Artillery: News & Discussion

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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6793
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Mar 2018 02:38

ramana wrote:I found an internet reference to the M-77 barrel requirements.

The objective is 800 firings and the threshold is 900 firings.

The IA user trials had the ERFB round break up at 1164th round.
In other words 364 rounds over the objective and 264 rounds over the threshold for the M 777 barrel.

Make up your own mind.


Objective would be 900 and threshold 800 i.e. the min. they would be able to accept but that would be for system aborts.

3.2.5.3.1 Cannon Tube Fatigue Life The cannon tube shall have a
fatigue life of at least 2,650 equivalent full charge (EFC)
rounds, based on firing M549A1 or M864 projectiles with M203A1
propelling charge. The cannon fatigue life shall exceed the wear
life. - https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/do ... 5-spec.pdf

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2018 04:42

So there was no wear life specified?
Only that fatigue life should exceed wear life.

Where could I have seen it?

Some articles on M777 barrels


M777 Artillery


Chrome plating barrel increase wear life

OK here is a number when firing high charge.

Sustained Fire At Extreme Range In Syria


....
A Marine Corps battery (six guns) of M777 155mm howitzers was sent to Syria in early 2017 to support the SDF Kurdish militia as it advanced towards and took the ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) capital of Raqqa. The marines fired mostly M1156 GPS guided shells and did so at extreme ranges. In doing so they wore out the barrels on two of their howitzers. Normally the M777 barrel can fire up to 2,500 shells before wearing out but barrel life depends on what type of shell your fire. If you fire the longer range shells (which the marines did) barrel life is much reduced (to about a thousand rounds). ....






So at high charge they wear out at around 1000 rounds..

I will still look for the 800/900 O/T numbers.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 03 Mar 2018 05:15

Answer to problem.More guns with lesser firing rates and rounds, spread the load.This does then require more guns! Chicken and egg situ.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2018 06:00

They used to have 8 gun batteries.
This chrome plating the barrels adds costs and fouls up the barrels.

But adding two more adds people to the Arty regiments.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2018 07:25

Got it.

Link:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /lw155.htm

The LW155 Mean Rounds Between System Abort (MRBSA) shall be no less than 800 rounds (threshold) to 900 rounds (objective), to be demonstrated with an 80% confidence, when employed IAW with the LW155 Design Reference Mission Profile.


I might have not understood this MRBSA.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6793
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Mar 2018 07:40

This was what I was saying. The info on MRBSA is in the requirements document i shared earlier. Often, not all the the specific requirements are explicitly stated in the scrubbed/unclassified version of these documents.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 221
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pravula » 03 Mar 2018 08:23

ramana wrote:Got it.

Link:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /lw155.htm

The LW155 Mean Rounds Between System Abort (MRBSA) shall be no less than 800 rounds (threshold) to 900 rounds (objective), to be demonstrated with an 80% confidence, when employed IAW with the LW155 Design Reference Mission Profile.


I might have not understood this MRBSA.


Do note the 80% confidence.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6793
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Mar 2018 08:30

pravula wrote:
Do note the 80% confidence.


This is taking a weapon system with a specified requirement for reliability and seeking that it be demonstrated via finite testing, hence this 80% confidence value has become the standard when it comes to systems where reliability drives mission effectiveness and Operational cost over life-time. Some background. Requirements are created for a particular reason and they must specify what needs to be demonstrated during developmental, and operational testing.

Most system performance requirements can be
demonstrated with high confidence through testing (such as
weight or speed). However, since reliability is a probabilistic
value it cannot be demonstrated by a simple (or short) test.
We must resort to accepting some level of “confidence” that
the requirement will be achieved based on limited testing. In a
simplistic sense, this confidence is a function of the required
reliability value, the number of failures experienced during the
test, and test duration. While we know the requirement (from
the system specification) and we can plan for realistic test
duration, the number of failures experienced is a function of
the “true” reliability of the system and, to some degree,
random chance. In other words, we could be “lucky” and
experience fewer failures during a test than the “true”
reliability would predict or we could be “unlucky” and
experience more failures than we would expect.
Fundamentally, the longer the test duration, the less likely the
results will be influenced by luck, but there are practical
limitations on the test time. Since our test duration cannot be
infinite, we are resigned to accepting some level of confidence
less than 100%. A confidence value of 80% is generally
accepted for demonstration of reliability requirements. The
challenge is to demonstrate a reliability objective with 80%
confidence. This often requires extending the test to allow
collection of sufficient data to achieve confidence in the
results.

