Postby bart » 03 Jan 2010 22:25
Bheem,
We are not the US and neither are our adversaries the type of moth-eaten military or guerrila groups that the US has taken on of late. Plus the US doctrine generally assumes total air superiority, massive supply of cruise missiles, JDAMS, smart bombs and the like, plus the aerial firepower to deliver it anywhere, anytime, and in any quantity, all that enabled by carrier battle groups, B52s etc. Hence they can go in for 'innovative' tactics. But even they do not put all their bets on light artillery, they have huge numbers of Paladin SPH and though the Crusader program was canceled rest assured they will continue to have heavy artillery.
Also, the US artillery tends to be used in full-scale combat where they are openly in war, unlike our situation where we might have cross-border shelling, kargil type scenario or are responding to some provocation, but not in an open war. In such a situation IA might not simply be able to call in Brahmos or SU-30 strikes (assuming we had enough aerial weaponry in the first place and the financial ability to expend them) and might be restricted to artillery. Wouldn't you want IA to at least have the best possible artillery in that situation?
The Bofors guns were a huge factor in Kargil and proved their ability to work round the clock. The sustained and relentless artillery barrages were a major factor in reducing causalities on our side. It was one of the few good tools we had, and though we have added lots of equipment since then including Smerch and Pinaka the need of heavy artillery remains. The request for a light howitzer shows the IA is also evolving it's tactics, however it's tactics also rightly call for heavy tracked and wheeled howitzers.
