Artillery Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by tejas »

A PSU and a high tech East European powerhouse. Now we're cookin with gas!! :roll:
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20317 »

Prem Kumar wrote: So, even though, the Pinaka proved itself in Kargil, it took a whole decade to raise 2 regiments. Especially in light of the known artillery deficiencies, which was also brought out during Kargil. This is downright criminal.
Premkumar ji, the gaps in Tube Arty cannot be filled by Rocket Arty. I also believed in using one in lieu of other but the costs & delivery vehicle weights are just apples and oranges.

42 kg 155 mm shell is i think 5000 Rupees a pop for 25-30-35 km range with just a change in the Cal.
18-20 kg 122 mm BM-21 shell was 25000/- a pop about twenty years back for a 20.4 km range flat.

both dumb of course. But notice that TCS makes these cost comparisons go bonkers. So the real deal, if you actually insist on replacing one with the other, is guidance not the numbers, that too only in a role requiring accuracy. The requirement for numbers (Tube) can only be filled up by Tube.
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by P Chitkara »

Having just 4 pinaka regiments is way too less considering grads are getting old. Certainly the army needs more than 72 of the kind if they are serious about the two front theory.

This holds for a host of other systems too but, I have always felt we should have more numbers here specially with the home grown product around.
nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by nikhil_p »

Grad should not ideally be replaced by Pinaka entirely. Just as in tube Arty, rocket Arty also needs light, medium, heavy mix. the Grads are very effective short range rockets. More importantly a Grad launcher carries a lot of them. Yes, we could modernize it but overall, it can add punch while on the move. The Pinaka on the other hand can gradually replace the Smerch, after a long range rocket (not counting Prahaar) comes into play.

Same way for tube, we would need the 105 and 155/45 to play different roles.
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1205
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by A Sharma »

BM 21 on Tata truck
http://www.defencesolutions-tatamotors.com/media/video/grade-bm-21-lpta2038.swf

Are they being upgraded or only the truck is being replaced?
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Gurneesh »

That chassis is flexing a lot. Will that not have effect on accuracy ?
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

My estimate for cost of Pinaka rocket is around Rs. 5-15 lakhs. One rocket should be equal to around 4-8 shells of 155mm. The cost of 155mm shell, base bleed, fuze & propellant should be around 1-2 lakh or so!
schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by schowdhuri »

vic wrote:My estimate for cost of Pinaka rocket is around Rs. 5-15 lakhs. One rocket should be equal to around 4-8 shells of 155mm. The cost of 155mm shell, base bleed, fuze & propellant should be around 1-2 lakh or so!
Not such straight maths :D You have a rocket landing at one point, while you have the arty shells covering a nice 50x50m to 150x150m depending on how many guns are firing. Then you have a rocket, and can easily increase it to a ripple or salvo, or even more because typically you won;t have just one launcher - you have the means ready - what are you going to increase the arty battery to? It is not just bringing in more guns, finding a suitable gun position on an ad-hoc basis is not trivial.

Anyway, the fact is the targets for rockets & tube arty are different, so they are not going to be substituted. I am not sure if you will use rockets even to break up the enemy at the FUP, unless it is Brigade level assault or even bigger.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by jamwal »

How much of what claimed in this article is true ? :shock:
How Bofors Affairs Transformed India
By Lt Gen M Mayadas
Book Excerpt: How the Boffors Affair Transformed India
Bofors was the most expensive system. For the 400 systems then required, and bearing in mind the availability of money, we could buy twelve Austrian guns for the price of seven Bofors guns

During the 1981 trials in India, the Bofors achieved a range of 15 kms, during which, the firing mechanism and other components flew out of the breach. The Swedes asked for a little more time and hurriedly rushed in new components, but even then a range of only 21.5 kms was obtained. When the Swedish team was being interviewed by my Committee, I asked them specifically to state what the maximum range of the gun was. They stated categorically that it was 24 kms. So I asked if this range had been witnessed by any Indian Army officer. They said "Yes General more or less".-I sat up at this reply and requested them to clarify for the benefit of my Committee, what the exact implication of the electrifying phrase "more or less" signified. The range achieved is an exact figure. It can be 15000, 21000, 23500, 24400 or whatever, but it cannot be "24000 more or less"

...a message was received from the Control Tower that the artillery could not fire because the firing ranges and the target areas where the shells were to fall, had been thrown open for moose-hunting.

The Swedish answer was absolutely honest. When the guns were ready to fire, and the Indian officers were at the target end of the range, a message was received from the Control Tower that the artillery could not fire because the firing ranges and the target areas where the shells were to fall, had been thrown open for moose-hunting

The story was quite incredible, and showed a total lack of coordination by the Swedes an otherwise very efficient nation. The Indian officers present had not mentioned this startling fact to anyone in India, and for some unknown reason had not submitted a Delegation Report. Something with which I had taxed the DCOAS.

The Austrian gun fired upto 39 kms, and the French gun upto 30.5 kms. It was a tremendous achievement on the part of the Austrians to produce a gun capable of reaching 30 kms with a totally ballistic solution, Le, without a rocket booster

Bofors could fire 60 rounds in 20 minutes or a total of 3 rounds per minute. The Austrian gun could do a Burst Fire in 16 seconds, and in 20 minutes file 40 rounds at normal rate, and 140 rounds in 20 minutes at its maximum rate of fire.


Image
Indrajit
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Indrajit »

Great find! I remember the GHN-45 from Voest Alpine was touted the best choice,surprisingly it's further development was the G-5 in collaboration with Denel which was selected for the IA,moreover the same platform was purchased by China and was license built as Type-88 and the PLZ-45.
Sriman
BRFite
Posts: 1858
Joined: 02 Mar 2009 11:38
Location: Committee for the Promotion of Vice and the Prevention of Virtue

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Sriman »

Indrajit wrote:Great find! I remember the GHN-45 from Voest Alpine was touted the best choice,surprisingly it's further development was the G-5 in collaboration with Denel which was selected for the IA,moreover the same platform was purchased by China and was license built as Type-88 and the PLZ-45.
If i'm not mistaken, Bharat Forge's howitzer effort will be based on GHN-45 as well.
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by D Roy »

Gerald Bull.

He was a consultant to the Chinese as well. Some say, that the Chinese also built one of his "space gun" designs.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

I think voest alpine and denel both licensed the gerard bull tech and produced these guns. there may not be a direct father-son link between GHN45 and G5 more like sharing a common ancestor. the chinese were the 3rd licensee of this tech.

while the range and ballistics of the gun is good, I am not totally convinced thats all which matters. the compactness, weight, reliability, gun laying sophistication and automation also make a diff. read somewhere the SA army found their G5 to be heavy and unwieldy. we know the FH77 39cal is quite a compact and nimble weapon.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Kartik »

Singha wrote:I think voest alpine and denel both licensed the gerard bull tech and produced these guns. there may not be a direct father-son link between GHN45 and G5 more like sharing a common ancestor. the chinese were the 3rd licensee of this tech.
As per wiki, they indeed did do that..the GC-45 was the fore-runner for the GHN45 design. Source
while the range and ballistics of the gun is good, I am not totally convinced thats all which matters. the compactness, weight, reliability, gun laying sophistication and automation also make a diff. read somewhere the SA army found their G5 to be heavy and unwieldy. we know the FH77 39cal is quite a compact and nimble weapon.
The comparison that Lt. Gen Mayadas gave seemed to indicate that the FH77B lacked the nimble agility of the GHN45 and had issues with slow speed over bad terrain, where the GHN45 was better with its lower CG, 4 main wheels and 2 smaller ones, and the ability to put a track between the 2 main wheels in slushy terrain.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

Kartik wrote:
Singha wrote:I think voest alpine and denel both licensed the gerard bull tech and produced these guns. there may not be a direct father-son link between GHN45 and G5 more like sharing a common ancestor. the chinese were the 3rd licensee of this tech.
As per wiki, they indeed did do that..the GC-45 was the fore-runner for the GHN45 design. Source
while the range and ballistics of the gun is good, I am not totally convinced thats all which matters. the compactness, weight, reliability, gun laying sophistication and automation also make a diff. read somewhere the SA army found their G5 to be heavy and unwieldy. we know the FH77 39cal is quite a compact and nimble weapon.
The comparison that Lt. Gen Mayadas gave seemed to indicate that the FH77B lacked the nimble agility of the GHN45 and had issues with slow speed over bad terrain, where the GHN45 was better with its lower CG, 4 main wheels and 2 smaller ones, and the ability to put a track between the 2 main wheels in slushy terrain.
Interesting read on the Wiki. It looks like 4 of the competitors (Denel, Soltam, Singapore, and Austria) for the Indian Artillery RFP all originated in the 1980s from the Gerald Bull design. Too bad India blacklisted the Bofors artillery it chose because by now, India too would have had its own 155mm guns for exports.
...
Denel continued work on their version of the gun, and these were put into service in South Africa in 1982 as the G5. ...

Noricum, the arms division of Voest-Alpine, purchased the design rights to the GC-45 after SRC moved to Europe. They made a number of detail changes to improve mass production, resulting in the GHN-45 (gun, howitzer, Noricum), which was offered in a variety of options like the APU and fire control systems. The first foreign sale was an order for eighteen guns with ammunition to the Royal Thai Navy for use by their Marine Corps. Other "aboveboard" customers included China, Singapore and Israel. All of these companies worked on local production under a variety of names, the Soltam 845P in Israel, ODE FH-88 from Singapore, and WA 021 in China.[5]
...
The Chinese armed forces also used the NORICUM version, producing it as the Type 89 starting in 1986. They also mounted it on a locally-designed tracked chassis to produce the PLZ-45 (also known as the Type 88), along with an ammo-carrier based on the same chassis. The PLZ-45 did not enter service with the PLA due to costs, primarily because their existing artillery was all based on Soviet-standard 152 mm ammunition.
...
sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 461
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by sohamn »

What on earth was this journalist from IBN thinking??
MISSILE 2 LAST
PTI | 03:04 PM,Apr 29,2012
Other projects being undertaken on priority basis by the Other projects being undertaken on priority basis by the DRDO are Long Range Air-to-Air Missile and Short Range Surface-to-Air Missile. The flight test and production clearance of Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missiles is also on the cards. The DRDO is also planning guided flight of Astra Missile from ground and air in the near future. Operationalisation of the third regiment of BrahMos missile for Army, its integration with Su-30 MKI as also underwater trials from pontoon are also on the priority list. DRDO is also working on early static validation trials of Pinaka MK-II rocket, with an extended range of 60 kms, along with user trials of its warhead. The present range of the Pinaka rocket, launched in clusters of 12 from indigenously-built multi-barrel launcher, is 39-40 km in 40 seconds with 1.2 tons of high explosives. Fitted with a variety of warheads like anti-tank mines and blast-cum-pre-fragmented high explosives, Pinaka can destroy an area of 350 sq kms :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: . Army has already raised two regiments of Pinaka and more are planned. Flight trial of 'Prahar' missile as tactical battlefield surface-to-surface weapon system is also in the pipeline. PTI AKK AD
Did he think Pinaka contains thermonuclear bombs??? :lol: :lol:
Boudhayan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Boudhayan »

sohamn wrote:What on earth was this journalist from IBN thinking??
MISSILE 2 LAST
PTI | 03:04 PM,Apr 29,2012
Other projects being undertaken on priority basis by the Other projects being undertaken on priority basis by the DRDO are Long Range Air-to-Air Missile and Short Range Surface-to-Air Missile. The flight test and production clearance of Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missiles is also on the cards. The DRDO is also planning guided flight of Astra Missile from ground and air in the near future. Operationalisation of the third regiment of BrahMos missile for Army, its integration with Su-30 MKI as also underwater trials from pontoon are also on the priority list. DRDO is also working on early static validation trials of Pinaka MK-II rocket, with an extended range of 60 kms, along with user trials of its warhead. The present range of the Pinaka rocket, launched in clusters of 12 from indigenously-built multi-barrel launcher, is 39-40 km in 40 seconds with 1.2 tons of high explosives. Fitted with a variety of warheads like anti-tank mines and blast-cum-pre-fragmented high explosives, Pinaka can destroy an area of 350 sq kms :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: . Army has already raised two regiments of Pinaka and more are planned. Flight trial of 'Prahar' missile as tactical battlefield surface-to-surface weapon system is also in the pipeline. PTI AKK AD
Did he think Pinaka contains thermonuclear bombs??? :lol: :lol:
Pinaka rockets are known to carry HE warheads and anti tank/anti personnel mines. This was reported multiple times as well as discussed previously. Check wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaka_Mul ... t_Launcher
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by alexis »

Boudhayan wrote:
sohamn wrote:What on earth was this journalist from IBN thinking??
Pinaka rockets are known to carry HE warheads and anti tank/anti personnel mines. This was reported multiple times as well as discussed previously. Check wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaka_Mul ... t_Launcher
I think sohamn was referring to the area - 350 sq. km; not the warhead types.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by member_20317 »

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 1155a3.7b1

N. Korea GPS jamming hits S. Korea flights: Seoul


Implications here for Artillery. I think the first time it is shown to work and that too over a large area.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10388
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Yagnasri »

Is there any tharmo nuke which can destroy 35x10 Km land? I do not think so. Pinaka must be having anti matter or gravitanic war head. Paksi and Pandas better take care :rotfl:
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Aditya G »

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -divisions
NAGPUR: As the wait for modern ultralight howitzers gets longer, the Army has apparently decided to arm its two new mountain divisions on the Indo-China border with the old generation 105 light field guns (LFGs).

The Gun Carriage Factory (GCF) at Jabalpur has bagged an order to supply over 150 units of 105-LFGs to the Army over a period of three years starting from May 2010. A source in the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), who was part of the deal, said the order has been hiked on account of increased deployment on the eastern front.

He added that the 155mm ultra light howitzers, which the Army has been scouting for since 2007, would have been the ideal choice as LFGs have now become an obsolete weapon system. The 105 LFGs have a range of 18km while a howitzer covers over double the distance.

A senior official at GCF Jabalpur said that the order was received in 2010 and so far 100 pieces have been delivered. Another 50 are expected to be dispatched this year. The source confirmed that this was the biggest order in the recent past.

The LFG is derived from the 105 Indian field gun (IFG), developed over three decades ago. Experts say that given the changing scenario, howitzers would be a better option than a field gun. However, procurement of the guns has been mired in controversy.

India intends to buy around 140 howitzer guns. Singapore-based ST Kinetics was shortlisted, but has now been blacklisted after a bribery scandal. In fact, similar scandals have put plans to replenish the artillery inventory too on hold.

Former director general of artillery LT General (retd) Vinay Shanker says that this could be a stop gap arrangement. Although a 105 in a mountainous area cannot be the ideal weapon, but it is still better to have something rather than nothing. The procurement of weapon systems is a lengthy process, as the delivery still takes around five to six years after the order is placed. The 105 LFGs can be replaced by the howitzers when they arrive, he said.

According to Colonel US Rathore (retd), an independent defence analyst, howitzers are the ideal choice in a mountainous frontier. Field guns have a lesser lethality as the shells are not so effective, when the defences have time to be strengthened.

Also, howitzers provide a higher trajectory, which is required in a mountainous area. For achieving the same trajectory in a LFG, it has to be moved further from its original position which leads to a compromise in the range. "The Chinese are known for better defences and bunkers, and a 105 shell may not have the desired impact on certain armoured vehicles too," said Rathore.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by srai »

Aditya G wrote:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -divisions
NAGPUR: As the wait for modern ultralight howitzers gets longer, the Army has apparently decided to arm its two new mountain divisions on the Indo-China border with the old generation 105 light field guns (LFGs).

...

He added that the 155mm ultra light howitzers, which the Army has been scouting for since 2007, would have been the ideal choice as LFGs have now become an obsolete weapon system. The 105 LFGs have a range of 18km while a howitzer covers over double the distance.

...

The LFG is derived from the 105 Indian field gun (IFG), developed over three decades ago. Experts say that given the changing scenario, howitzers would be a better option than a field gun. However, procurement of the guns has been mired in controversy.

...

Former director general of artillery LT General (retd) Vinay Shanker says that this could be a stop gap arrangement. Although a 105 in a mountainous area cannot be the ideal weapon, but it is still better to have something rather than nothing. The procurement of weapon systems is a lengthy process, as the delivery still takes around five to six years after the order is placed. The 105 LFGs can be replaced by the howitzers when they arrive, he said.

According to Colonel US Rathore (retd), an independent defence analyst, howitzers are the ideal choice in a mountainous frontier. Field guns have a lesser lethality as the shells are not so effective, when the defences have time to be strengthened.

Also, howitzers provide a higher trajectory, which is required in a mountainous area. For achieving the same trajectory in a LFG, it has to be moved further from its original position which leads to a compromise in the range. "The Chinese are known for better defences and bunkers, and a 105 shell may not have the desired impact on certain armoured vehicles too," said Rathore.
The IFG/LFG was developed over 3 decades ago ... and no Mk2/3/4/5 etc upgrades to get them to a modern standard and to meet the mountain requirements of the IA? Or to take the next step and develop 155mm howitzer (surely by 3 decades India would have developed it)? How does one expect India to achieve 70%+ indigenization like that?

It's pretty pathetic :roll:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

I always wondered where is the arty for these new divisions

well we have our answer :(


I guess something better than nothing

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

hopefully atleast the battery fire command posts will be fully plugged into IACCS and so on, I read somewhere the better 105mm shells these days offer much better lethality and range , but not clear if the IFG barrels and chambers are capable of taking these up.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

Use of 105mm is a very good idea. Inspite of over-stated obsession about shifting to 155mm guns the whole hog, the 105mm remains very relevant. Its benefits are:-

1. It is available “now”.

2. It is light around 2300kg and the heaviest component is 716kg. Therefore we can use choppers like Dhruv to move it. It need light trunks to tow it, so its travel length is short. It can be emplaces and moved quicky due to its light weight.

3. It has high elevation upto 73 degrees which means it is an howitzer. This gun/howziter was built especially for mountains, for being broken down-transported-then field assembled.

4. The gun and rounds are light enough not to need complicated cranes, hydraulics, assisted loading devices which means gun is simple, rugged, user friendly and give high rate of fire.

5. We have developed more powerful ammunition for it like HEER which will extend its range to 25km alongwith with base bleed. In mountains the effective range would be even higher. In any case, we can supplement this gun with Pinaka and Prahaar for long range work.

6. The main development in Artillery is in electronics, propellants and munitions and we can easily add these technologies including integrate a modern FCS with 105mm gun, if we require.

7. It is a “relatively” modern gun and whether we like it or not, the (mechanical part of) artillery technology moves very slowly and gun of seventies is modern enough. USA, Russia are also using artillery dating back to 1960s technology.

8. We have tremendous experience with 105mm caliber due to Vijyanta and upgunning of T-55.

9. It has low silhouette, there is no need for recoil pit and digging in is easy.

10. US army signed a contract to produce 105mm guns in 1987-9 and the production is scheduled to continue till 2013. Both UK and USA are using 105mm guns in combat in Afghanistan. Indian 105mm shares a lot of features with L118/M119 which is technology of 1960s still being produced till today for use in combat especially mountains.

11. We have mounted wheeled and mounted tracked versions of 105mm howitzer on offer from OFB.

12. Even the light tank of DRDO and supposedly the wheeled/tracked FICV will use 105mm guns.

13. In fact, due to constraints of logistics the 105mm may be better choice in lot of areas in Himalayas.

14. Not to mention one can buy around 100 LFGs with the price of one M777, therefore these guns can be ‘pre-positioned’.
Last edited by vic on 10 May 2012 10:55, 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

Post by Singha »

yeah I was reading yesterday about a 25 min documentary made about a rather unknown road to china just north of walong in arunachal. its only 300km from assam to the 1st chinese town (connected by 4 lane highways there as usual!) vs 1500km from assam to kunming via stillwell road.
such areas need every helicopter down to Dhruvs to be able to airlift artillery and ability to lift the 105mm with Dhruvs is a huge asset IMO as Mi17V can be freed up for other roles.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

What are the differences between Indian Field Gun and Light Field Gun(105mn)??
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

OFB has made something called Apparatus Airlift to airlift the LFG's.

Added later...

Works with M-17 and Seakings.
Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 200
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Snehashis »

Light Field Gun is 1020 Kg lighter than the IFG and as Chacko said OFB has added airlift capability for it.


http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wlc/3.htm
schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by schowdhuri »

vic wrote:Use of 105mm is a very good idea. Inspite of over-stated obsession about shifting to 155mm guns the whole hog, the 105mm remains very relevant.
Valid points, but unfortunately we will end up in a repeat situation like 1971, where our 75/24's could not even dent many of the Pak defenses at Hilli - this is not one of the well know stories of the war.

Of course, as is being pointed out, something is better than nothing.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

Schowdhuri, could you describe some of the paki fortifications in that incident? could 122mm or 220mm rockets of the grad/pinaka type take them down? I suspect the new mountain divs will get extra rations of MLRS to make up for reduced strike power of the 105mm...

another advantage of this LFG is every truck in the IA can tow them and carry the 7 man crew and some shells , specialized trucks not needed.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

Please correct me if wrong but why should field artillery take out hardened fortifications?
Aren't LACM, Air launched Guided munitions used for that reason?
IMO LFG will be primarily used to slow down enemy movements and logistics.
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by D Roy »

1. type of targets 2. numbers 3. hence cost/benefit - something no military planning can avoid taking into account.

LACM will be used for high value targets and area targets. Calling in airstrikes every now and then is also out of the question. the number of LGBs one has is also finite. besides there are plenty of over the hill targets that are best held at risk with high angle artillery fire.

There are a huge number of small/smallish bunkers , pill boxes etc which should ideally be done in with artillery. But in the mountains, natural cover + new construction techniques have created a situation where 105 mm may not be especially effective, plus as pointed out it is not a howitzer but a field gun.

this is precisely why n.korea has invested so much into 170mm artillery over the years and s. korea still keeps in its inventory some M 107s (175mm). even 155mm in some cases cannot do the job and CAS/interdiction won't do it either. Not to mention that the CAS may not even be available at times.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by vic »

There will always be fortifications or underground bunkers which cannot be taken out even by 155mm shells. In any case, if 155mm gun cannot reach it then it cannot destroy it. 105mm can be transported to areas difficult for 155mm. Lastly Pinaka will always be there to do heavy duty role.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

between 1991 economic crisis and kargil war aftermath, other than the Sukhoi deal did the army, navy, AF sign any other major deals?
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

T-90 , Gorshkov (was on table) , Barak to name a few.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Philip »

The May issue of the "F" mag has ana rticle by Lt.Gen.BS Pawar (retd.),former Commandant of the School of Artillery,"Obsolete Technology",on the woeful situ regd. our big guns,that the only silver lining is that 180 Russian 130mm guns are being upgraded to 155mm/45 cal with Israeli kits from Soltam,giving an enhanced range upto 39km.Further acquisitions from stocks held by ex-Soviet republics are on the anvil as an interim option which will involve Indian pvt. industry.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Vipul »

IIRC, there was a report earlier about plans for buying 800 more 130mm Guns.Also OFB was going to up-gun more 130mm guns from Soltam kits.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Inspite of over-stated obsession about shifting to 155mm guns the whole hog, the 105mm remains very relevant
Its not an obsession

We are pathetically equipped with 155 arty and arty is the one which causes the most casualties and we need them aplenty

Khan needs 105s in limited scenarios of mobility - they have plenty of 155 mm and higher for us to be compared to them

I am fine if the 150 guns were in addition to 155 mms but solely relying on 105s inspite of better fire control is not enough.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

Surya, Better to raise the batteries and then upgun them once 155mm is available. Other wise the MSC is non starter.

vic the tank guns and these are different technologies. So those points 8 & 12 don't apply.

I would like to know what type 105mm ammo and new fuzes are there for India and in the world.
Post Reply