Artillery: News & Discussion

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rishi_Tri » 24 Feb 2018 21:07

Will wrote:http://idrw.org/atags-bang-for-the-buck/#more-163348

Was wondering how the army hadn't voiced its reservations on a non strategic indigenous project yet . Well as they say some will never disappointment. :twisted: As expected its the "weight" issue a la Arjun. If the ATAGS is 20 tonnes then there is a valid weight issue. But the import lobby never disappoints :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


Yes, surprising indeed why all these were not a factor a few weeks back.

Well, the gun may be heavy but isn't it throwing all those shells to 'world record' ranges? :rotfl:

If the weight cannot be absolutely argued against and we have already used bridge bogey for Arjun, lets bring trucks into picture. :rotfl: 6X6 not able to carry 18 tons? Well give the truck to any Tata Ace driver who over loads his 1 ton ride with 2 tons every morning and see the ATAGS fly in air. Its all in mind.

Anyway, good details in the article. Should we say, the Sikkim trials have been successful? I would say yes, else press would have been flooded with 'didn't meet' news.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Will » 24 Feb 2018 22:00

Looks like the trails were a definate success. Thats why the sudden realisation from the import lobby that theres a weight issue. :mrgreen:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2018 22:06

Ever since Babur at Panipat, artillery has been a weakness for Indians. In fact British Indian Army was allowed to raise artillery formations only just before WWII.

After initial 75mm pack and 105mm howitzer, IA has ensured no Indian development of artillery with their attitude. You can't innovate what you don't design and make.

US adopted the French 75, 105 and 155mm during world war I and continusouky developed them. Even now US is learning the 155mm intricacies. The advent of electronic fuzes has made tube ballistics were important to learn.

It's sad the IA wants to keep importing.

I think the COI are a farce for they resume trials and things fall apart. They don't know what they dont know.
One simple table listing all the shell and gun failures will.show a pattern.
Date, Type of gun, calibers, shell, Fuze, charge, barrel diameter, how many rounds already fired from that gun, Comments.

MOD Note : edited by Akshay Kapoor.

I will not tolerate anyone calling army officers jokers. Ramana you should set better standards as a thought leader and senior most moderator. Standards are always set at the top and that is where the rot starts as well. Lead by example like you have done on shell balloting analysis.

Second point to everyone - dont react to every article you see. Respond (not react) to facts on the ground with clarity of thought. Some weeks ago a positive news on winter trials of ATAGS came out and everyone started reacting. Some even questioning why x orders were not given. When that was seen off another article has come which is 180 degrees opposite and again people start reacting. Have you no minds of your own that you will react to every bit of press news ? What madness is this ? What is the difference between you and the lay man on the street.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2018 22:10

Will wrote:Looks like the trails were a definate success. Thats why the sudden realisation from the import lobby that theres a weight issue. :mrgreen:


First para states Shimla trials are successful.

Yes now all those objections of rotten bridges.

Next will come the logistics issue.

Guns are not for parades.
They are for fighting wars.
ATAGS shell is deadly accurate at long range.
It's weight is not more than Long Tom.

One generation ago artillery guys used to envy Pak having Long Tom and the 8" howitzer.

Now they complain of weight.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 24 Feb 2018 22:44

Here's the original article from India Today/Sandeep Unnithan
Bang for the buck?
Some interesting titbits, it appears that the plan to buy a foreign towed gun has not been dropped yet, only the screwdriver-giri component was dropped, they may still import 480 of them (still an eye popping number). And then there is this->
At least some of the army's indifference can be explained in the fact that the service didn't ask for the gun to begin with.

Going by public domain information the IA has not asked for the indigenous development of much of anything.
Towed Howitzer (requirement for a couple 1000): Multi decade saga, Dhaush and ATAGS developed, imports still on apparently.
Ultra Lightweight Howitzer: M777 bought after 10 years, just as BF develops its prototype.
Man Portable ATGM (requirement in the 10's of thousands): ~10 ongoing saga importgiri saga between Javelin and Spike; DROD and private firms (VEM) developing their own prototypes.
MANPAD: another ongoing saga, government now looking at indigenous development.
MBT: I'll just leave an emoticon for this :evil:
IFV: Still born Strategic Partnership screwdriver-giri thing going on over 10 years, DRDO develops Abhay IFV 10 years ago.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that can be added to this list.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 24 Feb 2018 22:52

Wouldn't it be prudent that they create an export version and the private sector already involved? even if the export market is crowded, any possible evaluation by other countries would put IA's own decision making in perspective and possible scrutiny.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 24 Feb 2018 22:53

Structurally, the howitzer has changed very little in over a century. The principle remains the same-a shell is spun out through a grooved steel barrel in a high trajectory to fall on its target. The addition of modern electronics and computers-automated gun alignment and positioning systems, laser rangefinders and shells embedded with GPS systems-have made it the most cost-effective way to deliver ordnance over a 50 km range. A surface-to-surface missile like the Prithvi, for instance, costs Rs 10 crore. A single 155 mm shell weighing 50 kg costs just Rs 10 lakh.


Is this last part accurate? That's over $15,000. At Rs 1 lakh, the shell would be a tad overpriced. How much is OFB taking the taxpayer for?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 24 Feb 2018 22:56

abhik wrote:Ultra Lightweight Howitzer: M777 bought after 10 years, just as BF develops its prototype.


Isn't this the other way around, BF's JV with Mandus group came about when the M777 were bought?

given the above, maybe BF has a chance to meet the army's requirement, even if unjustified, to reduce the weight of ATAGS by more than the current projection of 2 tons?

jpremnath
BRFite
Posts: 258
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 21:06

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jpremnath » 24 Feb 2018 23:10

Viv S wrote:
Structurally, the howitzer has changed very little in over a century. The principle remains the same-a shell is spun out through a grooved steel barrel in a high trajectory to fall on its target. The addition of modern electronics and computers-automated gun alignment and positioning systems, laser rangefinders and shells embedded with GPS systems-have made it the most cost-effective way to deliver ordnance over a 50 km range. A surface-to-surface missile like the Prithvi, for instance, costs Rs 10 crore. A single 155 mm shell weighing 50 kg costs just Rs 10 lakh.


Is this last part accurate? That's over $15,000. At Rs 1 lakh, the shell would be a tad overpriced. How much is OFB taking the taxpayer for?


During the Kargil War, I remember reading that the cost of a single bofors shell was 1000USD. 10 Lakh Rs a piece sounds way too expensive.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 24 Feb 2018 23:25

Viv S wrote:
Structurally, the howitzer has changed very little in over a century. The principle remains the same-a shell is spun out through a grooved steel barrel in a high trajectory to fall on its target. The addition of modern electronics and computers-automated gun alignment and positioning systems, laser rangefinders and shells embedded with GPS systems-have made it the most cost-effective way to deliver ordnance over a 50 km range. A surface-to-surface missile like the Prithvi, for instance, costs Rs 10 crore. A single 155 mm shell weighing 50 kg costs just Rs 10 lakh.


Is this last part accurate? That's over $15,000. At Rs 1 lakh, the shell would be a tad overpriced. How much is OFB taking the taxpayer for?

Must be wrong, they make ~1 lac shells per year, @10lac for shell that would be 10k Cr, which is ridiculous.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 24 Feb 2018 23:27

vasu raya wrote:
abhik wrote:Ultra Lightweight Howitzer: M777 bought after 10 years, just as BF develops its prototype.


Isn't this the other way around, BF's JV with Mandus group came about when the M777 were bought?
...

My point is that they waited for 10 years for the imported guns when they could have developed our own by that time.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 24 Feb 2018 23:29

Gps+shell cost, they forget to add "GPS" line in cost line.simple shell may cost puny overall

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 25 Feb 2018 01:47

Simple shell is quite inexpensive.

About $1500/shell for M107 shell.

BTW did IDRW copy Sandeep article and put std notice.

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the- ... 2018-02-22

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2546
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 25 Feb 2018 12:43

sarabpal.s wrote:Gps+shell cost, they forget to add "GPS" line in cost line.simple shell may cost puny overall


Gps dont cost that much. Has to be typo error. Actual cost of production for the Shell(fabricated metal +explosives) would be less than Rs ten thousand. Adding a GPS/glosnass/IRNSS would jack the cost by the same amount. Remember you will be procuring navigation devices in bulk. So that should save costs too. So at the most an artillery shell along with some precision guided mechanism would cost you INR 20,000 i.e the cost of production.

Now the question is what is the price that Army is paying for such shells?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 25 Feb 2018 14:09

DRDO should also develop a naval gun with ER munitions 100km range.Rail guns too for the future.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 25 Feb 2018 15:20

Shatrujeet reporting 155mm pounding pak positions in last couple of days and the first 155mm firing since 2003.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 25 Feb 2018 22:30

Prasad, It's posted already. No worries.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1246
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 26 Feb 2018 00:26

IA should open new front for napaki army. PA should not choose places to escalate. South Cashmir is perfect place to start artillery fire and test our new guns :mrgreen:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 26 Feb 2018 01:41

Yaa,
Test all the Nag, Helina, Guruthma versions on the Packee posts, best form of field trials

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Feb 2018 13:44

this leaked report from MOD on the procurement mess quantifies the vast delays and mess that it is
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/defence ... -topscroll

with procurement a mess, the only way forward is internal development :)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 26 Feb 2018 18:37

Gagan wrote:Yaa,
Test all the Nag, Helina, Guruthma versions on the Packee posts, best form of field trials

Then can be exported with slogan “proven in combat” like other exporting nations do.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 27 Feb 2018 00:10

I shouldn’t give the Army Leadership any ideas, but they could include yet another hoop to make the indiginous defence products jump through to delay procument - Live Combat Field Trials

Live Combat Field Trials, tests a weapon systems effectiveness in field conditions that very closely resemble actual warlike situation and is meant to provide a most realistic assessment of a weapon system’s suitability for field deployment. The trial is also meant to provide hands on training to the Jawans who are expected to be end users and to obtain feedback

Feedback from the target area or the targetee is not mandatory, but may be obtained if so desired by the manufacturer

However feedback in the form of audio-visual recordings of the use will be gathered. This may be disseminated for wider viewing at the discretion of the ministry of defence

Weapon systems qualifying in such trials will be designated “Combat Proven” and will be given a total of 02 points towards the overall assessment score
Last edited by Gagan on 27 Feb 2018 00:18, edited 1 time in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Gagan » 27 Feb 2018 00:15

Why can’t DDM send some reporters across the LOC to talk to the Paki Jawans and ask stoopid questions like “Aapko kaisa lag raha hai, aapki post bharatiya anti tank missile se tabah kar di gayi.”
“Kya mehsoos kar rahe hain is waqt?”

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Feb 2018 04:24

Last week I had some time to spare and spent a lot of midnight oil trying to read up on shell balloting phenomenon. Its not like only OFB shells and India Army guns have this problem. Except since we don't understand it we whine to half baked reporters.
Many of the reports I read are quite mathematical but I will keep it qualitative and at high level to make the points. I will refer to reports available online to make the points for further reading.


Background:

Over past five years Indian press has reported numerous instance of 155mm shell burst and muzzle strikes in barrels. Many of these are documented in this thread on earlier pages and can be searched for details. Number of occurrences per press reports is Bofors (40 times), upgraded M-46 130mm guns, Dhanush (3 times), and now M777 (1 time).These incidents have happened in Bofors 39 calibers, Soltam 45 caliber, Dhanush 45 caliber and M777 BAE guns. And have happened with imported NASCHEM and OFB made shells. The only data we have is the shells have burst after many rounds have been fired. We know for the M777 incidents the shells were ERFB/BB and BT units. We don't know about the other shells as the sources were not forthcoming. However in most likelihood it could be the ERFB types of shell as the IA wants maximum range for the artillery.

Discussion:

Shell burst in barrel and muzzle strike are all phenomenon related to internal ballistics of the gun. They relate to interaction of shell and gun barrel after the charge is ignited. We can ignore all other types of ballistics as not being germane to this topic.

Lets talk about the barrel. The barrel is designated as 155mm x 39, 155mmx45 from breech end to muzzle exit. This means the barrel is 39 x 155 equals 6045mm and 45x 155 equals 6975 mm. The muzzle is not rifled.

The barrel can be considered as a long thick wall pressure vessel and has a muzzle brake at one end to reduce forces of recoil. After the charge ignition, the barrel develops circumferential tensile stresses (hoop stress) which are prominent. Hence the barrels are made of high strength steel and are heat treated and a compressive pre-stress by auto-frettage to overcome the high tensile stresses. There could be micro cracks developed in the manufacturing process and occasional high charge ignition. Repeated firings induce fatigue and could cause barrel to fail. Part of development testing is to find the fatigue life and change barrels before barrel failure.

Another phenomenon is barrel wear. The shell is a tight fit in the barrel at the driving band and the bourrelet. The charge ignition causes the shell to move forward and the rifling of the barrel imparts spin to the shell. Usually the rifling is 1 in 20 for the 155mm gun. That means the rifling twist is 1 in 20*155mm i.e. 3100 mm. This means the shell makes one revolution in a travel of 3100 mm.
(note the barrel length including muzzle is about 6045mm. In other words the shell hardly makes less than 2 turns inside the barrel!)This causes friction wear. In addition due to the high temperature gases and chemical compounds in the shell propellant there is erosion wear. Studies have shown the erosion wear is higher than the friction wear as the shell driving band is made of copper or other softer metal than the steel used for the barrel. Part of development testing is to find out the barrel wear life and determine when the barrels need to be changed. Gun barrel wear is measured after numerous firings and the population divided into four quartile. 1st quartile would be like zero to little wear and 4th quartile would be maximum wear and near to replacement.

Comparing the barrel fatigue life to the barrel erosion life the latter is found to be more predominant for determining gun barrel life. In other words a barrel will wear out before It burst unless there is an accident.

Lets talk about the shell. The shell at macro level is a long cylinder with an ogive nose for aerodynamic shape. In order to resist the firing pressure the base of the shell is thicker and hence the cg is closer to the base. The center of pressure is forward of the cg and will lead to static instability, like a top will rest on its side when not spinning.

The ogive portion has the fuze cavity and houses the fuze. Early 155mm shells like the M107 were made from low carbon steel and were stubbier. The search for longer range and for fragmentation effects led to developing the ERFB/BB shells which are long and made from manganese steel which can fragment easily. Then to sum up these two type of shells are shaped differently and made from different materials but both are fired from same gun barrel with constant 1 in 20 rifling which imparts same spin. The charge determines how quickly the shell gets spun. Now both shells are manufactured by forging from steel blanks and are machined on lathes, driving band shrunk fit and explosives filled. This process ensures the shells are quite defect free as the forging process subjects them to large forces and machining ensures they are concentric. However there could be manufacturing tolerances that are inherent in the process. The driving band could be installed slightly closer to the base or farther from the base. The center of gravity could be offset from the axis of the shell and at an angle due to manufacturing and assembly.

Analysis:

Earlier I had proposed looking at the shell as a spinning top from our childhood. Usually there are short and squat tops (SQT) or long, thin tops (LTT). A SQT needs less spin and is more stable in the sense it wont be disturbed when it gets a side load. The LTT needs more spin and is less stable as it gets disturbed easily when it gets a side load. And both tops spin true when they are axisymmetric. If you recall there is a brass nail that's driven into the top of the wooden top to give more mass to the large end. This makes it more balanced and stable during spinning. When the top is slowing down the cg point moves in a rosette pattern called nutation. This shows up as wobble. Balloting is the shell wobble in the gun barrel.

During World War I it was noticed that shells when they emerge from the barrel would hit it at exit and sometimes catastrophically. This was called 'side slap'. Not much was understood. During WWII, British mathematicians studied this and described the forces due to slide slap could be around 20,000 gs and sometime break off the fuze while the shell still travels as a dud to its full range. After WWII, US army started studying this phenomenon and produced numerous papers. During Vietnam war it was noted that 175mm barrels were bursting way before their 4th Quartile life. Analysis showed that due to cg offset (only 0.1") and barrel wear the shell was hitting the barrel sides and exploding in it. During the recent decades the phenomenon was called balloting and more studies have been undertaken as the shell fuzes are upgraded to electronic components which are fragile. Now with PGK fuzes there is a need to study the forces and not have failures.

Of these one relevant study for our purposes is "Characterization of the Parameters That Affect Projectile Balloting using FEA" Phd Thesis by Kelly Laughlin in 2008 (Ref 2). Laughlin modeled the 155mm barrel and shell and calibrated it to test data prior to changing different parameters that affect balloting. He looked at barrel wear by running two models to represent 1st and 4th quartile and at zero and 70 degree elevation. Next he varied the location of the driving band with respect to the base of the shell. He also moved the CG axially forward and aft of its theoretical location and offset it from the shell axis by a set number. He also varied the distance between the rear and forward bourrelet (wheel base), and finally the total shell length within the drawing tolerances.

The barrel 1st and 4th quartile and the two elevations did not produce any differences in axial accelerations. The higher elevation had slightly less balloting but both had some degree of balloting and prominent as shell moves closer to the muzzle exit. As the CG moves forward, balloting at muzzle exit increases to almost double of the nominal case. As CG moves closer to base it reduces the balloting effect. The wheel base (distance between the bourrelets) variation effect of the balloting is similar to the CG variation as it increases with increase from the base and decreases with reducing the distance. The driving band location is also similar to the CG and wheel base variation. He found that installing the driving band towards the base reduces balloting. The body length variation is similar in that a short body has reduced balloting while a longer body has more balloting (ERFB note is long body)

The most interesting thing happens when the CG is offset at a distance (0.148") from the shell axis. The balloting frequency is higher than all other variations and very high magnitude of up to 5,000gs and up. This trend is same for all four gun tube variations. i.e. 1st and 4th quartile and zero and 70 degree.

Analysis Discussion.

Analysis shows that CG offset from centerline causes extreme radial accelerations due to the unbalance nature of the shell even in nominal barrels. The magnitudes show it could result in muzzle strike while emerging from the barrel.

We know from various reports that Dhanush development trials had barrel burst due to shell wobble.
And this gun fired 3000 rounds before the barrel burst.

The Dhanush prototype suffered a barrel burst during firing trials at Pokhran in August last year, which has since been resolved.

An official with knowledge of the matter said. “It's true that the trial at Pokhran didn't go well. There was a barrel burst. However, it was later confirmed that the burst was not due to a defective barrel, rather the ammunition wobbled out-of-axis to exert additional pressure on the barrel, causing the accident”.



The M777 gun had a shell break up at the 1164th round

viewtopic.php?p=2230473#p2230473

I don't know the barrel life for these at max charge. I suspect its close to 1100 rounds.

On page 57, the forward shift from the base of the CG gives 5K gs for even nominal barrel.
Further on page 115, 4th quartile with CG offset shows the large radial accelerations at muzzle exit.

IA Board of Inquiry should look at barrel dimensions as part of the investigation.

Most likely firing the guns at max charge quickly puts them in the 4th quartile.

It would definitely show the muzzle strike severity.

Conclusion:

Muzzle strike happens with CG offset. And will worsen with barrel wear.
Most of the IA field trials having barrel burst are likely after barrel wear which makes even small CG offset into a big problem.

Also IA should consider going to eight gun batteries is they desire a high volume of fire and not subject the guns to beyond normal usage which causes barrel wear that in turn magnifies any shell imbalances even within tolerance.




Reference:


1) Hindu : Dinaker Peri No Dhanush for Army


2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_self-propelled_gun

3) Characterization of the Parameters that Affect Projectile Balloting using Finite Element Analysis: PhD thesis

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 27 Feb 2018 05:08

Singha wrote:this leaked report from MOD on the procurement mess quantifies the vast delays and mess that it is
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/defence ... -topscroll

with procurement a mess, the only way forward is internal development :)



We should have started at least 15 years back on these and if this had happened, we would have been producing state of the art by now (not that current ones are inferior but they would have been thoroughly tested and enhanced).
First batch of objects are always of inferior quality and any and every major weapons producing nation will tell you that. It takes few decades to master complex weapons systems development and our armed forces really wants Mercedes from Day 1 while we are just designing Maruti's.

I must say that forces will have their limit on how much they can wait and get away with slightly less capable weapons. We have lost too much time.

DO NOT RELY ON ANY FOREIGN FIRMS TO INVEST and GIVE AWAY THEIR GOOSE LAYING GOLDEN EGGS, JUST PASS TECHNOLOGY TO DESI PRIVATE PLAYERS WITH CLAUSES and THEY SHALL DO THE REST IN ONE DECADE.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 27 Feb 2018 18:48

DRDO 155/52 mm ATAGS howitzers in high altitude trials in Sikkim, Jan 2018.

Bharat Forge’s G-2 prototype (L), Tata Power SED’s G-1 (R).

Image

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 27 Feb 2018 19:01

INDIA TODAY: Bang for the buck?

A key indigenous breakthrough-a sophisticated high-strength barrel made by Bharat Forge using autofrettage technology-is used in both prototypes.
Last edited by JTull on 28 Feb 2018 13:39, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2302
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_P » 28 Feb 2018 12:49

^^ A lovely photo.Thanks for sharing!

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1628
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 01 Mar 2018 19:27

sum wrote:Shatrujeet reporting 155mm pounding pak positions in last couple of days and the first 155mm firing since 2003.


Good news if correct. I was under the impression only 105 mm were used and that too sparingly.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1628
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 01 Mar 2018 19:36

ramana wrote:Ever since Babur at Panipat, artillery has been a weakness for Indians. In fact Brirish Indian Army was allowed to raise artillery formations only just before WWII.

After initial 75mm pack and 105mm howitzer, IA has ensured no Indian development of artillery with their attitude. You can't innovate what you don't design and make.

US adopted the French 75, 105 and 155mm during world war I and continusouky developed them. Even now US is learning the 155mm intricacies. The advent of electronic fuzes has made tube ballistics were important to learn.

It's sad the IA wants to keep importing.

I think the COI are a farce for they resume trials and things fall apart. They don't know what they dont know.
One simple table listing all the shell and gun failures will.show a pattern.
Date, Type of gun, calibers, shell, Fuze, charge, barrel diameter, how many rounds already fired from that gun, Comments.
They can't do even this simple table and have jokers talking to media with humanities background.


Ramana,

I am very surprised at your comment. What is this bs 'humanities background'. I am leaving this comment here to show how even seasoned posters and moderators have a severe attitude problem and superiority complex. I suggest you review your post and edit it or I will do so.

I was away for sometime and I see that this thread has started its degeneration. I am back now and no more of this nonsense.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2018 00:39

The media with humanities background.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby kit » 02 Mar 2018 00:57

sum wrote:Shatrujeet reporting 155mm pounding pak positions in last couple of days and the first 155mm firing since 2003.

wonder if there are air burst FAE rounds for 155 guns :mrgreen: .. would be interesting to see what a 100 155mm guns firing simultaneously FAE rounds can do to the paki border :mrgreen:

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sohamn » 02 Mar 2018 02:29

ramana wrote:The media with humanities background.


I think what Ramana might have meant is that defence media in India are mainly obsessed with language skills instead of defence tech skills. i.e. lack of relevant experience. Not that humanities is a bad profession for journalists but it might not be the most suitable background for defence journos.

But I will let him clarify. :!:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 02 Mar 2018 03:33

The IA which has been starved for arty for so long should support these desi efforts which have such great potential, record beaters too, so that they can be inducted asap even in initial MK-1 batches so that the production flow can be established with key improvements made in later batches.This would also come in at lower costs.Key factor though is the ammo production, as our DPSUs, OFB in particular have produced faulty duds in the past wasting thousands of crores.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2018 05:17

Philip read my post above. Its the system.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2018 05:30

Krasnopol M is with Indian Army.

https://twitter.com/reachanshul/status/ ... 97857?s=19

Apparently costs Rs. 15 lakhs per round.

Look at Chinese GP1. Doesnt look like that costly.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2018 07:12

Chinese GP-1 LDR based on Krasnopol

http://armamentresearch.com/chinese-gp1 ... -in-libya/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Mar 2018 22:24

I found an internet reference to the M-77 barrel requirements.

The objective is 800 firings and the threshold is 900 firings.

The IA user trials had the ERFB round break up at 1164th round.
In other words 364 rounds over the objective and 264 rounds over the threshold for the M 777 barrel.

Make up your own mind.

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Neilz » 02 Mar 2018 23:20


Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 806
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Shameek » 03 Mar 2018 02:25

The BB round from Pokhran looks like a rocket launch! The Sikkim round seems to have very little recoil. Looks promising!


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest