Artillery: News & Discussion

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2089
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 11 Jul 2015 15:59

A large LoI ensures that the initial set up itself happens for a largish batch and then scaling also happens rapidly. T-72 assembly line was established with a capacity of 200 pa.

On the other hand, a tiny order without the larger order in picture, makes for a tiny set up and the scaling also takes much longer time.

Like setting up with a capacity of 6 pa and then slowly increasing the same to eventual 60 pa will be a less risky but way more time consuming affair compared to setting up with a capacity of 30 pa and then increasing the same to 60 pa in one shot as soon as the line stabilizes.

Setting 6 pa or 30 pa does not change (much) the time required to stabilize the production capacity but the output will reach peak much early. The cost and risk will be more but for truely mass produced items like ammunition, small arms and even artillary for IA the 2nd option is much more required given the current status.

And for that a large initial order and even larger LoI is required.

That is why Khan, Rushkies and Chicoms order in large batch at the intial stage itself even for unproven items like JSF, PAKFA or J10. They know the tricks of mass production.

At the end, they will save much more by being indigenous at the mass scale than by saving on lesser rejection of initial batches of production.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 11 Jul 2015 19:27

Small order folks ... tell that to the Arjun MBT production line. It's been sitting idle for more than 3 years now.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2932
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 11 Jul 2015 22:24

Srai, suggest you look up my post on mindset in Indian Military Aviation thread.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 Jul 2015 14:19

Rahul M wrote:but production wont pick up because of the tiny initial order. ergo, we need forren maal. I see another arjun in the making.


Rahul - I don't see it going the Arjun way for a simple reason that Dhanush has reached present stage primarily due to internal push of the Army. The Director General Artillery during VK Singh's tenure is the man who got the ball rolling. And IA has actively worked with OFB and other stake holders to ensure the whole development, testing and final clearance cycle is completed in compressed timeline.

And there is no scope for a foreign import in the towed category, the current open competition not-withstanding. In fact, as things stand, Indian artillery scene in the towed segment is all set to go in favor of domestic product.

First, you've the Dhanush 155/45 cal being produced with 414 planned which will cater to 23 Medium Regiments. This is good enough to equip 5 Infantry Divisions @ 4 regiments/division. Or, partially equip 11 divisions @ 2 regiments/division with other regiments equipped with 130mm or 105mm caliber. The latter is more likely scenario.

Development of Dhanush could not have come at a better time because it offers the cushion till DRDO ATAGS becomes operational. Not to mention the reports talk about OFB on its own developing a 52 Cal version of Dhanush which should serve as risk mitigation option in case ATAGS gets delayed.

And it is exactly because you've ATAGS under works that there will be no order for 'thousands of Dhanush'. Simply because it is meant as stop-gap. Though, in our case the stop-gap purchase itself will be more than artillery holding of most nations!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 13 Jul 2015 14:43

^^^

ATAGS is Dhanush upgraded to 155mm 52cal.

Dhanush 155mm Artillery Gun: A “Make in India”

...
Presently the DRDO is developing 155 mm / 52 Cal Advance Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) that will upgrade the 155 mm / 45 Cal Dhanush in future. The Advance Towed Artillery Guns System (ATAGS), a light-weight long-range automated gun being developed by DRDO with private participation, will be ready for production by 2019 after undergoing six years of development and testing.
Going by the views of experts on gunnery; the physics part of it has proved that a 155mm / 52 Cal is an optim ..
...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 13 Jul 2015 17:37

If the OFB is going to produce the Dhanush and ATAGS version,then what are the desi pvt. sector entities doing with their arty proposals? What piece of the arty cake has been earmarked for them?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54179
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 13 Jul 2015 19:53

Image from link posted by srai above.

Image

Note the bull snort flames showing muzzle brake has twin exhausts. Also not the black speck above which is the shell. Looks like high angle fire for short range.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16946
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 13 Jul 2015 20:09

thanks rohit, makes sense.

modern guns/howitzers fire at high angles.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Jul 2015 20:17

Does anyone know the envisioned weight of the ATAGS? It is being labeled "light weight".

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8188
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 13 Jul 2015 20:23

Guys a nube question, what is the tripod thingy in the foreground to the gun in the picture.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2015 20:40

ramana wrote:Image from link posted by srai above.

Image

Note the bull snort flames showing muzzle brake has twin exhausts. Also not the black speck above which is the shell. Looks like high angle fire for short range.

:D ramana this is a nitpick - but it is diifficult to tell if the angle is 45 degrees - which in theory would be the angle for maximum range

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54179
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 13 Jul 2015 21:04

My untrained eye say more like 70 degrees.

the tripod thing looks like a surveying instrument. Most likely a GPS receiver for location.

ShauryaT, The linked article says ~12 tonnes for ATAGS.
Two tonne less than similar systems. I guess titanium is not same system.

He further added that the ATAGS concept design is ready. “It will weigh 12
tonnes — two tonnes lighter than other guns of its category.


Read more at:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... ia-marvel/


vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 13 Jul 2015 22:03

Pratyush wrote:Guys a nube question, what is the tripod thingy in the foreground to the gun in the picture.


That's a north-seeking gyroscope that determines both true and grid azimuth with an accuracy of ±0.2 mils. Its used by the GPO (Gun Position Officer) in conjunction with GPS/INS units nowadays.

Image
Last edited by vaibhav.n on 13 Jul 2015 22:27, edited 2 times in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ShauryaT » 13 Jul 2015 22:13

Thanks ramana. If they can manage to keep it under 12 tons, then Chinook can be used for Heli transport. Great for mountains and SF.

member_28932
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_28932 » 23 Jul 2015 15:40

I listen to an interview of BABA kalyani. He said that his gun is ready for testing . He claimed that to be much better than Bofors. He said that they have the capability to deliver 1 gun every alternate day.

This is a great news indeed. Army should be given all 3 guns for testing (Other 2 are TATA and DRDO ) gun. They should complete the testing within 6 months for government. I believe that the contract should be trifurcated between all 3 companies in proportion to the merit found in the each gun.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 24 Jul 2015 07:04

No, its better to chase after a ATAGS with unobtainium specs which even germany cannot match and spend another $10b importing a foreign design when atags inevitably falls short.

the cost effective approach to be get 1000 each of dhanush and bharat forge gun, with the common std ammo and run with it. given the funding and right mgmt ofb production rates can scale up . ordering 144 is NOT the way to do things.

nobody at the receiving end is going to escape if he just got pounded by a shell from a sdre dhanush/ghn45 TODAY or nobody will sit around and wait to be hit by a uber-atags/m777 ten years later.

Abhay_S
BRFite
Posts: 295
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Abhay_S » 10 Aug 2015 20:11



P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 08 Sep 2015 17:00

Overwhelmed by the numbers that have been ordered!!

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Sep 2015 17:21

^^^"In the Artillery modernisation plan, the Indian army needs 814 Mounted Guns, 1580 Towed Guns, 100 tracked Self Propelled guns,180 wheeled Self Propelled guns and 145 Ultra Light Howitzers at a whooping cost of one lakh crores."

That's like 3,000 guns or $15 billion (?). At that price, (if the main idea is to have mobile firepower to quickly inflict pain on the enemy), I wonder whether artillery is the best way to go given finite resources. It is labor intensive, has too many moving parts and is expensive to boot.

What is the role of artillery in the 21st century (short/intense wars) within the Indian context?

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 08 Sep 2015 18:29

They don't call artillery "King of the Battlefield" for nothing. It is just as relevant as every assault rifle out there. In fact even insurgents use mortars and would use bigger pieces if they could. For a soldier in the mountains pinned down by enemy fire, there would be nothing more likely to help them immediately than artillery in times of war.

So, ya, I would say it is relevant in the 21st century within the Indian context.

(Sorry, no expertise for a detailed exposition, hope the resident gurus explain)

member_28700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_28700 » 08 Sep 2015 19:10

$15b for 3000 artillery pieces works out to about 33 crores per piece. Isnt that too expensive given that Dhanush costs around 14 crores only :eek: ? Is the imported maal so expensive or does it also include the ammunition as well?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Sep 2015 19:43

Arun Menon wrote:They don't call artillery "King of the Battlefield" for nothing. It is just as relevant as every assault rifle out there. In fact even insurgents use mortars and would use bigger pieces if they could. For a soldier in the mountains pinned down by enemy fire, there would be nothing more likely to help them immediately than artillery in times of war.

So, ya, I would say it is relevant in the 21st century within the Indian context.

(Sorry, no expertise for a detailed exposition, hope the resident gurus explain)


They used to call battleships the Queen of the Seas. Tech changes, the enemy changes etc. The question I have (and I am not against arty) is that if the idea is to deliver hurt quickly today (even in the example of pinned down soldiers) on the enemy, is arty the best way in the face of so many options?

Just one example: the CBU -105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Se ... zed_Weapon
of which we apparently have some 562 units. And, we have the GBU-16 equivalents. The munitions are 1000 lb dumb bombs and they can be delivered a lot further, more quickly from stand-off distances. There are daisy cutters, FAEs, thermobarics and the like. Is wheeling a lot lof labor intensive and expensive machinery and/or lugging it into the mountains still the best way to inflict hurt?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1614
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 08 Sep 2015 20:06

Cosmo_R wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:They don't call artillery "King of the Battlefield" for nothing. It is just as relevant as every assault rifle out there. In fact even insurgents use mortars and would use bigger pieces if they could. For a soldier in the mountains pinned down by enemy fire, there would be nothing more likely to help them immediately than artillery in times of war.

So, ya, I would say it is relevant in the 21st century within the Indian context.

(Sorry, no expertise for a detailed exposition, hope the resident gurus explain)


They used to call battleships the Queen of the Seas. Tech changes, the enemy changes etc. The question I have (and I am not against arty) is that if the idea is to deliver hurt quickly today (even in the example of pinned down soldiers) on the enemy, is arty the best way in the face of so many options?

Just one example: the CBU -105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Se ... zed_Weapon
of which we apparently have some 562 units. And, we have the GBU-16 equivalents. The munitions are 1000 lb dumb bombs and they can be delivered a lot further, more quickly from stand-off distances. There are daisy cutters, FAEs, thermobarics and the like. Is wheeling a lot lof labor intensive and expensive machinery and/or lugging it into the mountains still the best way to inflict hurt?


Oh yeah ? How many CBU-105s would you need for the ungodly rain of fire that was Kargil, which again was just a fraction of what a full scale war would have amounted to. A light aircraft like textron scorpion costs $3000 an hour to fly, how much do you think it will cost for several dozen Su-30s to be available on station all the time across the theater and how cost effective it is to have a 400 crore platform with 5 crore worth of weapons hanging on it against an 18 crore gun with a 40 thousand rupee shell, not to mention the 40 dozen layers of chain of command from infantry to pilot just to get fire support.

Arty is cost effective, arty is brutally efficient, arty is mobile, arty predates the rifle and arty will outlast any other weapon of warfare, as long as there is warfare.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1079
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2015 20:40

In numerous operations in Afga , nato felt how artillery guns could have or saved their arse !!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 08 Sep 2015 20:43

I read three books about the psychology and behaviour of men under fire in battle. The most scary thing for them is artillery. There is no warning. No hiding. That is what sends men crazy. Aircraft are next in line. And not to forget that Pinaka/Smerch are also "artillery"

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 08 Sep 2015 21:19

germans & dutch got hit in afghanistan and flew in a limited number of Pzh2000 SP guns to provide counterfire when talib roving groups targeted their bases.
russians brought up some 300-400 guns + katyushas per mile of frontage in their final assault from two directions into Berlin and even then the generals felt it was not dense enough :-o

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Sep 2015 21:36

Cosmo_R wrote:They used to call battleships the Queen of the Seas. Tech changes, the enemy changes etc. The question I have (and I am not against arty) is that if the idea is to deliver hurt quickly today (even in the example of pinned down soldiers) on the enemy, is arty the best way in the face of so many options?

Just one example: the CBU -105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Se ... zed_Weapon
of which we apparently have some 562 units. And, we have the GBU-16 equivalents. The munitions are 1000 lb dumb bombs and they can be delivered a lot further, more quickly from stand-off distances. There are daisy cutters, FAEs, thermobarics and the like. Is wheeling a lot lof labor intensive and expensive machinery and/or lugging it into the mountains still the best way to inflict hurt?


Is there another alternative for sustained rate of fire (over many hours and days), with enough fire power, to essentially "clear" a given square area, at a reasonable cost, in control of the army?

Would an equal number of air assets not be more expensive to do the same job? New tech does not come cheap, would that not be more expensive. Even if in theory one has enough air assets, is it possible to produce the same rate of sustained fire from the air? In the Indian context, the borders that we need to cover are huge and so are the opposing assets on the ground. 3000 guns to do the job, IMO is NOT adequate.

Nothing against the smart munitions, precision strike is needed. We should also invest in our own Excalibur. But when we need fire power, across 2000+KM, for 500,000+ men, over a sustained period of time, I think artillery is still the most viable option.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cosmo_R » 08 Sep 2015 21:54

^^^"Oh yeah ? How many CBU-105s would you need for the ungodly rain of fire that was Kargil,"

The IAF fired 9 (out of 100 Israeli supplied LGBs) http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kargil-vi ... /5182.html

If the GoI had so willed it, no more than two dozen CBU/GBUs on supply depots on the other side of the LOC would have crippled the pakis.

There would have little need to send Jawans climbing vertically or indeed for the ungodly rain etc.

The QUESTION I have remains. If one insists on symmetrical responses and WW2 massed battles, yeah sure—arty vs arty, tanks vs tanks etc. OTOH, If as the COAS Gen. Dalbir Singh projects, future wars will be short and intense ones, then it will all be about getting your rock(et)s off to hit first and with little warning. How do you do that by wheeling your arty around/lugging it into the mountains to get it within 38-50KM range?

BTW, different forces use the term 'artillery' differently: the Russians also use it for rockets and the US uses 105MM guns on the AC-130s. So 'artillery' yes but does that mean only towed/tracked guns?

In the Indian context, the question is how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range. That's where I have a doubt about 3,000 guns at $15bn when it might be spent on more modern delivery means.

@Shiv, your point is good. I would add the terror of B-52s that would rain down 30 tons apiece with no warning sound and no escape envelope. On a smaller scale, that is what the Reapers also achieve with more precision.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1079
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shaun » 08 Sep 2015 22:51

Well , Sir artillery too have evolved in mobility and can fire cheap smart projectiles , in a war, to hold one's own ground in a enemy territory I see no alternatives to this. In low-high intensity border skirmishes relevant in India's context , artillery will remain as one of the main offensive weapon.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19159
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 09 Sep 2015 00:28

Cosmo_R: "The IAF fired 9 (out of 100 Israeli supplied LGBs) http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kargil-vi ... /5182.html"

Which was due to the limited stocks we had and also, the MiG capable EO bombs etc were husbanded for a larger conflict. Those bombs were not Israeli Griffins BTW but US paveways modified to work with Mirage 2000s and Israeli Litening pods.

Arty in our context can be a huge advantage. Both punitive (fire assaults across the IB/LOC) and also war winning.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 09 Sep 2015 01:29

Also, CBU-105 were only bought in 2010, a decade after Kargil war.

In any case, it's foolish to think deploying a few of these weapons would have crippled PA or PAF.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22539 » 09 Sep 2015 05:52

In the end it all comes down to cost and availability. Nothing beats artillery fire support when it comes to helping soldiers achieve their objectives. Aircraft cannot stay above you all the time and sometimes the airspace is contested and they cant come to your help at all. The smart weapons they fire are costly and limited in numbers.

Some weapon systems like the battleship may have been rendered obsolete, but that doesn't mean that everything old is useless. Artillery is the oldest, followed by the infantry gun. No amount of smart bombs are going to render them useless or obsolete.

Besides, with guided artillery projectiles, we might be having the best of both worlds.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2015 07:22

Cosmo_R wrote:In the Indian context, the question is how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range. That's where I have a doubt about 3,000 guns at $15bn when it might be spent on more modern delivery means.

@Shiv, your point is good. I would add the terror of B-52s that would rain down 30 tons apiece with no warning sound and no escape envelope. On a smaller scale, that is what the Reapers also achieve with more precision.

Cosmo cases of PTSD and men who just collapse in terror at the sound of an explosion have often been exposed to intense artillery fire. Air attacks are rarely so intense and never sustained - at least other than what the US is capable of doing. It does not apply to India.

The question you ask is a very specific and interestingly worded one. I will explain
how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range.
.

Are you speaking of artillery as offence or defence?

In case of a Pakistani or Chinese thrust in which they make rapid advances into India what you say is certainly true. But then again artillery was never primarily a "defensive weapon system". It is offence by design. It is designed to "kick the door down" an expression that seems to be getting very very popular. It is designed to neutralize anything and everything for a distance of 30 km in front where one's own troops are heading. Even from a distance of just 10 km away artillery shells are immune to countermeasures. Aircraft of the IAF simply cannot lay down the sustained volume of fire that artillery does. The US has used things like "rolling thunder" etc to lay down very heavy bomb loads - but bombs from aircraft have the inherent disadvantage of being dropped in a straight line and are inherently unable to saturate an area for a sustained period of time. Artillery can keep an area pinned down with fire for an entire night.

Aircraft drop bombs in a linear pattern. There is no option. That is their nature. They can hit pinpoint targets if need be, but if targets are dispersed and camouflaged neither the linear pattern nor the pinpoint selection will help and the aircraft have to go back every time and reload. Artillery can simply be directed to saturate everything in an area without discrimination and with virtually no risk as long as the artillery units keep themselves safe from counter batteries. If they are protected by our air force who can help destroy counter batteries and keep enemy aircraft at bay, the combination of AF/attack helos and artillery can be deadly. Don't forget that war is about combined operations using multiple weapons types. Both AF and artillery can and will be used. It's not a like a joust "Let's use only swords today"

Artillery for defence is possible and may be particularly valuable in mountainous regions where the only approach of an attacking force may be through a narrow valley. In fact even small arms and RPGs used by Taliban have kept NATO at bay in the Afghan mountains for a decade. Having strategically placed artillery tens of km away covering approach routes could cripple an advance and turn it into a rout.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 09 Sep 2015 10:01

Aircraft drop bombs in a linear pattern. There is no option. That is their nature. They can hit pinpoint targets if need be, but if targets are dispersed and camouflaged neither the linear pattern nor the pinpoint selection will help and the aircraft have to go back every time and reload

Glide Bombs! Wing kits!

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3795
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby kit » 09 Sep 2015 10:02

shiv wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:In the Indian context, the question is how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range. That's where I have a doubt about 3,000 guns at $15bn when it might be spent on more modern delivery means.

@Shiv, your point is good. I would add the terror of B-52s that would rain down 30 tons apiece with no warning sound and no escape envelope. On a smaller scale, that is what the Reapers also achieve with more precision.

Cosmo cases of PTSD and men who just collapse in terror at the sound of an explosion have often been exposed to intense artillery fire. Air attacks are rarely so intense and never sustained - at least other than what the US is capable of doing. It does not apply to India.

The question you ask is a very specific and interestingly worded one. I will explain
how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range.
.


Are you speaking of artillery as offence or defence?

In case of a Pakistani or Chinese thrust in which they make rapid advances into India what you say is certainly true. But then again artillery was never primarily a "defensive weapon system". It is offence by design. It is designed to "kick the door down" an expression that seems to be getting very very popular. It is designed to neutralize anything and everything for a distance of 30 km in front where one's own troops are heading. Even from a distance of just 10 km away artillery shells are immune to countermeasures. Aircraft of the IAF simply cannot lay down the sustained volume of fire that artillery does. The US has used things like "rolling thunder" etc to lay down very heavy bomb loads - but bombs from aircraft have the inherent disadvantage of being dropped in a straight line and are inherently unable to saturate an area for a sustained period of time. Artillery can keep an area pinned down with fire for an entire night.

Aircraft drop bombs in a linear pattern. There is no option. That is their nature. They can hit pinpoint targets if need be, but if targets are dispersed and camouflaged neither the linear pattern nor the pinpoint selection will help and the aircraft have to go back every time and reload. Artillery can simply be directed to saturate everything in an area without discrimination and with virtually no risk as long as the artillery units keep themselves safe from counter batteries. If they are protected by our air force who can help destroy counter batteries and keep enemy aircraft at bay, the combination of AF/attack helos and artillery can be deadly. Don't forget that war is about combined operations using multiple weapons types. Both AF and artillery can and will be used. It's not a like a joust "Let's use only swords today"

Artillery for defence is possible and may be particularly valuable in mountainous regions where the only approach of an attacking force may be through a narrow valley. In fact even small arms and RPGs used by Taliban have kept NATO at bay in the Afghan mountains for a decade. Having strategically placed artillery tens of km away covering approach routes could cripple an advance and turn it into a rout.



Shiv ji one question .. wasn't carpet bombing (also GBU) designed to do the same thing ..sanitize an entire area ..also give an element of surprise ? Arty mobilization can be relatively easily picked up by recon .. so for same reason how long would arty survive against a well equipped opponent ? ..say counter air / missile strikes
Last edited by kit on 09 Sep 2015 10:10, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 09 Sep 2015 10:04

artillery will have SAM protection. and mlrs units + Wlr will also stand protection duty.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Neela » 09 Sep 2015 18:02

It is designed to "kick the door down" an expression that seems to be getting very very popular. It is designed to neutralize anything and everything for a distance of 30 km in front where one's own troops are heading. Even from a distance of just 10 km away artillery shells are immune to countermeasures.

[ partial source: The Garud Strikes ]
In 1971, artillery would open the war . Akhaura sector saw saturated Pak artillery attacks. But at Akhaura , Indians had a full art. division (72) as opposed to 26 (18 105mm + 8 120mm) from Pakis.
Needless to say, Indian fire would annihilate Pak defences and would enable 4 guards (1 Rajput) to flank and cut off Pak divisions in the sector. Only the Railway station was left . This too would be captured in the subsequent days. 4 Guards would then do the unthinkable - cross the Titas(?) river,smash every Paki division in its path in the race to Dacca.



From the book and from different sources , this is what I gather.
- artillery is feared .
- With sufficient numbers, enemy will never have respite.
- you dont know where the shell is going to land.
- capturing/occupying territory bit by bit needs to begin with artillery attacks
- Human int, and I guess satellite images, UAVs these days help target fire. In 1971 war, humint( Mukti Bahini) and heli reconnaissance was used before directing artillery fire.
-takes enormous courage to stand/hide against it , let alone hit back.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cosmo_R » 09 Sep 2015 19:23

Karan M wrote:Cosmo_R: "The IAF fired 9 (out of 100 Israeli supplied LGBs) http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kargil-vi ... /5182.html"

Which was due to the limited stocks we had and also, the MiG capable EO bombs etc were husbanded for a larger conflict. Those bombs were not Israeli Griffins BTW but US paveways modified to work with Mirage 2000s and Israeli Litening pods.

Arty in our context can be a huge advantage. Both punitive (fire assaults across the IB/LOC) and also war winning.


Fair point. But do we blow $15bn on 3000 guns when the conflicts the service chiefs see are short and intense ones? The resource constraint is important.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2015 19:45

kit wrote:
Shiv ji one question .. wasn't carpet bombing (also GBU) designed to do the same thing ..sanitize an entire area ..also give an element of surprise ? Arty mobilization can be relatively easily picked up by recon .. so for same reason how long would arty survive against a well equipped opponent ? ..say counter air / missile strikes

Carpet bombing is never carpet bombing. Bombers move forward at a minimum of 500 kmph and bombs fall in a long straight line. There is no way an area can be saturated using bombers dropping bombs in long lines from great heights. In any case they can be shot down by enemy fighters or SAMs. Carpet bombing did not work in WW2 or in Vietnam. Carpet bombing is no use against tank formations. Carpet bombing has received more media attention than its due. It was imagined in WW2 that it would work. It did not. The US continued its WW2 mentality in Vietnam and it did not work. There are occasions in which the US has made it work but that does not apply to us.

That apart India has no carpet bombing capability. India has used An 12s for bombing runs in 1965 and 1971 - making it look like carpet bombing. Those planes were very vulnerable and lucky to escape. They did not hit anything much but apparently did scare the Pakis a bit or so it is claimed. No reports exist of any damage done that I know of.

The reason why armies invest in artillery is because it is extremely effective and cheap. I am not sure what you mean by "Arty mobilization can be relatively easily picked up by recon". That is not true. They are usually camouflaged well with lots of decoys to distract recce and nowadays mobile and do not stay in one place. Remember that 10 artillery pieces can be put in 10 different spots and still shell the same areas simultaneously with deadly accuracy and each of those 10 can move a few 100 meters after every 3-6 shots to avoid counter battery fire. Artillery is far more accurate than "carpet bombing". They will also be protected by SAMs and our own air cover.
Last edited by shiv on 09 Sep 2015 19:50, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests