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
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by V_Raman »

How is an old gun like FH77B so reliable when newer ones like m777 seem to be substandard?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Karan M »

YashG wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Additional K9 Vajra order discussion brings another ‘aatmanirbharta’ push for India’s defence
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/addi ... e-91733413
23 May 2022
140,000 rounds ...hmmm, so 3 days supply. (Russia is firing 50K rounds a day) - Why cant we procure 1400K rounds, say 30 Days supply atleast.
There is a difference between AD gun rounds and arty rounds. The article refers to AD gun rounds.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Karan M wrote:
YashG wrote:
140,000 rounds ...hmmm, so 3 days supply. (Russia is firing 50K rounds a day) - Why cant we procure 1400K rounds, say 30 Days supply atleast.
There is a difference between AD gun rounds and arty rounds. The article refers to AD gun rounds.
Fair enough!
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

V_Raman wrote:How is an old gun like FH77B so reliable when newer ones like m777 seem to be substandard?
Is the US Army discarding them due to them being substandard?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

V_Raman wrote:How is an old gun like FH77B so reliable when newer ones like m777 seem to be substandard?
Who claimed that the M777 was substandard?

We have not seen any reports stating that.

The gun is compliant with JBMOU which governs NATO 155/39 mm guns.

BTW, ATAGS is not compliant with JBMOU. Because of its larger chamber of 26 liter's. As opposed to 23 liter's for a JBMOU compliant gun.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

V_Raman wrote:How is an old gun like FH77B so reliable when newer ones like m777 seem to be substandard?
nobody said M777 is substandard, we were discussing maintaince and associated cost plus what charge a maintenance cycle impose on M777 fire rate. on teetar when countries started announcing weapon as.aide to Ookarain there was a group of folks jumping with utmost glee, me pointed out it takes at least 3 years to induct a new weapon system they are not USB plug&play they immediately blocked me :lol: a couple of weeks ago few articles were published moaning M777 maintenance as if M777 is the only gun with maintenance need rest are buy fill shut and drive for eternity. this was the start of debate here. nothing to do with M777 quality standard
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

To add, the barrel life is a finite numbers of shells. We don't know how many rounds the guns had already fired before being donated to Ukraine. Along with how many shells they fired after being handed to Ukraine.

It's possible that few of the gun barrels were approaching the end of safe service life and are now unusable because the barrels have end of life and have to be replaced.

Something that might not be possible in the battlefields of Ukraine.
ShivS
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ShivS »

niran wrote:
V_Raman wrote:How is an old gun like FH77B so reliable when newer ones like m777 seem to be substandard?
nobody said M777 is substandard, we were discussing maintaince and associated cost plus what charge a maintenance cycle impose on M777 fire rate. on teetar when countries started announcing weapon as.aide to Ookarain there was a group of folks jumping with utmost glee, me pointed out it takes at least 3 years to induct a new weapon system they are not USB plug&play they immediately blocked me :lol: a couple of weeks ago few articles were published moaning M777 maintenance as if M777 is the only gun with maintenance need rest are buy fill shut and drive for eternity. this was the start of debate here. nothing to do with M777 quality standard
Issues with the 777 stem from 2 key sources.

The light weight of the gun means that the recoil absorption system has to take a huge load or the gun would move after every shot. The problem is compounded by the fact that the load on the dampners is extremely high in direct fire mode or low angle of elevation fire. The dampers fail in unpredictable ways due to this. A new crew unfamiliar with this quirk firing a lot of low angle/direct fire shots will wreck it.

The second is the brittle nature of the Titanium and the ruthless reduction in frame thickness to get the lowest possible weight. Titanium, especially in cold weather cracks or even shatters. Shocks from improper handling and movement (including airlifting), shrapnel etc can cause the frame to fracture. Some fractures are microscopic and weaken the frame so that it fails subsequently.

These are design compromises and are part of the weapon systems trade offs. Crews are trained to adapt to them.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Has anyone seen a cutaway picture of M777 detailing which parts are titanium etc?
M-777 was designed for the Osprey and rapid deployment.
So many compromises were made that Shiv S is pointing out.
The only saving grace is Titanium alloy has high fracture toughness.
This means cracks won't propagate easily like in steel.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

ShivS wrote:
Issues with the 777 stem from 2 key sources.

The light weight of the gun means that the recoil absorption system has to take a huge load or the gun would move after every shot. The problem is compounded by the fact that the load on the dampners is extremely high in direct fire mode or low angle of elevation fire. The dampers fail in unpredictable ways due to this. A new crew unfamiliar with this quirk firing a lot of low angle/direct fire shots will wreck it.

The second is the brittle nature of the Titanium and the ruthless reduction in frame thickness to get the lowest possible weight. Titanium, especially in cold weather cracks or even shatters. Shocks from improper handling and movement (including airlifting), shrapnel etc can cause the frame to fracture. Some fractures are microscopic and weaken the frame so that it fails subsequently.

These are design compromises and are part of the weapon systems trade offs. Crews are trained to adapt to them.
* Any sources?
* "design compromises" with what?

Point being, the M777(A2) replaced the M198, so one cannot or should not compare it with any other system. The M777 (the HIMARS too) is meant for very specific situations. And, Ukraine - IMO - does not really qualify.

Here are a few extracts from a USMC document:
The M777A2 has
proven it is battle worthy and reliable, achieving an
operational availability greater than 90%
supporting
Operation Enduring Freedom for USMC, Army and
Canadian forces.
The LW155 incorporates innovative design technologies
to reduce the system weight to less than
10,000 pounds while providing increased mobility,
survivability, deployability and sustainability in expeditionary
operations
throughout the world.
A primer feed mechanism supports firing a
maximum of four rounds per minute, with sustained
firing of two rounds per minute. The M777A2 is capable
of firing unassisted high-explosive projectiles using
conventional and modular propellants to a range of 15
miles and rocket-assisted projectiles to approximately
19 miles.
The M777A2 can fire the precision guided Excalibur
munitions up to 24 miles with sufficient accuracy,
for example, to target commensurate portions
of a building, reducing the chance of non-combatant
casualties and enabling supporting fire to be delivered
much closer to friendly troops
The last point could apply in Ukraine, BUT, I do not think the US supplied them with the M777A2, which has the brains for such accuracy.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

NRao, The M-777 was developed for USMC.
What ShivS is saying is from user forums.

Its no Bhagwan Shiva's Pinaka. It has limitations.
ShivS is just highlighting them.

Bharat Forge has a steel 155/39 that costs 1/8 of an M-777.
This means you can equip a battery for one M-777.
Huge increase in firepower and a good cost-benefit ratio.
But IA is not interested as they want only the best.
Such magic weapons won't win wars only skirmishes.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

If Bharat Force has mated a 155 mm to a truck why cannot the same be done with the WhAP?
Can a soft recoil system be adapted for turret?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

It can be done. Write it to Bharat Forge Chairman Baba Kalyani on twitter.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

ks_sachin wrote:If Bharat Force has mated a 155 mm to a truck why cannot the same be done with the WhAP?
Can a soft recoil system be adapted for turret?
But why? Why not just buy the truck mounted solution which is already available? The Chinese have flooded their side of LAC with truck mounted and tracked artillery. But we want to wait till we get it mounted on an 8x8 APC?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

nachiket wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:If Bharat Force has mated a 155 mm to a truck why cannot the same be done with the WhAP?
Can a soft recoil system be adapted for turret?
But why? Why not just buy the truck mounted solution which is already available? The Chinese have flooded their side of LAC with truck mounted and tracked artillery. But we want to wait till we get it mounted on an 8x8 APC?
Logistics. having a smorgasbord of vehicles is also a problem.

See what the US has done with the Bradley. A family of capabilities built on a common platform could help.

Even with the 105mm why chose a different platform. Why not use the M4 which we are already procuring from Kalyani.

Who wants to wait? Did I say that and if I did want that would the IA listen to me?

I asked a rhetorical question on whether a soft recoil system could be used in a turret?

If it can then it provides some interesting options for us yes?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:If Bharat Force has mated a 155 mm to a truck why cannot the same be done with the WhAP?
Can a soft recoil system be adapted for turret?

What you are asking for has been done by Soltam of Israel with rascal on a tracked chasis.

https://images.app.goo.gl/1zswdovDMbwHErgu7

The USSR did something similar with 2S5 Giatsint-S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S5_Giatsint-S

The BAE, has attempted to execute on an 8"8 vehicle using the M777 on a striker hull.
As part of the ground combat system. This vehicle was different from the portee. But I am not able to recollect it's name at the moment.



In the Indian context Kalyani is already demonstrating a 155 MGS on a 4*4. If the Indian army wanted it can be executed on other mounts as well.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Thanks.

I set great store by logistics...

We suffered because our logistics were not up to scratch in the past.

Everyone like shiny toys no one thinks of what it takes to sustain a firefight...
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

You are absolutely correct.
ShivS
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 19 Apr 2019 23:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ShivS »

Mr.Rao

Truth is that the M777 has never been battle tested. Until the Weapon system meets actual operating conditions, no manual should be taken as the gospel .

Before Ukraine, the M777 has only seen action in very limited numbers in Afghanistan. A lot of what we know about the systems peculiarities come from that experience. However that experience itself is with very limited numbers (perhaps 10).

This system offers a unique capability, the firepower of a 155 mm cannon at the weight of 105 mm cannon.. This is an incredibly powerful capability. It comes at a cost and with the need for training on how to move, deploy and use the system.

Any use in Ukraine is always going to be suboptimal. The Ukrainians don’t have any experience with titanium-based lightweight systems . But on the other hand you can transport 155 mm capability to the frontline very effectively.

Sometimes when faced with real life choices, you have to take pragmatic decisions with lots of flaws.

Even if a third of the guns don’t function 2/3 do, and those will be delivering firepower where is needed in short order.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ShivS wrote:Mr.Rao

Truth is that the M777 has never been battle tested. Until the Weapon system meets actual operating conditions, no manual should be taken as the gospel .


Answer:- true, no weapon system is ever battle tested unless it has actually been in combat. But during it's testing phase, it's operations parameters are well established. As long as the weapon is within those parameters no problem.

My issue is with the assumption that Ukrainian arty men don't know how ballistics work. Or that they can't be given basic training to operate the weapon. Especially when those people have been operating howitzers of USSR origin.

The belief that they won't be able to operate the elivation and traverse wheels of the howitzers. Is something that I am extremely dubious about.


Before Ukraine, the M777 has only seen action in very limited numbers in Afghanistan. A lot of what we know about the systems peculiarities come from that experience. However that experience itself is with very limited numbers (perhaps 10).

Answer:- Not sure how that is relevant to the Ukrainian experience. If the gun barrels have the service life of 1500 shells. They will need to be changed once that many shells have been fired.

If the Ukrainian army knows how to utilise 152 mm howitzers. They can utilise m 777 as well. The laws of ballistics are identical regardless of who is using them.

This system offers a unique capability, the firepower of a 155 mm cannon at the weight of 105 mm cannon.. This is an incredibly powerful capability. It comes at a cost and with the need for training on how to move, deploy and use the system.

Answer:- In terms of employment the gun has the same number of operating personal as the previous generation M198. The only difference is the weight. The difference from the M198 is that the M777 can be lifted by the Black hawk or the Mi17 as well. So the belief that it offers a unique capacity for an army that can only utilise trucks is dubious again.

Any use in Ukraine is always going to be suboptimal. The Ukrainians don’t have any experience with titanium-based lightweight systems . But on the other hand you can transport 155 mm capability to the frontline very effectively.

Answer:- The weight and materials used in construction of the of gun has no bearing on it's employability. Even a gun made from steel becomes unemployable, if the recoil spade is damaged. The repair of the spade is a unique endeavour. Even though the ability to work with steel might be common. Unless the right equipment is available in terms of hydrolic press of sufficient tonnage is available, the guns cannot be repaired.

What actually matters is ballistics and situational awareness. Ie, where is the gun, where is the target in relation to the gun. What is the charge zone and the elivation and traverse in order to put shells in the general vicinity of the target. If the gun crew lacks this understanding, they will fail, even with the USSR origin 152 mm howitzers.

Sometimes when faced with real life choices, you have to take pragmatic decisions with lots of flaws.

Even if a third of the guns don’t function 2/3 do, and those will be delivering firepower where is needed in short order.
Every weapon system is a compromise from one POV or another. Calling them flaws IMO is not displaying a correct understanding of the circumstance of the development of the weapon.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Problem is Dhanush or ATAGS are never given any leeway.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

WRT, ATAGS and the switch from electric drive to hydraulic drive and consequent delays. We don't really understand the real issues faced by the Dhanush in terms of the.muzzel strikes.

Even though both the issues caused a delay. Those issues have now been overcome and the systems will be ordered once the final rounds of testing is completed in the next 12 months or so.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Barath »

Dhanush already has an order of 114 guns, where the delivery was going a bit slow. Unless you meant a re-order.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-08-11

Also, Dhanush and ATAGS may get 'special' treatment, but it goes both ways. Neither of them competed in an RFP against other towed guns; they will still get orders. Which is partly due to preference for IDDM in DPP, and partly due to the long saga of RFP. But they may not even formally compete against each other...

Also this article has different pics of the M777 (US version)
https://www.businessinsider.in/slidesho ... d=63384137
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Has any one seen the trial reports?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

When we have numbers, however small, there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, to speculate.
ShivS wrote:Mr.Rao

Truth is that the M777 has never been battle tested. Until the Weapon system meets actual operating conditions, no manual should be taken as the gospel .
Feb 6, 2018 :: In five months they fired 35,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets, killing ISIS fighters by the dozens," Troxell said.
Before Ukraine, the M777 has only seen action in very limited numbers in Afghanistan. A lot of what we know about the systems peculiarities come from that experience. However that experience itself is with very limited numbers (perhaps 10).
From my 2 year old notes: in A'stan USMC used 2500 rounds in about 583 operations. (Too lazy to find the original, sorry.)
from wrote: The second is the brittle nature of the Titanium and the ruthless reduction in frame thickness to get the lowest possible weight. ......
The weight differential, between the M198 and M77, is the weight difference between a cubic meter of iron and a cubic meter of titanium.

Give and take some, but, certainly there were no compromises made in critical areas like the barrel.
Any use in Ukraine is always going to be suboptimal. The Ukrainians don’t have any experience with titanium-based lightweight systems . But on the other hand you can transport 155 mm capability to the frontline very effectively.
I think Pratyush made this point earlier: Ukrainians have plenty of experience with very similar Russian equipment AND have been trained by NATO.

What I will grant is that the M777 (and the HIMARS too) is being used for something it was not designed for. And, therefore "is always going to be suboptimal". But not because of any flaw in the gun itself or any other reason.
Sometimes when faced with real life choices, you have to take pragmatic decisions with lots of flaws.
So, what are these "flaws"? IF they are your speculation, then I have no problems.

____________

A quick word: The M777 is a joint effort between the US Army and the USMC. By donating the M777 to UKR, the US Army has 25% less units, USMC retains her units of some 580. US has ~900 units (across the globe).
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

How is M777 or HIMARS use in Ukr pontially in a manner not designed for?

If that a deliberate use in that manner or because of a lack of training which causes SoPs to not be used?
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by John »

ks_sachin wrote:How is M777 or HIMARS use in Ukr pontially in a manner not designed for?

If that a deliberate use in that manner or because of a lack of training which causes SoPs to not be used?
Given the M777 kill videos inspite of only handful in operation, I don't know how anyone can state it is not being used properly. Compared to other artillery they have employed it seems to have higher kill and accuracy rate from analysis I have done on vids we have seen so far. Anyway It's fun to just throw out random statements like facts without any concrete evidence whatsoever.

With HIMARS I don't have enough data to make that claim but so far if recent ammo depot strikes are done by it (as claimed by Seperatist). It shows it far more accurate than Smerch attacks they have tried previously on same facility.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

John

There was a statement also made that M777 use in Ukr is suboptimal?

I don’t understand that as well.

If anything it’s use in Afghanistan would be sub optimal yes?
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by John »

ks_sachin wrote:John

There was a statement also made that M777 use in Ukr is suboptimal?

I don’t understand that as well.

If anything it’s use in Afghanistan would be sub optimal yes?
M777 are performing well you can make a case they don’t have enough (a cheaper light self propelled would work better as Ukr needs nos) and lack of compatible ammo is hurting them but saying anything else requires a big stretch of imagination.

One take away should be the importance of light self propelled artillery that can shoot and scoot.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

ks_sachin wrote:How is M777 or HIMARS use in Ukr pontially in a manner not designed for?

If that a deliberate use in that manner or because of a lack of training which causes SoPs to not be used?
ks_sachin wrote:John

There was a statement also made that M777 use in Ukr is suboptimal?

I don’t understand that as well.

If anything it’s use in Afghanistan would be sub optimal yes?
sachin,

I cannot answer your concern about "suboptimal" - that came from ShivS.

I will respond to your query about "designed for". Having been funded in related matters I have a boat load of info on USMC, but very little on US Army - two different beasts (although a few months ago I did have discussions on counter battery strategies without any modern gadgets (GPS, etc) - a very common request now a days).

Meanwhile, there is a difference between "designed for" and "use". So, as a crude example, if one comes across a screw with a phillips head, but only has a flat head screw driver available, the person may be able to screw the screw in, but clearly that screw driver was not designed for that purpose. One could use a Porsche to move a very large sofa, but it is not designed for that purpose. Again, granted a rather crude examples.

So, to be clear, I am not claiming that either the M777 or the HIMARS are not causing damage in UKR, but rather that the way they are being used was not what the designers had in mind. Or better yet, that the US Army/MC would not use them the same way. Granted circumstances, etc, that is true.

Will be back - probably in a few days (I will post in the US military thread).

Peace.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

Ultra Light Weight Howitzer (ULWH) Story -

PART 1:

- If you look at the acquisition process of ULWH, the first question that comes to your mind is whether the gun was needed in the first place or not?
- Why the skepticism, you ask? Read on.
- The original GSQR written for ULWH was, lets say, written to suit only ONE gun.
- And surprise, surprise, that gun wasn't M-777.
- That gun was Singapore Light Weight Howitzer (SLWH) Pegasus, made by Singapore Technologies.
- Look up the specs of SLWH and you'll see another surprise. It has an APU!
- It weights ~5,400 kg.
- But then why wasn't it inducted?
- Because Singapore Technologies got embroiled in a major scandal involving OFB, which also snared a lot of other companies.
- Nothing came-off this acquisition process
-------
PART 2 -
- General VK Singh became COAS and went about trying to rectify the artillery acquisition issue.
- BTW, how many of you know that it was on General VK Singh's prodding that blueprints of Bofors were dusted and a process began to develop Dhanush from these blueprints.
- But we digress.
- He saw an open requirement for ULWH was stuck because of OFB scandal.
- He asked his staff to look for alternate options and that's how M-777 was identified as a substitute.
- BUT, the powers-that-be who had been having a jolly good time by dipping their beaks in the gravy train @MOD would not allow this to happen.
- Because import from US mean G2G w/o their share.
- The then Defense Secretary REFUSED to use the same AON and acquisition process to import M-777 instead of Singaporean gun.
- But General VK Singh was well, General VK Singh.
- He persisted and brought the M-777 acquisition process on track.
- But again, how could the dalals@MOD allow this to happen?
- You had anonymous letters to MOD and hit jobs in the press on M-777 not meeting the GSQR.
- Which was obvious because, meh, it was tailormade for the Singaporean gun!
- The General persisted, and inspite of MOD letting multiple offers from BAE pass, the gun was brought and inducted into the service.
-------
- When M-777 was finalized, there was not domestic solution in picture.
- As for why acquisitions are not happening, well, for that ask PMO and Modiji.
- They need to loosen the purse strings.
- Working actively with BF, a TATA LPTA truck mounted 105mm soft-recoil gun has been tested by the army.
- it is a matter of placing orders. No imports are going to happen now.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12186
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Not knowing what Gen VKS did. Would one be correct in arriving at the conclusion that coup story was planted in order to slow down the arty drive?
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

John wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:John

There was a statement also made that M777 use in Ukr is suboptimal?

I don’t understand that as well.

If anything it’s use in Afghanistan would be sub optimal yes?
M777 are performing well you can make a case they don’t have enough (a cheaper light self propelled would work better as Ukr needs nos) and lack of compatible ammo is hurting them but saying anything else requires a big stretch of imagination.

One take away should be the importance of light self propelled artillery that can shoot and scoot.
One thinks where titanium is going to come from
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

NRao,

This is the bit I want to understand.
but rather that the way they are being used was not what the designers had in mind. Or better yet, that the US Army/MC would not use them the same way.
How?
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by John »

This taken from BAE brochure on M777 it is being used exactly as intended. Replace IED with drones as its smaller footprint would allow it to better concealed.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/m777
the system features a minimal logistical footprint alongside maximum reliability. This means that it can be frequently moved and re-deployed, maximizing survivability, without encountering the IED risks faced by self-propelled systems. The M777 can strike over extended distances, regardless of terrain and obstacles.
Last edited by John on 03 Jul 2022 21:15, edited 1 time in total.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

kit wrote:One thinks where titanium is going to come from
I was going to say Donbas but Canada, Australia and South Africa have much higher mining of titanium. We also have some of it.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

Did we miss this?

- Indian Army RFI for procurement of mounted 105/37mm gun system


- Indian vendors.
- Quantity not mentioned
- I remember IA working with BF on their soft-recoil gun mounted on TATA 4x4 truck (the truck in the picture is an in-service truck of the Indian Army. Which means it was loaned from the IA to BF to try out this configuration)
- Finally, things moving from concept to procurement stage.

RFI Link - https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... 290422.pdf

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/VJSWRITER/status/15 ... sdxe97AQ4Q --->

Some of the 105mm guns of 41 Field Regt were firing 400 rounds a day. The barrels would get so hot that experienced gunners would drape the barrels with gunny bags soaked in snow melts to cool them and continue the fire offensive.

Image
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

^^^ they are still used in LOC in driect fire mode to pound the paki vermin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd5QnMJwMQ

SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Artillery Corps: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

What is the time line of this video?
I thought that the LOC has cooled down after unspoken understanding by unnamed ones!
Post Reply