Artillery Discussion Thread

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 12 May 2012 15:29

Badhai ho bhai log.

Does anybody has the gun emplacement time and displacement time for this thing. And no short cuts please. Sole plate working times too.

This should satisfy the people w.r.t. the bunker busting capabilities. Instead of a follow on order of substantially large numbers I would suggest:
1. a dedicated 10 heavy lift helo capability; and
2. Excalibur rounds, in substantial numbers; and

Let a thousand LFG bloom under the protection of these low pressure low weight guns fit for high alti duty. Or am I alone here.

Added later
The comments at NDTV site were hilarious.

Every P-Sec in the world is commenting there.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 May 2012 15:42

I hope they practice the air drop well. If you read what was in 1962, a lot of airdrops went into enemy territory.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 12 May 2012 15:49

I am curious to know where these Amirkhan ultra light howitzer M777 would be used? Indo Pak border to pound their paki sidekicks or on Indo china border to pound their trade partner? Could it be used in Siachen(are they light enough for such use)?? Is there any restrictions placed on its end use.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 May 2012 16:41

Inspite of availibility of M777 both USA & UK in last decade have reversed the decision to convert completely to 155mm and have ordered massive numbers of 105mm guns/howz which are similar to Indian versions.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 12 May 2012 16:44

1055 MM ???

Paki's must have sent a letter to US asking for the same after reading it here

i known it was a typo

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 12 May 2012 16:58

The main requirement for towed guns would be coming from the ones OFB/DRDO will be building under TOT or from Mahindra/Bharat Forge. What about the wheeled and tracked Guns?
Next in line to be decided would be the 180 wheeled guns contract that Zuzana is hoping to win.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2012 18:36

I dont think we will be paradropping M777 guns. they will mostly be taken by road and then perhaps a short helicopter airlift to any areas with no roads...like some border areas in arunachal are said to be "2 days march" from the nearest road....such areas offer a tempting prospect to bite into and pressurize us with such local bites. the middle sector of arunachal is perhaps such an area...since the areas near tawang and the areas near walong have roads.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 May 2012 19:44

C-17 + m-777, IMO they will be tempted to para drop.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 May 2012 19:53

it depends on the terrain I suppose.. if it is all mountain terrain, it is going to be difficult.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 May 2012 20:28

Inspite of availibility of M777 both USA & UK in last decade have reversed the decision to convert completely to 155mm and have ordered massive numbers of 105mm guns/howz which are similar to Indian versions.

You love to twist it to suit your view don't you

The US and UK always had a 105 mm component for portability reasons

The US replaced its M102s with M119.

These are for airborne, marine forces which need something portable

We are talking being lifted by a blackhawk or pulled by a humvee level of portability

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 12 May 2012 21:16

Para drop will be highly unlikely in mountain terrain. If there are no roads, perhaps heli-lift would be the solution (though that also is contingent on the altitude for operations)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2012 21:20

for areas some days march from road head it is quite apparent we will not be undertaking any offensive ops but instead just try to preserve the status quo. for such regions probably more numbers of lighter 105mm is what makes sense lifted there using Mi17 and kept on permanent station like in siachen. if there are roads where trucks can go, the M777 can be pulled there.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 12 May 2012 21:23

Question to the gurus... With the plan for inducting wheeled, tracked, towed, mounted and ultra-light arty guns, how would these weapons be deployed across the formations and roles? And what are the final/current # IA is looking at?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 May 2012 23:20

As per one Parliamentary Standing Committee Report, IA has 180 Field and Medium Regiments. While I used to think that Field (105mm) and Medium (130/155mm) Regiment ratio was 3:1, I have reasons to believe that it is almost 1:1 with Field Regiments being a bit on the higher side. So, apart from the 105mm formations with mountain divisions, rest all of them should be up for standardization on 155mm.

Coming to roles - you're mechanized elements like armored divisions, RAPID, armored brigades should be the first candidates for tracked and wheeled/mounted guns. Interestingly, only 180 guns (~10 regiments) of tracked SPH are being sought - hardly enough to cover the armor divisions,leave alone other formations. Which means that the mechanized formations will have mix of tracked and wheeled/mounted SPH.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 13 May 2012 00:00

^^
Thanks rohitvats for the summary. This sets the context better

However, what I don't understand is what is the envisaged role for say wheeled vs. tracked vs. mounted for Armoured Divs vs. RAPID, for instance.

Do tracked move along/just behind the armoured columns while the 52 cal (mounted) guns give cover fire from further behind, due to their longer range?

Would Inf & Mountain Divs get only towed or some of the mounted ones too? If yes, what would be their deployment profile?

Some of this could be very sensitive/confidential stuff, but the purpose of this question was to speculate/ideate on the above topic only

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 May 2012 00:03

M777 Portee

   ...
The howitzer is partially unloaded from the vehicle before firing. A total of 20 rounds of ammunition are carried. The advantage of such design is that the M777 Portee is more mobile than ordinary towed howitzers. Also when the howitzer is loaded onto the vehicle it can go over terrain, that would trap other towed howitzers. Unique feature of the M777 Portee is that artillery system can be easily removed or attached to the chassis. With the howitzer removed the vehicle acts as an artillery tractor and can carry additional ammunition instead of artillery system. In the towing mode the M777 Portee can carry a total of 71 rounds.

Cab of the M777 Portee provides light armor protection and NBC protection for the crew. It accommodates the driver plus gun crew.

The M777 Portee is mounted on the chassis of the Supacat HMT 800 8x6 high mobility truck. Vehicle can be carried by the C-130 transport aircraft. Thus it can be carried underslung by two CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 13 May 2012 00:10

The Desi guns are coming soon using Bofors ToT right? So hopefully cover some gaps... Ideally would it be better to deploy these howitzers on the PRC sector where US foreign policy will be more sympathetic than TSP?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 May 2012 00:13

AS, the reason mechanized columns are given tracked/wheeled/mounted artillery is because they are expected to keep pace with the advancing mechanized columns. One error which people usually make is to assume that since arty can fire from >30 km range, they do not need to move like Mechanized Infantry in ICV (toe to toe with the armor boys). And hence, towed artillery (or even mounted artillery) alone should do. Well, it is not only about keeping pace with mechanized columns but also about being able to use the same axis of advance as the main armor body. For example, artillery component of an armor column advancing from Barmer into Pakistan will need to be able to traverse the sand. Hardly a place for a towed gun - even with modern field tractors. Having tracked SPH eases this aspect.

Infantry and Mountain Divisions should be getting the towed artillery. It seems that the number of mounted guns is expected to increase in place of only towed artillery.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 13 May 2012 00:28

^^
Logical RV, except don't understand the reason for the breakup of tracked, wheeled & mounted. To put it simply, the earlier composition of an Arty Bde of an inf Div used to be 3 Field Regts, 1 Medium Regt, 1 Lt. Regt and 1 SATA Battery. Each Field Regt would be allocated (standard deployment) to one of the 3 Inf. Bde of the Div operationally for support (though it would be open ended based on the war game scenario). Medium & Lt Regts would be more open ended in deployment relatively.

So, using the Inf Div analogy, would tracked have some operational logic, which could be different from wheeled or mounted, assuming they are part of the same Arty Bde in an Armoured Div?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2012 00:52

Para dropping has become an issue of economics. The US does have a parachute that is GPS capable (what is not), BUT, that 'chute is expensive - something like $14 or $24,000 per parachute. These 'chutes HAVE to be retrieved - not much of a deal because they land at a particular point - then sent back to HQ for reuse. The US rarely uses them - expense.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 May 2012 00:52

AS, like I said before, IMO, 3:1 ratio of Field to Medium Regiments does not hold anymore.

As for the wheeled and tracked SPH, the same could be because of terrain of deployment. For example, I don't know how many know this - the RAPID concept as per Army Plan 2000 was put in place to partially mechanize those infantry divisions where terrain did not justify full mechanization on the lines of a Mechanized Division. Remember, as per AP 2000, IA was to consist of armored, mechanized, RAPID and mountain divisions. Vanilla divisions were to be history. Similarly, IA could have identified sectors where they feel wheeled SPH could do better job.

As for the specific question of arty bde of an armored division - well, might well be IA's way of cutting down on cost. For example, 2 x Tracked SPH and 2/3 x Mounted SPH could be the norm where tracked howitzer could be allocated to the lead elements. But all this is just guess estimates.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 May 2012 01:05

^^^

As per recent news, like the RAPID transformation of infantry divisions, there are plans to convert the mountain divisions into RAMID. Any ideas as to what this transformation in structure & composition would be?

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 13 May 2012 01:18

^^
Cost looks to be the more plausible option. Thanks RV.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 May 2012 02:18

srai wrote:^^^

As per recent news, like the RAPID transformation of infantry divisions, there are plans to convert the mountain divisions into RAMID. Any ideas as to what this transformation in structure & composition would be?

No idea...I also learnt about it pretty late from the media.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 13 May 2012 02:31

Video (panel discussion) India's first artillery guns in 26 years

Just weeks after news broke of a controversial letter from Army Chief General VK Singh to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of critical deficiencies in the armed forces, the government seems to be acting. Two major defence deals, together worth nearly 6000 crores, now seem to be on the cards. One of the deals is for procurement of artillery guns, the first purchased by the Indian Army in more than two decades. We debate whether the government is finally listening to the armed forces?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2012 06:52

vic wrote: Inspite of availibility of M777 both USA & UK in last decade have reversed the decision to convert completely to 155mm and have ordered massive numbers of 105mm guns/howz which are similar to Indian versions.

Last edited by vic on 12 May 2012 17:00, edited 2 times in total.

Why are we comparing apples and oranges?

IA needs the M777 specifically for the Chinese border (per the IA). Do either of them have such a specific need? Just asking.

Ajay Sharma wrote:Para drop will be highly unlikely in mountain terrain. If there are no roads, perhaps heli-lift would be the solution (though that also is contingent on the altitude for operations)

Joint Precision Airdrop System

JPADS involves four increments, categorized by the weight of the cargo to be dropped:

Increment I: JPADS-2K / applies to loads up to 2,200 lbs / classified as the “extra light” category / commensurate with Container Delivery System (CDS) bundles.

Increment II: JPADS-10K / applies to loads up to 10,000 lbs.

Increment III: JPADS-30K / applies to loads up to 30,000 lbs.

Increment IV: JPADS-60K / applies to loads up to 60,000 lbs.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 May 2012 08:50

shyamd wrote:The Desi guns are coming soon using Bofors ToT right? So hopefully cover some gaps... Ideally would it be better to deploy these howitzers on the PRC sector where US foreign policy will be more sympathetic than TSP?

Its not one to one copy.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 13 May 2012 09:03

chackojoseph wrote:Its not one to one copy.

What are the differences besides the change in caliber for one of the models?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 May 2012 09:33

Arun Menon wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Its not one to one copy.
What are the differences besides the change in caliber for one of the models?

Entire stuff. The software, the materials, the electronics etc.

As per OFB it is an upgraded Bofors gun for 45 mm.

Besides one of the OFB PRO said that there is no ToT, only designs available.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 13 May 2012 10:52

^^
CJ, if it is only design and not ToT, is that the reason why IA wants to have testing etc to be done before induction? To a layman like me, wouldnt it throw challenges related to metallurgy etc. also if there is no ToT?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 13 May 2012 11:17

chackojoseph wrote: Entire stuff. The software, the materials, the electronics etc.

Thanks for the info.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 May 2012 11:21

AS,

It is a gun design, like so many guns out there. When it is said that it is a 'Bofors Design,' it is a perception. Since we have not seen the design, we do not know if they are referring to layout or not.

When you integrate barrel, munition, software, mobility etc, the gun acquires certain characteristics which may have advantage or disadvantage. The velocity, stabilisation, SOP, elevation / azimuth calculation etc change too.

Old barrel metallurgy makes no sense. Old mobility (the servo / motor / controls etc) also make no sense. The old munition design also makes no sense. The lay out may be tweaked based on input from existing Bofors guns.

So, its a new gun and tests have to be performed at different terrains, climate etc.

Just take off the word 'Bofors' from your mind and concentrate on 'gun design.' You will be able to understand better.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 13 May 2012 11:28

^^
Gotcha... So what we require is patience to see what it really looks like

My gut says it will be a similar layout. Am sure motor, barrel, ballistics computer will be new

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 May 2012 12:31

^^^

Think of it like the Akash SAM ... looks like SA-6 but everything else is different - new radars, new internals, fuel mixture, metallurgy, avionics, command and control, automation, etc. If the design works reuse it but other things can be modernized/optimized.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 May 2012 17:55

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=18492

So far the OFB is refusing to call it a Bofors gun.

what an irony!

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 14 May 2012 22:12

Ajay Sharma wrote:^^
So, using the Inf Div analogy, would tracked have some operational logic, which could be different from wheeled or mounted, assuming they are part of the same Arty Bde in an Armoured Div?

Arty supporting Armoured formations do need to move along with the armour - they will only stop while firing. That is why the OP officers from Arty have their own tanks, and cannot be differentiated from the armour - they won't be chugging along behind in a jeep or something

.

SandeepS · Post by **SandeepS** » 14 May 2012 23:15

schowdhuri wrote:
Ajay Sharma wrote: Arty supporting Armoured formations do need to move along with the armour - they will only stop while firing. That is why the OP officers from Arty have their own tanks, and cannot be differentiated from the armour - they won't be chugging along behind in a jeep or something .

And it used to really rankle the "mud corps" boys, especially the pedigree regts, when a Medium Regt topchi used to pop out from the OP tank turret which had kept pace with them in all their maneuvers.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 14 May 2012 23:19

Would the OP tank be similiar to a commander's vehicle, considering the requirements in comms and optical systems???

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 14 May 2012 23:50

schowdhuri wrote:
Ajay Sharma wrote:^^
So, using the Inf Div analogy, would tracked have some operational logic, which could be different from wheeled or mounted, assuming they are part of the same Arty Bde in an Armoured Div?
Arty supporting Armoured formations do need to move along with the armour - they will only stop while firing. That is why the OP officers from Arty have their own tanks, and cannot be differentiated from the armour - they won't be chugging along behind in a jeep or something .

I didn't know that OP officers have their own tank. So is the equipment on loan from the Armoured Regt or part of the Arty Regt supporting the Armoured Regt/Bde?

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 15 May 2012 00:00

Talking about tanks, there are some folklores based on some colorful yet distinguished officers that get handed from 1 generation to the next.

I once heard of an Arty officer who would insist going to the movie theater (somewhere in Punjab) in his Abbot