Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 06 Oct 2017 11:41

Indranil wrote:It is the 105 light gun. I think they call it Garuda 105.


I am wondering about "Bharat-45" that's seen in 5th picture. If Bharat-52 is 155mm 52 cal, its possible that Bharat-45 is also 155mm. But then is it the ULH version or regular version..? They are working on ULH which the one seen in 4th pic. I can read 155/39 on the machine, unless my eyes are cheated by some spell. The pic when Maj Gen is seating on wheel, is the ATAGS it seems, 155/52 cal, but the picture is blurry to be sure.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5670
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 06 Oct 2017 23:38

Image
Bharat-52. I don't see a future for this given ATAGS.

Image
Bharat-45. It is 155/45. However, I don't know the future of the 39 and 45 caliber guns, including that of Dhanush series. ATAGS is a generation or two ahead of these guns. For example, Bharat-45 weighs 1 Ton more than the ATAGS.

Now, this is the interesting part.
Image

Image
I thought that this is the same as the Ultra Light Field Gun (Garuda,105 mm) displayed at DefExpo'16 (pics below). But the writing on the side does say 155/39. So, I am happily confused.

Image
Image
Image

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1457
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby vasu raya » 06 Oct 2017 23:52

They have a 155mm ultra light now with soft recoil? and all these passed testing

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 07 Oct 2017 00:59

indranil, looks like wheeled gun unlike ATAGS.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5670
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 07 Oct 2017 01:01

You mean the ULH? It has to be, right?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3679
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 07 Oct 2017 08:48

Wow, I am sure BRF oldies remember how many artillery competitions were held in the past 20 years of BR's existence. And now to see this. A truly amazing day for India. A pretty interesting facebook excerpt on the use of artillery during the Kargil War...for some weird reason I am not able to copy the text from the link below. Sorry!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 4991274372

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 779
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_P » 07 Oct 2017 13:04

Rakesh sir, here you go

#Know_your_hero

28 September, Artillery day, we are honored to make a post about one of the finest artillery officer of our time and a war hero of Kargil war - Maj Gen (R) Lakhwinder Singh (USM), Yuddha Sewa Medal

=================

The role of artillery in the battlefield during the Kargil war cannot be forgotten and will forever be etched in golden letters.

India’s victory in Operation Vijay was not achieved without major sacrifices. Three valiant officers and 32 brave soldiers of the Regiment of Artillery laid down their lives in the true spirit of Izzat-O-Iqbal. The problem faced by the Gunners was the rarefied air and strong wind currents in the upper atmosphere, the accuracy of the Bofors gun, especially over longer distances of 20 km or more, caused problems.

For this exceptional and exemplary valour and grit in heroic battles in Kargil, the chief of the army staff honoured 11 Infantry battalions, three units of Regiment of Artillery namely 141 Field Regiment, 197 Field Regiment and 108 Medium Regiment and two Reconnaissance and Observation Squadrons of the Army Aviation with special award of Unit Citations.

=========================

Maj Gen (R) Lakhwinder Singh was the commander of Artillery Brigade of India's 8 mountain division and known for few innovative tactics and pioneering 100 guns concept

================================

What he did was akin to using a sledgehammer to shell a peanut. After all when he has a powerful gun like Bofors, capable of hurling over 40 kg of deadly explosive to a distance of over 30 km, ever been used like a sharpshooter to knock down well-entrenched enemy soldiers sitting on top of peaks? Or which recent battle has seen over 100 artillery guns both big and small lined up and fired simultaneously to pulverise the enemy in a small target area into submission?

In a war the ends usually justify the means. Singh unabashedly admits that he took a page out of history to use what even his Corp Commander Krishan Pal describes as one of the most innovative artillery tactics to win a war;.

He remembers reading how famous warriors like Babar and Ranjit Singh employed rows of master gunners to fire cannonballs directly at the enemy. His logic: if such simple tubes could be utilised in controlled direct firing then why not sophisticated gun systems?

So he first tried out the technique during the battle for Tololing. A battery of six guns were lined up and told to make direct hits at targets on top of the peak where Pakistani intruders were holed up. It made the final assault by the infantry much easier - casualties were lower too - to give India its first major victory in the Kargil war.

Yet it was on a neighbouring peak called Point 5140 where Singh's brigade demonstrated how an ancient war tactic still held good. Singh ordered all available guns, including Bofors, 105 mm field guns and 120 mm mortars, to line up.

In all they numbered over 100. He then told his gunners to fire them continuously at the positions held by Pakistanis on the heights. Singh even had rockets launched against them. So effective was the firepower that the infantry was able to regain the positions without a single casualty.

With the infantry getting more confident of the artillery's prowess it was even willing to cut down the safety margins and take some daring risks. Normally the soldiers stay at least 350 m away from a spot towards which the shells are directed. But with the guns proving so accurate they would call for shelling even when they ventured to within 50 m of the targeted enemy positions.

It was night when the brigade targeted Tiger Hill and the entire sky lit up like Diwali as they resorted to nonstop firing for several hours. The pounding saw the Pakistani soldiers running for cover though many of them were killed by the deadly fusillade. Intercepts of conversations had one of them saying: Hell has fallen on us.

The continuous firing made the infantry's task of capturing the hill much easier. Major-General Mohinder Puri, general officer commanding of the 8 Division, acknowledges that it was the preponderance of the artillery fire that helped us score many victories.

Credit - India today and Rediff

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Oct 2017 04:08

So OFB makes
155mm M 107 shells in OF Kanpur.
and
155mm ERFB BB and BT at OF Chanda

We know that a 155mm ERFB broke into pieces during the M 777 gun trials.

The 155 mm ERFB shells are made from high fragmentation steel per the OFB website.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/40.htm

Note its 12 kg explosive which is 50% more explosive than the regular M 107 shells. Not to mention the wall is thinner.

The 155-mm HE-ER (High-Explosive Extended-Range) base-bleed projectile is operated primarily for blast and fragmentation against infantry troops and soft materiel targets.

This projectile can be fired from 39, 45, 52 -calibre 155-mm artillery guns using all types of propelling charges. The increased range is achieved by using a low-drag aerodynamic shape coupled with base bleed technology.
The projectile contains 12 kilograms of TNT in a thin-walled, high-strength, high-fragmentation steel- alloy body.

It has a deep-cavity fuze design that accepts Point-Detonating (PD) or proximity (VT) fuzes.

FUNCTIONING
An aluminium liner in the deep fuze cavity contains a supplementary TNT charge. When proximity fuze is fitted, the supplementary charge is removed.

When a PD fuze is used, it detonates the supplementary charge upon impact, which in turn detonates the projectile filler. When a proximity fuze is used, detonation occurs when the projectile approaches the target (proximity action). The proximity fuze contains its own booster element to detonate the projectile filler.


We still don't know about the previous shell burst incident as to what shell, fuze and charge were used.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 12 Oct 2017 03:47

Continuing the shell story:
There are two main types of 155mm shells : M107 and the ERFB BB (Base bleed) and BT (Boat Tail).

Lets look at the materials used for these type of shells. Ref: M -756 Ammo hand book.


M 107 is the plain vanilla shells developed for the 155mm gun.
The shell is usually made from low carbon steel. Typical alloy is AISI/SAE 1050 or equivalent. This steel has yield strength of 60 - 100 ksi and has excellent elongation of ~15%. That means this one stretches like taffy before it breaks. Very good for deep drawing and forging.

The ERFB high fragmentation shell are made from manganese steels which have high yield of 140 ksi. Great but has low elongation of 5%! i.e means this is 3 times less ductile than the M 107 shell steel.
This allows it to break into finer fragments. To put this in laymen's terms this is like your cast iron shrapnel shell updated to modern technology. Its low ductility just like cast iron allows break up into fragments but high enough for hot forging into the shell shape.

Now lets look at wall thickness. The ERFB has thin wall thickness compared to M 107 shell.

Lets look at explosive filling. The ERFB has 12 kg of explosive. The M 107 has about 8 kg of explosive. IOW ERFB has 50% more explosive than the M 107.

To re-iterate, ERFB has less ductile, thinner walls, and more explosive than the M 107 which makes it more likely to break up if side slap or balloting happens. So all this tell us that an ERFB has more propensity to break up in the barrel than a M107 if side slap happens.

On side slap:

To get more clarity the COI should tabulate all the past incidents of 155m shell break up by three things: type of shell - M 107 or ERFB, type of charge - low, medium or high, type of fuze. Comments can be was fuze recovered and did it function? If ambient temperature is known its a bonus along with the order of the malfunctioning shell- was it part of a salvo or just one in the cold morning? Shouldn't be too difficult as CAG has looked at the past COIs and did their review.

One inspection that can be done is to take 10 shells for each lot of the shells that burst and measure the bourrelet area diameter to 3 decimal places. How far are they from the 155mm barrel bore tolerances? This sill settle the issue of how much gap is there in the gun bore. What's the range?

This gap at high charges causes side slap due to in-bore yaw angle.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17212
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 12 Oct 2017 21:48

A Q.Tank gun barrels rifled and smoothbore.Is there a similar or greater situ for failure for either?

Some notes on the air defence issue.

Beyond the Rhetoric - The Bottom line Challenges for Ground Based Air Defence
http://www.vifindia.org/article/2017/au ... ir-defence
30 Aug, 2017 Lt Gen (Dr) V K Saxena (Retd), PVSM,AVSM,VSM, Visiting Fellow, VIF View1060 Comments 0

Gun Systems

No country the word over ever throws away its old calibres (implying gun systems). Russia is still going strong with its 57 mm, 85 mm air defence guns (besides the newer vintage of 23 mm and 30 mm). Sweden, Italy, and Singapore with their 40mm, Germany, Greece, US and French with their 20 mm, 30 mm and 35 mm. The name of the game is keeping the guns alive through ‘continuous qualitative up-grade’. And why this happens is because ‘this is the only way out’ as throwing away of calibres is simply not possible.

Qualitative up-grade of guns manifests in multiple domains - ordnance, superstructure, laying and target tracking systems, enhancement in range and reach parameters, hours of operability and so on. In effect, if qualitative up-grade keeps taking place in pace with the growth of technology, the mainframe weapon system is nearly ageless, unless a quantum jump produces a 'new chapter technology', something of a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) kind.

In the above context, the up-grade of the mainstay air defence gun systems, namely the L-70 and ZU23 guns and the Schilka Weapon System is suitable for tangible quality enhancement by the addition of Electro-Optical Fire Control System (EOFCS, complete with its day camera, night camera, laser range finder and fire control computer), besides enhancement in drives and power banks.

There are multiple challenges in the said upgrade:-

Firstly, the Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), the up-grading agency (that is, the Original Equipment Manufacturer or OEM) has to ensure that the initial delays that took place in attending to the teething trouble period are made up by enhanced throughput, as getting upgraded numbers in time-critical sequence is to be planned carefully to avoid impact on net operational effectiveness. The OEM must also remember that the proof of upgrade will be in live firing and nothing short of that.

In case of Schilka upgrade, there must not be any perpetual dependency on the foreign OEM with whom the BEL had joint ventured for software and technology support. This can only happen if the continuous system support is taken over by BEL engineers by coming out of their comfort zone of dependence on Foreign OEM. Experience has it that it is possible now, and it is happening. Just the momentum is needed to keep up. The challenge for the maintaining agency is to make sure that all the past and ongoing issues in overhaul of the un-upgraded guns is speeded up with adequate spare support from BEL before each gun is sent for upgrade. Irrespective of any amount of delays and hurdles, the pending upgrade of ZU 23 guns is inescapable if we want to avoid a situation when the guns go ineffective before the successor gun arrives. This upgrade must start post haste.

But any amount of upgrade of the existing guns cannot wipe away the crying need for successors guns, the induction of which is over-delayed. The current instance, riding on the vehicle of 'Buy and Make Indian' is a litmus test that will give a great boost to our private defence industry. Meanwhile, case for inducting successor systems has to be pushed forward as a matter of operational expediency.

Missile Systems

Multiple challenges exist in the field of Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). To begin with, the man portable shoulder/pedestal fired missiles grouped under the generic category of Very Short Range Air Defence Systems or VSHORADS are an urgent need. These are not only required to provide the required gun-missile mix at the terminal end of the point defence deployments, something that is a must to counter the current and future air threat, but these are also required to provide the flexibility and enhancement in range and reach besides a degree of surprise and innovation in the otherwise predictable patterns of deployment. Such weapons are also a must for opportunity targets like the unmanned aerial systems or UAS. The challenge for the users and the decision makers is to take the ongoing case forward which has already taken several years to mature to this level. Closure of the current case and restart will be prohibitive in time and cost terms.

In the field of Short Range SAMs (SRSAM), while the Akash is a success story. The challenge for the OEMs is to ensure the realisation of weapon system as full-fledged regiments gets on the top gear by cutting out delays in delivery schedules and spare support. It has to be understood that the requirement of SRSAM is critical to provide Short Range Missile cover to strategic vulnerabilities.

Apart from the SRSAMs, there is another challenge of providing mobile missile cover to mechanised formations through Quick Reaction SAMs (QRSAMs). Such weapons are distinct in their own right. They can keep up with mechanised assets and have the unique capability of surveillance and tracking during move and firing immediately on halt. It is heartening to note from the open source the progress of indigenous QRSAM by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and BEL. The challenge is to take this progress to its fruitful realisation with full involvement and participation of the user and fill the existing void in the QRSAM category for the field force.

In the case of Medium Range SAMs (MRSAMs) while the open source informs us about the contract for the first Regiment having been signed with the DRDO (in Joint venture with Israeli Armament Industry or IAI), the challenge for all stake holders is to move forward towards realisation of the system and its early operationalisation. Learning from Akash, the users and OEM must not only to look at the weapon vertical alone, but also the associated structures of missile sheds for holding , preparation and testing. The latter must come up alongside lest it holds up induction of the main weapon at a later date.

Surveillance and Battle Management Systems

As regards a whole hierarchy of surveillance and fire control (FC) systems, it is reassuring to see that the indigenous capability of DRDO as represented through Electronic and Radar Development Organisation (LRDE) along with BEL as the Production Agency (PA) coming up reasonably well. The recent inductions of 3-Dimensional Tactical Control Radar (3-DTCR) and Low Level Light Weight Radar (LLLR), and the ongoing development of the state-of-the-art radars (FC Radar, ADFCR and Tactical Control Radar, ADTCR) point to this deduction. The challenge for these organisations is to ensure that, one, there is total synergy between them, and two, the user is kept on board all the way. Besides this, the challenge for the developers is to put all out efforts to ensure that the mutually agreed completion dates (PDCs) for under development multiple type of radars are not allowed to slip away . In fact the ultimate aim should be to get rid of foreign dependence in this field. While that should be the ultimate goal, the challenge to maintain the current inventory of FC and TC radars must not be lost sight of either by BEL or LRDE. This will demand continuous hand-holding and spare support to the user.

As regards the Battle Management Systems, the challenges are the gravest of all. Most of these lie in the domain of the indigenous developer of the system, i,e BEL as well as the user. The user must ensure that the semi-automated Battle Management Command and Control (BMC2) System (also referred to as Air Defence Control and Reporting System or ADCRS) moves beyond its test bed stage by getting its technical and obsolescence issues addressed. In this we need to go beyond the narrow confines of the inter-Service turfs and try to seamlessly integrate the ADCRS across the Service domains. In specific terms, a seamless handshake of systems is a must between the Army, Navy and Airforce.

To achieve the above, HQ Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) needs to intervene and lay down time bound deadlines while the OEM, along with the three Services stake holders, have to ensure that the technological and software support required for achieving the above handshake is put into place, sooner than later.

Addressing UAS Threat

Proliferation of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) as attack vehicles into our scenario had happened at an exponential pace. While the UAS are an ‘attacker’s delight’ they are a defender’s nightmare. This is so because not only detecting these vehicles is an uphill task due to their minimalistic Radar Cross-section Signatures (RCS), but also the challenge is to develop low cost weapons to kill them which would balance out the ‘cost of kill’ with the ‘cost of target’. Launching million of dollars worth of missiles to bring down low cost UAS does not make sense.

In this context, the challenge for DRD, duly supported by the public and private industry, is to come forward and develop low cost anti-UAS systems both in the hit-to-kill domain, as well as in the soft-kill domain. The ongoing work in this field needs to be expedited and taken to its fruitful conclusion.

Thus goes the challenge count for Army Air Defence. It is hoped that these challenges will continue to be addressed with full vigour in times to come.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3679
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 16 Oct 2017 00:26

The Dhanush (Indian Bofors FH77) gun gets scoped out today in Jabalpur by Subhash Bhamre, Minister of State for Defence
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/919151584285564928

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 16 Oct 2017 00:42

Philip, Yes it can happen in the tank gun barrels too as the length is conducive to ballotting.
In case of the explosive round, it can blow-up in the barrel or in case of sabot round it can cause inaccuracy.

The US did a study of 120mm barrels after some issues in the mid-70s.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Apurva, atamjeetsingh, pravula and 48 guests