Artillery Discussion Thread

[Ramesh]

Even though Artillery is not Small Arms, since the issue was raised, I will clarify.

The Arty Bde, which is a part of the Div, has three Field Regiments and one Medium Regiment.

Each Regiment has three Batteries and each battery has two troops and each troop has 3 guns.

Brigades do not have arty integral to it. Usually one Regt from the Div Arty is affiliated to it.

The guns are never left 'idle' in any operation.

The are in direct support to the unit/ formation in action and the other guns are in indirect support and some formation/ units can have guns at priority call.

To put it in simple terms,

1. 'in direct support' means the guns are dedicated to the unit/ formation for its operation and Observation Post officers are provided by this unit in direct support.

2. 'In indirect support' means if the guns of the units in indirect support are not being used, it can be directed to fire in support of the unit in indirect support.

3. At 'Priority call' means that in case there are two units wanting the fire of guns in indirect support, the unit in the attack/ defence which has the priority call will get the fire over the other unit wanting the fire support.

MBRL is not a part of Div Arty.

Arty that comes from outside the Div resources is called Reinforcing Arty.

[Ramesh]

Ray Sahib, thanks for the offer. The Light Regiments - as artillery regiments - has 12 120mm mortars apiece didn't they and at one time there were about 40 of them.

Subseqently - in the 1990s - they were sort of removed from the ORBAT of the infantry divisions artillery brigades. There was some suggestion that the said weapons could be assigned to infantry battalions on an ad hoc basis. Right now the OFB has developed an improved 81mm mortar with a max range of 7300m and a new long range 120mm with an HE bomb range of 10km but the latter was rejected in favour of a Soltam design with a range of 9km. While the 120mm mortar is way too large for any mountain infantry units, and may well remain an artillery weapon, is there any possibility of the weapons being assigned to augment the firepower of the infantry battalions in the plains ?

Your point about the manpower and logistics aspects are part of the reason for the quandry over the light regiments. I was told once that they had been converted into light batteries - one wonders if those were merged into regmients of 18 or something.

The value of a 120mm mortar is undeniable. The question is whether the infantry or the artillery should use it.

The 120mm Mor range is 7125yds or 6515m. The weight of the shell is 13.2 kgs, it effective lethal area 32m and safety distance in war is 320m (overhead) and 300m (Enfilade).

81mm Mortar maximum range Charge 8 is 5300m and effective Killing Zone is 90m. The weight of the shell is 4.2kgs.

The requirement of a weapon system is to ensure at each stage of the battle there is:

1. an appropriate weapon system that can take on the attacking enemy or the enemy's defence (in case we are attacking);

2. and appropriate destroying power for his various equipment. Tanks will require minimum of a medium shell and so would bunkers.

3. and wherever feasible have multiple weapon cover.

The difference between 120 vs 81mm is marginal when compared to the fact that it will release manpower for let us say, additional arty regiments. 120mm has to be carried by mules in mountains, while 81mm is man portable as it weighs 42 kgs.

Given the fact that owing to better roads and prime movers, (Bofors can move without its prime mover some distance and hence shoot and scoot) even medium guns can go into the mountains which are more lethal and has longer range than 120mm Mortars, what would be preferable? 120mm Mors or medium guns like the Bofor?

If 120mms are given to the Infantry, where will the manpower come from?

If 120mm is with the infantry and they are not man portable, how will it be taken where it is required?

The issue must be addressed holistically.

[Ramesh]

is there widespread use of mortars fixed inside BMP chassis as a cheap form
of SP mobile artillery for close infantry support ? what would be the pros and
cons of this approach vs using the 105mm truck mounted concept (Tata power showed a prototype iirc) except range?
there are even bomblet and sensor fused mortar shells on the world market
though the short range => the enemy armour would already be too close for
comfort when these can be brought to bear.

[Ramesh]

is there widespread use of mortars fixed inside BMP chassis as a cheap form
of SP mobile artillery for close infantry support ? what would be the pros and
cons of this approach vs using the 105mm truck mounted concept (Tata power showed a prototype iirc) except range?
there are even bomblet and sensor fused mortar shells on the world market
though the short range => the enemy armour would already be too close for
comfort when these can be brought to bear.

The safety distances required for Mortars (even in war) for attacking infantry makes field artillery a better option.

Only medium shells in direct hits are effective against tanks.

[Ramesh]

@Sanjay: The Light Regiments had/have(?) two batteries of 6 guns each.

[Ramesh]

Rohitvats, that's correct. Thing about the waste - a full regiment commanded by a Colonel with 12 mortars.

Ray Sahib, two new mortar types with different range profiles are entering production. The 120mm and the 81mm we use at present are based on Brandt designs. The follow on designs are based on the Brandt 81mm long-range mortar and a new Israeli Soltam design respectively. The range profiles change pretty substantially. How long it will take for these designs to replace the substantial existing stock is another story.

Again, the BSF is alleged to have substantial numbers of 120mm mortars just lying in storage - I wonder if the same is true of the army ?

[Nitesh]

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/natwa ... a/420766/0
In a passing reference, Singh said Gandhi had told him that Shankaranand had been "rewarded" for his "help" in the Bofors Joint Parliamentary Committee over which he had presided.

"Rajiv (Gandhi) told me that he (Shankaranand) had been rewarded for his help in the Bofors JPC," he said.

So indeed there is something

[Rahul M]

Ashu, thanks a lot !! that was really well done.
my sincerest thanks once again.

[Ramesh]

Thank You.

[ramana]

Please accept mine too. From now on we bifurcate the two arms to prevent loss of info.

Thanks,
ramana

[RayC]

Open new ones for Infantry, Signals, EME, Engrs, Pro, etc?

[Ramesh]

Sir,
Very few discussion that takes place on artillery and when it happens, the chain of discussion related to armour is broken. Hence, this request was made in the site suggestion thread. Darwin's law will take over in few weeks, but at the end of it there will remain a pure armour thread.
Regards

P.S: If discussion related to Signals or EME etc were to crop in the small arms thread, i will request mods for permission to start a new thread for same.

This action of mine has invited your wrath, i appologise for the same.

[Rahul M]

RayC sir,
I feel that here on BR we have too small a number of knowledgeable people to discuss the individual branches of the forces separately as you suggested.

as a result, we usually end up discussing the tech side of gizmos rather than the branch itself.
probably a reflection of the fact that most participants have engn background rather than a military one.
this is evident in the thread titles too, e.g small arms(rather than infantry), missiles (rather than the respective formations) and so on.

That said, it would of course be great if you could start and sustain threads on the said topics, it would give armchair experts like us a chance to learn !

Rahul.

[ramana]

The idea is not the branch of the IA but the goods that branch has! The old thread was losing focus in the Arjun duels. the earlier idea to club them together was harbrained as one thought both are guns. Looks liek a total different issues.

Rahul M this post is relevant to this thread....

Lots of stuff on arty and air defense guns.

Vikek from defensenews.com reports that many deals have been cancelled this year and 1 billion USD may be returned.
Url

NEW DELHI - Despite efforts to speed up arms programs and finalize large purchases, the Indian Defence Ministry will return $1 billion that it was unable to use as planned in the fiscal year that ends March 31.

Ministry officials, fearing criticism from the military and political leaders, tried to speed procurement ahead of this year's general elections. In 2008, bids worth about $9 billion were floated, some of which resulted from cancellation of earlier bids. Most had been pending for two to three years due to delays.

"The process of acquisition had slowed down over the last three to four years," said S.V. Thapaliyal, a retired Indian Army major general. "Now there is a political compulsion to show results in view of forthcoming elections. Although a number of requests for proposals [RfPs] have been issued, the acquisition process is so slow and complicated that most of the acquisitions will only materialize in two to three years' time."

"Procurement of the required weapon systems is only a small part of the defense planning process - the whole process is flawed in execution," said Gurmeet Kanwal, retired Indian Army brigadier and director of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, here. "Bureaucratic red tape must be eliminated through empowered committees, rather than according to a case-by-case approval on files that bounce back and forth endlessly. Prolonged trials are another chokepoint; a system of accountability should be instituted to ensure that trials are completed on time."

Other defense analysts said that the pile-up of RfPs began long ago.

"The cumulative pile is not just over the past three to four years, but goes back at least two decades," said independent defense analyst Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier. "The ideal acquisition schedule projects requirements at least 15 to 20 years in advance. That is the aim of having long-term integrated plans. But for the past few years, not having bought any weapons worth the name, the government is now rushing, driven by a post-Mumbai paranoia."

Swaran Singh, professor for diplomacy and disarmament at Jawaharlal Nehru University here, said the sudden big numbers of RfPs are due to a recent sharp surge of economic activity.

"Since the late 1990s, the Indian economy has had impressive growth rates, enabling the UPA government to prioritize weapon purchases, which appears like a sudden burst of RfPs floated in recent years," he said.

India plans to buy more than $30 billion in arms over the next five years to fight the low-intensity war in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir, head off terror attacks in cities, and prepare for potential battle with Pakistan or China.

Program Status


In the near term, there is some hope for fast-track purchases of smaller items, including fast interceptor craft, hovercrafts and patrol boats for the Coast Guard. The government also will finalize major deals in the next two to three months, a senior Defence Ministry official said.

India expects within two to three months to sign its largest deal ever with Israel, a $3 billion-plus joint effort to develop a medium-range, surface-to-air missile, sources said.

The big-ticket bids floated in 2008 include $2 billion for 100 tracked howitzers, 48 ultra-light howitzers and 185 wheeled howitzers. The Army also sought to procure armored fighting vehicle protection and countermeasure systems worth $270 million, and floated a tender for the joint development of a laser-based directed infrared countermeasure system. The Army's quest for quick-reaction, surface-to-air missiles for $1.4 billion received a poor response; overseas vendors asked for requirements changes.

Other major tenders included a $2 billion bid from the Navy and Coast Guard for maritime patrol aircraft, a $750 million global bid to buy 197 reconnaissance and surveillance helicopters, and a $2 billion effort to upgrade Mirage fighters.

A $1 billion deal to replace the Russian-made Shilka air defense system has drawn no bidders, though Russia has offered licensed production of the Shilka system as a separate arrangement. India also may cancel a bid to procure 266 general guidance munitions in the 1,000-kilogram class compatible with Mirage-2000H/TH aircraft, because the Defence Research and Development Organization claims it can manufacture the munitions itself, Defence Ministry sources said.

The Defence Ministry canceled a bid to purchase a successor to the Swedish-made L-70 air defense guns because only the state-owned Ordnance Factories Board, in partnership with Rheinmetall Defense of Germany, had submitted the bid. The $1.2 billion contract to buy transportable radars is also heading for cancellation as Rafael was the only bidder.

[dorai]

Hi guys I've lurked this great board for a while and thought of making a contribution about the Bofors guns and their current operational capability which I think often is under-estimated in media as well as the sense how the gov won't buy from BAE-Bofors for tired old reasons.

I got these articles from a Swedish friend here. I appologise if it's old news (I know it is but I mean old for this board...):

12:19 | Wednesday, September 10, 2008

India important for Bofors

India is again Bofors largest customer, so far this year has purchased spare parts for 800 million. Before the end of the year the amount may be up to one billion, writes Dagens Industri. . Business with India secures jobs in Karlskoga, but need not lead to the hiring of new Bofors employees to any significant extent, "says Goran Karlsson who is Marketing Manager at BAE Systems.

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/varmland/nyhet ... el=2304023

Year before:

05:47 | Thursday, November 22, 2007
Bofors sells for billions to India

BAE Systems Bofors in Karlskoga sell spare parts to India for a couple of hundred million per year and it could be even more. CEO Magnus Ingesson estimates that the spare parts sales to India will be worth two billion kroner over the next five years, writes Dagens Industri.
These are spare parts to the field howitzers which Bofors sold to India in the late 80s.

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/orebro/nyheter ... el=1731695

So already during 2007-2008 India bought FH spare parts for over 1000 million Skr (US$ 125 million) and the CEO believes it will double next few years. 250 million USD just in spare parts is not a small sum. Since this is happening maybe the talk about a Bofors ghost is a bit overhyped and only an excuse in the media?

That news is from Swedish Radio. Best rgds.

[ajay_ijn]

India is again Bofors largest customer, so far this year has purchased spare parts for 800 million. Before the end of the year the amount may be up to one billion, writes Dagens Industri.

this is surprising. buying spares makes us largest customer of Bofors?, then what will be case if India awards multibillion dollar Arty contract to Bofors. what about Swedish miltary, don't they order anything from bofors?

[AmitR]

India is again Bofors largest customer, so far this year has purchased spare parts for 800 million. Before the end of the year the amount may be up to one billion, writes Dagens Industri.

this is surprising. buying spares makes us largest customer of Bofors?, then what will be case if India awards multibillion dollar Arty contract to Bofors. what about Swedish miltary, don't they order anything from bofors?

With all that money India could have started licensed production of Bofors obviating the need for more expensive and time consuming imports. Strange are the ways of Indian defence establishment.

[RayC]

RayC sir,
I feel that here on BR we have too small a number of knowledgeable people to discuss the individual branches of the forces separately as you suggested.

as a result, we usually end up discussing the tech side of gizmos rather than the branch itself.
probably a reflection of the fact that most participants have engn background rather than a military one.
this is evident in the thread titles too, e.g small arms(rather than infantry), missiles (rather than the respective formations) and so on.

That said, it would of course be great if you could start and sustain threads on the said topics, it would give armchair experts like us a chance to learn !

Rahul.

I would beg to disagree.

While in the Army, we are all consumed with our immediate arm and the daily problems.

I have learnt more of the Army from these forums and I have always asked my officers (still in the army) to visit these forums,

The information available in these forums, even if half baked, is colossal and mind activating!

[ajay_ijn]

RayC sir,
I feel that here on BR we have too small a number of knowledgeable people to discuss the individual branches of the forces separately as you suggested.

as a result, we usually end up discussing the tech side of gizmos rather than the branch itself.
probably a reflection of the fact that most participants have engn background rather than a military one.
this is evident in the thread titles too, e.g small arms(rather than infantry), missiles (rather than the respective formations) and so on.

That said, it would of course be great if you could start and sustain threads on the said topics, it would give armchair experts like us a chance to learn !

Rahul.

I would beg to disagree.

While in the Army, we are all consumed with our immediate arm and the daily problems.

I have learnt more of the Army from these forums and I have always asked my officers (still in the army) to visit these forums,

The information available in these forums, even if half baked, is colossal and mind activating!

they probably would get bored, i mean 24X7 serving in Army, they would want to see bollywood movies or visit some place than reading the same Army n stuff.

but do personnel talk about Arjun, T-90 as much as we see in forums? do they argue, compare? or they would pass their free time making fun of DRDO products? , i always wanted to know this 'inside' (of Army) opinion on DRDO products especially Arjun.
do they keep track of arms aquisitions of India and latest tech developments like in this forum? not just Army but for AF, Navy too. do they get angry with delays in Govt aquisitions?

[sum]

Bit OT but:

they would pass their free time making fun of DRDO products?

I know for a fact after interacting with many IN officers, most of whom were my dad's colleagues( many are still serving in very high posts) that DRDO has a very poor reputation in IN circles(of all places!!! ) and the choicest abuses are reserved for DRDO whenever a informal party/gathering happens!!!

[ramana]

One feedback is that as teh new acquisition is being finalised, the DRDO rushes in and promises that they will provide the same much cheaper and that appeals to the babus who forward negative recommendations. After long delays with cost escalations by multiples the DRDO provides something which ususally its not tested rigorously and thus usually fails in front of the big chiefs at acceptance trials. The end result is the services dont have the weapons that they wanted in the first place and have to sit it out in the barracks when there is national emergency.

[bhart]

Bit OT but:

they would pass their free time making fun of DRDO products?

I know for a fact after interacting with many IN officers, most of whom were my dad's colleagues( many are still serving in very high posts) that DRDO has a very poor reputation in IN circles(of all places!!! ) and the choicest abuses are reserved for DRDO whenever a informal party/gathering happens!!!

Again, a bit OT:
I'd like to second that. Although I'd like to say that quite often Army officers' complaints normally ignore the fact that the 'thing' they are asking for is being developed or produced for the first time in the country. DRDO or any organisation for that matter simply cannot conjure equipment from somewhere.
Given the attitude of the Army, sometimes I think that the only friends indigenous agencies have in the establishment belong to the IAS. Ironic, isn't it?

[ajay_ijn]

Bit OT but:
I know for a fact after interacting with many IN officers, most of whom were my dad's colleagues( many are still serving in very high posts) that DRDO has a very poor reputation in IN circles(of all places!!! ) and the choicest abuses are reserved for DRDO whenever a informal party/gathering happens!!!

Again, a bit OT:
I'd like to second that. Although I'd like to say that quite often Army officers' complaints normally ignore the fact that the 'thing' they are asking for is being developed or produced for the first time in the country. DRDO or any organisation for that matter simply cannot conjure equipment from somewhere.
Given the attitude of the Army, sometimes I think that the only friends indigenous agencies have in the establishment belong to the IAS. Ironic, isn't it?

how about not inducting weapon develop for the first time in the country. let Army induct the 2nd or 3rd time or whenever the weapon is according to their requirement. coz even if Army doesn't ignore the fact that its for the first time, our enemy isn't going to show any sympathy for DRDO developed products.

[sunilUpa]

One feedback is that as teh new acquisition is being finalised, the DRDO rushes in and promises that they will provide the same much cheaper and that appeals to the babus who forward negative recommendations. After long delays with cost escalations by multiples the DRDO provides something which ususally its not tested rigorously and thus usually fails in front of the big chiefs at acceptance trials. The end result is the services dont have the weapons that they wanted in the first place and have to sit it out in the barracks when there is national emergency.

IAF's cancelled RFP for PGMs may qualify as one such case..let's wait and watch.

[ajay_ijn]

One feedback is that as teh new acquisition is being finalised, the DRDO rushes in and promises that they will provide the same much cheaper and that appeals to the babus who forward negative recommendations. After long delays with cost escalations by multiples the DRDO provides something which ususally its not tested rigorously and thus usually fails in front of the big chiefs at acceptance trials. The end result is the services dont have the weapons that they wanted in the first place and have to sit it out in the barracks when there is national emergency.

there is one thing our Military can do. since requirement is generally large for forces, they can split the number for import and for indigenously developed ones. Like AF is going ahead with 22 attack helicopter requirement even though HAL LCH is under development. Army also can easily split the requirement in case of Towed & SP Artillery. if the indigenous product is delayed, they can order more numbers of foreign product.

[vavinash]

The army can instead of running after shiny brochures and foriegn claims come up with requirements atleast 6-10 years in advance and give DRDO and labs enough time to develop the products. Changing goalposts every 3 years also does not help.

[somnath]

One feedback is that as teh new acquisition is being finalised, the DRDO rushes in and promises that they will provide the same much cheaper and that appeals to the babus who forward negative recommendations. After long delays with cost escalations by multiples the DRDO provides something which ususally its not tested rigorously and thus usually fails in front of the big chiefs at acceptance trials. The end result is the services dont have the weapons that they wanted in the first place and have to sit it out in the barracks when there is national emergency.

there is one thing our Military can do. since requirement is generally large for forces, they can split the number for import and for indigenously developed ones. Like AF is going ahead with 22 attack helicopter requirement even though HAL LCH is under development. Army also can easily split the requirement in case of Towed & SP Artillery. if the indigenous product is delayed, they can order more numbers of foreign product.

One word - logistics!

[dorai]

this is surprising. buying spares makes us largest customer of Bofors?, then what will be case if India awards multibillion dollar Arty contract to Bofors. what about Swedish miltary, don't they order anything from bofors?

I was told Sweden currently is in R&D phase for the future artillery forces so there is not that many big orders coming there until 2010. Elsewhere sales is for naval guns and (Excalibur) ammo but this is in low volume so far and Bofors is a fairly small unit in BAE so I would say it's a fair judgement that India is important. I too was surprised.

[Rahul M]

http://www.polskieradio.pl/thenews/business/?id=102204

Poland Aero India 2009
Created: 12.02.2009 11:15

Poland is among 70 countries participating in the Aero India Show 2009, taking place in Bangalore, south India.
Aero India, an annual trade fair organized since 1996, offers the possibility to observe and promote the latest products and technologies of the aviation industry to an international professional audience.
One of the Polish stands presented at Aero India Show 2009 belongs to Cenzin and Bumar, leading suppliers and exporters of armaments and military equipment, both present on the Indian market for some long time.
Last year Bumar announced 1.2-billion-dollar sale to India of 200 WZT-3 armored cars, 80 Kroton de-mining vehicles, 100 Loara mobile anti-aircraft units and 110 self-propelled cannons1,000 tank engines (is)

[Ramesh]

Artillery modernisation plan, from TOI about a month old.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 700377.cms

Though Gen Kapoor did not get into specifics, sources said the Army was going in for 140 ultra-light howitzers for around Rs 2,900 crore, 400 towed guns for Rs 4,000 crore and 180 wheeled self-propelled guns for Rs 4,700 crore.

[RayC]

I know for a fact after interacting with many IN officers, most of whom were my dad's colleagues( many are still serving in very high posts) that DRDO has a very poor reputation in IN circles(of all places!!! ) and the choicest abuses are reserved for DRDO whenever a informal party/gathering happens!!!

Again, a bit OT:
I'd like to second that. Although I'd like to say that quite often Army officers' complaints normally ignore the fact that the 'thing' they are asking for is being developed or produced for the first time in the country. DRDO or any organisation for that matter simply cannot conjure equipment from somewhere.
Given the attitude of the Army, sometimes I think that the only friends indigenous agencies have in the establishment belong to the IAS. Ironic, isn't it?

Why should one ignore the fact whether it is made for the first time in the country or the 'n' th time.

Their lives depend on it!

[RayC]

there is one thing our Military can do. since requirement is generally large for forces, they can split the number for import and for indigenously developed ones. Like AF is going ahead with 22 attack helicopter requirement even though HAL LCH is under development. Army also can easily split the requirement in case of Towed & SP Artillery. if the indigenous product is delayed, they can order more numbers of foreign product.

Can be done, but one cannot predict when there will be a war and so waiting for eqpt being produced in the country may not be prudent.

The Nation will never forgive if the Armed Forces lost the war!

[Ramesh]

Probably designers sitting at very top level has to be made aware that wars are fought with the equipment we have and
not with blueprints of weapons we are likely to have in the comming years.

[sum]

Like AF is going ahead with 22 attack helicopter requirement even though HAL LCH is under development

IIRC, the IAF reduced their numbers to 22 from ~80 because the HAL has promised the LCH...

Though Gen Kapoor did not get into specifics, sources said the Army was going in for 140 ultra-light howitzers for around Rs 2,900 crore, 400 towed guns for Rs 4,000 crore and 180 wheeled self-propelled guns for Rs 4,700 crore.

How many times have we heard this in the last 10-15 years?

We are always going into artillery trials but never seem to come out of them, courtesy our neta (esp Kangress) class....

[Ramesh]

Let me hazard a guess on the end of this saga:
If a political group comes to power which feels it can stay in power for the next five years and if it is non-kangres, we may see the end of the tunnel, else will have to keep digging.

[KiranM]

Cross posting from Armoured Vehicles Discussion thread.

Quote relevant to topic:

EFFECTS OF ARTILLERY FIRE

Destruction. Destructive fire physically damages the target to such an extent
that it is rendered useless to the enemy. A casualty rate of 30 per cent or more
should be taken as the guide. Destruction may be accomplished by penetration,
blast effect, incendiary action, fragments or by a combination thereof. Destruction of
enemy equipment or works is difficult to achieve. Results are always likely to be
small in relation to the ammunition expended, except when the target is concentrated
and without cover. On the other hand, the destruction of small pinpoint targets can
often be undertaken economically by guns especially sited to engage them directly
by assualt fire. However, achievement of destruction by this method is time
consuming. To inflict material damage to equipment or field works ,it requires a
heavy shell with delay fuze. Therefore , medium or heavy guns and howitzers are
needed.

Neutralisation. This is achieved when artillery fire prevents the enemy from
using his weapons effectively, or results in restricting his observation and/or
hampering his mobility. Actual casualties or damage to equipment assist
neutralisation . To be effective, neutralisation must fulfill the following:-

(a) It must be at least sufficiently lethal to inflict 15 to 20 per cent
casualties. Fire which is totally ineffective against the enemy’s protection is
unlikely to produce neutralisation. Mere prevention of aimed direct
fire/observation without specifying casualties would be termed as
“Suppression”.

(b) It must be of sufficient intensity to maintain neutralizing effect. The
intensity required will vary with the morale of the enemy and the amount of
protection which he has.

(c) It must be continuous in the sense that it must give the enemy no
respite, but the best effect is obtained by sudden heavy bursts at irregular
intervals rather than by maintaining a slow , steady rate of fire.

(d) The area to be neutralized must be effectively covered by fire. In case
of large targets , a definite portion of the area must be allocated to each unit
engaging it. In many cases it will be advisable for these portions to overlap,
and fort he flank portions to extend beyond the area to be covered. To
minimize the risk of leaving some portion of the area unscathed, a proportion
of the available artillery should fire on tasks already allocated to other guns.

