Artillery Corps: 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.
Post Reply
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

ks_sachin wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:1 regiment of Vajra deployed in Ladakh - good news!

Our DG Artillery is now considering whether additional orders must be placed! Months after the production line has gone idle.

Speaks volumes about his ability to strategize-plan-execute
Gen Chawla took over July 2021 as DG Arty. Pray teLl what strategy he can execute when in previous role he was no where near W&E directorate.
In that case, is he the right person for the job?
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

ATAGS will be doing winter trials in Sikkim this year for the 3rd time.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

Taking bets on what will the point of rejection and more trials this time.

1. Excess weight. 1.5/1
2. Too complicated. 1.8/1
3. Electronic failure. 1.8/1
4. Hydraulics failure. 2/1
5. Barrel malfunction. 2.2/1
6. Tyre puncture. 5.5/1
7. Poor mobility. 1.2/1
8. Poor accuracy. 1.8/1
9. Too simple. 1.1/1
10. Incompatible ammunition. 0.9/1
11. Inconclusive trials. 0.8/1
12. Incompatible with current logistics chain. 1.3/1
13. Too light. 3/1
14. Too big to apply proper camouflage. 1.1/1
15. Needs winter and high altitude trials in Laddakh and Siachen too. 0.7/1
16. Not suitable for deployment in deserts and plains. 0.8/1



Edited to add request.
Last edited by jamwal on 05 Oct 2021 20:34, edited 1 time in total.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Could I get the odds on 9. "not complicated enough" ? :mrgreen:
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

Too Manual, needs more automation i.e., need remote control with joy-stick!! :shock:
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Minimum range should be 500 metres and it cant fire a missile
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 11845?s=20 --->

Garuda 105mm ultra light high mobility howizter built by Kalyani Strategic Systems.

An ideal weapon for Indian Army's mountain strike corps.

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/KSSLindia/status/14 ... 12804?s=20 ---> Warm wishes to all in The Corps of Artillery on the 194th Gunners Day - “Sarvatra Izzat–O–Iqbal” meaning “Omnipresence With Honour And Glory"

Image

Image

Image

Image
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 29705?s=20 ---> Tata Power SED 155/52mm MGS.
This appears to be an old picture from South Africa.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

jamwal wrote:Taking bets on what will the point of rejection and more trials this time.

1. Excess weight. 1.5/1
2. Too complicated. 1.8/1
3. Electronic failure. 1.8/1
4. Hydraulics failure. 2/1
5. Barrel malfunction. 2.2/1
6. Tyre puncture. 5.5/1
7. Poor mobility. 1.2/1
8. Poor accuracy. 1.8/1
9. Too simple. 1.1/1
10. Incompatible ammunition. 0.9/1
11. Inconclusive trials. 0.8/1
12. Incompatible with current logistics chain. 1.3/1
13. Too light. 3/1
14. Too big to apply proper camouflage. 1.1/1
15. Needs winter and high altitude trials in Laddakh and Siachen too. 0.7/1
16. Not suitable for deployment in deserts and plains. 0.8/1

Edited to add request.
You forgot the most important Onlee:

-No possibility of Kickbacks - 100/1.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Field Artillery Rationalisation and India’s Indigenous Artillery Gun Ecosystem.

Recently, the Corps of Indian Artillery commemorated its raising day, this is the right time to revisit its ambitious rationalization plan and its progress so far. Indian Army’s Field Artillery Rationalisation Programme, conceived in the 1990s, envisaged upgrading and standardization of Artillery guns to 155 mm, similar to Bofors guns acquired in 1986. The preferred caliber was 155/52 based on desired ranges and other desired operational performance parameters. The revised modernization plan in 2007 projected the induction of approximately 2800 gun systems by 2017 in a number of configurations to suit op requirements. These guns were to be procured in different configurations like self-propelled tracked (on tank chassis) and wheeled (wheeled vehicle), towed, ultra-light and Mounted Gun Systems (fitted on 6×6 vehicles). These guns were to equip the Artillery’s almost 280 operational regiments (with a dozen equipped with rockets). Ultra-light howitzers have been acquired from BAE and tracked guns from South Korea, but the bulk of the artillery still needs upgrading.

As per a detailed study carried out by SIDM in 2020, one of the remarkable defence industrial developments over the last decade has been the huge strides made in indigenous artillery. There are a number of gun production hubs and MSMEs in the country which have created a self-sufficient ecosystem in the country. DRDO’s ARDE possesses adequate capability in terms of required data and knowledge, even though it is a constantly evolving field. Large Indian defence OEMs like L&T, TATA Advanced Systems and Bharat Forge have set up gun production lines within the country to compete with the erstwhile state-owned ordnance factories. SIDM’s study report further states that there exists the capability to not just build guns within the country but also an ecosystem to refit, upgrade and export them. Orders, of course, have been somewhat slow to come. The army’s DG Artillery, Lt General T.K. Chawla, recently told the media that the army was ‘hand holding’ the domestic industry to ensure indigenous projects like the Advanced Towed Array Gun System and the OFB-produced Dhanush howitzer to meet their requirements.

ATAGS deserves a special compliment being a Greenfield project, designed and developed through successful partnership between DRDO and the Indian Private sector. Despite a few critics, and a few hiccups, the gun system has many ‘firsts’ to its credit – 25L chamber, long ranges and rapid and sustained rate of fire, to name a few. Built in safety using multiple sensors (IoT) is novel. Its mobility in high altitude and deserts too has taken its critics by surprise.

As part of its defence indigenization drive, the MoD banned the imports of 155 mm howitzers after December 2021. The army will have no choice but to turn to indigenous gun industry. Another important aspect brought out by the SIDM report is that Indian R&D and industry have more than adequate capability to design and develop any type of gun system within the country. All that is needed is a system to harness the potential.

FARP, however, needs to be modified. In fact, considering the rapid changes in the nature of warfare brought about by the fast-emerging technologies, there is a definite need to change the proposed profile. Slow acquisition process inadvertently provides a twofold opportunity;
(i) exploit indigenous capability to fulfill all the requirements, be it new gun systems or upgrades;
(ii) balance out gun tube artillery units with more Self-propelled Rockets and Autonomous Munition Units. Equip more number of Artillery regiments with rockets, missiles and guided munitions and reduce the number of units with gun tubes. External ballistics and precision greatly enhance effect at the terminal objective and save enormously on costs and logistics.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Pratyush wrote:I am more interested in learning more about the actual issues faced by OFB in manufacturing of Dhanush.

If the gun is a 45 calibre piece.

Then I will proceed with the following assumptions.

The gun barrel and breach along with recoil forces are well understood by OFB because of the work done by them of Sarang conversion.

It could be that they are facing metallurgy issues with the initial batches. With a RCA I think that this issue can easily be solved.

Because, I remember that T72 gun barrels were exploding as well a few decades ago. The issue was identified and fixed.

Coming to ATAGS I think that RM has to a word with both the army and the DRDO to solve the concerns that army has regarding the weight of the gun.

At the same time DRDO needs to look at developing new family of shells for the gun. Because of the higher chamber pressure presented by zone 7 charge shooting.

The new shell should be compatible with other 155 gun's.

It is quite frustrating when you observing from the outside you don't understand the issues faced in developing a brand new standard for the armed forces. Once understanding dawn's frustration disappears.
The T 72 barrel used to burst with the penetrator round which has no explosive due to errors in tempering the barrel because of power fluctuation.
This causes weakness in barrel and cause burst.

OFB does not come clean with what their issues are with already approved gun designs like Dhanush. Are these plain mfg issues or in firing trials?
Muzzle strike is due to excess wear. By now IA and OFB should come up with a schedule to replace barrels after a certain amount of wear.
The way IA managed to burst shell with proven gun M777 is known.

Am flummoxed with shell bursts in barrel.
Here I am sorry to say that despite repeated incidents Artillery COI are incomplete. Obviously not coming to root of the problem.

A shell can burst if Fuze is activated or the shock is enough to function the explosive.
Fuze activation would be due to a mfg defect for the design would allow safe functioning inherently.

There only way to shock the explosive in the shell is during operation. Excess bags, not ramming the shell or charge, not cleaning the debris leading to premature ignition.
Another rare one is due to the inherent properties of explosives. Maybe time to change the formulation to insensitive munitions.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

nam wrote:L&T is producing around 70-80% of K9 locally. And I think 50% by value. The engine and electronics must be imported. The Koreans allowed such high localisation because they know India can easily produce armor. There was no point holding it back.

This is good enough, as we have the design skills in CVRDE. Having L&T as another line for armor is very very helpful.

CVRDE is working through the 1500hp engine now.

In terms of land system... tech is not the block. Only MoD can force the matter.

Unfortunately for our forces only DPSU & OFB model can work. Given their habit of taking their own sweet time, changing spec during development... no private company can sustain such a customer.
barrel breech loading system sights fire computer communication set heck even wheel lubrication is imported onree rubberized tracks are made in India, yes QA QC is top notch resulting in faultless products
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

ramana wrote:
Pratyush wrote:I am more interested in learning more about the actual issues faced by OFB in manufacturing of Dhanush.

If the gun is a 45 calibre piece.

Then I will proceed with the following assumptions.

The gun barrel and breach along with recoil forces are well understood by OFB because of the work done by them of Sarang conversion.

It could be that they are facing metallurgy issues with the initial batches. With a RCA I think that this issue can easily be solved.

Because, I remember that T72 gun barrels were exploding as well a few decades ago. The issue was identified and fixed.

Coming to ATAGS I think that RM has to a word with both the army and the DRDO to solve the concerns that army has regarding the weight of the gun.

At the same time DRDO needs to look at developing new family of shells for the gun. Because of the higher chamber pressure presented by zone 7 charge shooting.

The new shell should be compatible with other 155 gun's.

It is quite frustrating when you observing from the outside you don't understand the issues faced in developing a brand new standard for the armed forces. Once understanding dawn's frustration disappears.
The T 72 barrel used to burst with the penetrator round which has no explosive due to errors in tempering the barrel because of power fluctuation.
This causes weakness in barrel and cause burst.

OFB does not come clean with what their issues are with already approved gun designs like Dhanush. Are these plain mfg issues or in firing trials?
Muzzle strike is due to excess wear. By now IA and OFB should come up with a schedule to replace barrels after a certain amount of wear.
The way IA managed to burst shell with proven gun M777 is known.

Am flummoxed with shell bursts in barrel.
Here I am sorry to say that despite repeated incidents Artillery COI are incomplete. Obviously not coming to root of the problem.

A shell can burst if Fuze is activated or the shock is enough to function the explosive.
Fuze activation would be due to a mfg defect for the design would allow safe functioning inherently.

There only way to shock the explosive in the shell is during operation. Excess bags, not ramming the shell or charge, not cleaning the debris leading to premature ignition.
Another rare one is due to the inherent properties of explosives. Maybe time to change the formulation to insensitive munitions.
unlike tank shell or other smaller caluber shells srty shells do not require bullet like muzzle velocity it requires push force to throw it to the target, so propellant bags are placed behind the shell propellant bags explode and propell shell to infinity and beyond, here in lies modt common reason for barrel burst uneven propellant bag filling(in Desh it is OFB Job) incorrect transportion and storage causes uneven explosion remember explosion here occurs inside enclosed chamber with just one opening, uneven explosion causes vaccum creatuon Physics abhors vaccum thus fills the vaccum causing uneven push force leads to shell traveling slowly or tilted slanted crooked leading to friction leading to lowering of shell velocity heat in excess of shell tolerance developing and Kaboom barrel explodes. this is just one secnario COI job is to establish what exactly happened this need to recreate the process which means real gun need to be fired my understanding is average 100 rounds need to be fired for COI to have conclusive data AFAIK ATAGS Dhanus has not fired a round under COI supervision sigh! i rest my case
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7806
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Anujan »

unlike tank shell or other smaller caluber shells srty shells do not require bullet like muzzle velocity it requires push force to throw it to the target
I have no idea what this means.

Artillery guns fire shells with a muzzle velocity comparable to a rifle.

Wiki chacha says muzzle velocity of AK47 is 715 m/s

Let us calculate the muzzle velocity of Dhanush. Let us assume that it fires at 45* angle and the shell goes 40km = 40,000M

If the horizontal component of muzzle velocity is U, it takes time T to go 40,000km

40,000 = UT
T = 40,000/U ----------(1)

Since its firing at 45 degrees, the vertical component of velocity is also U. After time T, the shell will come down with velocity U. Plugging values into
V = U -gT
-U = U - gT
T = 2U/g -----(2)

(1) = (2)

Therefore
40,000/U = 2U/g
2U^2 = 40,000*g
U = sqrt( 20,000*9.8 ) = 442m/Sec

But wait, this is only vertical (or horizontal component). We have to divide it by Sin(45) to get muzzle velocity
Muzzle velocity = 442*sqrt(2) = 625M/sec

It is definitely much higher than this, because I did not account for air-resistance in traveling 40km.

AK47 = 715m/sec - fires piddly cartrige of 8gms
Dhanush = 625m/sec (not accounting for air resistance) - fires 45kg shell

I would bet that Dhanush muzzle velocity is same as that of AK47, ATAGS is higher velocity than AK47

Both of them imparted by propellant gases. There is no "push force" vs "muzzle velocity"
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by nam »

niran wrote: barrel breech loading system sights fire computer communication set heck even wheel lubrication is imported onree rubberized tracks are made in India, yes QA QC is top notch resulting in faultless products
We have the capability to produce breech system, so that is not an issue. Fire computer has to be imported, as the firing solution would have been tuned for the specification of the gun.

Push comes to shove, we can replace the gun with ATAGS and our ballistic computer.

Lot of the pending parts could be manufactured, if there are adequate orders. The key is though having another armor production house. L&T could set up a assembly line for Arjun, if they DRDO provided the specifications and SME the required parts.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Niran, Interesting point about uneven combustion due to bags having improper filling, transportation induced discontinuities etc.
Cracks in rocket grain lead to unstable burn also.
And the gun chamber combustion is at detonation velocity. So quite possible cause.

However in the 155mm case they have Bimodular charge which look like Amul cheese cans.

And even if she'll is being filled by pouring molten explosive it could
-shrink
-form cracks and discontinuities due to transportation and handling
I think these are second order effects and need to be investigated.
One clue is how old are the shell that exploded.
williams
BRFite
Posts: 874
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by williams »

Vips wrote:
jamwal wrote:Taking bets on what will the point of rejection and more trials this time.

1. Excess weight. 1.5/1
2. Too complicated. 1.8/1
3. Electronic failure. 1.8/1
4. Hydraulics failure. 2/1
5. Barrel malfunction. 2.2/1
6. Tyre puncture. 5.5/1
7. Poor mobility. 1.2/1
8. Poor accuracy. 1.8/1
9. Too simple. 1.1/1
10. Incompatible ammunition. 0.9/1
11. Inconclusive trials. 0.8/1
12. Incompatible with current logistics chain. 1.3/1
13. Too light. 3/1
14. Too big to apply proper camouflage. 1.1/1
15. Needs winter and high altitude trials in Laddakh and Siachen too. 0.7/1
16. Not suitable for deployment in deserts and plains. 0.8/1

Edited to add request.
You forgot the most important Onlee:

-No possibility of Kickbacks - 100/1.
Perhaps not a kickback, but may be we need to incentivize individuals for choosing domestic products.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Just a matter of time before the Private sector companies will offer under table money to secure business. This will be no different then how the private corporations have to factor in 10 to 20% extra cost when they get big construction or infra contracts.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Williams that is a slippery slope.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Old post on properties of TNT which causes micro-cracks and breaks in the shell loading.

viewtopic.php?p=2193153#p2193153

To rule out or support this cause the COI should identify the shell mfg date and its transportation pedigrees.
How many depots it was sent to before the firing trials?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

WRT, the muzzle velocity of the FH 77B. The link provides a good discription of the muzzle velocity at different charge zones.

However, after reading the article I am unable to figure out if the various charges it is referring to are bagged charges of moduler charges.


http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4673.html
Standard NATO and other propellant charges can be used with the FH-77B but the company is now producing its own charges especially for the FH-77B. Charges available include M3 which provides a maximum muzzle velocity of 375 m/s to give a range of 10,300 m and M4 which provides a maximum muzzle velocity of 563 m/s to give a range of 15,500 m.

Charges include the Charge 8 which is roughly equivalent to M119 but gives more favourable pressure and burning properties at extreme temperatures. Charge 8 provides a muzzle velocity of 685 m/s to give a range of 19,000 m. Charge 9 is a new development to provide a muzzle velocity of 827 m/s and a range with standard projectiles of 24,000 m and with base bleed projectiles of 30,000 m.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

In other news, the army has suspended any further deliveries of Dhanush due to quality control issues with OFB. The supplies are expected to resume by the second half of 2022

sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by sanjayc »

Wish they can offer production of Dhanush to private companies like Bharat Forge. Why this insistence on getting it produced only from government run companies if they cannot give products of required quality due to corruption and sloppy work culture? With China hovering over our heads, can we afford to keep ourselves artificially weak by playing Nehruvian socialist games?

A good design like INSAS was also wasted due to OFB quality issues and country was forced to import AK 203 rifles. Even that time it did not enter the brains of bureaucrats to hand over production of INSAS to private companies as the problem is not the gun itself but shoddy production by unionized workforce of OFB.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Pratyush,
It's BMCS and not bagged charges.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Pratyush wrote:In other news, the army has suspended any further deliveries of Dhanush due to quality control issues with OFB. The supplies are expected to resume by the second half of 2022
Is it confirmed news?

If so, this is not just a superficial "lazy OFB" issue, but we might want to consider the possibility of an external influence. Remember that the OFBs are unionized & these are susceptible to the Chinese commie influence. Another data-point is the recent OFB strike during the Ladakh standoff.

Good the GOI has dissolved the OFB structure and made it part of the PSUs. But, if the people are the same, the attitudes ingrained over decades will be the same. Better to feed the private industry, starve the OFB and eventually kill it.

The good labs & good people will anyway be absorbed by the Kalyanis, L&Ts etc with a higher pay & a better work culture than they had ever experienced.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

ramana wrote:Niran, Interesting point about uneven combustion due to bags having improper filling, transportation induced discontinuities etc.
Cracks in rocket grain lead to unstable burn also.
And the gun chamber combustion is at detonation velocity. So quite possible cause.

However in the 155mm case they have Bimodular charge which look like Amul cheese cans.

And even if she'll is being filled by pouring molten explosive it could
-shrink
-form cracks and discontinuities due to transportation and handling
I think these are second order effects and need to be investigated.
One clue is how old are the shell that exploded.
something more
charges regardless of type shell explosives all are chemical compound in plural i know a case where a batch of charge bags with poor quality compunds had incomplete burn leading to shell hitting the barrel and barrel burst all 8 gun crew plus 5 trainee crew died. whole batch had to be disposed off.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

Anujan wrote:
unlike tank shell or other smaller caluber shells srty shells do not require bullet like muzzle velocity it requires push force to throw it to the target
I have no idea what this means.

Artillery guns fire shells with a muzzle velocity comparable to a rifle.

Wiki chacha says muzzle velocity of AK47 is 715 m/s

Let us calculate the muzzle velocity of Dhanush. Let us assume that it fires at 45* angle and the shell goes 40km = 40,000M

If the horizontal component of muzzle velocity is U, it takes time T to go 40,000km

40,000 = UT
T = 40,000/U ----------(1)

Since its firing at 45 degrees, the vertical component of velocity is also U. After time T, the shell will come down with velocity U. Plugging values into
V = U -gT
-U = U - gT
T = 2U/g -----(2)

(1) = (2)

Therefore
40,000/U = 2U/g
2U^2 = 40,000*g
U = sqrt( 20,000*9.8 ) = 442m/Sec

But wait, this is only vertical (or horizontal component). We have to divide it by Sin(45) to get muzzle velocity
Muzzle velocity = 442*sqrt(2) = 625M/sec

It is definitely much higher than this, because I did not account for air-resistance in traveling 40km.

AK47 = 715m/sec - fires piddly cartrige of 8gms
Dhanush = 625m/sec (not accounting for air resistance) - fires 45kg shell

I would bet that Dhanush muzzle velocity is same as that of AK47, ATAGS is higher velocity than AK47

Both of them imparted by propellant gases. There is no "push force" vs "muzzle velocity"
155mm arty push means charges push the whole shell
rifle bullets upto tank shells the front part flies away back part Khokha in Hindi Blank cartridge in Anglaise remain behind thus they have ejector system 155s don't have ejector system.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

arty shell have parabola trajectory the end part where shells scream down velocity can be anywhere from mach 1.2 to 1.8 depending on air density over target and hieght of descent point
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7806
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Anujan »

Rifles do eject the spent casing, and shoot the bullet. The casing has the propellant, and is ejected after it is spent.

Tanks use a system similar to rifle bullets. They too have a warhead and a propellant casing. However, it is inconvenient to have spent hot casing bouncing around inside the tank. Therefore, tanks use semi-combustible cartridge case. The cartridge case, instead of brass, is made of (well, not exactly) waterproof cardboard, and burns along with the propellant. Therefore there is nothing to eject. What is ejected is the primer cap. The casing is in fact there, and for all purposes similar to a rifle casing. Just that it is made up of materials that burns along with the propellant.

Artillery shells are similar. In theory, you could use a combustible casing, and have no ejection. In practice, they use a bi-modular charge. Essentially the same idea of a combustible casing, but you can stack a few of them (or different types) depending on the range you want to achieve. There is in fact a separate shell, and a separate casing, just like a rifle. Only difference is the "size" of the cartridge can be controlled, and casing burns up when the propellant burns. What flies out is the shell, just like a tank or a rifle. What is "ejected/burnt up" is the propellant and its casing.

Here is how it looks and how you can stack different numbers based on range desired. The shell is rammed first, so is on top of this stack

Image

The entire stack is the "propellant casing" whose "case" burns up when fired, and therefore there is nothing to eject.

Note that this system does not have a percussion cap (how are you going to ignite this?). Most artillery use a rifle bullet like shell that is shot into this charge (some newer ones use electrical firing to ignite the charge) to ignite it.

Why not use combustible cartridge casing for rifle as well? Interestingly, combustible cartridge casing for rifles are not new at all. They are made of paper and coated with a lubricant, and they burn up along with the propellant. In this case, the spent casing is not ejected, it burns with the propellant.

The rumor was that this grease was made of Cow and Pig fat, and it instigated the 1857 rebellion in India. The rumor might have been true, mostly the grease was made of tallow (cow fat).
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »



ATHOS firing procedure from Elbit systems. If you look at time stamp 1:02 minutes. You can see automatic primer loading for the gun.


I think that most of NATO standard 155 mm howitzers, have a similar mechanism for primar chord insertion.

Automatic or manual can be dependent on the vintage of the gun piece.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

Pratyush wrote:

ATHOS firing procedure from Elbit systems. If you look at time stamp 1:02 minutes. You can see automatic primer loading for the gun.


I think that most of NATO standard 155 mm howitzers, have a similar mechanism for primar chord insertion.

Automatic or manual can be dependent on the vintage of the gun piece.
they place charge bags horizontally over rail and then pushed in, in real firefight this will hinder fire rate and cause fire accidents, maybe SOP was written by civilian maybe not, will inquire, Thanks for posting.

155mm shells weigh around 50kg charge bags extra beside every gun has a particular force and speed with which shells need to be rammed in or else air pocket develops from trapped air modern guns has sensors to sense trapped air inside breech and chamber the gun won't fire it is very cumbersome process to pull back shell and 100x more difficult to pullback charge bags thus mechanical ramming is like Mahadev boon to be immortal for gun crews
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

Anujan wrote:Rifles do eject the spent casing, and shoot the bullet. The casing has the propellant, and is ejected after it is spent.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
you do realize me was trained Arty officer before clearing PMT for MBBS, eh?
SinghS
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Jul 2021 20:24

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by SinghS »

What is holding the ATAGS induction? Dhanush is from OFB and is understandably having manufacturing issues. ATAGS is ready, has longer range, larger caliber, has more automation, is well tested and can be manufactured by private sector in quantities.

Dump Dhanush and go for ATAGS. Why are we talking about ATHOS at all?

You will not find any other country full of people who would try to sink the same boat in which they are travelling.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by arvin »

Possible ways to get private sector to manufacture Dhanush.
Now that OFB is corporatised, the division that was manufacturing Dhanush will also have to adhere to rules regarding fair trade practices.
Since it is abusing its monopoly by supplying sub standard products whose IP was purchased by tax payers money,
Shouldn't institutes like CCI (Competition Commission of India) step in or acts like Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices act be invoked against them.
Ideally MOD babus should be doing this.
Cannot companies that have capability to manufacture the guns approach courts citing favouritism towards OFB specially since the IP is national property.
Jeff bezos is suing NASA for the decision to award lunar lander contract to SpaceX.
Cannot similar suits be filed against MOD for unilaterally awarding the contract to OFB.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Faced with a 2 front war we today have less number of 155 MM towed guns then we had during the Kargil war in 1999. we had 200 Bofors 39 caliber guns then and since then we would have even less numbers now due to wear and tear and barrel busts (thanks to OFB).

How many towed 155 MM guns do we have today? The only partial increase in their numbers will be due to the Sharang program of upgrading 130 MM M46 guns. I doubt if more then 10-15 of these have been produced.

The OFB/GCF cannot produce Bofors/Dhanush guns despite having all the blue prints and drawings provided by the OEM.

Check what the chinese have at the LAC. In addition to the huge numbers of towed guns they have scores of Mounted guns, Wheeled Guns, Multi barrel rockets on tracked wheels and then very long range rockets which comfortably outranges anything and everything that we have.
Last edited by SSridhar on 14 Oct 2021 18:58, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited for clarity
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Vips your anger is understandable. I share that but a lot of junta visits BR. You can maybe ***** fy the expletives. Or maybe mods can.
Vicky
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 23 Aug 2021 19:33

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Vicky »

It's clear from a lot of sources based commentary that there is a delay in Dhanush deliveries but nowhere is there a mention of Why?

Is it a supply chain issue? I doubt any claim where the blame is solely on SAF or GCF sitting idle as it is unlikely that they are sitting idle.

What sort of supply chain issue is this? Or is it a QC issue? Or did the Army ask for deliveries to be halted in light of the reported Muzzle strike?

If it is the muzzle strike issue, how long will the army take to investigate it? Is GCF to blame or is it the Ammo again? Or is it unrealistic expectations for the likelihood of Muzzle strikes?

Based on my experience in Root cause analysis of equipment(non-mil) there is always a residual risk of muzzle strike or barrel bursts. The way to prevent it is to have sufficient safeguards in the form of inspection, maintenance and Ammo QA as long as manufacturing is up to standard.

Is the residual risk/likelihood of incidents in Dhanush higher than the spec for FH77 Bofors or not? I am sure either ARDE Or Bofors documented the likelihood of a Muzzle strike on the associated FMEA. Is it meeting it's FMEA spec or not or is Army having unrealistic expectations?

There is always a risk of such incidents even in the best design in the world as long as you are balancing barrel weight vs likelihood of barrel burst or strike in the design.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

https://swarajyamag.com/defence/china-m ... uns-report

China deploys 100 of its PCL-181, 155mm howitzers in response to our deployment of K9 Vajras & M777

PCL-181 weighs 25 tonnes & can fire upto 40 Km (wiki). China has already inducted them.

ATAGS weighs 18 tonnes (a whopping 7 tonnes less!) and shoots upto 45 Km. Has traversed 500 Kms in Ladakh and the winding Himalayan roads. And what does our DG Artillery do - send it back to the drawing board!

I don't want to type the words that come into my head right now :evil:
Post Reply