Artillery: News & Discussion

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 02:12

ramana wrote:SagarG, There could be a difference in the Russian specialsts sent to investigatet eh issue. Its they who are saying the 1985 protocol was singed without consulting the designer. They are not blaming the OPFB but their team.

Fair enough.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 02:14

ARDE MK1 (withdrawn from service): 413-427 MPA
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm

IMI CL3254M equivalent (license assembled by OFB): 570 MPA (probably max)
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Oct 2013 02:15

Karan M wrote:ARDE MK1 (withdrawn from service): 413-427 MPA
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm

IMI CL3254M equivalent (license assembled by OFB): 570 MPA (probably max)
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm

Ajai Shukla has mentioned that most of the barrel bursts happened with APFSDS Ammunition.

Further - this Project MAPLE for T-72 guns needs to be investigated. If OFB was successful then why is Russian gun imported? And did we not MODIFY the T-72 gun for T-90 use when the Russian played hardball on TOT?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 02:44

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:<SNIP>Find it surprising that the MPA mentioned is higher than that of the tank gun for the T-90..
Ah darn, now to dig out Russian sources..
I have been wanting to do a detailed article on tank ammunition situation in India - guess now is the good time. Have been collecting some data...your posts will be of great help. Will send you draft for inputs once it is ready.

Sure.. I was actually refraining from posting about all this in the past, because given the grave state of affairs, stating it publicly (even based on open source) would be even worse.

Given that Shri VK Singh's letter leak issue put a focus on the issue and resulted in urgent import of 16K BM42s (66K BM42s follow on with TOT - yes, that word again) and then 25K INVARS.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... es-factory
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... w-mountain

Hopefully, things arent as grave as before. However, the deal for 66K FSAPDS is not yet signed

Another 66K BM42s are mentioned as "ex-import" (my understanding is imported directly) .The real silver lining as far as I am concerned is the local FSAPDS option and that it is in trials already

Relevant reports from Std Committee of Defence (20th report) - this was in April this year, sorry about the lousy formatting but i had saved it in notepad.

2.14 On the procurement of sixty six thousand round of tank
ammunition, the Ministry supplied following written information:—
“The primary ammunition for Tanks is 125 MM Fin Stabilized
Armoured Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS), 125 MM High
Explosive (HE) and 125 MM High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT).
Procurement action is being taken to address shortage in FSAPDS
ammunition. A proposal for procurement of 66,000 rounds of
FSAPDS ex-import along with Transfer of Technology (ToT) is under
progress. This will enable meeting immediate requirements together
with production of the said ammunition by the Ordnance Factories
in due course.”

2.15 On the reason behind supply of defective ammunition to Army,
despite involvement of DGQA, a representative of DGQA informed as
under:—
“Sir, in my opinion, there were some problems. We along with the
Ordnance Factory Board sat down and addressed this issue. In the
last one year there have been no major quality problems at all
noticed by us.”
2.16 Secretary, Defence Production clarified further:—
“Sir, let me explain the ammunition part a little bit more. Actually,
there are about 23 items of ammunition, which have been giving
us perpetual trouble. In our assessment, these are mostly related
to the design issues, which we are trying to address in consultation
with the foreign partners, DRDO, etc. This is taking some time,
3but I would admit that Army has a problem that certain categories
of ammunition are not working properly, and we need to address
that problem.”

2.17 Vice-Chief of Army Staff also apprised the Committee about
the reason behind reported defect in the ammunition:—
“I do not know about the exact report, but one ammunition is
Krashnapov, which is a very precise ammunition. It is fired with
the artillery gun. It did not burst at the target when it was utilised
in Kargil ranges. It is imported ammunition from Russia. There
have been joint meetings between DG (Acq.); our Deputy Chief;
and the Russian vendor. They were supposed to meet certain height
and temperature requirement, and they said that it is not meant
for such high altitude areas. Now, this ammunition has been shifted
in the plain areas because it was not working there satisfactorily.

Secondly, we are concerned about the quality of ammunition. We
have expressed our concern with the Ministry, and the Ministry
has been taking various measures and trying to involve both my
Deputy Chief as well as the MGO. They have been put on the
board, and since 1985 we have had about 200 accidents. Now, it
brings down the confidence of the firer, especially, with regard to
tank ammunition.”

2.18 On the question of number of accidents which took place
using this ammunition, Vice-Chief of Army Staff explained to the
Committee:—
“It used to burst in the barrel. If it bursts in the barrel, then the
firer is afraid to fire his own gun, which is not a correct thing. If
he is afraid to fire his own gun, then even if he sees the enemy
he will not fire. This thing has been told to the Ministry, and we
have been having very regular conferences on how to go about it.
They are going into all the things.”
2.19 The Committee also desired to know whether Army is satisfied
with the quality of ammunition that is given to them, on this Vice-
Chief stated that although they have tried to do a lot of things on it
but it would be a little slow process.
2.20 When the Ministry was asked to explain, how Army go to
the battlefield. If some ammunition does not work or if it explodes in
the barrel, the Vice-Chief apprised as under:—
“The Ministry have allowed us to purchase that typical type of
ammunition — 66,000 rounds. Obviously, the procurement process
is in the advanced stages, and we are likely to get that ammunition
from abroad till the quality control issues are sorted out in-houseSo, that type of ammunition is available. HEAT is basically used
against softer vehicles. Anti-tank ammunition is a problem. But,
this 66,000 rounds are coming. The guns fire two types of
ammunitions. One is the direct fire with the main gun and the
other one is missiles. Now, on missiles we have progressed quite
a lot. When there is a problem in one type of ammunition, we are
trying to meet it by getting alternate ammunition so that the tank
is able to take on another tank. That is the strategy which we
have adopted.”
2.21 As per the information, the Committee desired to know as
procurement process takes 80 weeks
i.e.
more than a year and half,
there is a battle in-between, what would be the strategy of the Ministry,
V
ice-Chief of Army Staff replied:
“The delivery for 16,000 has started coming. By the time these
things are there and distributed, I think the first lot should start.”
2.22 Secretary, Defence Production further added:—
“Along with these 66,000 rounds, we are also getting transfer of
technology.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Oct 2013 02:47

OFB website has only following in 125mm FSAPDS category

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm

427Mpa is the chamber pressure rating.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 02:50

AGupta, thanks

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:ARDE MK1 (withdrawn from service): 413-427 MPA
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm

IMI CL3254M equivalent (license assembled by OFB): 570 MPA (probably max)
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm
Ajai Shukla has mentioned that most of the barrel bursts happened with APFSDS Ammunition.

FSAPDS ammo is high velocity ammo, hence higher chamber pressures achieved and hence the above would be correct.

Further - this Project MAPLE for T-72 guns needs to be investigated. If OFB was successful then why is Russian gun imported? And did we not MODIFY the T-72 gun for T-90 use when the Russian played hardball on TOT?

Exactly my questions as well. What happened to MAPLE for T-72 and what happened to the local T-90 gun (note the excerpt mentions two types of T-90 guns- one with local steel, and one with Russian GOST eqvt steel).. and what is current status of both programs?

OFB section in MOD Annual Reports, sad to say, is usually mere eyewash and has very less info.

Questions apart though, the interesting piece I found in that was the reference to chamber pressures (which approximately correlates with what Fofanov has on his site).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 02:53

negi wrote:OFB website has only following in 125mm FSAPDS category

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/26.htm

427Mpa is the chamber pressure rating.

There is one more listed in the ammo page, see my earlier post.

This one is the (local) MK1 round on right here:
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/8168/scan0078q.jpg

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Oct 2013 03:06

By the way I remember when I was new to the forum OFB was struggling with tempering and someone actually said that it could be due to irregular power supply to the facility (I mean sounds like a joke but in India that's how we roll) it looks like we haven't made a lot of progress since then. The problem is not if OFB got the temperature setting right problem is more fundamental i.e. we are taking short cuts in an area where there are none. Since the day I joined the forum people bitch and whine about how Ru/French have screwed us in name of ToT and I was just out of college then had not seen the world outside , I look at the ITVTY world where products worth 1/10th the worth of a MBT main gun are sold , license agreements drafted and renewed now I am not at all surprised that countries who slogged their a$$es for years to perfect and arrive at precise conditions required to forge and temper MBT or Arty barrels do not wish to share it with us but somehow we never seem to learn from our mistakes. Today it is some 800 Mpa tomorrow if IA says we need a new FSAPDS with a higher KE which would mean more powerful propellant and hence a higher chamber pressure what will we do then , go around again begging to Ru ? We need to fckn build a gun no not rated at 800Mpa, at least first build one which can fire the rounds which OFB manages to produce today with passable quality if it is rated at only 400Mpa so be it, Russians have built at least a lakh tanks since the T-34 and today they field a gun with a chamber pressure of 800Mpa or above so how can OFB or anyone for that matter be expected to equal that feat with our very first gun ?

Even for INSAS what did we do ? We couldn't forge our own barrels so we imported cold forging machines and the entire SOP from AUG Steyr Austria.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 03:07

AGupta, yes indeed. The past few R&D heads seem to have realized that the more ambitious programs alone wouldn't cut it and have been allowing the labs leeway to invest in these areas as well despite (sometimes) the lack of fixed orders/mandate (which means CAG jumps down their throat). Dr Saraswat didn't allow missile heritage to blind him to these gaps, and Dr Chander seems to be in the same vein.

Interesting times..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 03:14

negi wrote:By the way I remember when I was new to the forum OFB was struggling with tempering and someone actually said that it could be due to irregular power supply to the facility (I mean sounds like a joke but in India that's how we roll) it looks like we haven't made a lot of progress since then. The problem is not if OFB got the temperature setting right problem is more fundamental i.e. we are taking short cuts in an area where there are none. Since the day I joined the forum people bitch and whine about how Ru/French have screwed us in name of ToT and I was just out of college then had not seen the world outside , if you look at the ITVTY world where products worth 1/10th the worth of a MBT main gun are sold , license agreements drafted and renewed I am not at all surprised that countries who slogged their a$$es for years to perfect and arrive at precise conditions required to forge and temper MBT or Arty barrels do not wish to share it with us but somehow we never seem to learn from our mistakes. Today it is some 800 Mpa tomorrow if IA says we need a new FSAPDS with a higher KE which would mean more powerful propellant and hence a higher chamber pressure what will we do then , go around again begging to Ru ? We need to fckn build a gun no not rated at 800Mpa, at least first build one which can fire the rounds which OFB manages to produce today with passable quality if it is rated at only 400Mpa so be it, Russians have built at least a lakh tanks since the T-34 and today they field a gun with a chamber pressure of 800Mpa or above so how can OFB or anyone for that matter be expected to equal that feat with our very first gun ?

Problem is IA will not relax standards (and they cite threat perception as reason why). As a ref - then Army VCOAS Noble Thamburaj at a CII/R&D seminar in Delhi "we will not compromise on requirements, you have to deliver accordingly" (from memory)

Only Arun Prakash of Navy has come out in support of MK1, MK2, MK3 approach. IAF has pretty reluctantly accepted the LCA MK1, MK2 thing as well. So only IN is an outlier..

Even for INSAS what did we do ? We couldn't forge our own barrels so we imported cold forging machines and the entire SOP from AUG Steyr Austria.

Yes, our lack of depth in production machinery at that time was an issue.. things are hopefully better today.. somebody tracking the sector can chip in.

Ah, INSAS.. now thats again a decent gun (if not a world beating design) let down by disinterested/half hearted production quality at OFB & underinvestment in production engineering.. now with the rifle only some 10-14 years in service, its already intended to be withdrawn and replaced by an imported design (to be...err.. license manufactured at OFB with TOT).

BSF/CRPF/CISF/States menagerie of small arms apart..

Plus is that ARDE has some experience with small arms now.. so programs like MSMC will continue with paramil purchases hopefully (instead of overpriced Uzis)..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 03:29

Speaking of small arms (perhaps wrong thread), what in whose name prevents us from throwing at least this sector open to M&M, Bharat Forge?
ArmenT mentioned some company already supplies world class components to most small arms firms worldwide..which?

At the end of the day, competition will do OFB good. Its own managers will or should appreciate using private competition as a means to change their practises and have the workers unions reorganize for efficiency.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 03:47

I guess..it all boils down to the fact that we simply lack a unified organizational structure in India in each area - e.g. land systems, air systems etc - which does "gung ho" as versus "ad hoc".. which means individuals rule the roost and their actions have huge impact..if these programs were firmly organized and staffed with all stakeholders involved from day 1 and everyone gets aligned accordingly with clear responsibilities and accountability..

e.g./some examples..

program being a R&D managed program so HAL sulks OR something launched in the face of service opposition (which wants products today and cannot wait another 10 years..) OR programs launched but without clear service involvement/funding and interim imports then scupper the rationale for the program itself, which then keeps mutating to new Staff Reqs...
...

then things (IMHO) would not have got to this stage. I have a feeling that this has been deliberately allowed to fester because it allows for both vested interests to make hay (import lobby) and also allows for the babucracy to keep all these squabbling empires at each others throats.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Oct 2013 04:43

If the Imported IMI round whose listed Chamber pressure is not compatible to T-72 gun, then it is not Indian Army's fault for screwing this?

And we only talk of OFB's 'chalta hai' attitude, funny!!!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Oct 2013 05:08

Sagar G wrote: CAG say's

The responsibility for quality assurance of items manufactured in Ordnance factories rests with the manufacturing factory. Director General Quality Assurance and Inspectorates under him are responsible for surveillance, quality audit and final acceptance inspection. In surveillance check of barrels during manufacture in Field Gun Factory, Kanpur in 1990, when one of the barrels broke in the straightening operation, the Quality Assurance Establishment (Field Gun), notified the Factory that to avoid such breakage, the heat treatment should be carried out at 520�C-570�C as provided by designer. The Field Gun Factory Kanpur however, continued tempering the forgings at reduced temperature even below 430�C, on the plea that the protocol signed by it with Russian team in 1985, permitted the heat treatment at lower range.
Either OF is lying about this "Russian team" or they have what they claim and since I don't see the CAG saying that they don't have that signed protocol then we can they that they had the same. So if it wasn't the original designer then who the hell were these Russians ??? DGQA must have asked for the same document as well since they had also asked OF to follow the original specification and I don't think that a mere verbal assurance from OF might have sufficed them regarding heat treatment at low temperature.

It was QA Estb that first raised the temp issue. Wthout valid proof provided by manufacturer , QA Estb. wouldn't have certified the product as "fit for use"(as noted in CAG).

On OFB protocol signing

in accordance with the technology regime of the collaborators (erstwhile Soviet Union) and under the supervision of specialists of the collaborators. The deviations in the critical heat treatment schedule were made in consultation with the approval of the collaborators and the same recorded in the form of a protocol between Ordnance Factory Board and collaborators.

this could be myriad of entities like Rosoboronexport at that time.

On CAG's "Original Desginer", it could very well mean, original Russian Tank Design Bureau. Many time CAG does talk of such extremities, some times they look like, out of reality; some times kindles new thinking!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Oct 2013 05:12

agupta wrote:Karan, the labs ALWAYS had that leeway; their portfolios unfortunately still had too many vanity projects.

Vanity projects, that to too many? name some of them pls...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Oct 2013 05:54

Karan M wrote:1. This clearly shows that a protocol was signed in 1985 and somehow, it "missed including the original designer"... seems a perfect case of right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing at both OFB and Russian end. Who exactly signed off on this protocol then from the Russian side?

Exactly! Probably, I take issue with you for mentioning only OFB and not MoD.

Often being at the low rung of the food chain, all faults are getting dumped on OFB even for those things which is not in their domain.

On the IMI shell fiasco, from CAG report,

Without stabilizing the co-production of FSAPDS from the first consignment of imported components, OFB’s procurement of 30,000 additional units worth Rs 99.34 crore and MOD’s sanction thereof was a case of wrong judgment.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 19 Oct 2013 07:16

I was suspicious of the OFB suddenly declaring last year that they had developed 45 and 52 cal guns derived from the Bofors drawings they had. They made these declarations when media reports of efforts by Tata, Kalyani, and Mahindra to produce 155mm guns in collaboration with foreign vendors came out. The whole idea, IMHO, was to scuttle all these private collaborations.

If the OFB was really sincere about supplying a 155mm gun to the IA, they should have first produced copies of the 39 cal guns that Bofors had given them drawings for. 500 new pieces of these guns over the next 5 years would have nicely made up for attrition losses and added to the IA inventory.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Oct 2013 07:27

They declared 45 cal and not 52 cal.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 19 Oct 2013 09:30

Kakkaji wrote:I was suspicious of the OFB suddenly declaring last year that they had developed 45 and 52 cal guns derived from the Bofors drawings they had. They made these declarations when media reports of efforts by Tata, Kalyani, and Mahindra to produce 155mm guns in collaboration with foreign vendors came out. The whole idea, IMHO, was to scuttle all these private collaborations.

Same thing with the HTT-40 appearing suddenly out of thin air as soon as the PC-7 was chosen. MTA resurrected suddenly as soon as Tata started talking about making C-130s in India.

Kalyani bought an entire gun factory from RUAG lock, stock and barrel and have assembled it in India, ready to start punching out world class howitzers. It's a mystery why the MoD is not falling over itself to throw orders at it for hundreds of guns. What's the problem?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 11:37

agupta wrote:Of course the Russkies hate this part; their friendship should never be assumed to be a 1-1 subst. for hard cash. Any supplier would hate their customer country having a successfull indigenisation initiative. What's the surprise here ?

I know how Midhani works. Your proposition makes no sense since if the tank barrel had been indigenous then OF would have used heat treatment specifications as per Midhani, there would have been no issue of stating the heat treatment process as mentioned by Russians. Also why would the Russians be consulted to rectify the defect if the barrel was indigenous ??? Midhani would have done that instead of Russians and the CAG report mentions nothing about indigenization of the tank barrel.

agupta wrote:The issue is simple... wether the recipe is given from Russia (OK so you say it could be incomplete or given grudgingly) or from Desi non-competing sources (who stands to lose revenue AND face if they dont do a good job of giving), OFB is just incapable of delivering in an accountable way.

The system functions as it is designed to, if you have a problem with that blame the designer in this case the MoD blaming OF for all it's faults is senseless since it isn't OF which is chalking up it's mandate but the MoD. Also the same OF functions pretty well when working on Arjun (there were issues in the beginning but were ironed out eventually) while partnering DRDO.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 11:41

agupta wrote:
negi wrote:Even for INSAS what did we do ? We couldn't forge our own barrels so we imported cold forging machines and the entire SOP from AUG Steyr Austria.
They could have gone to Bharat Forge or Midhani to co-develop if they wanted to. Why did they go "outside" ?

Since when did Bharat Forge and Midhani make forging machines ???

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 11:51

Karan M wrote:AGupta, yes indeed. The past few R&D heads seem to have realized that the more ambitious programs alone wouldn't cut it and have been allowing the labs leeway to invest in these areas as well despite (sometimes) the lack of fixed orders/mandate (which means CAG jumps down their throat). Dr Saraswat didn't allow missile heritage to blind him to these gaps, and Dr Chander seems to be in the same vein.

Interesting times..

The research in armament has been going on since a long time might have heard about the Armament Research Board (ARMREB)

Research Panels under ARMREB

1. Ballistics and Aerodynamics of Projectiles

2. Energy Release-Detonics and High Pressure Related Phenomenon

3. Materials for Armament Applications

4. High Energy Materials—Propellants, Explosives and Pyrotechnics

5. Armament Sensors and Electronics

6. Armament Systems—Configurations & Design for Reliable & Cost-Effective Production.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Oct 2013 12:31

WRT, the discussion on the T 72 barrel bursting.

I have a different question that has not been raised. The L7A2, was fitted to the Vijayanta, and was also installed on the T 55s. Have there been any instances of that gun bursting.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 14:45

Kanson wrote:If the Imported IMI round whose listed Chamber pressure is not compatible to T-72 gun, then it is not Indian Army's fault for screwing this?

And we only talk of OFB's 'chalta hai' attitude, funny!!!

The round itself would have been compatible ... check the data presented above..

Exactly! Probably, I take issue with you for mentioning only OFB and not MoD.

MOD babus just sign off on what proposals OFB puts up.. in our system, the MOD lacks any clear sort of technocratic ability to vet/judge decisions.. in the IMI case, OFB was clearly at fault for having rushed through further imports of assemblies even though the TOT was not stabilized..

Kakkaji wrote:If the OFB was really sincere about supplying a 155mm gun to the IA, they should have first produced copies of the 39 cal guns that Bofors had given them drawings for. 500 new pieces of these guns over the next 5 years would have nicely made up for attrition losses and added to the IA inventory.

IA was not interested in 39 cal and asked only for higher cal

Sagar G wrote:The research in armament has been going on since a long time might have heard about the Armament Research Board (ARMREB)

Yes I know, but its become a clear focus area in the past few years as versus earlier when only a few projects were sanctioned.. there are other factors as well, including more experience/better tech (own and access to)/improved infrastructure etc which have supported the growth in new armament programs..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 14:46

Pratyush wrote:WRT, the discussion on the T 72 barrel bursting.

I have a different question that has not been raised. The L7A2, was fitted to the Vijayanta, and was also installed on the T 55s. Have there been any instances of that gun bursting.

Nope.. not that we know of..

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 15:49

Karan M wrote:Yes I know, but its become a clear focus area in the past few years as versus earlier when only a few projects were sanctioned.. there are other factors as well, including more experience/better tech (own and access to)/improved infrastructure etc which have supported the growth in new armament programs..

Exactly, in other words our armament technology is maturing now. Expect more good news in coming years.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 16:21

The more I think about T-72 barrel issue the more murkier/funnier it gets. The barrel burst in lieu of being incapable of handling the pressure generated due to burning of the propellant is one thing and the barrel burst due to ammunition bursting inside the barrel is totally different thing. The first case can be attributed to using APFSDS generating higher barrel pressure than what the barrel can withstand but for the second case i.e. ammunition burst in the barrel causing it's failure can't be due to APFSDS since the only thing combustible in APFSDS is the propellant. So it must be faulty HESH rounds then which were causing the barrel to burst. I am going wrong somewhere ???

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 19 Oct 2013 16:25

Karan M wrote:
Pratyush wrote:WRT, the discussion on the T 72 barrel bursting.

I have a different question that has not been raised. The L7A2, was fitted to the Vijayanta, and was also installed on the T 55s. Have there been any instances of that gun bursting.
Nope.. not that we know of..

Who made the gun?? Was it Royal Ordinance or the OFB?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2013 18:23

Pratyush..OFB

SagarG, only rifled guns have HESH.
125mm have HEAT made by OFB to Russian design... Even these have had huge QA issues.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Oct 2013 18:31

We have never made any upgrades to the L7A2 we made it under license and afaik unlike this present issue of moving to a newer ammo we always used the same stock ammo for the L7 probably because the gun itself was long in tooth, world had moved on to 120/125mm standard.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 19 Oct 2013 19:48

Karan M wrote:Pratyush..OFB

SagarG, only rifled guns have HESH.
125mm have HEAT made by OFB to Russian design... Even these have had huge QA issues.

And that's why back in the past, I had asked a question in this forum, whether the barrel bursting is only for smooth bore and not for rifled? Seems that is the case. But what causes it? What is the science behind it?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 19:53

Karan M wrote:SagarG, only rifled guns have HESH.
125mm have HEAT made by OFB to Russian design... Even these have had huge QA issues.

Right smooth bores don't use them I stand corrected.

The QA issue was OF's fault or due to lack of Russian technical knowhow transfer ???

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Oct 2013 20:13

symontk wrote:
Karan M wrote:Pratyush..OFB

SagarG, only rifled guns have HESH.
125mm have HEAT made by OFB to Russian design... Even these have had huge QA issues.
And that's why back in the past, I had asked a question in this forum, whether the barrel bursting is only for smooth bore and not for rifled? Seems that is the case. But what causes it? What is the science behind it?

Well for a start the HESH rounds do not need to attain as high a velocity as a KE penetrator they act more like a shaped charge so as long as they hit the target they do their job a KE penetrator of a given type on the other hand depends solely on speed for destroying the armour hence it needs a higher amount of initial velocity or muzzle velocity to begin with , with increasing length an weight of the penetrator energy needed to impart such high velocity is also high and this requires a more powerful charge whih means a gun and a breech whih can withstand much higher pressure are needed.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 19 Oct 2013 20:16

thanks, that's a good explanation. hopefully IA starts using Arjun soon

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 19 Oct 2013 20:26

Sagar G wrote: The QA issue was OF's fault or due to lack of Russian technical knowhow transfer ???

Either way it was OF's fault. If they didn't have the technical knowhow they should not have made the gun.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 19 Oct 2013 20:34

Victor wrote:Either way it was OF's fault. If they didn't have the technical knowhow they should not have made the gun.

I am looking for an answer not rhetoric if you can provide one without indulging in your pet rhetoric (highly improbable) then please do otherwise don't quote me.

member_27862 · Post by **member_27862** » 19 Oct 2013 22:39

Karan M wrote:
sameerjoshi wrote:OK point taken and I stand corrected on the BM42 mixup by the Iraqis in the Gulf war.....

Now I know why the confusion on the Ruskie FSAPDS projectiles took place..they bugger everyone's happiness by having a different designation for the Projectile and Round. The 3BM42 projectile has the 3VBM17 round................got mixed since was quoting through memory.......3BM17 projectile has the 3VBM8 round.......The Iraqis definitely used the 3BM17 projectile...thanks for the correction Karan.....but am really foxed by this system of different projectile and round designations ....Just to share the info with all

Projectile --- Round
3BM9 ----- 3VBM3
3BM12 ----- 3VBM6
3BM15 ----- 3VBM7
3BM17 ----- 3VBM8
3BM22 ----- 3VBM9
3BM26 ----- 3VBM11
3BM29 ----- 3VBM10
3BM32 ----- 3VBM13
3BM42 ----- 3VBM17
3BM42M ----- 3VBM19
3BM46 --- ?????

May come in use for someone....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Oct 2013 03:26

SagarG, Maybe OFB thought the Midhani steel was just raw materials to be used with the Russian heat treatment process. I mean could be cognitive dissonance for all along they were used to the Russian steel and heat treat process.

Victor, If one doesn't make mistakes one is most likely not doing anything! So far thee argument was they don't have know how so keep them out.
At least they are trying.

As for the 155mm barrels issue I think its the ammo.
Lets see.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 20 Oct 2013 07:32

ramana wrote:
If one doesn't make mistakes one is most likely not doing anything!

Agree. But a pampered monopoly tends to make more mistakes without learning than we should be forced to accept. Nothing like a little competition to cure that problem is all I'm saying.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 20 Oct 2013 12:27

ramana wrote:SagarG, Maybe OFB thought the Midhani steel was just raw materials to be used with the Russian heat treatment process. I mean could be cognitive dissonance for all along they were used to the Russian steel and heat treat process.

I don't think they would do that based on their thought since there will be audit objections to it as their mandate is defined and everything goes on paper which they have to follow. Let's consider that it was out and out OF's fault and all the gaali galauch they received is well deserved but then they did as they were told too to fix the issue then how come even after all the necessary manufacturing change implementation we are in 2013 spending 1500 Cr. to purchase T-90 barrels for the same reason of barrel burst happening in T-72 ???

If the barrels are bursting due to poor quality tank ammo then shouldn't we be implementing tighter QC regime on tank ammunition manufacture ??? How come importing T-90 barrels is going to fix poor quality tank ammo ???