Artillery Discussion Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 14 Aug 2013 04:17

I would love to see a gun every 15 Km of Paki border. Will blast the rats to smithereens every time they cross the border in real time (2900/15 ~300 nos.)

Why are we not ordering OFB made desi Bofors? Or the Kalyani make? or the Tata make? Do we need to test everything right to the last split hair end before making them. If we can 'skip' a few important requirements for M-777, then am sure our desi guns can also fire and drop a shell 3+ Km away. Cannot understand this requirements BS really.

The winning 'commission' formula should be simple:
10% to the ruling family
5% to Babudom
3% to Army, ex-Army or the real chieftains
1% to Press lords
0.01% overheads for those pesky BRites ( Even we all need to eat and drink once in a while)

Summary: 20% commission overhead is better than paying 100% plus for M-777 clean deal on any day. This analysis has clearly left me wondering if we should legalize commissions. It turns out to be cheaper and we can tax legal commissions. Some of my High hopes here!

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3217
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 14 Aug 2013 04:46

vic wrote:The same blah blah blah was used to justify Agusta Westland helo deal. M777 is a good equipment, just not good enough to spend One Billion dollars on.


I don't think anybody on BRF justified the deal for helos for VIPs.

Artillery is critically needed by the army, so we justify that.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3217
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 14 Aug 2013 04:53

nik wrote:Why are we not ordering OFB made desi Bofors? Or the Kalyani make? or the Tata make? Do we need to test everything right to the last split hair end before making them. If we can 'skip' a few important requirements for M-777, then am sure our desi guns can also fire and drop a shell 3+ Km away. Cannot understand this requirements BS really.


Why do you think buying the M777 would affect the orders for the OFB, or the Kalyani, or the Tata gun, whenever they are ready?

The M777 is in a different class from what the above desi companies are developing and serves a different requirement.

I wish we had a desi product in every category of armaments, but we don't. So, some imports are necessary, and I think M777 falls in that category.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby KrishnaK » 14 Aug 2013 05:35

vic wrote:Preposition cheaper Howitzers. OFB Howitzers can be dismantled and air lifted. If Fh-77 can reach Siachin then Lighter non-automated Howitzers will be easier to move. M777 may be good but they are costly non-needed import for India. And M777 cannot suck. The prostitutes provided by arms dealers will be doing the sucking.

That sounds like a pretty neat idea to me. Why have mobile artillery even ? Why not just have tubes everywhere and just move men around ?

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 14 Aug 2013 09:41

Kakkaji wrote:Why do you think buying the M777 would affect the orders for the OFB, or the Kalyani, or the Tata gun, whenever they are ready?

The M777 is in a different class from what the above desi companies are developing and serves a different requirement.

I wish we had a desi product in every category of armaments, but we don't. So, some imports are necessary, and I think M777 falls in that category.


Where is the order for TATA/OFB/Kalyani gun? We are so woefully inadequate in artillery department that an order of 500 pieces for each gun type will be an appetizer, not even half meal.

If IA wants the feather light M777 urgently then we need a regular gun super urgently!

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 14 Aug 2013 19:47

vic wrote:The same blah blah blah was used to justify Agusta Westland helo deal. M777 is a good equipment, just not good enough to spend One Billion dollars on.


That still doesn't answer my question to you. So let me repeat it:
Ajay Sharma wrote:pls suggest in terms of tactics and opertational advantage your suggested howitzer gives in comparison to M777. Use the MSC as a reference point. Thanks

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 14 Aug 2013 19:51

nik wrote:Where is the order for TATA/OFB/Kalyani gun? We are so woefully inadequate in artillery department that an order of 500 pieces for each gun type will be an appetizer, not even half meal.

If IA wants the feather light M777 urgently then we need a regular gun super urgently!


No one is denying here that we super urgently need a regular gun but the M777 caters to a very niche requirement. As stated earlier also by me, it would be a very bad deal if we use these in plains where we can and should deploy the cheaper but feature rich guns on offer

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4421
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 14 Aug 2013 20:50

At this time, any addition to artillery guns should be welcomed irrespective of where it came from. If the M777s have an advantage in the mountains, more power to it. Just induct the damn thing ASAP.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 14 Aug 2013 21:19

Gurneesh wrote:.. Also note that MI17 can carry ~5t externally slung weight. So M777 is just about what it can carry in the mountains.

Thats a theoretical figure. But how much can it carry at 10,000+ ft altitude in possibly high temperatures of 30+ degrees C. And how do the soldiers manning the guns, and the heavy ammunition get transported? And once they are on the ground do they just remain static or do FAT also have to be heli lifted. I very much doubt it can be heli transported by anything other than the chinooks or the Mi 26s, which we will have only a handful. In reality they will end up completely being transported by land where the M777 brings no advantages, in fact it is handicapped in some departments.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 15 Aug 2013 02:07

The whole point of the M777 is to give 155mm firepower to a mountain strike corps. It is the only such gun that can be helicoptered into Tibet and PoK along with its crew and ammo. Both Mi-17 and Chinook are capable of doing the job above 10,000-15,000 feet with the latter being capable of much heavier loads. Positioning and repositioning even 3 or 4 such guns in critical locations within hours is a huge jump in our capabilities. In the mountains, this is all it may take to rout an army. We ordered both M777 and Chinook via FMS rather than our idiotic bidding system because we need them yesterday, not in 30 years. And as others have said, they will not stop production and acquisition of the heavier guns.

member_20296
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20296 » 15 Aug 2013 09:49

Gurus please enlighten me on below question of mine:

Q: If we modify a multi-barrel rocket launcher to a single barrel / twin barrel (Say mini Pinaka) for our mountain forces will it be lighter than the Arty Gun ? If yes what advantages Arty Gun will have over this new system ?

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_22906 » 15 Aug 2013 10:16

^^^

Theoretically possible. Interesting lateral thinking :)

My 0.02$ on this...

Firstly, rockets in mountains are most effective in a direct fire mode since (I am not confident about) the trajectory of the rockets may not be effective if you are attempting to hit the opposite of the mountain

Secondly, not sure of the sustained rate of fire which I anticipate would be lesser than a gun

Thirdly, the logistic footprint should be larger for rockets in comparison to the shells

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1760
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 15 Aug 2013 10:39

Raghuraj wrote:Gurus please enlighten me on below question of mine:

Q: If we modify a multi-barrel rocket launcher to a single barrel / twin barrel (Say mini Pinaka) for our mountain forces will it be lighter than the Arty Gun ? If yes what advantages Arty Gun will have over this new system ?


If we need MBRL for mountain forces we should develop some thing like this
Image
Image

Single / Twin barrel Pinaka will be ineffective as it will be difficult to reload and getting a sustained rate of fire similar to a gun is not possible

member_20296
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20296 » 15 Aug 2013 10:51

Hey Thanks for this pics :-)

eventually I was coming to this. I want a desi alternative of all the import requirements, its not that we are duds and can only survive if a divyastra like M777 is presented to us by LORDs.

Such a mini Pinaka mounted on a Mahindra Dhum-V (Hope I have spelled it correctly) will be fantastic to have, its presence will dampen the moral of chinkeeesss, as it will have power to neutralize a big camp, may be if a gun movement will take 2 days by road we need not just wait air lift some of these to forward post and BANG BANG :-)

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1760
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 15 Aug 2013 11:25

The Picture I posted in my previous post is T-107 of Turkey which is a derivative of the Chinese Type 63 multiple rocket launcher

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 15 Aug 2013 12:09

You guys got to get serious. The shell of 105 mm LGF is 17 kg and most guys consider it small bang. They want 46 kg shells for a proper boom. While I love the 17 kg shell but they have a point.

The pics you guys are putting up have the warheads like 2-3 kgs.

Moongphali garam karna hai kya?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 15 Aug 2013 12:14

Basically you can either set the propellant to fire in a tube can call it a rocket or you can build up pressure in a tube and call it how-it-sir. The later is efficient considering the fact that in case of artillery it is the tail that is to be optimized. Kargil had IA firing 2.5 lac shells. Now think about the charge also. Now think about arranging that kind of firepower using rockets.

member_26255
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26255 » 15 Aug 2013 19:59

Sorry for the noob question and comparison Guru's but I was browsing through the Wiki pages for India and Paki
artillery inventory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_ ... le_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equ ... _inventory

To me, it seems like IA is probably lacking in artillery in comparison to PA :shock: . If it isn't, is IA's artillery qualitatively better
than PA's? Also, I saw the news for procuring 145 M777. Is it going to pack a serious punch or is the procured number too
low to make a serious impact?

Thanks

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 15 Aug 2013 21:53

^^^
The comparison definitely doesn't reflect the fact that India's economy is about 8 times larger and our defence allocation is also significantly larger. Its not by chance that they have been able to punch above their weight and eyeball us. It is obvious that they have been able to get much more out of the money spent(and by way of baksheesh from allies) than us. What really matters is getting the best bang for the buck. While we have been running trials after failed trials lusting after uber foreign artillery, they acquired 100's of second hand M198 and M109 from the US whilst simultaneously buying newer cost effective ones from China and Turkey. The trend continues with the M777. It may cost 5 times what the Pakis or the Chinese are buying but don't expect it to pack 5 times the punch.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26622 » 16 Aug 2013 00:05

agastya wrote:Sorry for the noob question and comparison Guru's but I was browsing through the Wiki pages for India and Paki
artillery inventory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_ ... le_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equ ... _inventory

To me, it seems like IA is probably lacking in artillery in comparison to PA :shock: . If it isn't, is IA's artillery qualitatively better
than PA's? Also, I saw the news for procuring 145 M777. Is it going to pack a serious punch or is the procured number too
low to make a serious impact?

Thanks


The situation is awfully bad...more than what the numbers show in wiki. We had to airlift imported ammunition for Bofors guns during Kargil. Pick your choice below:

Waiting for a foreign arms dealer to peddle us commission dollars baksheesh to fund next election and foreign shopping trips (my choice).
or
Like to stay weak and go begging for help when someone pushes us around (recent Chinese incursion and Paki beheadings of India soldiers).

A strong and capable military is a central pillar to Peace and Democracy. Chinese dumbos and Paki vultures will respect numerical superiority, more than talk.

member_26255
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_26255 » 16 Aug 2013 00:18

nik wrote:
The situation is awfully bad...more than what the numbers show in wiki. We had to airlift imported ammunition for Bofors guns during Kargil.


So in short, the GDP has gone 4 times as compared to 1999 but the artillery situation seems to be the same :-o .
What kind of artillery is used by IA on LoC? Do we have enough of that or are we lacking there as well :x .

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 16 Aug 2013 01:40

abhik wrote:The trend continues with the M777. It may cost 5 times what the Pakis or the Chinese are buying but don't expect it to pack 5 times the punch.

Why are you willfully ignoring the main reasons for the M777 purchase that have been posted here several times?

First, these are only 145 guns, about one-tenth of our total 155mm requirement.

Second, the ability to helicopter heavy artillery to any point in the Himalayas within hours is a HUGE advantage over both China and pakistan. "Any point in the Himalayas" means even where there are no roads and will never be any roads. This is only possible because of the light weight of the M777 which is one-third the weight of comparable artillery.

Third, you are suggesting that the army is corrupt but you ignore the fact that this is a FMS buy with no scope for hera pheri.

Can we make such a gun? Sure. Probably in 40 years if we depend on our genius DPSUs. Maybe 5 years if we open the doors to private companies and support them 100%. But it looks like we don't even have those 5 years.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 16 Aug 2013 01:58

Raghuraj wrote:eventually I was coming to this. I want a desi alternative of all the import requirements, its not that we are duds and can only survive if a divyastra like M777 is presented to us by LORDs.

We all want a desi alternative but we can't wave a magic danda in the air and make it happen. We can start the journey by asking what our DPSUs were doing by sitting on the Bofors blueprints for 30 years while our army was desperately trying to get guns. Then we should fire (if not jail) all the idiots who were responsible. The rest may then be inclined to do some real work for a change.

Such a mini Pinaka mounted on a Mahindra Dhum-V (Hope I have spelled it correctly) will be fantastic to have.... lift some of these to forward post and BANG BANG :-)

Yes, that would be really entertaining but that's all they would be unfortunately.

The army needs a gun that can blow up a 3-story rock and concrete sangar or a steel bridge at 15 miles behind mountains with a few accurate shots. Unguided rockets don't have any chance of doing that and are meant for an entirely different role.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Aug 2013 06:59

Victor wrote:Second, the ability to helicopter heavy artillery to any point in the Himalayas within hours is a HUGE advantage over both China and pakistan. "Any point in the Himalayas" means even where there are no roads and will never be any roads. This is only possible because of the light weight of the M777 which is one-third the weight of comparable artillery.


While we are talking about this, might as well get an answer for this:

Lifting the guns because of their light weight is one thing. Keeping them supplied while they eat up shells is quite another, especially since the shells are heavy and need to be airlifted in large numbers to make any isolated gun battery in the mountains viable.

Currently India does not possess the ability to airlift (read heli-lift given the state of the so-called forward airstrips; but that's another sad story) more than a fraction of these guns and even less to airlift their required ammunition. The recent floods in Uttarkhand have made this utterly clear to this BRFite.

Maybe I am all wrong and the IAF/IA have some hidden air assets unknown to me, but the way I see it, these guns will be used only from areas where they can be supplied by road.

So this hoop-la about being light and air-mobile is IMO an academic issue only. For now anyway. Hopefully things will be better in future (read 2020+)

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Aug 2013 07:02

abhik wrote:^^^
The comparison definitely doesn't reflect the fact that India's economy is about 8 times larger and our defence allocation is also significantly larger. Its not by chance that they have been able to punch above their weight and eyeball us. It is obvious that they have been able to get much more out of the money spent(and by way of baksheesh from allies) than us. What really matters is getting the best bang for the buck. While we have been running trials after failed trials lusting after uber foreign artillery, they acquired 100's of second hand M198 and M109 from the US whilst simultaneously buying newer cost effective ones from China and Turkey. The trend continues with the M777. It may cost 5 times what the Pakis or the Chinese are buying but don't expect it to pack 5 times the punch.


+1

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 16 Aug 2013 07:49

Vivek, from common info available, the Mi-17 can carry a M777 along with about 10 soldiers and 20 shells to 15,000 ft or more from any army base in Assam and land it on any given mountain top in Arunachal. It is a simple matter for another Mi-17 packing 300 rounds of ammo to follow it but most likely, it will not be in one place for very long as part of an air-mobile attacking force (that's what it's meant for, remember?). All quite straightforward with nothing unusual or difficult. This is just one scenario and forward air strips have got zero to do with it. The addition of the Chinook will allow this script to be played out by just one chopper instead of two.

It is senseless IMO to suggest we should not or cannot have the ability to bring heavy air-mobile guns to bear on the enemy without warning in the mountains just because we are finding it difficult to fly non-stop sorties 24/7 in inclement weather in Uttarakhand during an unprecedented natural catastrophe.

Obviously the army holds a very different view than yours (thank God) and it may make for more interesting discourse on here if we were to ask why that may be so. Insinuating that the brass are a bunch of corrupt idiots who don't know what they are doing is a slippery slope leading nowhere good.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16221
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2013 08:13

The Z-News video shows a M777 being lifted along with a truck. Though it seems to the only one doing so.

However, does the M777 need a truck to tow it around once the howitzer is taken to a place? Seems to me it does.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Victor » 16 Aug 2013 08:45

If you want to move it around on the ground, yes it can be towed like any other artillery piece. But once you've put it on top of a mountain without roads it doesn't need a truck to have the crew aim, load and fire it.

Check at 6:25 as it traverses electrically.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby member_20317 » 16 Aug 2013 10:00

Ok the 82 mm warhead is the one that was 3 kg. 107 mm could be anything like 6.39 kg to 8.5 kg. So kakarat ji deserves an apology. My apologies.

And I am certainly impressed by a 19 kg rocket carrying an 8.5 kg warhead 10 km away but the accuracy and elevation with the present equipment is nothing to talk about. The propellant charge is fixed. On all counts a simple 105 mm LGF scores better.

The problem as I see it involves a bit of a mathematics (and that means I have no solution). Mountains typically will offer rocky outcrops. A 44-46 kg shell or a 17 kg will not matter if the target is movable and/or hidden behind one such rocky outcrop. Now the need is to work out the mathematics of:

1) direct hit.
2) hit within kill zone but 1/2 rocky outcrops protecting the target say a vehicle.
3) no hit and regenerate fire.

It could be made even more interesting by trying to account for enemy counter bombardment &/or poor weather &/or limited firings etc.

The karsnopol shell had a 20 kg warhead excluding the guidance unit for an overall weight of 50 kgs. The copperhead was 62 kg overall with what I would expect would be a ~18.5-22 kg business end. Both claiming around 90% accuracy to within 4 mtr. in clear weather.

GPS units would make things even more interesting.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 16 Aug 2013 19:32

NRao wrote:The Z-News video shows a M777 being lifted along with a truck. Though it seems to the only one doing so.

However, does the M777 need a truck to tow it around once the howitzer is taken to a place? Seems to me it does.

Any link to the video? Thanks.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16221
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2013 19:35

abhik wrote:
NRao wrote:The Z-News video shows a M777 being lifted along with a truck. Though it seems to the only one doing so.

However, does the M777 need a truck to tow it around once the howitzer is taken to a place? Seems to me it does.

Any link to the video? Thanks.


http://zeenews.india.com/videos/india-t ... 16370.html

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Aug 2013 20:40

Victor wrote:Vivek, from common info available, the Mi-17 can carry a M777 along with about 10 soldiers and 20 shells to 15,000 ft or more from any army base in Assam and land it on any given mountain top in Arunachal. It is a simple matter for another Mi-17 packing 300 rounds of ammo to follow it but most likely, it will not be in one place for very long as part of an air-mobile attacking force (that's what it's meant for, remember?). All quite straightforward with nothing unusual or difficult. This is just one scenario and forward air strips have got zero to do with it. The addition of the Chinook will allow this script to be played out by just one chopper instead of two.


That bolded part right there shows the depth of your argument. I have nothing more to add to that.

It is senseless IMO to suggest we should not or cannot have the ability to bring heavy air-mobile guns to bear on the enemy without warning in the mountains just because we are finding it difficult to fly non-stop sorties 24/7 in inclement weather in Uttarakhand during an unprecedented natural catastrophe.


My feeling is that the guns are being bought simply because they are the ONLY modern guns that are being bought. Not because we have some lethal forward-thinking plans for them. If we were purchasing hundreds of guns and we bought these specially, I would hold that there might be some unique purpose for them. As it stands right now, they represent the only additions and probably because no other deals are going through quick enough.

Obviously the army holds a very different view than yours (thank God) and it may make for more interesting discourse on here if we were to ask why that may be so. Insinuating that the brass are a bunch of corrupt idiots who don't know what they are doing is a slippery slope leading nowhere good.


:D Maybe if the army held anything similar to my views from the scenarios thread we would be in a lot better place right now! :)

That said, I don't think anyone is insinuating the army to be corrupt (though, god bless their hearts: the brass are making it extremely hard to avoid such insinuations in recent years). They are doing their best to get what guns they can from wherever they can. Just because they get guns that are air-mobile does not mean that's what they will be used for.

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Aug 2013 20:48

Victor wrote:It is senseless IMO to suggest we should not or cannot have the ability to bring heavy air-mobile guns to bear on the enemy without warning in the mountains just because we are finding it difficult to fly non-stop sorties 24/7 in inclement weather in Uttarakhand during an unprecedented natural catastrophe.


I think Uttarkhand ops showed a unique cross-section of the army's and IAF's current air-mobile logistics capabilities. I am not saying that they cannot make the concept of air-mobile arty work, I am saying that they cannot do it on a large enough scale for it be worth much except as "fire-brigade" units to resolve local FEBA emergencies.

-Vivek

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19849
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 16 Aug 2013 20:52

Shells that contain anti-personnel cluster munitions would be exceptionally deadly when used against invading PLA troops.The pic of the Turkish/PRC design truck mounted mini MBRL is a good example of conducting saturation fire that can sanitise a wide area.Air burst munitions are even better.take for example the foll:

XM 25 'Individual Airburst Weapon System'

XM25 'Individual Airburst Weapon System' is an effective airburst grenade launcher rifle that was derived from the XM29 OICW. It was designed to fire 25 mm grenades. These grenades can be set to explode right in mid-air after they have traveled a particular distance. This is the main reason why the XM25 is so effective when compared with the more traditional grenade launchers that were deployed by the US army. For instance, this military equipment can be more affective at clearing the entrenched positions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /m1019.htm

XM1019 High Explosive Air Bursting (HEAB)

The XM1019 High Explosive Air Bursting (HEAB) HE airbursting fragmenting round is center fuzed with fragmenting warheads at either end to maximize lethal area. It is a remote settable high explosive air bursting ammunition. The airbursting 25mm is roughly equal to a point detonating 40mm in terms of lethal area. This primary combat round has no batteries utilized for fuze power. It muzzle velocity correction corrects for round to round velocity variation in the ammunition which can make the burst point vary in range. It has a conventional mechanical verge escapement safe and arm designed and built by Dayron, and also has backup self destruct switch and backup power supply.

The ACSW is light enough to be carried and employed by a two-man crew; and yet, delivers decisively violent, long-range, high-explosive fire which offers considerable advantages to the warfighter over the current Caliber .50 M2HB heavy machine gun or the 40mm MK-19. A wide spectrum of targets can be effectively engaged and destroyed using either of the two 25mm High-Explosive combat cartridges: Precision High Explosive Anti-Personnel Ammunition or Point Detonating Armor Piercing Shaped Charge Ammunition. Fuze setting is accomplished by a full solution fire control integrated into the ACSW system. The fire control features direct view optics, a day/night all weather capability, laser range finder and commonality with Land Warrior.


This is the particularly interesting Turkish one from Roketsan.Very compact.
http://www.roketsan.com.tr/en/urunler-h ... roketatar/

107mm multi-barrel rocket launcher
Towed T – 107 ÇNRA is an excellent close range, intensive fire support weapon for alpine and commando units, thanks to its easy portability as complete or disassembled. Vehicle mounted 107 mm ÇNRA which can be mounted on very small and swift vehicles, easily provides close range and intensive fire support for small and rapidly moving units with its high mobility


PS:Wasn't this posted some tome ago?

How China Will Fight Future Border Wars : Sengupta's Analysis

Introduction.

Should a limited but high-intensity border conflict break out between China and India over the next five years, how exactly will the battles be fought? And where?

The most likely answers to these two questions came from none other than Beijing’s People’s Daily Online, which on November 15 last year, while commenting on the Indian Army’s China-centric future force modernisation-cum-expansion plans due for implementation in the 12th Defence Plan, stated: “In an era when precision-guided weapons are developing rapidly, everyone with common sense knows that concentrated troops could be eliminated easily”.

Translated for the layman, it means that A) the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will realise its tactical objectives on the ground by resorting to massed fire-assaults delivered by a numerically superior deployed force comprising tactical non-line-of-sight battlefield support missiles (NLOS-BSM) and long-range multi-barrel rocket launchers (MBRL) capable of firing rockets equipped with sensor-fuzed munitions (SGM), and B) such rocket artillery-based weapons would be employed in tactical areas that are ideally suited for deployment of such weapons, i.e. the flat, locational deserts around eastern Ladakh and the foothills opposite Uttarakhand State.

And it is exactly in these areas that, for the second year in a row, the PLA Army and the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) last year conducted Brigade-level live-fire exercises on the foot of the snowcapped mountains on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau at an altitude of more than 5,000 metres.
Last edited by Philip on 16 Aug 2013 20:57, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16221
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2013 20:55

Do the other users heli lift the M777? And if so how do they manage the logistics? (Granted the terrain could be very different.)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16221
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2013 21:06

OOookay.

Now we have to accept the People’s Daily as the gospel truth on tactical matters too?

Wonder what else they have that they may publish down the line?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 16 Aug 2013 21:19

Victor wrote:Why are you willfully ignoring the main reasons for the M777 purchase that have been posted here several times?

It has been pointed earlier by me and others that India simply doesn't have that air power to sustain the kind deployment. In fact does any other country, even the US have the capability to deploy and sustain by air a significant number of large caliber artillery in a high tempo combat environment. Is there a precedent? IMO a lot of this is over imaginative armchair general giri which may have no connect with reality.
Vivek, from common info available, the Mi-17 can carry a M777 along with about 10 soldiers and 20 shells to 15,000 ft or more from any army base in Assam and land it on any given mountain top in Arunachal.

The advertised max-lifting capability is at sea-level. But as you increase the altitude and temperature the air thins out and helicopters lose significant amount of lift. At 12,000 -15,000ft it and at 30+ degree C it may reduce to a fraction. I seriously doubt the Mi-17 can lift just the M777 in our mountainous frontier let alone the crew and ammunition.
..It is a simple matter for another Mi-17 packing 300 rounds of ammo to follow it but most likely..

Surely you mean 30 and not 300. 300 rounds with charge and packaging material will weigh in the ballpark of 15,000 to 20,000 Kg.
... it will not be in one place for very long as part of an air-mobile attacking force (that's what it's meant for, remember?).

Assuming there are capable helicopters always available on call.

First, these are only 145 guns, about one-tenth of our total 155mm requirement.

The total requirement of 155mm artillery is in fact around 4000. We don’t have an infinite budget. Buying super expensive guns, (that too with questionable efficacy) will in the end mean reduced quantity and I’m afraid in this case reduced quality too.
..you are suggesting that the army is corrupt but you ignore the fact that this is a FMS buy with no scope for hera pheri.

That would have been true if if we were buying at the same price as the Americans, but in fact we are paying about 240+ million USD extra ostensibly for offsets. This leaves a lot of leeway for hera-pheri. Remember how AgustaWestland routed kickbacks as offsets. Also not to be dismissed is the fact we are dealing with BEA, a company legendary for it ethics and honesty.
Obviously the army holds a very different view than yours (thank God) and it may make for more interesting discourse on here if we were to ask why that may be so. Insinuating that the brass are a bunch of corrupt idiots who don't know what they are doing is a slippery slope leading nowhere good.

Of Course you can say “Army knows best”, but then using the same you have to give them a free pass on T-90, TATRA etc.
the ability to helicopter heavy artillery to any point in the Himalayas within hours is a HUGE advantage over both China and pakistan. "Any point in the Himalayas" means even where there are no roads and will never be any roads. This is only possible because of the light weight of the M777 which is one-third the weight of comparable artillery.

You can’t just place the gun anywhere you want, you need reasonably level ground. Which means valleys and plateaus, where the roads ought to exist. After all the infantry and supplies etc too have to move. Unless of course we convert all our mountain infantry into airborne troops.
Victor wrote:If you want to move it around on the ground, yes it can be towed like any other artillery piece. But once you've put it on top of a mountain without roads it doesn't need a truck to have the crew aim, load and fire it.

And what happens when it is targeted by counter battery fire by paki and cheni guns?
Check at 6:25 as it traverses electrically.

How did you come to that conclusion? Its 100% marine muscle power onlee :)

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 16 Aug 2013 21:29

NRao wrote:
NRao wrote:The Z-News video shows a M777 being lifted along with a truck. Though it seems to the only one doing so.

However, does the M777 need a truck to tow it around once the howitzer is taken to a place? Seems to me it does.

...

http://zeenews.india.com/videos/india-t ... 16370.html

I think that is a 105mm.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Aug 2013 21:37

abhik wrote:
Vivek, from common info available, the Mi-17 can carry a M777 along with about 10 soldiers and 20 shells to 15,000 ft or more from any army base in Assam and land it on any given mountain top in Arunachal.

The advertised max-lifting capability is at sea-level. But as you increase the altitude and temperature the air thins out and helicopters lose significant amount of lift. At 12,000 -15,000ft it and at 30+ degree C it may reduce to a fraction. I seriously doubt the Mi-17 can lift just the M777 in our mountainous frontier let alone the crew and ammunition


This comment made me go back to my charts on helicopter performance I had prepared for BRF several years ago.

Vivek's Mi-17 and LCH high altitude performance predictions

Image

The bottom line is that the Mi-17V-5 performance reduces. just like for all helicopters, with altitude so that at 15,000 feet, the payload capacity for vertical liftoff under combat ROC conditions is about 2,000 kg. Add a little more for mountain top in-ground-effects.

Now wikipedia uncle tells me the M777 weighs about 3,420 kg. So how on earth is the Mi-17 going to lift one without dismantling it?

Going by the chart, the M777 can at best be air transported to about 10,000 feet: which is where Leh is. But then that's accessible by fixed wing aircraft too.

These numbers continue to assure me that the M777 is going to be used in the standard arty role only.

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 16 Aug 2013 21:45

I suppose Chinooks and Mi-26s will be able to airlift the M777 to higher altitudes than the Mi-17, but given the much smaller numbers of these birds being acquired, not counting attrition, other demands etc, large scale deployments of these guns is not practically possible.

That said, the air-mobility of the guns at lower levels against Pakistan etc will be useful since the Mi-17s can lift them at sea-level conditions. So these guns can be moved about where required. Unfortunately, given our pathetic arty numbers, this is exactly what they will have to do to prevent us being outgunned by higher numbers of lower tech Paki guns...

-Vivek


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darshand, tushar_m and 31 guests