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.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2129
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 02 May 2018 01:14

Do we know how much Dhanush 52 weighes? In the DefExpo videos the ATAGS looks huge compared to the Dhanush. Apart from a few more kmhp speed what is the advantage of the ATAGS layout compared to the bofors derived one which is aparently several tons lighter.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 02 May 2018 04:47

Possibly two or three tonnes can be reduced by replacing steel wheels with alloy, replace regular steel in trails with ultra-high-strength steel or titanium. More than that is simply asking for trouble. Meanwhile Pakis have inducted Panter in numbers.. 155mmx52Cal Turkish artillery that outranges any tube that we have today.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2028
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Katare » 02 May 2018 08:25

Only 32% weight reduction..... :rotfl:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7658
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 02 May 2018 08:25

The 7 ton weight quoted for fh77 is incorrect. The weight of the gun is more in the region of 12 to 13 tons. That is what the army is asking for in the atags.

But the IA needs to be told that atags will be heavier than fh77b because of the larger volume chamber and the assorted recoil handling mechanism. Along with longer barrel of 52 Cal.

PS I wonder if the atags barrel and chamber can be ported to the FH 77 carriage.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6529
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 02 May 2018 09:16

Of course the army knows what such a gun should weigh. Let’s not believe the numbers on a media report. The knowledge of our reporters to interpret technicalities is subhanallah!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2166
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 02 May 2018 13:05

How does it matter, what the weight is? We have bridges that cant take 17 tons?

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2711
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 02 May 2018 16:09

Cybaru wrote:How does it matter, what the weight is? We have bridges that cant take 17 tons?


More like we lack trucks that can pull 17 tons- or at least that's one of the "explanations" that I have seen parroted around.

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 347
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pandyan » 02 May 2018 16:33

I think Kalyani saar mentioned in interview that weight is the top improvement item customer had requested and he also mentioned that the next iteration coming out in july(?) would be lighter.

I wonder if BF and Tata guns should have been two different versions(lighter vs heavier) instead of almost identical

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vips » 02 May 2018 18:10

The question is will Bharat Forge/TATA be able to reduce the weight drastically in one go or it will be a iterative process of few hundred kilos to be validated by tests year after year after year..... :(

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2221
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 02 May 2018 19:44

pandyan wrote:I think Kalyani saar mentioned in interview that weight is the top improvement item customer had requested and he also mentioned that the next iteration coming out in july(?) would be lighter.

I wonder if BF and Tata guns should have been two different versions(lighter vs heavier) instead of almost identical


Each would have added value for their own version but with a common core design. The barrel comes from BF for both though.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49497
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 May 2018 21:23

Indranil wrote:Of course the army knows what such a gun should weigh. Let’s not believe the numbers on a media report. The knowledge of our reporters to interpret technicalities is subhanallah!



Are these requirements given in written paper or just via reporters?

This requirement to reduce weight by 1/3 does not reflect on the entire team: DRDO and IA.
The industry partners are the manufacturers of DRDO design and hence not part of the problem.
Was there no design co-ordination about principal requirements?

How can one wake up suddenly after trials and ask for 1/3 weight reduction?
That would need total redesign.

This is happening too often with DRDO and IA wrt artillery.

This one deserves a Parliament question to get to the bottom of this silo mentality.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49497
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 02 May 2018 21:24

Anyway what's the resolution for the muzzle strikes for Dhanush and M777 guns?

Will some one speak up? At-least to favorite reporters?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 02 May 2018 21:52

Indranil wrote:Of course the army knows what such a gun should weigh. Let’s not believe the numbers on a media report. The knowledge of our reporters to interpret technicalities is subhanallah!


This is the 4th or 5th time this information - ATAGs is overweight, army wants a 12tonne gun - has been reported, each time by different reporters. Appears to be genuine, though you may be right that it could be DDM echoing DDM.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3102
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 02 May 2018 22:36

Arjun story being repeated with ATAGS :(

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby jaysimha » 05 May 2018 12:48

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=178654
PrintXClose
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
13-April-2018 14:31 IST
BEML & OFB launches Force Multiplier 155mm 52 Cal Mounted Gun system

Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML) have unveiled its latest product viz 155mm 52 Cal Mounted Gun system at a function held at the ongoing DefExpo 2018 in Chennai. It was launched jointly by CMD, BEML Shri Deepak Kumar Hota and DGOF & Chairman OFB Shri S K Chourasia.

The uniqueness of this project is that it has been completely and independently designed and manufactured by OFB in association with BEML & BEL and is therefore a shining example of ‘Make in India’. The gun is equipped with the state-of-the-art laying and sighting system such as GPS aided INS, muzzle velocity feeder data management, day and night firing, ballasting computer system capability.

The base vehicle used for the gun system is the BEML-TATRA 8X8 truck with all differential lockable and a powerful 300 KW (402 HP) engine, which provides it a power to weight ratio of more than 10KW/ton. This is a high mobility vehicle with independent wheel suspension and swinging half axles to provide enhanced cross-country mobility. The vehicle has a cruising speed of 80 km/hr on road and more than 30 km/hr in cross-country and has a cruising range of 1000 km without refuelling.

The armament used in the 155 mm 52 Cal has a target destruction capability of approximately 42 kms. The Gun System combines with the advantage of high mobility performance of a truck with accurate long range fire power of a 155 mm 52 Cal gun and with its onboard ammunition storage capability of 18 rounds of HE shells as well as 18 BMCS and 2-6 chargers. It can be automatically deployed in any terrain and can perform a mission independently.

With its high strategic manoeuvrability in all types of terrain it will serve as an all weather reinforcement for the infantry and will be a present force multiplier for the Indian artillery.

SRR/NAo/Rajib

178654

nam
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 May 2018 15:31

sudeepj wrote:Possibly two or three tonnes can be reduced by replacing steel wheels with alloy, replace regular steel in trails with ultra-high-strength steel or titanium. More than that is simply asking for trouble. Meanwhile Pakis have inducted Panter in numbers.. 155mmx52Cal Turkish artillery that outranges any tube that we have today.


Paks don't have Panther. They decided not to induct it due to.... weight!

nam
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 May 2018 15:35

BF already has idea on what needs to be done to reduce weight on ATAGS. They have 155MM ULWH. Some of those ideas can be ported to ATAGS.

They can provide options to the Army. Take lighter ATAGS with titanium parts, but more expensive than steel version.

BF is already doing this with ULWH towed. They have both the steel and titanium version.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62136
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 16:01

Kashi wrote:
Cybaru wrote:How does it matter, what the weight is? We have bridges that cant take 17 tons?


More like we lack trucks that can pull 17 tons- or at least that's one of the "explanations" that I have seen parroted around.


we have a range of semi trucks from AL/Tata/Benz/Volvo/Tatra/MM made locally and readily available that can tow 17tons .... they are hauling 40 feet x 8 x 8 containers all over. once an order is placed they can supply 100s of such trucks annually , well ahead of the gun production rate.

they can usually go on grades of 25% under full load. dealers can setup BRDs at wherever the artillery divisions need. no more waiting for unique parts from "rosboronexport" or massa's iffy PMS mood to be good for some khan made parts.

we no longer need extremely x-country tatra trucks for this role I think....the kind of trucks that serve high duty cycles in hot and dusty conditions of mining and construction industry are good enough civilian COTS solution

eg
https://www.volvotrucks.in/en-in/trucks ... tness.html

reeks of sabotage to put a impossible 1/3 weight reduction after all firing tests are done, on the famed "mobility" hook. pretty much all PWD concrete bridges down to village level can take 70 tons of load by design. they are regularly used by illegally overloaded trucks.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62136
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 16:15

if titanium is used cost will skyrocket. I think we lack deposits and mills in india and import the raw billets.
increased cost -> less procurement numbers

meantime those who stand to gain by increasing the M777 and M777-52 will cry from the rooftops about the cost , teething troubles and complexity of atags to get their payday

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ragupta » 05 May 2018 19:02

If steel based product can provide the same function and performance at a cheaper cost, then it should be used.
Except for being light weight, what does it offer. India needs the artillery within its own land mass, so transportation issue can be handled by road and other means. As it is artillery are not going to be fired every day, when needed quantity will trump quantity.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ragupta » 05 May 2018 19:04

It is a collasal waste of money, by going for exotic and unnecessary feature, when Army keeps complaining about shortage of money. Soldiers will be better served with smart and functional weapons than with exotic and rarely used feature products.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62136
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 19:38

its time to think and plan big than downsize our systems for the "creaky turd world infra" model

tunnel under the rohtang pass, railway to tawang all of these are coming along or approved. the old boo boo of having to hack it on impossible steep and twisty roads will go away.



GHY - Itanagar shatabdi - 100s of heavy vehicles and tens of wagons of ammo could go in a single BG 10,000t train hauled by couple high power diesel GE WDG4G locos

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2129
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 05 May 2018 20:02

I highly doubt that titanium will be required to reduce weight, but I think they will have to change the design of the gun carriage etc. - they don't look like clean sheet designs, probably ported over from Denel/Austrian design.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2129
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 05 May 2018 20:14

The last mile connectivity will always remain a challenge with the terrain not withstanding the new rail and road links. This is from an article posted a few days ago
Now, 56 years later, the Indian Army still relies largely on its troopers’ guts to defend Kahoo village, the Kibithu sector, the district of Anjaw, the state of Arunachal Pradesh and the republic of India. Kibithu is still connected to the rest of India with nothing more than mule tracks, a footbridge dangling over the cascading Lohit river which a company of troops will take 40 minutes to cross, a country road that gets blocked by landslides for more than 200 days a year and that can barely take a 130mm towed light cannon, and no phone line. Two recent attempts to move the heavier 155mm Bofors guns failed, as the bends on the road are too narrow.

viewtopic.php?p=2267517#p2267517

nam
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 May 2018 20:19

The current version of ATAGS are prototypes. There is obviously room for refinement, nothing wrong in it. IA could agree on getting a production variant of the current version, say 150 or 250 of them.

This should give time to the producers, to provide with a iterated version, with reduced weight steel or more expensive with titanium parts replacing the heavier areas etc. Option should be given to IA with clear pros and cons. BF CEO has mentioned this as he intends to showcase two version of ULWH. 6.5 ton steel version, cheaper to procure and maintain. 4.5 to 5 ton tfta titanium, expensive to buy and maintenance intensive.

Let IA choose which path they want to go. MoD draws a line on the budget, before IA dreams about more TFTA..

We need to built a good, reliable gun in numbers. Then sell them like pancakes to every tom, dick and harry of the world..

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62136
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 20:23

kibithu is 10km north of walong and 2km from the border, but why does bofors need to be sited at kibithu when all these howitzers have adequate range and elevation angle to offer fire support from safer well supplied and camouflaged spots deeper in the interior. none of these can elevate low enough to offer direct fire in a practical manner from higher ground into the valleys.

I would imagine places like kibithu and walong needs lots of agile 105mm in small caves and bunkers, ATGMs, mortars and small IFVs with 20 or 30mm cannons.

if Cheen is able to swarm all over these places with infantry and helicopter gunships the battle would already be lost. Cheen attack will have to be smashed 20km inside Tibet, using howitzers, airstrikes and rockets

its better to have deep attack and flexible defence than hunker down in one spot like japanese did in Iwo jima and tarawa

the entire USP of having a 25 liter chamber and 52 cal is not the prestige of having a huge gun to tow around but to cover more circular area :twisted:
if at all a 155mm piece is needed right at the border checkpoint, the mighty Sinooks can earn their keep airlifting the m777 iphones onsite :oops:

ATAGS/Dhanush, Pinaka and garuda gliding bombs would make a hellacious combo imo if used enmasse

nam
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 05 May 2018 20:39

If you ask me they should have build a 55/57 caliber ATAGS instead of the 52!

It has a strong base, might as well increase it to 57 caliber.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62136
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2018 20:47

55 cal is the 5” gun the us navy uses now we ordered for p17a

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2129
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 05 May 2018 21:48

Video: IAF's Chopper Mi-17V5 Airlifts Light Field Gun to Position in High Altitude Arunachal Pradesh (although it not very clear)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49497
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 07 May 2018 23:28

Twitter reports L&T has delivered 25 K-9 guns.
Remaining 75 guns.

Speculation is 18 guns for the first regiment and rest for the training center.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1191
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 08 May 2018 01:03

^I think the twitter report is based on this
L&T to deliver first lot of K9 VAJRA-T guns by the end of May

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49497
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 May 2018 01:34

Yes. you are right.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2711
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 08 May 2018 08:25

I have been trawling for the information but have not come across any suggestions that the Vajra order will go beyond 100.

Are we going to restrict ourselves to 100 Vajras?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3382
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby hnair » 08 May 2018 09:50

FWIW, had a small dinner chat with a recently retired Colonel from artillery. He is from the Sanjoi Mirpur battle-honor crew. Some insights

1)India's 105mm IFG, based on brit design, has those large springs that causes things to not work as well on the field. Awkward design of handles for gun-laying. Very strenuous, am guessing particularly in harsh weather up in the mountains, where things freeze up

2) russian 130mm is apparently a great design, that lays emphasis on using simple-machine/lever principles, which make it easy to use and less prone to breakdowns on the field. Maybe because their design team has to test this in tundra, they had a better insight than brits

3) FH77 is boss, thanks to automatic gun-laying and though a bit more specialist maintenance is required, is clearly the leader of the pack

4) Lifting up the towing-arms/spades manually is where they separate the men from boys. seems 8 odd folks, from the officer onwards, need to keep their spines ramrod stiff and use only the hamstrings to lift the nearly one-tonne arms and swing it to position. If one does this part wrong, you can get debilitating back issues and screw up the whole gun-team's happiness. Guessing here: this is why the ATAGS, with what looks like even more massive tow-arms than the existing pieces, needed those electric drives on the smaller wheels in the arms. Also reason why Army might be asking for weight reduction, incase of subsystem failure of the drives

5) Accuracy at full range is an issue that is slowly being eliminated by the electronics of newer guns and of course, the pgm-types. So in the past, base-bleed rounds are not used much. Which means most of the LOC duels must have been within 20 kms range or so, using terrain as mask etc.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62136
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 08 May 2018 10:44

anything that runs, walks or crawls in the artillery front must immediately be sent to northern and eastern command including the vajras for eastern ladakh or north sikkim.

there is absolutely no point in investing or earmarking anything for TSP when we need to intimidate a foe that is 10X more potent

make it very clear that while they may choose to land the first blow, we will land the last and PERMANENTLY annex some swathes of territory and dare them to escalate into tactical nuclear if they want it back in a second round.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19045
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 08 May 2018 16:40

The news from various quarters about arty delivery/dev. is very heartening,especially since there are pct. entities working in parallel with the DPSUs to deliver diff. types.If I remember right,did we not upgrade Sov. era 130mm guns to 155 or 152 mm some time (with israel?) ago as a stop-gap arrangement? If so how many? L&T to hand over the frirt batch of 25 pieces is great news. So is the clip of an MI-17V transporting a light arty piece in the mountains.In the absence of an equivalent infra like what the Chins have in Tibet,our reliance upon helo lift will be very heavy and crucial.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2221
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JTull » 08 May 2018 16:54

India’s Ordnance Factory Board Banks On In-House Efforts For Growth

OFB’s ability to credibly upgrade legacy designs is further burnished by the fact that its upgrade kit for ‘up-gunning’ old IA 130 mm M-46 field guns to 155 mm / 45 calibre howitzers has been selected by the IA over imported kits being offered by domestic private players. It seems that OFB’s indigenous solution was the only one to actually pass technical muster. At the moment, OFB is awaiting an order for the upgrade of some 300 M-46 units, which it expects to receive soon. The up-gunned M-46s achieve a maximum range of just over 38 km with ERFB-BB rounds.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49497
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 May 2018 21:15

Philip wrote:The news from various quarters about arty delivery/dev. is very heartening,especially since there are pct. entities working in parallel with the DPSUs to deliver diff. types.If I remember right,did we not upgrade Sov. era 130mm guns to 155 or 152 mm some time (with israel?) ago as a stop-gap arrangement? If so how many? L&T to hand over the frirt batch of 25 pieces is great news. So is the clip of an MI-17V transporting a light arty piece in the mountains.In the absence of an equivalent infra like what the Chins have in Tibet,our reliance upon helo lift will be very heavy and crucial.



Despite OFB winning this tender for 300 M-46 upgrades, no order has been issued. So again hung in abeyance in MoD. This upgrade is called Sarang.
About another 750 are available.

The 105mm LFG version is capable of being lifted by helicopter.

The Soviet 152mm was offered with re-bored 155mm barrel but didn't make the cut.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49497
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 08 May 2018 21:29

hnair wrote:FWIW, had a small dinner chat with a recently retired Colonel from artillery. He is from the Sanjoi Mirpur battle-honor crew. Some insights

1)India's 105mm IFG, based on brit design, has those large springs that causes things to not work as well on the field. Awkward design of handles for gun-laying. Very strenuous, am guessing particularly in harsh weather up in the mountains, where things freeze up

2) russian 130mm is apparently a great design, that lays emphasis on using simple-machine/lever principles, which make it easy to use and less prone to breakdowns on the field. Maybe because their design team has to test this in tundra, they had a better insight than brits

3) FH77 is boss, thanks to automatic gun-laying and though a bit more specialist maintenance is required, is clearly the leader of the pack

4) Lifting up the towing-arms/spades manually is where they separate the men from boys. seems 8 odd folks, from the officer onwards, need to keep their spines ramrod stiff and use only the hamstrings to lift the nearly one-tonne arms and swing it to position. If one does this part wrong, you can get debilitating back issues and screw up the whole gun-team's happiness. Guessing here: this is why the ATAGS, with what looks like even more massive tow-arms than the existing pieces, needed those electric drives on the smaller wheels in the arms. Also reason why Army might be asking for weight reduction, incase of subsystem failure of the drives

5) Accuracy at full range is an issue that is slowly being eliminated by the electronics of newer guns and of course, the pgm-types. So in the past, base-bleed rounds are not used much. Which means most of the LOC duels must have been within 20 kms range or so, using terrain as mask etc.



Thanks for talking to a real live arty officer.
Russain 130 mm is a Gun Howitzer and has direct fire mode which allows use in plains and mountains for the high angle fire feature. However due to the trails, it has limitation on the elevation angle. Workarounds are there due to ingenuity of Indian soldier but they are workarounds.


A few questions :
The 105mm came in two different designs.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wlc/3.htm

The earlier version (IFG) had lot of negative feed back.

Is he familiar with the second version of LFG?


Yes electronic location and fire control allows more accurate gun laying.

Regarding electronic fuzes. Now these are more delicate then mechanical fuzes and shell balloting could cause premature fire in the barrel. How does IA control barrel wear as that is only feature under user control.
has he seen this muzzle strike in FH77 as is reported by TOI.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 08 May 2018 23:54

hnair wrote:4) Lifting up the towing-arms/spades manually is where they separate the men from boys. seems 8 odd folks, from the officer onwards, need to keep their spines ramrod stiff and use only the hamstrings to lift the nearly one-tonne arms and swing it to position. If one does this part wrong, you can get debilitating back issues and screw up the whole gun-team's happiness. Guessing here: this is why the ATAGS, with what looks like even more massive tow-arms than the existing pieces, needed those electric drives on the smaller wheels in the arms. Also reason why Army might be asking for weight reduction, incase of subsystem failure of the drives


ATAGS is suppose to lift 6 rounds, compared to 3 on Bofors. There is no way any such thing can be done manually.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: milindc, pravula and 25 guests