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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48100
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 23 Jul 2017 09:43

BTW there is some good news in the CAG report table if you look carefully.
Should be able to report soon.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48100
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 23 Jul 2017 10:19

Folks there is lot of emotions going on. Doesn't help if stuff is raked up or shoot from others shoulders.
We all have a share in it.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12908
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 23 Jul 2017 10:24

I think we are taking senti stuff a bit too far ; no one asked about injuries because until Niran posted there was no such indication in any news source and before people cry about how insensitive people are about forces we have threads here dedicated to crashes and mishaps in services we never have threads for someone dying on line of duty in other sectors so can we stop this lousy line of argument ?

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 23 Jul 2017 10:26

archan wrote:niran ji you do realize that the MIl forum is open to public..?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
saar those press will need to log in and read it here what are the chances of that happening? a hiso no time for yamraj nayshoon want to known doorknob logging on to BRF for a WhatWasTheName arty piece? preposterous i say

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48100
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 23 Jul 2017 10:37

So its IED?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 10:45

negi wrote:I think we are taking senti stuff a bit too far ; no one asked about injuries because until Niran posted there was no such indication in any news source and before people cry about how insensitive people are about forces we have threads here dedicated to crashes and mishaps in services we never have threads for someone dying on line of duty in other sectors so can we stop this lousy line of argument ?


Oh brilliant again! Absolute gem again.

This is a mil forum hence mostly military people are mentioned. Please do create threads for those dying in line of duty in all sectors please at the appropriate place or here. Loss of life is tragic and shall be given its due importance and recognition.

The consideration is for an accident and the safety for people around and not some senti stuff of forces alone.

Let us see it this way - Back in the '80s and '90s while I was school boy in Jamshedpur we were unfortunately used to hearing about industrial accidents. Workers even lost their lives. Nine out of ten cases, it was the fault of the humans and not machine and yet every single time production would stop to identify the root cause, rectify it and then restart production.

The Arty gun shell burst incident is a similar accident which needs cause identification and rectification. That will be done by those tasked for it and we need to accept it. The trigger to my post was a rather self assuming conclusion which I had countered and I have mentioned here:

deejay wrote:
srai wrote:
If this happened to the imported ULH during exploitation phase (meaning contract already signed and deliveries have begun), would the IA have the authority to tell BAE to make changes and stop production before further can be inducted? Don't think so. They will have to induct all and work with the limitation. Down the road, they will need to pay for modifications.


The answer is - Yes. If the contracts are properly drafted.

However, this a very interesting post. It goes into a hypothetical situation...

would the IA have the authority to tell BAE to make changes and stop production before further can be inducted?...


and then gives a definitive answer...

... Don't think so. They will have to induct all and work with the limitation. Down the road, they will need to pay for modifications.


Brilliant.


The Jawans operating the gun are the workers akin to those at Tata Motors. The top management (Officers in IA Arty) are responsible to make sure that soldiers are not exposed to identified risks unnecessarily. It does not matter if the system is BAE / OFB. By not addressing this angle of safety but focusing only on the technical aspects the discussions reach conclusions which are incorrect.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12908
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 23 Jul 2017 10:52

^ You are getting worked up for no reason ; point was simple there was no indication of anyone losing a life or getting injured until Niran posted . Point that no one cared about asking about injured hence is moot .

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 10:55

^^^ The point was to show posters like "srai" that inquiry would happen and corrections made irrespective of BAE/OFB.

P.S. Do not patronize me on what is necessary and what is unnecessary. I will decide that for myself.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5867
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 23 Jul 2017 11:59

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Indranil wrote:You shouldn't have. Even if this is true, let GoI reveal what it needs to reveal. If IA or GoI have not spoken about it, there may be reasons.

On a different note, accidents may happen. But, criminal proceedings should become a norm for criminal neglect. If these injuries are true and if CoI comes out saying that it was because somebody's chai or lunch was getting late, OFB would have find a motivated denouncer in me.


Dj's point was that no one on this forum even bothered to ask 'hey were there any casualties'. Absolutely no concern for the men. Was it wrong for DJ to have asked that question Indranil ?

It's sad is that I logged in after some time expecting that after all the protestations and vehement denials in the feedback thread and my exchange with a webmaster offline that things will change - atleast with moderators. Sadly no.