The other major contributor to the required test duration
(besides desired confidence levels) is the “true” or inherent
system reliability. The more the true value exceeds the
required value, the less test time is needed to provide 80%
confidence. This leads to establishing a “goal” or “design to”
target reliability that may be as much as 50% to 100% greater
than the required value in some cases. While it may seem like
the best approach to reduce the risk of not demonstrating
compliance with 80% confidence is to design above the
requirement, in reality designing and producing a system that
exceeds the required value adds significant development and
production cost.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 04 Mar 2018 09:28

I am looking for accounts and books on artillery usage in 1965 and 1971 war.


And would like to know the rationale for Gen.Sunderji deciding to standardize on 155mm guns in mid 1980s.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 Mar 2018 15:25


JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2347
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 05 Mar 2018 22:12

US blames Indian ammo for gun snag, test today

INDIAN AND US officials will jointly test the American-made M777 ultra-light howitzer Monday after its muzzle broke during tests at a firing range in Pokharan six months ago, The Indian Express has learnt.

The tests will be conducted in Pokharan by a joint investigation committee (JIC) comprising US and Indian officials. US officials have blamed the accident on ammunition indigenously manufactured by the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) — the Indian side has denied the charge.

India signed a deal in November 2016 with the US to procure 145 M777 ultra-light howitzers for deployment on mountainous terrain in the northern and eastern borders. It was the first such induction of artillery guns since the Swedish Bofors guns in the late-1980s, which got embroiled in political controversy. As part of the Rs 5,070-crore deal, with delivery to be completed by 2021, two M777 guns were brought to India last May for field firing with Indian ammunition to compile “firing tables” that provide data such as range and elevation.

The accident, on September 2, 2017, involved one of these two guns when a projectile, the fifth in a series, exited in multiple pieces, damaging the barrel and breaking the muzzle.

The JIC, including OFB and Army officials, and representatives of the US Defence department and BAE Systems, the manufacturer, was formed to investigate the causes. But the two sides could not agree on the reasons in five meetings of the JIC held so far. The US officials claimed that the ammunition did not have explosive of the right consistency, which was denied by Indian officials.

The sixth meeting of JIC will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, after “instrumented firing” with specialised equipment from the US to check the differential pressure in the barrel while firing Indian ammunition.

Speaking to The Indian Express, official sources said, “All the team members will freely and frankly share their point of view during the JIC meeting. We will know more about the cause of the accident after the data from instrumented firing is analysed and presented to us.”

If the JIT reaches a conclusion this week, further testing to complete the firing table would be scheduled. According to the earlier schedule, the table was to be compiled by the end of September.

Official sources, however, were not willing to speak about whether the accident would lead to a delay in induction of the M777 howitzer guns.

Under the contract, 25 M777 guns will be inducted directly with the rest to be assembled at the BAE Systems facility in Maharashtra in partnership with Mahindra Group.


I wish this order gets cancelled or gets accused of corruption by Pappu. Like Tejas, only then Dhanush and ATAGS order will come.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 05 Mar 2018 22:27

JTull I don't think so. For IA does need these guns in the mountain regions.

This gun is different and is for MSC. Dhanush and ATAGS are for the plains.
So both are needed.

The instrumented shell they talk about is the instrumented fuze that measures radial and longitudinal accelerations and transmits with patch antennas. Read the PhD thesis I had linked before. It describes this gadget.

This technology DRDO can benefit from also. I hope some off the best scientists are put in this JIC and not just the OFB types.
Its a science problem not a mfg problem.


M777 had barrel burst earlier so they must have done root cause on those incidents.

The US charge that
The US officials claimed that the ammunition did not have explosive of the right consistency, which was denied by Indian officials.


Means they say the explosive had lumps in it that cause a CG offset when it solidifies.
Plausible but not probable as 1164 shells were fired from the gun that suffered from the shell break up.
If CG offset was there as a systemic issue it would have shown up or manifested earlier.

The phrase "Shell exited muzzle in pieces' is a result and the cause is shell break up.
Wish the briefing and press reports accurately.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 05 Mar 2018 22:39

Love those comments in that article.. As ill informed as can be.

I had said many times the Panchatantra folk tale "Brahmin and the Tiger' is quintessential Indian tale. These comments are similar to the first two witn(l)ess statements in that folks talk from the tree and the buffalo. Have nothing to do with the situation at hand.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1460
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ArjunPandit » 05 Mar 2018 23:05

ramana wrote:Love those comments in that article.. As ill informed as can be.

I had said many times the Panchatantra folk tale "Brahmin and the Tiger' is quintessential Indian tale. These comments are similar to the first two witn(l)ess statements in that folks talk from the tree and the buffalo. Have nothing to do with the situation at hand.

I wonder if these are indians or chinese 10centers or paki 1 roti/boti guys

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 05 Mar 2018 23:11

No RNI= Resident Non Indians. But do read or watch the folk tale especially Ben Kingsley narration on Youtube.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Mar 2018 07:40

Vidur,

The shell balloting thesis I linked above in its conclusions says

It is evident that the CG radial offset variation is the most significant
contributor to balloting. This is followed by the CG axial variation and the
projectile body variation, followed by the wheel base length and lastly the band
location.


So all these are shell based parameters and OFB should look at their mfg processes and do a statistical measurement of these parameters.
The CG offset variation gets magnified in worn gun tubes.

I think you should have OFB look into these as a safety issue as servicemen are injured by this.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1801
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 06 Mar 2018 08:00

ramana wrote:JTull I don't think so. For IA does need these guns in the mountain regions.

This gun is different and is for MSC. Dhanush and ATAGS are for the plains.
So both are needed.

The instrumented shell they talk about is the instrumented fuze that measures radial and longitudinal accelerations and transmits with patch antennas. Read the PhD thesis I had linked before. It describes this gadget.

This technology DRDO can benefit from also. I hope some off the best scientists are put in this JIC and not just the OFB types.
Its a science problem not a mfg problem.


M777 had barrel burst earlier so they must have done root cause on those incidents.

The US charge that
The US officials claimed that the ammunition did not have explosive of the right consistency, which was denied by Indian officials.


Means they say the explosive had lumps in it that cause a CG offset when it solidifies.
Plausible but not probable as 1164 shells were fired from the gun that suffered from the shell break up.
If CG offset was there as a systemic issue it would have shown up or manifested earlier.

The phrase "Shell exited muzzle in pieces' is a result and the cause is shell break up.
Wish the briefing and press reports accurately.


Ramanaji, the gun is different for the U.S Army and not for us. The U.S uses their Chinooks to move them around. They seem to have dedicated Chinooks for this role. What's the advantage for us with this guns? Nothing, since we are unable to transport them by helicopter. The number of helicopters that will get inducted is so less in number, that will be used elsewhere and if used to transport the guns, the war will be over before that happens. In reality it's a liability that we have a gun that can only fire with limited range compared to the ATAGS. ATAGS can stay 20 km behind an M777 and still fire the same distance with advantage in all other areas and still the Army is complaining about the weight of ATAGS, as if every jawan is supposed to carry one ATAGS on his shoulder. If light weight is that much a necessity, better go with Kalyani's light weight guns. Also ensuring that the HAL's Medium Lift Helis are capable of transporting the light guns.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1570
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 06 Mar 2018 09:20

i guess M777 makes more sense for US army as it is a expeditionary force..it moves around the world so the logistics of M777 is easier. bofors being used effectively in kargili conflict ( high altitude area ) proves a heavier gun could be v useful in indian context.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 681
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jaysimha » 06 Mar 2018 09:34

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/whatsnew/ncaat-broucher-arde-pune.pdf
DRDO 2nd national conference on advances in armament technology NCAAT 2018 PUNE
8th and 9th june Pune

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2254
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 06 Mar 2018 11:08

FH77, Dhanush, ATAGS and if possible even K-9 will be used in the mountains not just M777, if anything M777 is a niche weapon for us.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 06 Mar 2018 15:24

Dear Mr. Akshay Kapoor,

I think you deleted my comment, made earlier, in response to the post you made about not tolerating anyone calling army officers jokers.

At least I am not able to find my comment after having searched for it a few times already, yesterday and today. Or it seems to have mysteriously disappeared. And I did not take a screenshot too.

I did not abuse anyone in my comment. I actually referred to me coming from a family which has served the Armed forces of India, at least since World War 1, from Jawans to Generals. The comment I made was in line with my thought that on this forum, I have seen all sections of India's polity being abused, some like Civil Servants, in rather stark terms. I further averred that soldiers and officers of Indian Armed forces come from the same stock that provides for Politicians, Scientists, Businessmen, Professors, Teachers, Bureaucrats etc. And, I remarked that we should have rules that account for all segments of the society, unless our idea of existence is to suggest that some sections of citizenry of India are at a markedly higher stature of existence. Coming from a family with Great Grand Parents, to brothers, to cousins, serving in the Armed Forces of India, I certainly don't need to be given lessons on respecting them.

I dont comment on the forum often - you will see that from my record given that you are a Moderator. I come and read and move on. I have set up and run entrepreneurial organisations across India over the last 2 decades. I am not in the business of abusing people or trivialising issues by random abuses.

I would expect to have been the given the courtesy of being informed that my comment was being deleted.

If the above sounds unreasonable to you, then my submission is that you have to rethink some elements of your role as a moderator.

My apologies to you in advance, if my earlier comment is still there, and if I have been remiss in not finding it.

Best regards,
Ashutosh Malik

ramana wrote:Ever since Babur at Panipat, artillery has been a weakness for Indians. In fact Brirish Indian Army was allowed to raise artillery formations only just before WWII.

After initial 75mm pack and 105mm howitzer, IA has ensured no Indian development of artillery with their attitude. You can't innovate what you don't design and make.

US adopted the French 75, 105 and 155mm during world war I and continusouky developed them. Even now US is learning the 155mm intricacies. The advent of electronic fuzes has made tube ballistics were important to learn.

It's sad the IA wants to keep importing.

I think the COI are a farce for they resume trials and things fall apart. They don't know what they dont know.
One simple table listing all the shell and gun failures will.show a pattern.
Date, Type of gun, calibers, shell, Fuze, charge, barrel diameter, how many rounds already fired from that gun, Comments.

MOD Note : edited by Akshay Kapoor.

I will not tolerate anyone calling army officers jokers. Ramana you should set better standards as a thought leader and senior most moderator. Standards are always set at the top and that is where the rot starts as well. Lead by example like you have done on shell balloting analysis.

Second point to everyone - dont react to every article you see. Respond (not react) to facts on the ground with clarity of thought. Some weeks ago a positive news on winter trials of ATAGS came out and everyone started reacting. Some even questioning why x orders were not given. When that was seen off another article has come which is 180 degrees opposite and again people start reacting. Have you no minds of your own that you will react to every bit of press news ? What madness is this ? What is the difference between you and the lay man on the street.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Mar 2018 21:59

uddu and manjgu,

I was saying that for IA M777 is different than the Dhanush or ATAGS due to less weight and shorter barrel.
So its needed.

Sorry for being brief.

per Indian Express the new trial should be over yesterday. Lets hear the results.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 06 Mar 2018 22:16

Ashutosh Malik wrote:Dear Mr. Akshay Kapoor,

I think you deleted my comment, made earlier, in response to the post you made about not tolerating anyone calling army officers jokers.

At least I am not able to find my comment after having searched for it a few times already, yesterday and today. Or it seems to have mysteriously disappeared. And I did not take a screenshot too.

I did not abuse anyone in my comment. I actually referred to me coming from a family which has served the Armed forces of India, at least since World War 1, from Jawans to Generals. The comment I made was in line with my thought that on this forum, I have seen all sections of India's polity being abused, some like Civil Servants, in rather stark terms. I further averred that soldiers and officers of Indian Armed forces come from the same stock that provides for Politicians, Scientists, Businessmen, Professors, Teachers, Bureaucrats etc. And, I remarked that we should have rules that account for all segments of the society, unless our idea of existence is to suggest that some sections of citizenry of India are at a markedly higher stature of existence. Coming from a family with Great Grand Parents, to brothers, to cousins, serving in the Armed Forces of India, I certainly don't need to be given lessons on respecting them.

I dont comment on the forum often - you will see that from my record given that you are a Moderator. I come and read and move on. I have set up and run entrepreneurial organisations across India over the last 2 decades. I am not in the business of abusing people or trivialising issues by random abuses.

I would expect to have been the given the courtesy of being informed that my comment was being deleted.

If the above sounds unreasonable to you, then my submission is that you have to rethink some elements of your role as a moderator.

My apologies to you in advance, if my earlier comment is still there, and if I have been remiss in not finding it.

Best regards,
Ashutosh Malik

ramana wrote:Ever since Babur at Panipat, artillery has been a weakness for Indians. In fact Brirish Indian Army was allowed to raise artillery formations only just before WWII.

After initial 75mm pack and 105mm howitzer, IA has ensured no Indian development of artillery with their attitude. You can't innovate what you don't design and make.

US adopted the French 75, 105 and 155mm during world war I and continusouky developed them. Even now US is learning the 155mm intricacies. The advent of electronic fuzes has made tube ballistics were important to learn.

It's sad the IA wants to keep importing.

I think the COI are a farce for they resume trials and things fall apart. They don't know what they dont know.
One simple table listing all the shell and gun failures will.show a pattern.
Date, Type of gun, calibers, shell, Fuze, charge, barrel diameter, how many rounds already fired from that gun, Comments.

MOD Note : edited by Akshay Kapoor.

I will not tolerate anyone calling army officers jokers. Ramana you should set better standards as a thought leader and senior most moderator. Standards are always set at the top and that is where the rot starts as well. Lead by example like you have done on shell balloting analysis.

Second point to everyone - dont react to every article you see. Respond (not react) to facts on the ground with clarity of thought. Some weeks ago a positive news on winter trials of ATAGS came out and everyone started reacting. Some even questioning why x orders were not given. When that was seen off another article has come which is 180 degrees opposite and again people start reacting. Have you no minds of your own that you will react to every bit of press news ? What madness is this ? What is the difference between you and the lay man on the street.


Thank you for your sensible and reasoned post. I did in fact delete your comment and to be fair I also deleted my own comment which your comment was a reaction to because I did not want any derailing of the discussion. Your comment was OT. It was also in response to a discussion between two moderators - myself and Ramana and its best kept that way without interference. But you are quite right - I should have informed you it was deleted especially as it was not an abusive post by any standards. The problem Mr Malik is that everyone is not reasonable like yourself. Its almost a lynch mob here sometimes and that has to be stopped by decisive action.

People seem to protect their rights to comment and abuse much more than exercise their obligation to post with content. A conscious decision has been taken on the forum to improve the quality to discussion and that will be maintained. Please take any complaints to the feedback thread. Thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 07 Mar 2018 00:29

Re-reading the Ind Exp article by Sushant Singh


The sixth meeting of JIC will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, after “instrumented firing” with specialised equipment from the US to check the differential pressure in the barrel while firing Indian ammunition.



This implies a different problem. The shell contents are getting compression load. I don't see how this is shell problem.
Any way the meeting should be over tomorrow.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2172
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby VinodTK » 08 Mar 2018 20:53

After failing thrice, Indian Bofors clears internal trials
Nagpur: After failing thrice during trials, Dhanush, the Indian 155x45 mm calibre howitzer, based on the Swedish Bofors, has cleared a crucial round of internal tests. It is slated to be sent for further trials with the Army in April.
The howitzer indigenisation was initiated in 2010. In 2013, a shell burst within the barrel during trials with the Army, setting back the process. After this, in 2017, there were two incidents of muzzle hits during similar trials. The shell came out of the barrel, but hit the muzzle brake, a component at the opening. In the same period, one of the pieces of the first batch of M-777 guns purchased from the US too suffered a muzzle hit.
Dhanush is being developed at the Gun Carriage Factory (GCF) Jabalpur. After a series of setbacks, it was decided to undertake thorough internal trials, before putting up the gun for trials with the Army again.
Sources said two guns were tested at Balasore, where the internal trials were held. Nearly 80% of the rounds were fired at full charge. This means the highest power of ammunition was used. This is because muzzle hits normally happen when a shell is fired at full charge.
During the Army trials, firing was done from a full battery, which constitutes of six guns. However, the number of shells fired in the internal trials using two guns were much more than in the trials with the Army, said sources privy to the development.
The tests were conducted smoothly with no incidents reported. Although certain modifications have been made in the guns, the changes are not linked with the muzzle-hit issue, said the sources.
“Aspects like the gun’s compatibility with the ammunition, reliability and sustainability were tested during the Balasore trials. As things have been smooth, a conclusion can be derived that the earlier incidents happened due to fault in the ammunition, not the guns,” said a source. Inquiry is underway into the incidents related to Dhanush as well as M-777.
The GCF has got an order to make 114 Dhanush guns for the Army. Even after the order, tests continued with the guns made in the first batch, during which the misfires took place. Sources say muzzle hit has taken place over 40 times even in the original Bofors purchased from Sweden.



TOI articula dated March 5th

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Mar 2018 00:25

VinodTK wrote:After failing thrice, Indian Bofors clears internal trials
Nagpur: After failing thrice during trials, Dhanush, the Indian 155x45 mm calibre howitzer, based on the Swedish Bofors, has cleared a crucial round of internal tests. It is slated to be sent for further trials with the Army in April.
The howitzer indigenisation was initiated in 2010. In 2013, a shell burst within the barrel during trials with the Army, setting back the process. After this, in 2017, there were two incidents of muzzle hits during similar trials. The shell came out of the barrel, but hit the muzzle brake, a component at the opening. In the same period, one of the pieces of the first batch of M-777 guns purchased from the US too suffered a muzzle hit.
Dhanush is being developed at the Gun Carriage Factory (GCF) Jabalpur. After a series of setbacks, it was decided to undertake thorough internal trials, before putting up the gun for trials with the Army again.
Sources said two guns were tested at Balasore, where the internal trials were held. Nearly 80% of the rounds were fired at full charge. This means the highest power of ammunition was used. This is because muzzle hits normally happen when a shell is fired at full charge.

During the Army trials, firing was done from a full battery, which constitutes of six guns. However, the number of shells fired in the internal trials using two guns were much more than in the trials with the Army, said sources privy to the development.
The tests were conducted smoothly with no incidents reported. Although certain modifications have been made in the guns, the changes are not linked with the muzzle-hit issue, said the sources.


“Aspects like the gun’s compatibility with the ammunition, reliability and sustainability were tested during the Balasore trials. As things have been smooth, a conclusion can be derived that the earlier incidents happened due to fault in the ammunition, not the guns,” said a source. Inquiry is underway into the incidents related to Dhanush as well as M-777.

The GCF has got an order to make 114 Dhanush guns for the Army. Even after the order, tests continued with the guns made in the first batch, during which the misfires took place. Sources say muzzle hit has taken place over 40 times even in the original Bofors purchased from Sweden.



TOI article dated March 5th



VinodTK, Thanks for the post....

Awesome news.

It vindicates my analysis from open sources and papers from scholars.
It was the shell as OFB, GCF is indicating.
Again to reiterate the muzzle hits happen at full charge.
And the two guns tested at Balasore were fired at full charge.
And no muzzle hits in this instance.
Also the changes made could be those improvements that were talked about in Frontline article.

Only thing not reported I how many rounds were fired?

And how does that compare to UET by Army?

Reason I ask is, barrel wear could magnify any shell issues.
So number of rounds fired in Balasore trials could indicate barrel wear.

This conclusion about shell being a cause will lead to closure of M777 shell breakup currently being investigated.
Because the OFB shells are good when fired at max charge in nominal gun barrel and not worn out barrel.

Also by now the sixth meeting of M777 JIC would be over after the instrumented firing trials as reported by Sushant Singh in Indian Express.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 09 Mar 2018 23:40

This report is pretty good news.

How come we don't see any acknowledgement!!!

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 681
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jaysimha » 10 Mar 2018 13:37

https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachdocs/mar-2018/1520312256387.pdf
page 40
Larsen & Toubro (L&T) has bagged a contract worth US$ 669.34 million from the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, to supply 100 artillery of 155mm/52 caliber tracked self-propelled guns for the
Indian Army, under the Make in India initiative.

page 105
The Ministry of Defence, Government of India, approved the “Strategic Partnership” model
which will enable private companies to tie up with foreign players for manufacturing
submarines, fighter jets, helicopters and armoured vehicles.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 10 Mar 2018 21:00

WTF is a GOI org's official website posting contract values in million USD ??

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Mar 2018 21:19

This is the tracked K9 artillery with South Korean collaboration.
Finally Renuka Choudhary hit in 2004 is being rectified.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Mar 2018 21:53

Rahul M wrote:WTF is a GOI org's official website posting contract values in million USD ??



Probably lot of import content for the K9 series SPG.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1721
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 11 Mar 2018 15:45

Almost 7 mil per unit

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 11 Mar 2018 18:40

I had time to spend and watched some youtube videos on WW2 German-Russia little fight.

Germany deployed 6500 artillery pieces in Op Barbarosa. 3500 tanks( equivalent to our tank number) for the invasion. Their primary artillery piece was 150MM !

In return the Russian deployed 6000 artillery just for the attack on Berlin ! The Germans just could not cope with the Russian numbers in tanks & artillery.

I have come to conclusion that for RMA, it may be the better jets, net centric warfare, missiles etc, however the core of it is artillery! Nothing destroys like artillery.

I cannot wait to see our artillery updated to medium, with ATAGS, Dhanush, M777, K9 etc. This is the our real RMA. No wonder every effort had been made to deny us artillery.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 11 Mar 2018 19:27

yeah in terms of bodycount artillery has beaten everything else right from middle ages till date. maybe even a summation of all other weapons.

we need to double and triple our number of artillery regiments both tube and rocket. even light 105mm and 122mmMRBL made in numbers with modern materials can be quite useful...we always seem to neglect these dal roti in favour of butter naan and lahori pulao citing extreme use cases of range, mobility, whatever.....90% of action will be covered by these bread and butter north korean type weapons also.

we have the largest army, lets shrink the tail (batmen, helpers, maalis, koi hai ...) and put them into the teeth peoples artillery divisions. train moving them by train and road enmasse, then digging in and unleashing devastating massed fire.

the US army artillery corps figured out in ww2 how to network the fire of multiple regiments and beat back attacks by german tanks .... on their inferior sherman equipped forces...
https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german- ... omparison/

excerpts

A component by component examination of American and German artillery shows that almost from the beginning of America’s participation in the conflict the U.S. Army had the superior system. American artillerymen did not try to combat the enemy’s artillery by building bigger guns. The approach from the beginning was to build a better system and it worked. That was clear to thoughtful observers at the time. Viewing the Italian campaign, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commented, “The enemy’s tremendous superiority in artillery, and even more in the air, has broken the front open.” During the Normandy campaign, Rommel added, “Also in evidence is their great superiority in artillery and outstandingly large supply of ammunition.” By any reasonable standard, especially during the latter part of World War II, the American artillery arm was very clearly superior to that of the Germans.

The Field Artillery branch had developed clear ideas of what guns were needed for the mobile war it saw coming. Their designs were well thought out and served America well and, in some cases, are still serving America’s allies. When the money was finally allocated, the Army could spend it effectively (after a bit of congressional prodding) to get the guns it wanted built in a minimum of time thanks to the Army’s Industrial Mobilization plan. The United States was the only country with such a plan. The first version was largely put together by a bright young major named Dwight D. Eisenhower :shock:

One way to appreciate the magnitude of the problems caused by horse-drawn artillery is to note that one of the reasons the German Sixth Army did not try to break out of its encirclement at Stalingrad was because most of its horses were in rehabilitation camps to the west and were outside of that encirclement. As a result, Sixth Army would not have been able to move its heavy weapons or ammunition during a breakout attempt.
The Field Artillery School at Fort Sill also developed the fire direction center for U.S. artillery battalions and brigades into a place where fires could be rapidly allocated and shifted as needed. It was common practice to combine fires of the artillery of two or more adjacent divisions in support of an attack of one of those divisions, and then shift all the fires to successive attacks by the other divisions. The four divisions fighting on the northern shoulder of the Battle of the Bulge went even further. They were supported by the fire of 348 guns and a battalion of 4.2-inch mortars. All of these guns were placed under the direction of the assistant division commander of the 1st Infantry Division and all their fire was coordinated through his headquarters.



The sophistication of American fire direction developed at Fort Sill included the uniquely American ability, at that time: to have several batteries fire “Time on Target” (TOT) shoots. The fire direction center directing the TOT broadcast a countdown to all of the batteries participating in the shoot. Each battery calculated the time of flight from their guns to the target. Each fired during the countdown at a time that caused the initial rounds from all of the guns to impact the target simultaneously. Its effect was shattering.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 11 Mar 2018 19:41

so rather than salivating over just the guns, we need to improve the whole food chain from quality and quantity of shells, logistics, target spotting and observation, WLRs, near real time GMTI, recce pod camera and satellite photo feeds into division HQ ,,,,,,, unless we consider our system to be perfect!

our divisional & brigade commanders need numerous LO drones and not the vulnerable chetak helicopters for target observation. we should probably have license made cloned the searcher and heron drones in 1000s rather than waste time on the ka226 type kit.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 11 Mar 2018 19:46


I always got the impression that good engineering is making things work at the limits of what science allows. Sadly a very large number of Indians even "in high places" simply do not understand as they curse Indian engineering for failures and compare with wesht. An artillery shell and the barrel are really working at the limits of what the materials allow and minimizing the failures and defining the envelope limits is what good engineering is - and that need work, time and empathy. Give our people a chance. They will kick ass.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 11 Mar 2018 20:04

Ofcourse. Was doing some math. In comparison to a missile costing 1 million USD, 155 MM rounds costing 1k USD, with a effect radius of 10 mtrs will be able to bring down 1k rounds and pulverize a width of 2 KM of the front !

That is the radius width of a nuke!

Agree with you, we need those numbers.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 11 Mar 2018 20:06

knowing the failure modes properly will also help to optimize the design and avoid over engineering. thats where massa with dozens of parallel projects most of which get shitcanned pulls ahead with strong data banks and ends up with light, tightly packed but highly functional gear.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 11 Mar 2018 21:36

Rafale Aside, Big French Push On 2 Indian Weapon Contests Worth $8 Billion
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/03 ... llion.html

The other contest Parly refers to, also before the Indian Army, is a $2 billion quest for 1500 towed artillery guns. The towed gun system (TGS) contest is currently in crucial field trials by the Army. France fields the Nexter TRAJAN 155mm/52 cal artillery gun system developed in collaboration with India’s L&T, which will produce the gun in India should their partnership win the contest. While L&T will produce the mobility system, Nexter brings the actual gun, based on its in-service CAESAR system. The TRAJAN competes with an offering from Israel’s Elbit in partnership with India’s Kalyani Group. The program stipulates a local production run of at least 1,100 of those guns under Make in India protocols.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 11 Mar 2018 23:11

Picklu wrote:Almost 7 mil per unit


Addt the armored track unit.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Google [Bot] and 33 guests