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.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Shrinivasan » 13 Dec 2012 10:57

Rohit Miyan... hats off to your grasp of IA's Arty TOE.. didn't understand the difference between Light and Field Regiments... maybe you need to describe this further in your blog post... thanks...

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8492
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 13 Dec 2012 11:16

A noob pooch to all the guru logs. We see alot of developments in the 155 mm space. But almost every one is silent WRT. The 8 inch guns. IIRC, the IA has never operated such a gun as well. Nor has it demonstrated any interest in it. What could be the reason why, modern arty is not keen on 8 inch guns.

PS. I use 8 inch in place of 203 mm.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 13 Dec 2012 11:46

203 mm guns became rather vulnerable to counterbattery fire with the rise of modern counterbattery radars since the 70s.

In terms of economics and survivability the 155 mm was found to be optimal. 203 mm was usually built in smaller numbers for specialist roles where you might want to penetrate a buried enclosure in say mountainous Korea etc.

203 mm shells would also make nice targets for today's C-RAM systems which use adaptations of counterbattery radars. And given the sustained rate of fire that 203 mm would achieve I would put my money behind a 35 mm gun slaved to a radar.
even something like the 2S7 Pion didn't make that much sense when you look at rate of fire, propellant requirements, detectability, logistics etc and what it could bring in terms of firepower improvement. And range is no longer a factor either.

schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby schowdhuri » 13 Dec 2012 15:32

WE have had the 105 SP discussion before - why do you think the Abbot SP was retired, that to so many years back, and the continuous struggle with Catapult SP etc right from the 80's?

105 SP got outdated over 3 decades back.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 13 Dec 2012 15:53

With regards to the GCF guns, St. Anthony was on record to say that IA would order 140 nos. of the 155/39 cal guns, which were supposed to be undergoing user trials and then order a similar number of 155/45 cal guns, once their user trials are finished in 2013.
This was mentioned sometime in September/October timeframe.

Offcourse the orders would depend on the trials being successful.

I don't know if IA has finished conducting the user trials of the 155/39 cal guns or not. It appears, that IA will probably not order the 155/39 cal guns, but will order 155/45 version as a stop gap measure and also to keep the OFB and MOD bosses happy. The order could be in the range of 140-300 guns.

What is intriguing is that OFB had shown a 155/45 cal upgraded version of the Bofors guns years ago, post Kargil. However, at the time nothing about the same was mentioned and the option was never picked up. It would seem that OFB had developed the upgraded gun, but with the endless trials of imported artillery underway, IA was hoping to get the best available guns in the world and did not show any interest in the OFB option, even as a stop gap measure.
The display of the 155/45 cal Bofors gun and the manufacture of spares for the existing inventory of Bofors guns, clearly demonstrated that OFB had the know how to manufacture the barrels for 155 mm high performance howitzers.
The IA perhaps doubting the QC levels of OFB and wanting new imported maal, did not follow up on this option.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 13 Dec 2012 18:43

I dont know the fetish for 155/52 towed. none of these domestic efforts are going to attain maturity before a few yrs. until then any form of 155/39 or 155/45 should be welcomed with open arms.

just like the top speed of a fighter or the highest wet thrust of a engine means little outside of a 2% corner case, so too these "older" gen tech are most useful.

Cheen wouldnt mind pounding the living crap out of us by bringing forward a arsenal of 122mm and 130mm "outdated" guns with 1960s tech.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 13 Dec 2012 20:24

Chicom is very clear headed about all this.

despite having GC-45 inputs from Gerald Bull who they had hired as a consultant, Chicom happily copied whatever they could from the MSTA-S and came out with the PLZ-04. apparently they also have a 54 caliber version called PLZ-05.

copied from the BMP-3 and came up with the ZBD-97. after persevering for years with BMP-1 level tech.
they continue to modernize their 122mm types and have tracked SPHs of this calibre.. Although the original D-30 wasn't the best of guns.

they are also pretty happy with 100 mm 'wheeled guns on different chassis that can also fire gun-launched ATGMs.

Chicom AF's entire 15th airborne corps is going to be equipped with basically VDV gear like BMD-3 clones.
despite all the new money, Chicom ground force has basically bought and cloned russki stuff and created all kinds of derivative of the WZ-551 etc.

Chicom's one non russki clone is the new wheeled ZBD-09 8x8 that may have west european inputs.


Of course if we get our artillery modernization right and I think we will now, Chicom's current Orbat is toast.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 13 Dec 2012 20:34

Shrinivasan wrote:Rohit Miyan... hats off to your grasp of IA's Arty TOE.. didn't understand the difference between Light and Field Regiments... maybe you need to describe this further in your blog post... thanks...


Shrini, Light Regt. have Heavy Mortars as std equipment (120mm)
Field Regts typically are equipped with 105mm IFG/LFG. Mountain Regts have LFG as standard equipment though there were also 76mm and 75/24 guns. Not sure if they are still there or not
Medium Regts have M-46 130mm or FH77B 155mm (and now some upgunned 155mm M-46)
IIRC, there was 1 Heavy Regt though not sure if the caliber was 8" or something around that

So you see, the difference is fundamentally the caliber of the guns between Field/Mountain and Medium Regts. Heavy mortars are highly effective in anti infantry role in particular since they can pick out troops hiding behind hills and embankments which is not possible in case of field guns...

schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby schowdhuri » 13 Dec 2012 21:51

Ajay Sharma wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:Rohit Miyan... hats off to your grasp of IA's Arty TOE.. didn't understand the difference between Light and Field Regiments... maybe you need to describe this further in your blog post... thanks...


Field Regts typically are equipped with 105mm IFG/LFG. Mountain Regts have LFG as standard equipment though there were also 76mm and 75/24 guns. Not sure if they are still there or not
Medium Regts have M-46 130mm or FH77B 155mm (and now some upgunned 155mm M-46)
IIRC, there was 1 Heavy Regt though not sure if the caliber was 8" or something around that


The 75/24 was a useless weapon, as was discovered to our cost in places like Hilli in '71 (Yes, I know that it did wonders in few places like Asal Uttar, but those are exceptions). Are you talking about the Yugoslav 76mm - that was pathetic even compared to the 75/24, and was a predecessor to the latter (though it continued in service till the 80's).

The 7.2 inch heavy gun also could not be used properly and was phased out.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 13 Dec 2012 21:56

are you referring to the 180 mm S-23s?

schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby schowdhuri » 13 Dec 2012 22:29

D Roy wrote:are you referring to the 180 mm S-23s?


No, This one (there is one lying in NDA, if anyone has visited that place, close to the Mig-21):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_7.2-inch_howitzer
Image

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 13 Dec 2012 22:32

Aah.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 13 Dec 2012 22:51

schowdhuri wrote:The 75/24 was a useless weapon, as was discovered to our cost in places like Hilli in '71 (Yes, I know that it did wonders in few places like Asal Uttar, but those are exceptions). Are you talking about the Yugoslav 76mm - that was pathetic even compared to the 75/24, and was a predecessor to the latter (though it continued in service till the 80's).

The 7.2 inch heavy gun also could not be used properly and was phased out.


Agree to your comment about the 75/24 and the Yugoslav 76mm... Though personally I found the 75/24 very cute and compact

IIRC, 76mm were called "kaanphod" by gunners because of its loud bang... But then again it was "All F##t and No Sh#t..." :lol:

I guess Arty's experience with these guns would have surely firmed their belief for larger caliber guns as part of the FARP requirements

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby bhavani » 14 Dec 2012 23:12

germany is disbanding its last dedicated artillery regiment. Germany has a nice number of Phz-2000 guns in storage and is currently disbanding a few more.

It would be a great addition, if we can pick up around 100-200 of these guns at a greatly reduced rate.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Dec 2012 02:01

bhavani wrote:germany is disbanding its last dedicated artillery regiment. Germany has a nice number of Phz-2000 guns in storage and is currently disbanding a few more.

It would be a great addition, if we can pick up around 100-200 of these guns at a greatly reduced rate.

The German Bundeswehr itself has only 185 guns of which its storing 31 guns for upgrade to its AGM program, according to wikipedia

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 15 Dec 2012 03:18

say hypothetically you got the haubitze. The problem is they'll have to be maintained (the gun) by rheinmetall defence which as we know is banned for a period of 10 years from participating in the Indian market.

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pentaiah » 15 Dec 2012 04:00

then why did we not tinker with yugo thoop and fix and or improve?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 15 Dec 2012 08:22

rheinmetall makes the gun of PZh2k and same turret+gun seems to be on Donar.
KMW makes the Pzh2k chassis , while general dynamics land systems provides the tracked vehicle of Donar(same as the famous MLRS)
if rheinmetall is banned how come the Pzh and Donar are considered even contenders in any context here?

imo we should have cleaned up this mess long ago and run with
- OFB made towed 39 and 45 cals immediately
- OFB made towed 52 cal later with some TOT perhaps from BAE
- one of the Tata/M&M/AL foreign tieup offerings for the tracked role
- Archer for the truck role - it beat all other contenders and is owned by BAE defence - so "narendra modi" tag of bofors is not there, its fully secular and pro-islampasand only now.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 15 Dec 2012 10:07

Singha wrote:...
- Archer for the truck role - it beat all other contenders and is owned by BAE defence -...

What? I thought it didn't even qualify for the wheeled artillery contract?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 15 Dec 2012 10:44

its beyond my ability to understand all this, but the below link is a good tracker for all news related to artillery deals
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mur ... soon-0805/

what I understand now is we have the towed gun situation under control with both domestic 155mm and the M777 deals cleared. product delivery should start flowing in a couple years.

meantime the wheeled and tracked thing drags on...

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pentaiah » 15 Dec 2012 20:01

Why not
Image

The above for Tibet special

Image[/url]

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 15 Dec 2012 20:17

There is school of thought that 52 caliber is too long for easy road transport, hence is not needed.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3434
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 16 Dec 2012 07:04

Singha wrote:- one of the Tata/M&M/AL foreign tieup offerings for the tracked role



Isn't the Tata one for trucked role? :-?

And what about the one from Kalyani Forge? is it not for the 52 cal towed role?

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 16 Dec 2012 08:45

vic wrote:There is school of thought that 52 caliber is too long for easy road transport, hence is not needed.


Have to agree looking at those huge barrels. Not just sharp corners and small roads in mountains but a lot of indian roads go through small congested towns with no bypass....to move a pzh through that lot a entire town has to go indoors and a bunch of guys stand with bamboo poles to lift all sorts of low hanging wires strung across the road.

For iraqi desert it might be great, not so for many of our conditions. I feel 45 cal and 39 cal mix is better but then i have never commanded a artillery unit so can afford to be creative :rotfl:

And why stop at 52 if its range you want. 55 cal guns are standard in naval ships like usn and are of 5" caliber. Glue one of them to a truck and do the ergm thing on land.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 16 Dec 2012 09:56

Chicom PLZ-05 is 54 caliber.

The norks seem to be comfortable with things like the 170 mm Koksan.

member_23651
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_23651 » 16 Dec 2012 12:36

indranilroy wrote:
AnantS wrote:OT: one thing I am really curious about is: whether Tata 8x8 has all wheel independent suspension like Tatra or not?

I was also very interested to know about this. However, if you are speaking of the half axles in the Tatra, then I don't think that TATA's LPTAs have similar suspension.

Most probably the LPTAs have the suspension from TACO Henderickson.

A list of 8X8s here.

Thanks Indranil, no I didnt expect Tata vehicle to sport half axel. Courtesy Kunal Biswas, from this post http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?89961-Indian-Armed-Forces&p=6484066&viewfull=1#post6484066 what I gather it has independent suspension, with semi swing axels.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/540/tata1x.jpg

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 16 Dec 2012 13:04

Chicom artillery has to operate in tibet which has 1 notable city in an area the size of India. they could make a 75 cal piece and it would work.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 16 Dec 2012 13:14

and how many cities do we have in Ar P? or in Ladakh.

Project vartak demonstrated that you can transport quite a bit along the srinagar-Leh highway.

Korea is mountainous as well.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 16 Dec 2012 18:48

Compare the wide open spaces of tibet to our mountain roads where during kargil the trucks towing the bofors apparently had to wiggle around some turns. They can bring in heavy weapons on railways to lhasa and the use further railways they are building parallel to the border to induct.
There are few if any bottlenecks in tibet coming from the north.
Same goes for bringing in anything into aksai chin.

Being heavier these uber arty pieces will no doubt damage our roads more as well, and safety margins on weak and unstable roads will be less.

I would go with roti,rice and meat than sit around years for pasta and meatballs. Dont want to starve our men of eqpt while unobtainium is mined.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 16 Dec 2012 20:56

Singha wrote:
vic wrote:There is school of thought that 52 caliber is too long for easy road transport, hence is not needed.


Have to agree looking at those huge barrels. Not just sharp corners and small roads in mountains but a lot of indian roads go through small congested towns with no bypass....to move a pzh through that lot a entire town has to go indoors and a bunch of guys stand with bamboo poles to lift all sorts of low hanging wires strung across the road.

For iraqi desert it might be great, not so for many of our conditions. I feel 45 cal and 39 cal mix is better but then i have never commanded a artillery unit so can afford to be creative :rotfl:

And why stop at 52 if its range you want. 55 cal guns are standard in naval ships like usn and are of 5" caliber. Glue one of them to a truck and do the ergm thing on land.

There are ways to mitigate this length problem. Note the retracting barrel of the Bofors Archer system.
Anyways, every day on the way to work I watch those ultra long 3-axle BMTC Vlovo buses turning in the tiny intersections near ITPL. And that makes me a little more optimistic than you are 8) .

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 16 Dec 2012 22:27

Dont want to starve our men of eqpt while unobtainium is mined.


It is not unobtanium. FH-77 mobility in those places has already been demonstrated. 52 cal is not that much longer ( at all). I will leave it here.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2012 08:17

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... %282009%29

this page has a analysis of North korean artillery pieces, tactical missiles and google earth analysis of their fortifications and defensive lines.

---
seems like a lot of outdated pieces but in high volume. in a surprise attack they could cause a lot of localized damage near the border, but I guess the new family of small GPS guided weapons launched in bulk like SDB (even a F16 can easily carry 16) will take them apart, along with heavier munitions delivered by MLRS batteries from well out of noko artillery range. any prep work for a war would be hard to conceal in terms of movement of men and materials, increased electronic traffic,.....Soko would be having enough assets in Noko to get a few days warning and mobilize.

imo Soko-Khan would likely bypass the maginot line at the border and use USMC/ROK marines to launch amphibious invasions on both the west and east coast, totally dislocating the defensive plan and driving directly for pyongyang in a modified version of deep battle.

attempts by Noko to use the roads in hilly areas could be easily detected and blocked...most of the maginot line would not be able to redeploy back to defend their dear leader or more likely once its known dear leader is about to be arrested they will throw their arms and make a run for south ko as fast as they can! :idea:

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 18 Dec 2012 08:29

Singha wrote:
imo Soko-Khan would likely bypass the maginot line at the border and use USMC/ROK marines to launch amphibious invasions on both the west and east coast, totally dislocating the defensive plan and driving directly for pyongyang in a modified version of deep battle.


Soko feel about NoKo in the same biraderly way Han Taiwanese feel about Chicoms, and Indian WKKs feel about Pakistan. In all cases one side is ready to use nukes. NoKo will never be invaded by Khan because of nukes. China will never invade Taiwan. India will never invade Pakistan.

If you scratch the surface you find American arms aid holding back China in two places and India in one place. Only in the case of Pakistan do the US and China see eye to eye so Pakistan gets aid from both China and the US

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2012 11:14

the much feared 170mm koksan SP gun supposed to rain death on Seoul seems to be antique wooden sword kind of deal.
here is some sample captured in iraq it looks like. its clearly more gun than the puny SP vehicle can handle and carries 12 rds per reports , has no automatic loader.

a modern turret like T5 of Denel or Pzh carries around 70-80 rds and charges, and semi-automatic loading. plus the base vehicles are sized to keep the gun stable.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 18 Dec 2012 11:16

D Roy wrote:
Dont want to starve our men of eqpt while unobtainium is mined.


