Artillery Discussion Thread

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 May 2012 05:37

It is interesting to note the fact that while we cribbed and whined over Arjun's rifled main gun in Armour dhaga our arty program might actually reap dividends from our mastery of firing a high velocity projectile from a rifled tube. To be honest lobbing an arty shell in a highly ballistic trajectory though a rifled tube should be doable once you have mastered hitting moving targets using a sabot fired through a rifled tube which btw itself might be on the move.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 May 2012 09:12

the problem in tank is of stabilization and control systems accurate to fractions of a degree in alignment, while the arty guns I suppose need to handle various levels of propellant charges and perhaps higher chamber pressures? the mechanism incl firing panels is also totally exposed and needs to be weather proof to a high degree.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 19 May 2012 10:44

Singha wrote:the problem in tank is of stabilization and control systems accurate to fractions of a degree in alignment, while the arty guns I suppose need to handle various levels of propellant charges and perhaps higher chamber pressures? the mechanism incl firing panels is also totally exposed and needs to be weather proof to a high degree.

Actually, a modern gun is not even the most important thing. The Pakis have used fairly obselete artillery for a long time (this is not to say that they don't have some good guns). For instance the British 5.5inch medium gun (the one with 2 ears sticking out), has been junked by our Arty many decades back, but is still used by Pakis. Their CB/TA has always been excellent which has more often than not allowed them to run rings around our Arty.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 May 2012 12:10

what is CB/TA ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 May 2012 13:04

Counter Bombardment Target Acquisition

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 May 2012 13:11

and how was it that they were excellent in this? was it because of the ANTPQ/36 they got in the 80s (we did not have anything until we purchased 12 sets of TPQ37 during bush era) OR some better organizational doctrine or networking?

have we taken delivery of the BEL rajendra based WLR now? many a moon ago I heard 28 sets were on order...how has it panned out?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 May 2012 13:40

^^^Singha, you also need to understand that PA Artillery has been one of their most professional arms. A major reason for the same is that it was trained in depth by the Americans. And this showed for the first time in 1965. Many a times there arty has made up for the lack of armor or tactics by armor/infantry. They were responsible for breaking up many a Indian assaults in 1965.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 May 2012 14:07

As I mentioned before, my next installment State of Indian artillery guns acquisition process

One more write up to go when have time.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 19 May 2012 22:54

What is the installed capacity for dumb shells 155 mm & 130 mm?

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 19 May 2012 23:08

rohitvats wrote:^^^Singha, you also need to understand that PA Artillery has been one of their most professional arms. A major reason for the same is that it was trained in depth by the Americans. And this showed for the first time in 1965. Many a times there arty has made up for the lack of armor or tactics by armor/infantry. They were responsible for breaking up many a Indian assaults in 1965.

+1

They are also considered one of the PA's core fighting arms (something equivalent of general cadre) rather than a supporting arm like in IA. Interestingly Musharaff is also a gunner

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2012 04:07

^^^

Interestingly Musharaff is also a gunner

That explains his name Mushy!

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 20 May 2012 04:15

^^^

indeed, based on Amritraj encounters, Musharraf seems a good old fashioned muzzle-loader piece. Lots of tamping and stamping needed to develop adequate pressure.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 May 2012 09:33

I thought he was a commando - an infentry fellow. Is he not?

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 20 May 2012 10:40

^^
Nope was a gunner and served PA in 1965 war with his Arty Regt. Joined SSG in 1966 and was a Cy Cdr of a Commando battalion in 1971

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 20 May 2012 11:22

Interestingly, out of the 12 Paki COAS, 7 have been from Infantry (3 Baloch, 2 Frontier Force, 2 Punjab), 3 from Armoured and 2 from Arty (Tikka Khan & Musharraf).

Out of the 12, 5 have been Punjabis, 3 Pashtun, 1 Hazara and 3 Mohajir (Mirza Aslam Beg, Jehangir Karamat & Musharraf)

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 20 May 2012 11:26

The Hawkeye 105mm Weapon System is a lightweight, modular, high-performance howitzer designed to be integrated with many types of combat transportation

The Hawkeye 105mm

Interesting Concept and light weight.

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 May 2012 12:14

sarabpal.s wrote:The Hawkeye 105mm Weapon System is a lightweight, modular, high-performance howitzer designed to be integrated with many types of combat transportation

The Hawkeye 105mm

Interesting Concept and light weight.

At 1000kg, this Howziter is approaching Heavy mortar weight.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 May 2012 12:37

Hawkeye caught my attention as being a great idea untill i noticed the way the whole vehicle shook with every firing. This thing will spend most of its time in the works for suspension repairs. Besides such a small vehicle would hardly be able to deploy some sturdy struts.

Again unlike the mortar this thing has a low rate of fire. Notice how the gunners come off the vehicle before every firing.

You want a great idea which combines mobility, high rate of fire, less trouble with complex technology then you need to look at the BAE systems solution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4o2E3DmVE4

This thing costs about 25 k USD and can be installed on Hummer type vehicles also besides the trailer shown here.

If you want a 105 mm cannon then the DRDO truck mounted one is the one that I personally find attractive.

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 May 2012 12:55

Reposted after removing some typos

From CAG Report

For indigenization of technology for AD Gun, GSQR was framed by the Army
in October 1985. DDRD in May 1986 sanctioned a Technology
Demonstration project for design and development of Towed AD Gun,
ammunition system and associated technology (Sharp shooter) at an estimated
cost of 9.44 crore with the PDC of 5 years. The project was completed in
September 1992 at a cost of 8.24 crore, after achieving rate of fire of 1200
rounds per minutes as against rate of 1000 rounds per minute specified in the
GSQR.

Later, a Staff Project (SL-PX-2K referred to at Sl No 4 below) was
taken up in September 2000 for 17.70 crore to improve upon the rate of fire
to 2000 rounds per minute. The project had to be foreclosed after an
expenditure of 14.68 lakh as the Army again changed the parameters of the
gun.

A total of nine changes in the GSQR were made impacting the basic
parameters of the gun system such as caliber, rate of fire, size, number of
barrels, weight etc. as detailed below:

1. GSQR 554 of October 1985
All weather, 30 mm, Towed, Multi-barrel, Rate Of Fire
(ROF) not less than 1000 rpm
RDS–PX-86/ARD-826 in May 1986 for 9.44 crore.
Successfully completed inSeptember 1992 at a cost of 8.24 crore.

2. No Revised QR. DRDO unilaterally decided to develop item with enhanced
specifications to Multi-barrel, Gatling Gun with ROF 4200 rpm.
Army in October 1995 suggested two types of AD guns.
One with weight around 1000 – 1500 Kg and other weighing 4000–5000 Kg with ROF 1000–2000 rounds in each case.
RDR-PX-93/ARD-984 in August 1993 for 1.98 crore.
Since Gatling gun did not meet the user requirement the project was foreclosed in October 1995 at an expenditure of 48.5 lakh

3. Draft GSQR of May 1997
30 mm, Towed, Single Barrel, ROF not less than 1000 rpm, and Weight not more than
1500 Kg. July 1998, Twin Barrel Gun, ROF 2000 rpm
Weight 3500 – 3800 Kg
RDX-PX-97/ARD-1080 in August 1997 for 9.85 core.
Closed in April 2000 at an expenditure of 51.19 lakh.

4. GSQR 767 of January 2000
Fair weather, 30 mm, Two Barrel, Towed AD Gun,
Weight 3500–3800 Kg and ROF 2000 rpm
SL-PX-2K/ARD-1148 in September 2000 for 17.70 crore.

Due to decision of the Army to
upgrade in service 40 mm L/70 and 23mm ZU Gun, Project
foreclosed in October 2001 at a cost of 14.68 lakh.

5. GSQR 910 of October 2002As a common successor to
L/70 and 23mm ZU Gun. All weather, Two Barrel, ROF not less than 1000 per
Barrel Amended in May 2004. No project undertaken as GSQR
was revised in September 2004

6. GSQR 998 of September 2004
All weather, Towed/HMV mounted, 30/35mm, Two
Barrel with ROF 1000 rpm and Weight about 4.5 ton
Amended in August 2006 Light Weight Air Defence Gun

No project undertaken as the GSQR was amended in August
2006 and revised GSQR superseding all the previous
GSQRs was received in January 2007

7. GSQR 1166 Received in January 2007 to replace L/70 and
23mm ZU Gun Towed, HMV mounted, ROF 1000 rpm and weight Not <
6000 Kg No project undertaken till date by ARDE Thank God they got the message,
that indigenous products are not wanted.

In August 2010 the User Directorate in Army HQ stated that revisions to
GSQR in this case had become essential, as the features had become outdated
during preceding 20 years and the proposed gun system was required to relate
to the envisaged air threat. The User categorically denied any responsibility
for the failure in development by DRDO and insisted that they had not agreed
to any dilution in specifications of most critical of the GSQR parameters.
Consequently, even though three R&D projects and one Staff project were
undertaken by the laboratory, the AD Gun system could not be developed by
DRDO to satisfy the frequently revised requirements of the Users . This
resulted in their mid-way closure after incurring an expenditure of 9.38 crore
on the staff project in addition to the expenditure on the technology demonstration project.

Ministry in its reply agreed with the audit contention of non
finalization/frequent changes to QR leading to failure to develop a Gun system
acceptable to the Users.

Does this repeated and massive changes in GSQRs indicate love for import (of Tungushkas, Oerlikon 30mm revolver gun, foreign component based upgrade of ZU 23mm & 40 mm L/70 ??).

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 20 May 2012 14:42

ravi_g wrote:Hawkeye caught my attention as being a great idea untill i noticed the way the whole vehicle shook with every firing. This thing will spend most of its time in the works for suspension repairs. Besides such a small vehicle would hardly be able to deploy some sturdy struts.

Note the lack of a muzzle brake - I was a bit surprised at that.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 20 May 2012 14:54

ravi_g wrote:Hawkeye caught my attention as being a great idea untill i noticed the way the whole vehicle shook with every firing. This thing will spend most of its time in the works for suspension repairs. Besides such a small vehicle would hardly be able to deploy some sturdy struts.

Again unlike the mortar this thing has a low rate of fire. Notice how the gunners come off the vehicle before every firing.

You want a great idea which combines mobility, high rate of fire, less trouble with complex technology then you need to look at the BAE systems solution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4o2E3DmVE4

This thing costs about 25 k USD and can be installed on Hummer type vehicles also besides the trailer shown here.

If you want a 105 mm cannon then the DRDO truck mounted one is the one that I personally find attractive.

Dear i am agree on vehicle stress but that can be replaced with BMP or trucks.

main thing is weight which is quit low and rate of fire can be increased by bring replenishment closer to vehicle.
it is not mortar system but howitzer fill the gap from heavy mortar to short range artillery, only thing which is not clear its use for direct fire roll .

still i don't like it as i feel it need refinement to be battle ready.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 May 2012 15:02

I didnt notice that at first. May be they are very confident of the recoil-damping mechanism. Bad decision i guess, Muzzle brake may help in this case but what about the low rate of firing high cost of the system that this design will come with.

Also sarabpal ji direct fire videos of the system are there on you tube for the Hawkeye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNbTTCgBK8c

The DRDO 105 that jamwal posted is more my kind of design. South Koreans have a similar design. Nexter had one on offer, Chinese make one. All manual loads. But DRDO gun had a better traverse and a better mil elevation

The weight is good for Hawkeye but then weight is hardly the main issue with 105 designs.

Prahji, I am afraid Hawkeye would still be a no go for me.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 20 May 2012 18:41

OFB stand alone LFG is weight 2380 kg and Hawk eye weight only 1000 kg.

That is a big difference
Cost is no matter if it is perfect in Indian conditions as far as mountain divisions concern.
This product is marketed under joint venture between Mandus Group and Kalyani Defense so more less made in india

sum · Post by **sum** » 20 May 2012 18:56

The project was completed in
September 1992 at a cost of ` 8.24 crore, after achieving rate of fire of 1200
rounds per minutes as against rate of 1000 rounds per minute specified in the
GSQR. Later, a Staff Project (SL-PX-2K referred to at Sl No 4 below) was
taken up in September 2000 for ` 17.70 crore to improve upon the rate of fire
to 2000 rounds per minute. The project had to be foreclosed after an
expenditure of ` 14.68 lakh as the Army again changed the parameters of the
gun.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2012 19:14

Indian LFG mounted on Tata truck would be good option they need to automate the loading of ammo and stuff Bofors style

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 May 2012 19:37

Austin wrote:Indian LFG mounted on Tata truck would be good option they need to automate the loading of ammo and stuff Bofors style

OFB/DRDO has offered/displayed 105mm LFG mounted on TATRA, 105mm Light tank and 105mm tracked mounted gun but all have been given cold shoulder by Army

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 May 2012 20:40

Bah the net ate my post.

Austin ji, LGF with manual load does 5-6 rounds per minute for upto 10 minutes in intense fire mode, I wonder if auto loader can improve too much upon this. And I am asking for a view not telling mine.

Sarabpal.s ji,

1) One of the reason adduced for IFG/LFG usage in Mountains by the IA is that it can be hauled by any truck they have alongwith the crew and ord. What I want to say is that it is light enough already. If you get to haul more ord. on the truck then a 'lighter barrel' (which is what the comparable points are) makes sense. But then again will one have time enough to fire the larger number of rounds before one is acquired himself. BTW you instal the OFB gun on a lighter vehicle you will get your lighter mounted gun. But then that too would be a 'Laxman Jhula'.

Now if you observe the gun emplacement for LFG/IFG, then you will find that the most amount of time is taken by the Sole Plate installation. Truck mounted 4 strut DRDO product cuts down on that aspect. IMO 4 struts should also allow the DRDO design in better gun laying. Hawkeye on the other hand is a 'Laxman Jhula' will screw up the aiming. Then on the other hand Hawkeye design cannot allow for any gunner to be on the vehicle. French designed truck mounted 105 mm allows for 2 crew members on top. DRDO design should be able to replicate french benchmarks.

2) Money saved means more guns means more difficult for the enemy to acquire you. Money, i brought in because i believe more guns is what we need not se_y guns.

What I have personally come to believe is that for the 105 mm the real effort needed is in the ordanance itself. We should be looking at more accurate shells and for longer ranges. Something like an Excalibur of 105 mm.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 20 May 2012 22:57

vic wrote:
Austin wrote:Indian LFG mounted on Tata truck would be good option they need to automate the loading of ammo and stuff Bofors style
OFB/DRDO has offered/displayed 105mm LFG mounted on TATRA, 105mm Light tank and 105mm tracked mounted gun but all have been given cold shoulder by Army

Obviously. The days of 105SP is long gone. If not, we could just use the Abbot. SP Arty is supposed to support armour. Isn't it ridiculous to think of 105SP supporting armour with 120mm guns. 105SP dates from the days when tanks were 90mm (sometimes even 105mm) - Patton, Sherman, Centurion. To be effective today, SP Guns have to be 155mm, otherwise it's just a sham.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 May 2012 23:13

Ravi_g
Are you talking about the truck mounted 105mm or BMP mounted which was on display in 2010

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 May 2012 23:21

The truck mounted one. The one that was rejected by quite a few at BRF.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 May 2012 23:37

120 mm tank gun would throw about a 22 kg HEAT shell 30% bigger then a 105mm, with a better range too. So in the plains it sure doesnt make sense to rely on 105 mm. Mountains are a different thing altogether. 105 mm can do a quick switch from direct fire to indirect role and would cost perhaps a fraction of the tank. Plus if you loose a truck mounted 105 mm you just have to tip over the wreckage and its all clear for both an advance and a retreat. What to do with a destroyed tank blocking your way?

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 20 May 2012 23:51

ravi_g wrote:120 mm tank gun would throw about a 22 kg HEAT shell 30% bigger then a 105mm, with a better range too. So in the plains it sure doesnt make sense to rely on 105 mm. Mountains are a different thing altogether. 105 mm can do a quick switch from direct fire to indirect role and would cost perhaps a fraction of the tank. Plus if you loose a truck mounted 105 mm you just have to tip over the wreckage and its all clear for both an advance and a retreat. What to do with a destroyed tank blocking your way?

No boss, you are mixing up issues here. SP arty is to support armour. For any other role you want towed arty.

Guess which gun the LFG is based on - the Abbot. To repeat my previous post, just bring the Abbot back.

By the way, one of the reasons, that arty was extremely effective in Asal Uttar, was because when the Pakis could not even see the guns in the fields. Now imagine the guns mounted on a truck

In the mountains too, guns will be dug in - don't go by the western model please.

Anyway, all this talk is useless day dreaming, can we get any damn gun please!!!

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 21 May 2012 19:55

schowdhuri wrote:
ravi_g wrote:120 mm tank gun would throw about a 22 kg HEAT shell 30% bigger then a 105mm, with a better range too. So in the plains it sure doesnt make sense to rely on 105 mm. Mountains are a different thing altogether. 105 mm can do a quick switch from direct fire to indirect role and would cost perhaps a fraction of the tank. Plus if you loose a truck mounted 105 mm you just have to tip over the wreckage and its all clear for both an advance and a retreat. What to do with a destroyed tank blocking your way?
No boss, you are mixing up issues here. SP arty is to support armour. For any other role you want towed arty.

Guess which gun the LFG is based on - the Abbot. To repeat my previous post, just bring the Abbot back.

By the way, one of the reasons, that arty was extremely effective in Asal Uttar, was because when the Pakis could not even see the guns in the fields. Now imagine the guns mounted on a truck

In the mountains too, guns will be dug in - don't go by the western model please.

Anyway, all this talk is useless day dreaming, can we get any damn gun please!!!

Abbot would be very useful in hills if they mothballed it than but going by IA mentality hope bad and get worse.

about trucks mounted artillery it is all about shoot and run game forget 70 it is all about counter fire start from return fire from guns MLRS or ballistic/ cruise missile attack because fire locating radars is too common, who want to dig death hole unless you monopoly the war

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 May 2012 20:08

the west has given up designing gear thats suitable for a high intensity stand up cagefight. the emphasis is on light weight, mobility, small footprint, network attached services, ipod and ipad integration, high cost, high cost of spares, very expensive ammo like excalibur that will likely fail badly in adverse conditions and a low rate of fire suitable for lobbing a few shells to chase away insurgents and talib types. even the russians have caught the same disease. most of western europe is getting rid of tanks and heavy arty as fast as they can in favour of "jointness" , "rely on tactical airpower" , "rationalization" and "air mobile forces" . netherlands a rich country has NO tanks. france and UK will barely be able to scrounge up 300 each if even the division commanders tank is pressed into service.

south korea may be the only one out there still designing things to operate in the old WW3 mode.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 21 May 2012 20:17

schowdhuri ji, I am really unaware of the western model. In fact I have only seen artillery in pictures and vedios. But I have seen and been in the mountains.

The Paki scene is something that I believe is already understood across the board quite well. Reasonable armour country. 155 is a logical growth of the 105. I am quite in agreement with you and the consensus view, even with my limited knowledge.

On the Indo-China border too, the dug in artillery is also something that I cannot really contest against, at least for now. More then enough natural defences available. All you need is to ensure good air defence.

But all this is only the current scenario. In time Chinese will be able to bring in more accurate long range artillery in superior numbers. I wish we are able to do the same esp. considering that it is not too much to ask for.

Even though over a period of time I have come to the conclusion that IA, in the present scenario, is reasonably well placed to take on the Chinese in a Defensive fight. Still to speculate on future, like all nubies I am starting from the worst case scenario. Of the ‘Hai aag lag gayi!’ kind. Trying to figure out how to fight a successful defensive fight in the passes and thereafter, presuming heavy losses for IA in the initial stages.

Mountains present a very strange dilemma. Even with the advantage of height you don’t really see much. That is why perhaps the dug ins. And a miss with a 155 is the same as a miss with a 105, missing being the nature of dumb shell artillery. The instance of Pakis firing 60000 rounds in 1 or 2 days during the kargil war, to get 2 IA men, one of which was a Porter, comes to mind. On the other hand the guided rockets and artillery is getting more and more accurate. I see this as improvements in CB for both the Indians and the Chinese and a threat for the artillery of both too. This kind of threat does not even rely on air superiority for the most part. Also these are not really expensive considering the damage they do. IA’s own inventory of Karsnopol comes to mind (not aware if things have been sorted out on Karsnopol shells for high altitude).

In such a scenario, I think the focus of the battle, would shift from the traditional massed artillery to more of a cat & mouse game, in future of course. In a cat & mouse game the survivable artillery would normally be the one that is not too much trouble to move around. Spends more time and effort scooting/concealing itself than in shooting. But whenever it shoots it does so fast. Also it has to be relatively inexpensive so one doesn’t looses his bite with a loss of only a few guns. Tracked SP whether 105 or 155 will necessarily be more expensive compared to Truck Mounted SP ie. Numbers begin to get screwed up. Tracks of a Tracked SP will also destroy the road surface at every turn in the mountains, esp. at the inner edge of the road and then this rubble would just sit there damaging the road further every time even lighter vehicles pass over it. Even though destruction of the road surface is not the biggest headache, but there are simply too many twist and turns on a mountain road. BRO would be needed at other places, why to saddle them with Maintenance jobs. Wheels should not destroy the road surface to the same extent. Besides even the lightest of these Tracked SP 105 mm are probably 13-14 Tons and 155 going on to about 50 tons. How does one move these things on mountain roads. So I am with IA on the proposed ratio of the Truck mounted Artillery vs. Tracked SP. IOW one cannot really have a large numbers of Tracked SPs anywhere except large open plains.

Now I have come across claims on the net that even though enough artillery is available to the Coalition forces in Afghanistan, the infantry there is still making a heavy usage of 120 mm mortars and 105 mm guns. With infantry calling in big guns more for the ‘finger of death’ then for anything else. Admittedly Chinese are not Taliban but then Chinese will also be more and then more professional then Taliban. One will probably need more of these ‘fingers of death’ anyway. Why this is important is because the light artillery is here and now, in the battlefield, unlike the big brother. The higher cost of the guidance unit of the Shells is best amortised over the heavier longer ranged shells and rockets that offer a better chance of getting the job done using fewer instances.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 May 2012 20:25

as a challenge to designers, people should take up a truck mounted 105mm that can unleash 40 rounds in 120 seconds burst fire before going back to another location for a reload. a automated charge and shell feeding system would be needed inside the turret and some form of forced liquid cooling on the barrel and firing mechanism probably.
a single such gun could then suffice instead of a battery of 12 and be mobile as well. a squad of 3 such guns could destroy a entire village or camp in 2 mins before moving out.
depending on the range first cluster of 10 or so rounds could be sent out in MRSI mode probably for better impact.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 21 May 2012 20:38

And one such gun destroyed would mean Sharad ceremony for all.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 May 2012 21:07

Can't we use Arjun's 120mm gun instead of making new 105mm for chinese front? The gun is well tested? Until indigenous 155mm comes along.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 21 May 2012 21:37

Singha wrote:as a challenge to designers, people should take up a truck mounted 105mm that can unleash 40 rounds in 120 seconds burst fire before going back to another location for a reload. a automated charge and shell feeding system would be needed inside the turret and some form of forced liquid cooling on the barrel and firing mechanism probably.
a single such gun could then suffice instead of a battery of 12 and be mobile as well. a squad of 3 such guns could destroy a entire village or camp in 2 mins before moving out.
depending on the range first cluster of 10 or so rounds could be sent out in MRSI mode probably for better impact.

More fire more wear and tear also required heavy cooling so the more weight also in current scenario we are dreaming.

Manish_Sharma wrote:Can't we use Arjun's 120mm gun instead of making new 105mm for chinese front? The gun is well tested? Until indigenous 155mm comes along.

Tank guns is different with range 4Km max.
but could be steeping stone for artillery

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 May 2012 22:35

@ravi_g - one of the most important parameter in mountains in the real estate available for deployment of the guns. There is lack of depth - the open space available for deployment of guns is along the river valleys and here too, there are few large sized patches for large scale deployment. Another important parameter is the gun elevation - the mountains on either side of the river valley are very high and steep. This requires guns to be fired at very high angles - use of howitzers with steep firing angles becomes necessary. This high fire angle requirement places penalty on range and also restricts the locations where guns can be deployed.

Please see these pics of artillery deployed during Kargil war - check the angle of fire. You can also see the mountain ranges on either side of gun positions:
http://indiascanner.com/wp-content/uplo ... nflict.jpg
http://pheonixunleashed.files.wordpress ... 4/1-50.jpg
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachmen ... 90-gun.jpg
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 5/0248.jpg

One +ve aspect of these mountain ranges is that these provide protection to the guns. The mountain slopes ensure that it in not easy to hit guns on the reverse slopes - the shells need to come at a very steep angle approaching near vertical. Like I said earlier, penalty is in terms of range for either party. That is why the artillery needs to be that much closer to the infantry in mountain areas.

Coming to Afghanistan and US Army - well, the guns remain static in their fire bases and this places a restriction in terms of their fire coverage. Taliban have adapted their tactics to leverage this self-imposed restriction by the US Army. That is why mortars are important - they are mobile artillery element of the US Army.

Having said that - the territory along central and southern LAC in Ladakh is conducive to large scale conventional warfare and we need heavy caliber guns. Truck mounted 155/52 guns should be a good choice here. In other areas, we need light guns (irrespective of caliber) which can be moved around on man-pack basis or using helicopter fleet. It needs to be that much closer to Infantry in mountain areas.