(e) Neutralization is a temporary effect which continues only while the
shells are falling. Fire must therefore, continue as long as neutralization is
required. Moreover, neutralization is better achieved by a large number of
small shells arriving simultaneously on the target so that it is fully covered,
than by a small number of large shells where some points can remain
uncovered by fire and thus un-neutralised. These two factors indicate that in
attack, our own troops must keep close to the covering fire supporting them,
in order to take full advantage of the neutralization effect. For this purpose,
light and field guns and howitzers are better suited for neutralization because
of their lesser safety distance for own troops.

(f) A satisfactory degree of neutralization sometimes can be accomplished
by ‘blinding’ the enemy or by screening own troops from the target, with the
help of smoke ammunition.

(g) Illumination at night may assist in effecting neutralization by other
weapons as also neutralise infra-red devices.
(h) The supported arm commander should preferably indicate the
percentage of casualties that he wants inflicted on the enemy. Most armies
have tabulated data available which enables the artillery commander to utilize
his resources most economically to achieve the desired percentage of
casualties. The term neutralization without specific casualty percentages
should be avoided.

Harassment. Harassing fire inflicts losses, or by the threat of losses interferes
with enemy’s movement and in general, lowers morale. Harassing fire is of less
intensity than that intended to accomplish neutralization.

[ajay_ijn]

Like AF is going ahead with 22 attack helicopter requirement even though HAL LCH is under development

IIRC, the IAF reduced their numbers to 22 from ~80 because the HAL has promised the LCH...

Though Gen Kapoor did not get into specifics, sources said the Army was going in for 140 ultra-light howitzers for around Rs 2,900 crore, 400 towed guns for Rs 4,000 crore and 180 wheeled self-propelled guns for Rs 4,700 crore.

How many times have we heard this in the last 10-15 years?

We are always going into artillery trials but never seem to come out of them, courtesy our neta (esp Kangress) class....

i wonder whats the need for trials when Army already has tested Bofors and Soltam Guns for four years. Sending RFPs to them and then starting negotiations would be a gud idea for SP & Towed Guns.

Let me hazard a guess on the end of this saga:
If a political group comes to power which feels it can stay in power for the next five years and if it is non-kangres, we may see the end of the tunnel, else will have to keep digging.

there is another option, if Army deliberately selected a Gun which is not Bofors. may be Israeli Soltam or french Giat.

But i don't understand abt one thing- Bofors has got new owner, BAe. So Govt is almost dealing with officials from new company. So there shouldn't be a risk of being accused of accepted bribes.

[ajay_ijn]

there is one thing our Military can do. since requirement is generally large for forces, they can split the number for import and for indigenously developed ones. Like AF is going ahead with 22 attack helicopter requirement even though HAL LCH is under development. Army also can easily split the requirement in case of Towed & SP Artillery. if the indigenous product is delayed, they can order more numbers of foreign product.

Can be done, but one cannot predict when there will be a war and so waiting for eqpt being produced in the country may not be prudent.

The Nation will never forgive if the Armed Forces lost the war!

Sir then how do you think Army can encourage local defence industry without compromising its own capabilities. Many in this forum are not happy with the way Army is deadling with indigenously developed weapons like arjun by DRDO. what do you think.

[RayC]

There is monopoly in defence R&D. If there were competition in R&D and there was a defence industry, automatically the products would be of standard!

DRDO and OFB is not terribly concerned, except when they are criticised.

Check the slippages in production of the OFB.

Go to their guest houses. They better the five stars!

Sub standard products die a natural death. The Jabalpur vehicles Jonga and Nissan 1 ton met its natural death and instead we are on Marutis, Mahendras, Tata, Leyland, Tatra and so on and they are world class, though Maruti is a trifle underpowered.

[Rahul M]

sir, OFB and DRDO are different kettles of fish, one it seems is beyond redemption, the other has some fantastic achievements in niche areas but flounders in others.

much of the problems with our MIC can be solved if stringent QC are maintained during production.

coming to monopoly, doesn't the russians have monopoly to a large extent too ?
was there any competitors when IA selected the T-90 for example ?
or the recent gigantic Mi-17 acquisition ?