Another example is how Tsarkar has explained several times what these trials are about. Yet some poster posts an inane post about 'trial going on and on'. And three mods posting on this thread and none bothered to correct this. And only one of them showing concern for casualties and that too after DJ points out that no one has asked this question.

Unfortunately sir, you have given me a long lecture before realizing what had ACTUALLY happened. My post was not in response to deejay. It was in response to manish_sharma's post (which has now been deleted for good reason).

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 23 Jul 2017 14:06

Arty is for wholesale destruction, yes? why? for Peace of course. thus everyone step back take deep breaths and come back peacefuly. accidents happen and no one wants an accident on their hands. investigation root cause analysis under going. order for 1500 is out it won't be cancled until it is a design fault. first instance it is shell not the gun itself.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2942
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby suryag » 23 Jul 2017 14:10

Niran ullah if 1500 dhanush are ordered and if OFB delivers it @ 100/yr i will supply buttermilk/food full day to traffic police stationed at bellandur junction ... pramisss

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1035
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 23 Jul 2017 14:31

negi wrote:^ You are getting worked up for no reason ; point was simple there was no indication of anyone losing a life or getting injured until Niran posted . Point that no one cared about asking about injured hence is moot .


Point is - 8-10 men standing within 2-3 meters of a 155mm shell bursting. Laws of physics - they will be hurt. Why do you need a media report for that ? So the fact that no one asked this question means one of two things - either they can't do any independent thinking and value add here. Or they don't care.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jamwal » 23 Jul 2017 14:33

niran wrote:
archan wrote:niran ji you do realize that the MIl forum is open to public..?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
saar those press will need to log in and read it here what are the chances of that happening? a hiso no time for yamraj nayshoon want to known doorknob logging on to BRF for a WhatWasTheName arty piece? preposterous i say

Nobody needs to login to read what is posted on this forum except General discussion section.
If you have some confidential information which should not be made public, do not post it here. It is very naive to post something in a public forum, expecting to keep it limited and then to threaten act like Liam Neeson in Taken movies when the inevitable happens.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1035
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 23 Jul 2017 14:38

Indranilji, there was no way for me to know that your post was not a response to DJ and the subsequent posting of casualty figures by the good doc. However the points I made unfortunately are true and are not restricted to this thread. Intention was not to lecture. Anyway I promise no more lectures or comments or posts from me.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17821
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 23 Jul 2017 15:00

If this has happened with the desi Bofors,can you imagine the possibilities of other systems similarly being sabotaged/cheapened by unscrupulous traitorous govt. servants? Many years ago after the frequent MIG-21 crashes post Sov.Union,investigators allegedly found that grey market spares picked up from dubious Warsaw Pact nations were passed off as genuine spares from Russia.These were used mostly on HAL built aircraft which led to a war between HAL and the IAF as to who was responsible.Now that scandal and the latest OFB one-we've had numerous complaints about OFB munitions being unfit for battle before,could not have been perpetrated unless there re powerful entities within the MOD and the DPSUs.At the receiving end are the services,who lose precious lives in the bargain (pilots),families of those affected and the taxpayers and nation at large.

Such treasonous activities must receive the highest punishment possible,as these perpetrators and nothing less than traitors. The PM''s secretariat along with the DM/HM ministers,should set up a spl. anti-corruption wing for investigating the defence establishment in general,(MOD/DPSUs/Services) alone,to limit the no. of cases.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 23 Jul 2017 17:08

niran wrote:
archan wrote:niran ji you do realize that the MIl forum is open to public..?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
saar those press will need to log in and read it here what are the chances of that happening? a hiso no time for yamraj nayshoon want to known doorknob logging on to BRF for a WhatWasTheName arty piece? preposterous i say



Even a simple google search for "dhanush, damaged, injured" with additional tags will return your post.

Please do not post confidential information here

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14618
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 23 Jul 2017 17:10

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
negi wrote:^ You are getting worked up for no reason ; point was simple there was no indication of anyone losing a life or getting injured until Niran posted . Point that no one cared about asking about injured hence is moot .


Point is - 8-10 men standing within 2-3 meters of a 155mm shell bursting. Laws of physics - they will be hurt. Why do you need a media report for that ? So the fact that no one asked this question means one of two things - either they can't do any independent thinking and value add here. Or they don't care.



But they shouldnt be within 2-3 meters in a test. IIRC a cable or a long rope is attached to the firing mechanism for a test fire. This was how Arjun based 130mm was tested. So if this was not done here, only reason i can think of, was the gun was deemed sufficiently mature to treat it like a regular unit, and then this happens. Or the blast effect was so high that even troops several meters behind the gun were affected, in which case, folks better think about further safety measures. Perhaps some fortification behind which troops can shelter

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15951
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby chetak » 23 Jul 2017 17:24

Karan M wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Point is - 8-10 men standing within 2-3 meters of a 155mm shell bursting. Laws of physics - they will be hurt. Why do you need a media report for that ? So the fact that no one asked this question means one of two things - either they can't do any independent thinking and value add here. Or they don't care.



But they shouldnt be within 2-3 meters in a test. IIRC a cable or a long rope is attached to the firing mechanism for a test fire. This was how Arjun based 130mm was tested. So if this was not done here, only reason i can think of, was the gun was deemed sufficiently mature to treat it like a regular unit, and then this happens. Or the blast effect was so high that even troops several meters behind the gun were affected, in which case, folks better think about further safety measures. Perhaps some fortification behind which troops can shelter


I don't think that an unproven gun would be treated in such a cavalier fashion by anyone.

There are strict precautions and protocols and written orders specifically governing each trial.

the gun is unproven until the trials are concluded to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14618
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 23 Jul 2017 17:32

which makes these injuries all the more bizarre. perhaps SOPs need to be changed.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 17:57

1. This was not an untested gun.
2. I think Akshay Sir would be better off saying 2-3 mtrs from the rear wheel of the gun since the muzzle is way too far. Even here the distance could have been more. We have no exact images to go by.
3. SOPs are fine. Arty guys do it day in and out.
4. Injuries happen when dangerous things explode nearby. Force Fields are yet to be invented.
5. The important thing is there will be an Inquiry, identification of problem and rectification if there is a problem in the gun or ammo irrespective of who made the Gun - OFB or BAE and who made the Ammo.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 18:04

This is an M777 firing video US army - check the proximity and cable length-



A video of IA arty - proceedures on using Arty guns are clear if you watch



Also notice the difference in after shock in firing of various calibre guns.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 18:11

... and for some TFTA action - Here is the Dhanush itself



As you can see this is under testing. You judge the distances.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Marten » 23 Jul 2017 18:40

Thank you Deejay, does this mean the lanyard was used during user exploitation trials. Let me also apologize for not enquiring about any injuries etc. Based on past coverage, one would assume no issues when media doesn't report. Bad assumption, as things have borne out.

OT: My only take here is that folks also do not spend time on the Mil flight safety thread enquiring about known missing crew. Ideally folks would also be equally interested in such things. Having seen first hand what a peacetime casualty does to the family (even second or third gen), and how they are made to run pillar to post for closure, let's also focus on such painful things and try to change processes and attitudes there. We're all on the same side so the sniping should stop. With respect to all.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Marten » 23 Jul 2017 18:44

Can anyone share the shrapnel (airburst) radius? Unnamed sources claim 100m for 155. Is this correct?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15951
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby chetak » 23 Jul 2017 19:04

^^^^^^^


If that is what they are doing with an unproven gun, then it is very very foolish.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 19:09

Marten wrote:Thank you Deejay, does this mean the lanyard was used during user exploitation trials. Let me also apologize for not enquiring about any injuries etc. Based on past coverage, one would assume no issues when media doesn't report. Bad assumption, as things have borne out.

...


Marten Sir, from the videos it is very clear that 02 men would remain in close proximity while the gun is fired. 03 men would be further away. Why were their more men around would depend on deployment of shells around, observers and standby team etc - but this is speculation. Answer is we do not know.

Injuries can happen with ammunition and live firing all the time. It normally does happen in large exercises and is rarely reported. Please try to understand I am questioning the line of thinking that IA will have double standards in inquiry into imported systems viz desi systems given that these accidents lead to injuries.

The gun will get back to firing and I really hope and pray it succeeds.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 19:11

chetak wrote:^^^^^^^


If that is what they are doing with an unproven gun, then it is very very foolish.


Unproven Gun? This is the second time you have said this. How was Dhanush an unproven gun? What was "foolish" in following the procedures similar to the gun from which it evolved - the Bofors. Please see the video.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 953
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_P » 23 Jul 2017 19:22

Even for combat proven guns, the risk of faulty fuses and shells leading to such a situation can and does happen. To an extent it can be minimized with strict quality controls but some amount will always be there.

See the video below of the troops firing the CAESAR 8x8 self-propelled artillery system. The firing officer triggers the firing with the wired remote control unit (as opposed to the traditional lanyard) but still he is close enough to the gun. And even if he could do the firing from a larger distance (larger wire, wireless device), the loaders position is close to the gun muzzle. Same for the Israeli Atmos where the firing officer is in the cab of the truck

The risk of injury due to a faulty shell burst is a little less for crews of self propelled artillery, especially the tracked ones like the Pzh2000, the K9 etc, since they are ensconced in their armored hull

But not all guns can be self-propelled armored ones

Danish troops firing CAESAR 8x8 self-propelled artillery system


Elbit Systems / ATMOS

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12908
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 23 Jul 2017 19:31

Marten wrote:Can anyone share the shrapnel (airburst) radius? Unnamed sources claim 100m for 155. Is this correct?

Shrapnel radius will depend on what height did the shell go off and also on the vector in this case luckily it was pointing away. However if someone was in 10-20 meter radius it won't matter it will be lethal.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12908
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 23 Jul 2017 19:41

I think a stronger opinion can only be made once we have enough data which I am afraid we may not get access to ; I mean if RCA says faulty or old shell it would make all of those involved very very bad for it would mean we never learnt from 2016 incident . However if it comes down to some issue with the gun alone then obviously things will go back to the drawing board and it won't be wrong to say that SOPs should be revised where the proposed changes stand to save lives of our men ; I mean Dhanush is completely electrically operated and electronically controlled so it shouldn't be too difficult to setup a test harness which allows for firing the gun from confines of a safe concrete barricade say 50-100 meters away . Sure people can poke holes and say then trials won't be proper user trials as such for in war gun will be operated by men in close proximity and that is a valid point however that's a question which any modern fighting force will have to confront i.e. a large part of modernization means to minimize risks for this is not just about saving lives of men but also to save resources and time which has gone into training of our men, all this if you even look at it from practical pov with a risk of coming across as insensitive.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15951
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby chetak » 23 Jul 2017 19:55

deejay wrote:
chetak wrote:^^^^^^^


If that is what they are doing with an unproven gun, then it is very very foolish.


Unproven Gun? This is the second time you have said this. How was Dhanush an unproven gun? What was "foolish" in following the procedures similar to the gun from which it evolved - the Bofors. Please see the video.


has it been released into the IA service?? No

Is it still under trials?? Yes

It is unproven. Doesn't matter what the pedigree is.

There is a fully documented procedure for acceptance of a weapon/system into Indian military service. It details the various steps that have to be mandatorily completed and signed off by all parties concerned.

This gun is at best a work in progress and problems are to be expected.

it is not a comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the gun/ammo itself.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 23 Jul 2017 20:08

Having followed the train of thought best in motion by ramana. Should we brace ourselves for similar news from the ATAGS trials as well. That the fuse related issues will cause barrels to explode.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Bishwa » 23 Jul 2017 20:11

Chetak,
An unproven gun is fired with the gunner hidden in a pit at a distance from the gun and pulling a rope to trigger the gun. This is to protect the manpower from accidents.

The Dhanush must have gone through that in the very initial firings.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 20:12

chetak wrote:...

has it been released into the IA service?? No

Is it still under trials?? Yes

It is unproven. Doesn't matter what the pedigree is.

There is a fully documented procedure for acceptance of a weapon/system into Indian military service. It details the various steps that have to be mandatorily completed and signed off by all parties concerned.

This gun is at best a work in progress and problems are to be expected.

it is not a comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the gun/ammo itself.


Okay, so it was a personal bench mark. I thought you were refering to the "Proof Tests" which were carried out for Dhanush. The mention is in this link.

http://currentaffairs.gktoday.in/indian-army-conducts-test-indigenous-heavy-artillery-gun-dhanush-01201739389.html

The Indian Army has successfully conducted ‘user-validation’ trials of indigenous Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) Dhanush in the Himalayas. It clears the way for the induction in the Army. Earlier, proof firing tests of Dhanush’s armament systems were carried out during technical trials in June and September 2016 and some initial integrated firing tests were successfully carried out in December 2016.

...


The video I have posted with Gun firing into the sea is the proof test video. It is in the Chandipur Test Range, I think.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 867
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shaun » 23 Jul 2017 20:29

was going through the comments and videos posted , well , Dhanush does have automation but ppl needs to be near for running it. A layer sits on the left hand side of the gun, operating the fire control computer and driving the howitzer when in self-deployment mode. Even CAESAR and ATMOS have crew near to their gun. What I find lacking is personal protective gear with our boys wearing caps.The injuries could have been minimised with better PPE but alas its the same like our infantry , isn't it.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2023
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 23 Jul 2017 20:40

How do you prove an "unproven" gun if you don't use it the way it is meant to be used?

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 953
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_P » 23 Jul 2017 20:40

Ramana sir. I would like to agree with you that new (if not match grade ammunition) should be used for proof trials. But user exploitation trials will contain testing with different batches (and aging) of ammunition.

In an ideal world old, deteriorated ammunition would not be stored or retained further for usage neither for trials nor for war time.

I am sure with our long history, the artillery core must be well versed with the safe usage of the ammunition. But they are also dependent of being given proper records of the storage history... assuming that the ammunition has been stored well and with diligent care, in the second place. The first place being the assumption that the manufacturing quality of the ammunition has been perfect by the OFB.

Please check this - Indian Army let down by Ordnance Factories,

Inquires of the CAG reveal performance of OFB have dipped in the last four years - since 2013. Earlier, from 2009-2013 the shortfall in production of different types of ammunition varied from "54 to 73 per cent." Subsequently, from 2013 to December 2016, the CAG observes, "the Army's demand was not met in respect of 64 to 95 per cent types of ammunition."


Not only did the OFBs fail to produce critical ammunition for the Indian Army, but produced poor quality ammunition, the CAG has observed.
Of the ammunition found to be faulty, the majority were 81 mm and 155 mm ammunition, the CAG observes. The 81 mm ammunition that the CAG mentions are mortars which are used respond to ceasefire violations by Pakistan. The 155 mm ammunitions are artillery shells - those used by the Bofor's Field Guns. These two alone accounted for about 59 per cent of ammunition returned.



ramana wrote:Yusuf of DFI article in Swarajya on Dhanush says the shell that burst was 12 years old.

Arrhenius Equation says says we lose half life for every 10 degree C of temperature storage.
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/bas ... enius.html

I agree with Singha that match quality ammo should be used for the proof and user trials.

We don't know how those 12 year old shells were stored.

I deal with these sort of issues of chemical aging.

Then the other report said air bubbles in the shell.
So its double whammy.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15951
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby chetak » 23 Jul 2017 21:05

abhik wrote:How do you prove an "unproven" gun if you don't use it the way it is meant to be used?




The new gun has to meet all pre determined specifications and milestones and the results have to be analysed and certified as having met expectations.

Only after all this will it be accepted into service. until then the firing trials (especially) are to be treated as dangerous and risky and precautions have to be taken.

A burst barrel can be lethal to people standing closeby.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Jul 2017 21:07

chetak wrote:
abhik wrote:How do you prove an "unproven" gun if you don't use it the way it is meant to be used?




The new gun has to meet all pre determined specifications and milestones and the results have to be analysed and certified as having met expectations.

Only after all this will it be accepted into service. until then the firing trials (especially) are to be treated as dangerous and risky and precautions have to be taken.

A burst barrel can be lethal to people standing closeby.


As stated earlier those tests had been done.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15951
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby chetak » 23 Jul 2017 21:10

deejay wrote:
chetak wrote:


The new gun has to meet all pre determined specifications and milestones and the results have to be analysed and certified as having met expectations.

Only after all this will it be accepted into service. until then the firing trials (especially) are to be treated as dangerous and risky and precautions have to be taken.

A burst barrel can be lethal to people standing closeby.


As stated earlier those tests had been done.


any idea as to who made the barrel?? I hear that bharat forge in/near pune was doing some work in this area.

also

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ThzZFyQ9FpAC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=burst+barrels+in+heavy+artillery&source=bl&ots=FgWPtPdw-q&sig=XX7ATojU5af_engXKwrff2gZJYs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjss8Dx2J_VAhVBvpQKHdUxC-sQ6AEIQDAI#v=onepage&q=burst%20barrels%20in%20heavy%20artillery&f=false


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aditp, ajacob, Anoop, ravikr, rudradeep, srin, Yahoo [Bot] and 40 guests