Artillery Discussion Thread

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 08 May 2011 12:26

Expecting and Futuristic are the words.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 09 May 2011 11:10

BAE Systems rethinks decision on artillery contracts - Business Standard - Ajay Shukla

What might be the reason? Because DRDO product is in horizon or India is a big market that cannot be ignored on small issues?

Fuelling the growing belief that BAE Systems must bid in this tender are behind-the-scenes requests from the army’s artillery directorate, which has become convinced, over several rounds of earlier trials, of the quality of the FH-77B 05 Bofors gun. Given the army’s backing, BAE Systems’ “pro-participation” advocates argue that a few tens of millions of dollars spent on modifications would be an acceptable price for winning this Rs 8,000-crore contract and taking pole position in the other lucrative gun contracts that total up to Rs 20,000 crore.

BAE Systems has tied up with a Mahindra group company, Defence Land Systems, as a manufacturing partner for artillery contracts that it wins in India. Mahindra is likely to play an important role in any BAE Systems decision to participate in the tender. The final decision will be taken by BAE Systems’ Land & Armaments Divisions.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 09 May 2011 13:20

^^
As per the report, DRDO is just about setting the base to develop 155mm gun, & clearly it will take a number of years before an indigenous Gun is developed & is ready for deployment. So not sure why BAE's decision should be linked to DRDO.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2011 13:55

+1, drdo should imo focus on next-gen towed and truck mounted 105mm guns while in parallel funding the basic work for 155mm. either way its likely a 10 yr project and unlikely to deliver a in-service product before 2020 if all goes well.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 09 May 2011 13:57

++1
CJ, this effort might be too little too late wrto the IA requirement.

How miserable - IA had to be pushed to the corner with no other options before even beginning to think of local development. As a risk and profit sharing effort, DRDO should go in with substantial share of investment from IA budget. They should also go for the centers/MoDs approval for export of the weapon to friendly nations.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 May 2011 14:12

^^^ Indian Army will be required to put in money as per the latest rules. The effort has not begun yet. They are "Expecting."

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 May 2011 15:37

arunsrinivasan wrote:^^ So not sure why BAE's decision should be linked to DRDO.

You question hit me like a ton. I grasped the implications of this. I will put that in a logical manner and post the link.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 03 Jun 2011 20:12

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/be ... chief.html

The Director General of India's Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), VK Saraswat today announced that he would soon be launching new programmes to develop 155mm/52cal artillery guns in both towed and self-propelled configurations. "This," he said, was to "take care of future artillery requirements of the next decade, without having to rely on the vagaries of foreign import."

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 03 Jun 2011 20:19

chackojoseph wrote:
arunsrinivasan wrote:^^ So not sure why BAE's decision should be linked to DRDO.
You question hit me like a ton. I grasped the implications of this. I will put that in a logical manner and post the link.

Chackoji, you were supposed to do a post ... when is it expected?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jun 2011 20:23

arunsrinivasan wrote:Chackoji, you were supposed to do a post ... when is it expected?

Being done in a logical manner, without spelling mistakes

Give my fellow tribesman some time.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jun 2011 20:33

^^^Dr. Saraswat should get a written document and signed by IA chiefs and MoD, on their commitments to these new projects.

sum · Post by **sum** » 03 Jun 2011 20:40

VK Saraswat today announced that he would soon be launching new programmes to develop 155mm/52cal artillery guns in both towed and self-propelled configurations.

Soon be launching?

Wasn't BRF having multiple chai-wallahs saying that such a programme had already kick-started?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 03 Jun 2011 21:22

SaiK wrote:^^^Dr. Saraswat should get a written document and signed by IA chiefs and MoD, on their commitments to these new projects.

Forget document, DRDO should make IA contribute its artillery budget for the project along with a Lt Gen grade officer for close co-ordination. complete GSQR etc on time and move forward in a planned manner.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jun 2011 21:32

^^I was talking about entry criteria for starting development, and you are talking about entry criteria for planning.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 20 Jun 2011 23:14

Bhim not on track after all

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Jul 2011 17:29

Rohit Miyan,
Where are you???

Waiting eagerly to see the mystery resolve...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Jul 2011 18:19

OK. Ladies and Gentlemen (please to figure this out yourself),

I think I've managed to solve the mystery of the third artillery division. But first, thanks to Srini for pointing out the possibility of such a formation existing by linking the picture of Pinaka contingent in RD Parade.

Before I proceed, please be advised that this is all open source info and only help that I've recieved is from my uncle google.

Here is a short explanation:

(a) 40th Artillery Division - formation sign as on the vehicle in the pic below:

http://pib.nic.in/photo//2011/Jan/l2011012333195.jpg

(b) 41st Artillery Division - formation sign as on the vehicle in the pic below:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 705651.JPG

Now, looking at the color scheme of the formation sign, I knew that this was an artillery division and using the 2+2=4 formula, I had formed an opinion that this was 41st Artillery Division with Souther Command. But then, got some other confirmation that this indeed is the case. The Division is nick named as 'Agnibaaz Division' which when translated into english means 'Fire Hawk'. The formation sign fits perfectly into this description.

The source of nick-name is Sainik Samachar. Check this link:

http://sainiksamachar.nic.in/englisharc ... 8/h13.html

Excerpt:

The 41 Artillery Division in Pune celebrated their seventh raising day on April 2 with enthusiasm and multitude of activities. Since its raising, the Division has grown from strength to strength and, today, it is the pride of Indian Army. The Division's impeccable record was showcased during the recently conducted exercise Dakshin Shakti and Brazen Chariots carried out in the deserts of Rajasthan.

(c) Now, coming to our 'mystery formation'. The formation sign we were trying to figure out is in the link below:

http://pib.nic.in/photo//2011/Jan/l2011012333200.jpg

I actually got a lucky break courtsey a fellow orbat junkie who shared the pic listed below and the article (from The Hindu):

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 490015.ece

If you see the flags in the background, you can make out the same formation sign as on Pinaka launchers in the pic before this one. Which basically means that there is such a formation (3rd artillery division) and the same is under South-Western Command.

Now, coming to the numbering of this formation. Again, look what the google uncle turned up:

http://tenders.indiamart.com/details/261435065/

http://2.imimg.com/data2/TJ/JY/HTT-431/ ... -04_49.jpg

So, we do have three artillery division. The good brigadier whose article I'd linked in one of the previous posts (from IndiaStrategic) was correct. And the fact it is with SW Command makes sense; it after all commands the 1 Strike Corps. Now, all the Strike Corps have an artillery division each.

PS: Please send in your requests for autographs to the mods.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 13 Jul 2011 19:12

Waah Rohitmiyan..
Can you let me know what search string you used??? I tried the generic "42 artillery division indian army", but got nothing.. Hence my request..

The only thing i found with any reference to a third artillery division being raised was an old India Today article linked below.
The ChiPak Threat

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 13 Jul 2011 19:23

SaiK wrote:^^^Dr. Saraswat should get a written document and signed by IA chiefs and MoD, on their commitments to these new projects.

I think Dr Saraswat is bribed by the Indian Army to develop a 155 mm artillery.

No sooner DRDO develops a gun, Indian Army will go and buy from a phorainer. That way Indian Army will get plenty of guns!

Kersi

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Jul 2011 19:25

Bala Vignesh wrote:Waah Rohitmiyan..
Can you let me know what search string you used??? I tried the generic "42 artillery division indian army", but got nothing.. Hence my request..

The only thing i found with any reference to a third artillery division being raised was an old India Today article linked below.
The ChiPak Threat

I actually got the pic from The Hindu first and after I realized that the formation is with SW Command, just kept of entering strings with combination of jaipur/sw command/artillery hq etc. I actually spent 3-4 hours on this

....but had I not got hold of the pic from The Hindu, it would not have been possible.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 13 Jul 2011 19:26

rohitvats wrote:OK. Ladies and Gentlemen (please to figure this out yourself),

I think I've managed to solve the mystery of the third artillery division ......

PS: Please send in your requests for autographs to the mods.

Can you give your autograph on US$100 bill ? I do not have anything smaller !!

K

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Jul 2011 08:46

Thanks Rohit for this painstaking research, In hindsight, if we see the formation sign, it is a play on the formation sign of SW Command (diagonal Lightning)... This is now the third Arty division (42nd Div). we still have not accounted for the missing 30th Div... why is there a gap in the numbering?
a pooch: Am I the Orbat Junkie mentioned?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 09:19

Shrinivasan wrote:Thanks Rohit for this painstaking research, In hindsight, if we see the formation sign, it is a play on the formation sign of SW Command (diagonal Lightning)... This is now the third Arty division (42nd Div). we still have not accounted for the missing 30th Div... why is there a gap in the numbering?
a pooch: Am I the Orbat Junkie mentioned?

You're welcome.

You're the one who asked the question (along with the pic) which led to the wild-goose chase on internet...it was someone else who provided another pic (who had the same question

) with the same formation sign. And that was the tubelight momemt!

As for numbering, well, I have no idea...I don't think there is any rule per se except, divisions of different arms will not share the same number (unlike TSPA). For example, there will no 41 Infantry Division or 41 Armored Division. That number has gone to Arty now!

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Jul 2011 10:03

Rohit, There was a mention of a 30th Arty Div some time back, then someone (maybe you) said, the 30th Div is the same as the 40th Arty div. Evne now the #30 is still unused, any insight into this?

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 14 Jul 2011 10:25

^^^
Where did the 3rd artillery division get its guns from? Or is it that the other 2 divisions gave up some of its guns when they inducted pinakas and missiles?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 10:33

Shrinivasan wrote:Rohit, There was a mention of a 30th Arty Div some time back, then someone (maybe you) said, the 30th Div is the same as the 40th Arty div. Evne now the #30 is still unused, any insight into this?

No insight just a guess...with armored divisions having 31 and 33 number, someone could have felt that 30s (30-35) could be reserved for armored formation. But then,we do have 36 RAPID (there goes the logic out of window

)....so, don't waste your energy on these things...they are idiosyncratic at many a times!

Added later:

Srini, sometime back we had a discussion as to wether assets are held at Command HQ or AHQ level and I had written about (I) Arty brigades under AHQ or Command HQ.

Check this image:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... my_001.jpg

What do you think?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 10:34

K_Rohit wrote:^^^
Where did the 3rd artillery division get its guns from? Or is it that the other 2 divisions gave up some of its guns when they inducted pinakas and missiles?

Most likely by combining the (I) artillery brigade(s) along with Corps arty brigade(s) and new assets like Pinaka/Smerch and Brahmos/Prithvi.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jul 2011 11:16

looking at google earth, what the chinese did in aksai chin 1962 was to push us back not just from the flat part of aksai chin but some distance over the belt of mountains as well, so that there is no road or infra there for us to move heavy units and release them into the plains like cat upon pigeons. the prospects look bleak for a combined-arms attack into the aksai chin to reclaim our pride lands.

but in Sikkim the border is such that we own all the hills and the border is right where the hills descend onto a flat wide plain. if we can fix the logistics and base a couple of strike corps there, they could disgorge in a powerful manner into the plains and bottle up chinese units from the north, on the highway going south to nathu - la (between sikkim and bhutan)..and generally cause lots of mayhem advancing north to the brahmaputra in multiple prongs ... there is no suitable terrain feature for the PLA to form a new defensive line once the border defences are breached and no major waterbodies or lakes south of the brahmaputra in that region. armour could potentially annex the sikkim-bhutan triangle and even threaten the rear end of the units positioned against tawang , attacking west-east along the highways and rails the PLA is helpfully building for us.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Jul 2011 11:22

rohitvats wrote:Srini, sometime back we had a discussion as to wether assets are held at Command HQ or AHQ level and I had written about (I) Arty brigades under AHQ or Command HQ. <<IMAGE>> What do you think?

Rohit, Brahmos was initially inducted as a IA HQ Asset before trickling down as a Corp level Asset and not a division level asset (I have seen pics of all three echelons). The picture you posted has the formation sign similar to IA HQ, the color in the bottom half is changed from Black to Blue to signify Arty (or just a bad paint job).
Or

Yet another formation hitherto unknown!!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 11:42

Shrinivasan wrote: <SNIP> Yet another formation hitherto unknown!!!

it is AHQ.....

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Jul 2011 11:51

rohitvats wrote:it is AHQ.....

incidentally I have another picture of Brahmos in Rd Parade where the formation sign of AHQ has the lower part BLACK instead of the BLUE. [Rambling] which leads me to beleive it could be (I) Arty Brigade kept as AHQ reserve. [/Rambling]

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 12:55

Shrinivasan wrote:
rohitvats wrote:it is AHQ.....
incidentally I have another picture of Brahmos in Rd Parade where the formation sign of AHQ has the lower part BLACK instead of the BLUE. [Rambling] which leads me to beleive it could be (I) Arty Brigade kept as AHQ reserve. [/Rambling]

Nope. I think the issue is with the shade of blue used...it should have been darker.

See this page:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... adges.html

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 14 Jul 2011 13:10

Rohit
That Brahmos unit is not part of any operational formation. It is a training and familiarization unit. Formation sign it is carrying is not Army HQ either. The red-blue shield is the regimental colours of the regiment of artillery. What I can't say for sure is whether it belongs to Deolali or to Golconda.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 13:33

Rupak wrote:Rohit
That Brahmos unit is not part of any operational formation. It is a training and familiarization unit. Formation sign it is carrying is not Army HQ either. The red-blue shield is the regimental colours of the regiment of artillery. I suspect that it belongs to Deolali.

Now that you mention it, the color scheme is indeed arty regimental colors.

But, I'm not sure of Deolali/Regimental Center thing. Two reasons - the tac number (354) means it is with some regiment. Second, check these images:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 2004).jpeg

http://mod.nic.in/samachar/16feb01/image/6b.jpg

Same formation sign, different tac number and different missile.

Excerpt from where the Prithvi image was taken:(http://mod.nic.in/samachar/16feb01/html/mart.htm)

Next approaching the saluting dais was Prithvi missile system, led by Maj S K Sahoo of the Missile Group

So, this is more than likely to be formation sign common to either Missile Groups or independent arty brigades under AHQ.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 14 Jul 2011 14:35

More you share, more you analyse, more you know...Thanks Rohit...
Sainik Samachar is indeed a treasure trove of information

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 15:25

Shrinivasan wrote:More you share, more you analyse, more you know...Thanks Rohit...
Sainik Samachar is indeed a treasure trove of information

For that, you need to ask question.....

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 14 Jul 2011 17:39

rohitvats wrote:OK. Ladies and Gentlemen (please to figure this out yourself),
<snip>

That's why tenders are such big sources of information and why there are dedicated tender watchers.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Jul 2011 22:39

Rupak wrote:Rohit
That Brahmos unit is not part of any operational formation. It is a training and familiarization unit. Formation sign it is carrying is not Army HQ either. The red-blue shield is the regimental colours of the regiment of artillery. What I can't say for sure is whether it belongs to Deolali or to Golconda.

Sirji,

How do I reply to your PM?

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 15 Jul 2011 18:38

Rohit did you try emailing me?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Jul 2011 19:09

Rupak wrote:Rohit did you try emailing me?

Not yet.