Artillery: News & Discussion

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 19 Jun 2018 02:55

SSridhar wrote:Dhanush artillery gun clears final trials - Dinakar Peri, The Hindu
The indigenously upgraded artillery gun Dhanush has successfully completed final user trials and is ready for induction into the Army. Dhanush is an upgraded version of the Swedish Bofors gun procured by India in the mid- 1980s.

“This was the third and final phase of user exploitation firings in which six Dhanush guns were fired in battery formation from May 31 to June 7, 2018 at the Pokhran field firing range. A total of 301 rounds were fired from the six guns, including burst fire,” said Dr. Uddipan Mukherjee, public relations officer of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), in response to a questionnaire from this newspaper.

The first phase of trials were conducted between July and September 2016 at the Pokhran and Babina ranges and the second phase was conducted between October and December 2016 at the Siachen base camp with three guns. A total of 1,520 rounds have been fired in all the three phases.

Tested in all terrains

During the trials, the guns travelled extensively in towed/ self-propelled mode in desert and high-altitude terrains with each gun clocking over 1,000 km, demonstrating their mobility.

Dr. Mukherjee said the next step was the completion of general staff evaluation, after which Bulk Production Clearance (BPC) will be accorded.
The OFB already has an indent from the Army for 114 guns and will start supplying the guns on receipt of the BPC. “The OFB has already supplied six guns for battery firing during the user trials. Another 12 guns will be issued within a year on receipt of the BPC,” he stated.

The entire order of 114 guns is to be delivered within four years. To meet the requirement, the Board has undertaken capacity augmentation to manufacture over 400 barrels and 250 ordnances for large-calibre weapon systems, Dr. Mukherjee said, adding that the OFB was confident of producing eight to 10 guns per month within two to three years. As of now, the gun has over 80% indigenous content. The imported systems include the power pack, parts of the electronic suite, and some seals and bearings.


4000 guns along the Himalayas and Chinese will not even think of taking a step on this side. Pakis will suffer a heart attack. Two from war sorted, then we can concentrate on killing internal weeds and house.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8215
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 19 Jun 2018 04:09

Karan M wrote:+100

Guys, have to echo SuryaG.

Its one thing to raise justified concerns, quite another to constantly diss the IA, even before the results are out about any actual malafide intent to delay induction.
suryag wrote:Folks - pardon me for using this word but despite my consideration for due anxiety by posters i cant stop saying we are quite immature when it comes to dissing armed forces on their acquisitions. Do you expect them to have a project manager send out race/gantt charts every week followed up with a report containing exec summar, highlight and lowlight. Forget about armed forces did GSTN company do that when it was rolling out the GST ? may be a bad example but hope you get the drift.

In the past, yes there were malicious attempts to derail indigenous systems but i believe this has changed considerably now, is it spit polish clean no it isnt but atleast they are on the right path. At the same time, there could be procedural delays when it comes to ordering these items, we should talk about that and see if we can suggest remedies or may be there are mindset problems but attributing everything to malice is not the right way to go.

Absolutely. +100 from me too.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby krishna_krishna » 19 Jun 2018 06:53

Indranil wrote:
Karan M wrote:Absolutely. +100 from me too.


Indranil, Karan M , SuryaG I believe the point is misquoted. I am with you on the trials undertaken by the IA to verify the product for safety and reliability they have every right to do so. Out of all the people in the world I would be last of the people to see unreliable product go into service.

However point I am trying to make is that all the tests have been completed and from what we know from OFB they were successful and you could be sure of that because historically it does not take more than one day of a failed desi product to be the headlines by MOD/Foriegn lobby etc. to project how the desi stuff sucks. Even though desi products have to undergo more crap to prove its worth than foriegn counterpart and argument peddled is that historically foreign maal have been superior and has to be taken at face value. (I can umpteen example of foreign crap inducted and was found unreliable and had to be destroyed or rectified), But that is not my point.

This was an initiative by Genereal VK Singh himself (army) to see and come up with an alternative from nowhere and today it has given /build worldclass capability in artillery building in India. Why not support it and accept it that we have done (IA and OFB)it and we are proud of our Indian product, the pain is not a single tweet from IA/MOD to even acknowledge that and if history is any witness I hate to say this but I see it going Arjun route.Also support you are talking about would not have been possible if leadership (VKS, parrikar etc) stuck to their guns and forced IA to work till this gets done otherwise they do not have any intention of supporting local Mil - Industry and seeing it grow. There is an active lobby in IA/MOD/Ex-servicemens/armed dealers who just do not want India to be self-reliant for the fear that their gravy train will stop.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19684
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2018 08:02

KK sir, please take a look at the track record of OFB, it is not like the other DPSUs or DRDO. Huge concerns with QA/QC and hence a degree of caution is warranted, IMHO. ATAGS otoh I would say, accelerate. Having said that, I feel Dhanush will prove itself and its variants will be inducted in number.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 19 Jun 2018 08:10

I have always had trouble understanding this whole concept of the Indian defence procurement. Of having 2 seperate lines of products that meet broadly similar requirements. One is atags the other is 45 Cal Dhanush. When atags is in advanced stages of trials. Then why spend money on a product that is not as capable as the Atags.

I mean amount of available money is constant. So why split it in 2 seperate products. Why not focus on a single product and increase it numbers.

And please don't give me the contrived answer that Dhanush will have a different application as compared to atags. As both are 155 mm gun's.

We also don't know if Dhanush can be upgraded to 52 cal.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2471
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 19 Jun 2018 10:11

@pratyush a) M777 ...Dhanush ... Atags are different guns with perhaps different roles / area of operations envisaged for them. I dont think IA is so dumb. Dhanush is an improvement on the original Bofors. Dhanush costing 14 to 16 crores a piece can be crowdfunded for induction into IA :rotfl: I mean what better testing than being put into actual use at the border. b) i also agree that local desi products have to prove themselves again and again. c) we are fighting a battle of attrition with the Pakis on the border ... inspite of being 7 to 10 times bigger def budget we are not inflicting enough pain on the enemy. Artillery ( other than infantry) being the only instrument with which we can inflict pain has been neglected big time. All our fancy jets, ships are getting old sitting out of the real action. Any sensible policy would have made Artillery arm world class and something which the Pakis would fear and which we should have used against the Pakis

mody
BRFite
Posts: 766
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 19 Jun 2018 18:06

Pratyush wrote:I have always had trouble understanding this whole concept of the Indian defence procurement. Of having 2 seperate lines of products that meet broadly similar requirements. One is atags the other is 45 Cal Dhanush. When atags is in advanced stages of trials. Then why spend money on a product that is not as capable as the Atags.

I mean amount of available money is constant. So why split it in 2 seperate products. Why not focus on a single product and increase it numbers.

And please don't give me the contrived answer that Dhanush will have a different application as compared to atags. As both are 155 mm gun's.

We also don't know if Dhanush can be upgraded to 52 cal.


ATAGS is expected to be ready for mass production and induction into IA only around 2021-22. We cannot wait for 155 mm arty guns till then.
Ideally Dhanush should have entered production 2-3 years ago and by next year the order for 114 guns would have been finished and the trials for Dhanush-52 would have also been close to finishing. The plan was for 414 Dhanush guns, followed by ATAGS.

The plan is still the same. For Dhanush the first 114 guns will be Dhanush-45 and the next 300 can be Dhanush-52, if the 52 caliber guns perform as expected.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3969
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 19 Jun 2018 18:18

Pratyush wrote:
And please don't give me the contrived answer that Dhanush will have a different application as compared to atags. As both are 155 mm gun's.



Weight requirements. Similar to how M777 is different from Dhanush. ATAGS with all the bells and whistle will not come close to Dhanush in weight category.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3969
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 19 Jun 2018 18:26

Just an anecdote about WW1, which I have been reading.