It is not unobtanium. FH-77 mobility in those places has already been demonstrated. 52 cal is not that much longer ( at all). I will leave it here.



Scania truck is around 2.5 mtr wide,
Merc Benz 3 axle bus is around 2.7 mtr wide,
Archer Artillery system truck is around 3 mtr wide.

And Indian Border roads in Himalayas are very winding very narrow at several places with rather poor quality construction. I have seen this in both Uttarakhand and Himanchal Pradesh.

When people from plains think of Border roads they think of Rohtang Tunnel type projects with 8 to 10 mtr width but these are few and far while all you need to get a tired out retreating force and an advancing column of counter attack or defensive replinshments to deny each other road space is one or two bottlenecks every few kilometers.

In the narrow Himalayan roads even the normal lengths that are easily dealth with in plains become a painful excercise.

Baaki sab theek hai.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2012 11:27

most of these roads will have to be operated on one way basis using alternating convoys I think. looking at an image of the road near SeLa pass enroute to tawang from BomdiLa makes a think even two trucks can only pass each other very carefully. X-wide vehicles like archer or the smerch TEL just cannot think of going on such roads.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_auU6C6IQP2s/T ... ted-96.jpg

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 18 Dec 2012 11:35

That is true Singha ji,

Even worse is the fact that all you need is just one or two such bottlenecks every few km. The whole road does not even has to be that narrow.

Exactly like in cities where a flyover and elevated highway and toll roads are made which one can just flyover only to land in a big jam at the next urban village. Delhi walas would be familiar with Munirka, Naraina, Sultanpur gaon on MG road and many more.

What is the point of throwing so much money around when you can do it cheaper. Cheaper implies better numbers implies better redundancy implies faster movements and so on ...

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2012 11:47

how are the roads in the high alps in europe? have the euros (at great cost) managed to create world class wide roads at similar elevations?
what about colorado in US?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Dec 2012 12:20

ravi_g wrote:That is true Singha ji,

Even worse is the fact that all you need is just one or two such bottlenecks every few km. The whole road does not even has to be that narrow.<SNIP>


Well, the bottleneck argument applies equally to any other weapon system or truck or other stuff being transported across these roads? PLA can blow these roads up and restrict the movement of anything and everything to forward areas? So, why the whine against only the guns?

Before we comment on this road problem and length of the towed guns - what is the difference between the traveling length of 52 Cal and 45 Cal and 39 Cal guns? The difference is not more than couple of feet...more often than not, the Combat length (when deployed) is almost same for them. The shortest combat length out there is for M-777 with 31 feet. Indian 105mm LFG has travel length of under 20 feet. But in all the above cases, the guns are towed.

A mounted gun system (like CAESAR from NEXTER) with gun+tractor length of <40 feet and weight less than 20 tonnes might be the answer. And that is why I asked if IA has any weight or dimension specification with respect to the towed guns - the NEXTER and ATMOS are mounted on more nimble trucks when compared to TATA SED giant. And them are 155/52 Cal guns.

BTW, this argument about road width reminds me of T-90+bridge+weight argument by the Natasha lobby - but used other way around. The solution is to invest in infra and make better roads - which will have far wide ranging positive impact on every aspect of war-fighting - than want to induct shorter guns with less travel length.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 18 Dec 2012 12:50

rohitvats ji, right now at least I cannot see anybody whining.

Guns are in issue now because guns are the river we need to cross hence we have a decision point for ourselves. People can surely decide about the wisedom of a decision taken by somebody else.

And its a yes to every point of yours in the first para. Which is what set me thinking in the first place. I came to the conclusion that anything beyond 30-35 km can only be dealt with by guided rockets type weaponery.

I would love to take this forward. I am a patient man hope you do not get riled easily. Unfortunately too much on hand rigth now.

Peace bro :)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests