Jan 2012 13:36

Exercise Topchi..now that is a real Desi name..and absolutely apt for the exercise

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 12 Jan 2012 23:58

‘Guns procurement caught in snakes, ladders game’

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Jan 2012 13:04

BAE Systems appoints Dean McCumiskey as Managing Director and Chief Executive for India

Discussions between the Indian and US Governments are ongoing in relation to a possible sale of BAE Systems’ ultra-light M777 howitzer, in support of the Indian Army’s modernisation programme.

Will · Post by **Will** » 24 Jan 2012 12:33

Why dont they give Mahindra the contract to develop a gun? With their tie up with BAE they can easily do so. This way the govt can get out of bofors tangle they are in by claiming the gun is indigenous

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 24 Jan 2012 13:15

SagarAg wrote:Exercise Topchi..now that is a real Desi name..and absolutely apt for the exercise

This is not an exercise - this is a 'standard' firepower demo. It happens several time a year for showing various people. My dad used to look after this almost 30yrs back - same name, and same format - Even the same target - area diamond on the hill called Policemans' hat

As a trivia, my dad and Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (then Capt), had done a terrific script for this, and Brig Kanwal used to read it also. A gun would fire, and he would continue speaking, then stop and ask you to look at the target just as the shell landed. The current script pales in comparison.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jan 2012 14:26

sum wrote:As Army bares its artillery might, Bofors gun is the star

There is a video in the link too!

Simply loved the video

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 24 Jan 2012 15:29

Surya wrote:
Ah yet another example of your bias is clearly evident here; so can you point out the issue with D-30 in IA service (even Schowdhri has not listed any )? The Russophiles at least don't resort to taunts and shoot and scoot.
Err I have no problem with the 130 mm and commented on the 122 mm.

So how does that indicate a bias???

Just to feed you a little summary

Mig 21 - love it
Su 7 - love it

mig 27 - love it

Mig 29 - love the aircraft hate the problems they created for us - the start of my disenchant with Soviet\Russian mil Ind complex

SU 30 - need i even comment??

BMP 1 - no complains other than the fuel laden doors which most people now avoid

Tin Cans - would not prefer them

Russian warships - am fine especially since the Navy does its mish mash of western tech to keep them uptodate

130 mm gun - love it - wish it was a howitzer -

Kilos - no complaints

Still think there is a bias??

from future prospect - yes there is less to love so thats a bias??

Regarding whether it was forced on us - no reason to doubt schowdhri - and the fact that the 100 mm was phased on less than two yers say enough

I too am/was pissed with Russia's attitude w.r.t. Vik but

Mi 8 / Mi 17 Superb

AN 32 Damn Good

Il 76 good

T 72 Good, against Bangladesh

MiG 27 OK OK

K