A German offensive force with 2000 artillery guns. made the Russians loose all their 8 months of gains and ended with close to 1.5 million Russian POW.
This includes capturing Warsaw.

The Russians were on the verge of defeating Austrian army and they had to send send an SOS to German for help. German put together a offensive force.

The power of artillery.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3526
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ArjunPandit » 19 Jun 2018 18:30

^^Nam , which battle?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 19 Jun 2018 20:39

nam wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
And please don't give me the contrived answer that Dhanush will have a different application as compared to atags. As both are 155 mm gun's.



Weight requirements. Similar to how M777 is different from Dhanush. ATAGS with all the bells and whistle will not come close to Dhanush in weight category.


How is the weight differential between Dhanush and atags material. I can understand the M777 is a 4 ton weapon. But when it comes to a 12 + ton gun pulled by a 20 ton tractor. How does the weight makes a difference.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3969
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 19 Jun 2018 21:09

ArjunPandit wrote:^^Nam , which battle?


Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive by Field Marshall August von Mackensen

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3969
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 19 Jun 2018 21:11

Pratyush wrote:
nam wrote:
Weight requirements. Similar to how M777 is different from Dhanush. ATAGS with all the bells and whistle will not come close to Dhanush in weight category.


How is the weight differential between Dhanush and atags material. I can understand the M777 is a 4 ton weapon. But when it comes to a 12 + ton gun pulled by a 20 ton tractor. How does the weight makes a difference.


In the mountains, it makes a difference. Pulling a 20 tons ATAGS vs 12/13 ton Dhanush over mountain gradients makes a difference.

Most of our Western & Eastern front is mountains.

Another point ATAGS is probably going to be the base for our future artillery design. I am pretty sure we will be bring out a 55/57 caliber ATAGS.You can see that the platform has been designed for TFTA calibers.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8000
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 19 Jun 2018 23:25

IA is facing a huge shortfall of modern artillery. Whatever they are inducting now should be cheered, doubly so if it is indigenous. There is no reason to have a "Why Dhanush when ATAGS is round the corner?" debate.

Secondly, ATAGS is still in trials and its induction may be delayed if IA cannot compromise on weight. It will also be more expensive than Dhanush. IA has enough requirement for both guns. CUrrent order for Dhanush is merely 114. Even if the IA buys 414 Dhanush as envisaged, that would only serve to replace the ~400 Bofors already in service and getting old. But IA needs a big increase in total medium artillery holdings. ATAGS can provide that.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 19 Jun 2018 23:48

Another lurking concern will be logistics.
ATAGS range doesn't come free. It's large chamber volume requires more charges to propel it. I think 6 charges vs 4 for Dhanush. And this will add to the logistics trail.

So once weight issue is solved some bright procedures person will bring this up for further delays.


All this comes from way requirements are flowed down and final acceptance is accomplished. Both are completely different teams.
We saw this time and again. The acceptance team giving suggestions which are hidden requirements and moving on. When the design agency brings the test article further improvements are piled on.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2471
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 20 Jun 2018 07:53

almost 200 bofors of the total imported are decommissioned IMHO...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2018 09:32

Barrel wear?

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2471
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 20 Jun 2018 09:54

i dont know the cause but almost half of the inventory is down... as per my info.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2018 11:30

Yes I too heard. OFB was rebarreling and making some spares to keep them going. Ideally you want steady production and phase out the older guns. I wonder if the 414 order for Dhanush is Bofors. replacement? Numbers are about the same. Also note OFB mentioning barrels about 400.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2018 11:31

Would you know how many Bofors were used at Kargil in all sectors?

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesha » 20 Jun 2018 12:32

Army is likely to take a decision soon on whether to conduct summer trials on the ATAGS offered by the Kalyani group.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 591932.cms

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 446
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 20 Jun 2018 15:48

You don’t spread artillery out. You use it enmasse. You don’t keep it at the border. You keep artillery formations further back. Moving artillery units to the border usually means that army is making final preparations for war.

ashish raval wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Dhanush artillery gun clears final trials - Dinakar Peri, The Hindu


4000 guns along the Himalayas and Chinese will not even think of taking a step on this side. Pakis will suffer a heart attack. Two from war sorted, then we can concentrate on killing internal weeds and house.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesha » 20 Jun 2018 16:58

Solar Industries India partners Eurenco for major artillery tender
The two firms will bid jointly for a forthcoming multi-billion dollar Indian tender to manufacture artillery propellants
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 905_1.html

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2989
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vips » 20 Jun 2018 18:16

dinesha wrote:Army is likely to take a decision soon on whether to conduct summer trials on the ATAGS offered by the Kalyani group.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 591932.cms


If the Winter trials were for both the TATA and Kalyani group guns, then why is the army giving the impression that it will do summer trials only for Kalyani group guns?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8215
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 20 Jun 2018 19:28

The Army isn’t. The reporter only spoke to the Kalyani guys.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 20 Jun 2018 21:21

ramana wrote:Another lurking concern will be logistics.
ATAGS range doesn't come free. It's large chamber volume requires more charges to propel it. I think 6 charges vs 4 for Dhanush. And this will add to the logistics trail.

ATAGS can fire Zone 7 as per this link. Anyways the charge would be proportional to the range, and the weight of charge is much less compared to the shells.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 20 Jun 2018 23:35

On Pinaka Mk2 from DRDO 2017 Annual Report:

Free flight pinaka has range of 60km, guided has range of 80km (with help of "trajectory lofting" and aerodynamic glide from canards). In tests guided once has shown accuracy of 2m and 5m.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 20 Jun 2018 23:39

thats a pretty amazing pgm. dispersion of unguided grads would be more at 20km

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3969
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 21 Jun 2018 00:43

I hope they make a laser guided one, similar to the ones on attack helicopter. Would be perfect on LoC to knock out Paki bunker.

A 155 shell may not damage the bunkers.. but a 100kg PCB warhead rocket will...

A Pinaka battery at 60-80 KM in depth can provide a great on call support weapon and cover quite a large area.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2018 00:51

nam wrote:I hope they make a laser guided one, similar to the ones on attack helicopter. Would be perfect on LoC to knock out Paki bunker.

A 155 shell may not damage the bunkers.. but a 100kg PCB warhead rocket will...

A Pinaka battery at 60-80 KM in depth can provide a great on call support weapon and cover quite a large area.


Israel now has a guided rocket launched from airplanes. Its called Rampage. Essentially a Guided Pinaka type rocket.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 21 Jun 2018 03:28

Arun.prabhu wrote:You don’t spread artillery out. You use it enmasse. You don’t keep it at the border. You keep artillery formations further back. Moving artillery units to the border usually means that army is making final preparations for war.

ashish raval wrote:
4000 guns along the Himalayas and Chinese will not even think of taking a step on this side. Pakis will suffer a heart attack. Two from war sorted, then we can concentrate on killing internal weeds and house.

Question!!what stops enemies sending barrage of missiles to cause havoc on artillery that is amassed at one place? Agree the guns will be further back the the notion that there are thousands of guns lying along the border will definitely be a big stick and a deterrent to enemy.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1692
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 21 Jun 2018 05:54

Your air defence artillery , supported by Air Force interception (via air defence and interdiction of the missile sites).

Arun.prabhu
BRFite
Posts: 446
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 21 Jun 2018 09:23

Before I answer your question, I'll make a brief foray into the principles of warfare. There are nine principles of warfare recognised by NATO: Mass, Objective, Security, Surprise, Maneuver, Offensive, Unity of Effort (aka Unity of Command), Simplicity, and Economy of Force. The Russians include Annihilation (utter destruction of opposing forces as inflicted upon and by them on the Eastern front during WWII a great many times) as a tenth principle. Lt. Col. (retd) Tom Kratman of the US army whom I respect a great deal as one of the brightest minds in the study of The Art of War alive today (there are a great many more equally bright and publicly unknown folks who are exemplary practitioners of The Art) thinks there are two more: Attrition (as opposed to destroying the enemy in one go, you chip away at his strengths in numbers, materiel, etc until he can't fight you any more), and Geometry (or Shape. Basically terrain.)

Your idea of spreading the guns all along the border violates the very first principle. Think about the parable of the sticks. A single stick is broken easily. A bunch of sticks are not so easily broken. You can spread your artillery all you want and congratulate yourself on protecting the border, but the enemy has a say and he is going to attack at a single point (mass) and when he does, as you had spread out your artillery all along the border, you will not have enough to repulse him at that one point where is actually on the offensive. Similarly, you will not have enough artillery mass to soften his defences on that one or few points where you want to go on the offensive.

Yes, concentrating artillery makes it vulnerable, but equipment and men (the latter unfortunately) get used up in war. You protect your artillery, your infantry and everything else as well as you can with air-defence, counter-artillery, mobility (shoot and scoot) and what not, but when the shooting starts, blood is going to be shed and soldiers are going to die.

ashish raval wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:You don’t spread artillery out. You use it enmasse. You don’t keep it at the border. You keep artillery formations further back. Moving artillery units to the border usually means that army is making final preparations for war.


Question!!what stops enemies sending barrage of missiles to cause havoc on artillery that is amassed at one place? Agree the guns will be further back the the notion that there are thousands of guns lying along the border will definitely be a big stick and a deterrent to enemy.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2471
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 21 Jun 2018 12:10

well said Arun Prabhu ji... ashish raval ji u need to brush up. Same logic goes for tank warfare... u take tanks in big numbers into an attack ..not penny packets... the whole idea of war is to bring force in numbers and concentrate it at few points, achieve a breakthrough and pour more forces thru it. Remember how cavalry or foot soldiers attacked in groups in movies of american civil war era and after ... the infantry went into charge enmasse..many were shot down but many did reach the enemy lines..

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 22 Jun 2018 02:16

Arun.prabhu wrote:Before I answer your question, I'll make a brief foray into the principles of warfare. There are nine principles of warfare recognised by NATO: Mass, Objective, Security, Surprise, Maneuver, Offensive, Unity of Effort (aka Unity of Command), Simplicity, and Economy of Force. The Russians include Annihilation (utter destruction of opposing forces as inflicted upon and by them on the Eastern front during WWII a great many times) as a tenth principle. Lt. Col. (retd) Tom Kratman of the US army whom I respect a great deal as one of the brightest minds in the study of The Art of War alive today (there are a great many more equally bright and publicly unknown folks who are exemplary practitioners of The Art) thinks there are two more: Attrition (as opposed to destroying the enemy in one go, you chip away at his strengths in numbers, materiel, etc until he can't fight you any more), and Geometry (or Shape. Basically terrain.)

Your idea of spreading the guns all along the border violates the very first principle. Think about the parable of the sticks. A single stick is broken easily. A bunch of sticks are not so easily broken. You can spread your artillery all you want and congratulate yourself on protecting the border, but the enemy has a say and he is going to attack at a single point (mass) and when he does, as you had spread out your artillery all along the border, you will not have enough to repulse him at that one point where is actually on the offensive. Similarly, you will not have enough artillery mass to soften his defences on that one or few points where you want to go on the offensive.

Yes, concentrating artillery makes it vulnerable, but equipment and men (the latter unfortunately) get used up in war. You protect your artillery, your infantry and everything else as well as you can with air-defence, counter-artillery, mobility (shoot and scoot) and what not, but when the shooting starts, blood is going to be shed and soldiers are going to die.

ashish raval wrote:Question!!what stops enemies sending barrage of missiles to cause havoc on artillery that is amassed at one place? Agree the guns will be further back the the notion that there are thousands of guns lying along the border will definitely be a big stick and a deterrent to enemy.



In the very same logic if you concentrate your artillery in one area and the enemy attacks on multiple fronts even then you don't have enough time to transport the bunch of artillery in those areas!! The optimal solution is concentrated guns at multiple vulnerable points along the border where there is possible attack. My idea of spreading guns along 4k km is not having 1 gun per km and go to sleep, I meant it to be several guns at multiple entry points along the border.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 22 Jun 2018 02:22

manjgu wrote:well said Arun Prabhu ji... ashish raval ji u need to brush up. Same logic goes for tank warfare... u take tanks in big numbers into an attack ..not penny packets... the whole idea of war is to bring force in numbers and concentrate it at few points, achieve a breakthrough and pour more forces thru it. Remember how cavalry or foot soldiers attacked in groups in movies of american civil war era and after ... the infantry went into charge enmasse..many were shot down but many did reach the enemy lines..

Agreed but ideas of 20th century warfare are little relevant today and definitely not relevant to unknown forces like China with whom we only had one short war. Chinese forces comes in the waves as seen in Korean and in 1962 wars and those waves don't stop coming.

Tanks are all terrain moving forces artillery takes some effort to move along especially if terrain and infrastructure is not well developed.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3622
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 22 Jun 2018 06:00

ashish raval wrote:Chinese forces comes in the waves as seen in Korean and in 1962 wars and those waves don't stop coming.


That was a pre-Deng Xiaoping, pre-one-child-policy China that was overwhelmingly poor and had an abundance of brainwashed cannon fodder to sacrifice for "the cause". What is the likelihood of human wave formations made up of the "only-child"s?

The only human waves in a recent battle that I can think of were the Iranians against massed Iraqi infantry during the Iran-Iraq war in 1980s.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2471
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 22 Jun 2018 07:27

a) well this chinese coming in waves has been dubunked by many military analysts...this image was kind of re enforced by the movies which came out after 1962 war..notably Haqeeqat. the chinese were much smaller in numbers as compared to indian forces .. only that they had better tactics..better weapons..logistics were much better.. were always on the offensive ... were inflitrating..charging up indian positions etc etc.. b) on enemy attacking on multiple fronts ..quite possible all their attacks will fail..if the opposition can concentrate forces and drive a big hole in enemy defences. Usually there is 1 main attack with max forces and 1 or 2 fients to disorient/unbalance the enemy.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Jun 2018 08:52

In 1962 Chinese had 80K troops vs 10kfor us plus they had prepared well in advance. In Walong and Chulsul sector they used human wave tactics and sacrificed a lot of men. In some cases like Rezang La they used Uighurs and thier casualties in such sectors were hidden from the Mainland. In 1962 they could hide casualties and use human tactics and had Nehru at Command with hand picked miltary men like Thapar. That kind of favourable situation for the Chinese is not there today.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 22 Jun 2018 09:07

yes definitely they had huge localized superiority in every dept in the areas they wanted to attack infront of tawang(the thag la area), walong etc. they had already picked and chosen where they would attack and planned their routine accordingly like taking advantage of fog, using whistle calls to marshall in the darkness.

the conduct of the war once tawang fell , and how the IA retreated to bomdi la near tezpur and what were the lines of retreat and attack and timeline is not clear to me. did we stick to just the one road tezpur - bomdi la - se la - tawang and they swarmed over mule trails in the countryside to outflank and establish blocking positions ? are there good materials on web for this ? - tawang to tezpur is a 2 day journey even today for what is 500km .... some units escaped cross country into bhutan it seems or south along the river valleys directly into assam maybe.

we did not have local units then, nor acclamatized mountain brigades, various plains infantry were rushed to the theater in the leadup to the war and the fall of tawang.

tezpur was the nearest railway and air hub a MG line at that.

why did they not keep tawang ? american pressure ? those days we were not chummy with russia at all.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest