Artillery: News & Discussion

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2018 09:33

Please ask in 1962 thread .

All this is Artillery thread.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 22 Jun 2018 09:50

You misread me and you're arguing for argument's sake. I do the latter as well, but your argument here is meritless. At no point did I suggest we should keep our entire artillery corps in one place. And what you're arguing here goes against the face of everything that winning sides in war have done since the invention of artillery thousands of years back. You don't spread out artillery to guard the border. Artillery's purpose isn't to guard the border during peace. That's the purpose of border patrol or in India's case, BSF. Artillery's sole purpose is to crush the enemy and win battles. Spreading them piecemeal at the border does not accomplish that one goal. I would suggest that you read up on historical battles and see how artillery was used in them. Long range artillery is used to prepare the ground for assault if you're on the offensive and if you're on the defensive - counter-battery, basically - to try to take out their artillery pieces.This is why moving your long range artillery closer to your border signals to your neighbour you're going to war. The rational response in the case of a prepared neighbor then is to stage a border incident so that they can claim moral high ground on the international arena and then pre-empt you with an offensive of their own. How does that preserve the peace on the border?

ashish raval wrote: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.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 22 Jun 2018 10:00

<edited for a couple of silly typos> Really, the principles of warfare through the ages into the 20th century are irrelevant today just eighteen years into the 21st century? Consider your statement carefully. When was the last serious bloodletting - major battles between large standing armies - and where did it happen? Did the commanders throw the principles of warfare out the window because this is the TWENTY-FIRST century?

Tanks are not all terrain vehicles. They are superb weapons for going on the offensive in the open country. They make decent weapons in city fighting when working closely with infantry - infantry as feelers and eyes and the tank as the big hammer to swat at little ants. They make terrible weapons in forest or on hills. Oh, look at that little mound. I'm going to go over it and expose my thinly armoured underbelly to the brave infantryman lying behind it with a tank killer in his hands. Or should I go around it and expose my sides to that same weapon? Or, oh look, that guy in that three hundred foot hill over there has an anti-materiel gun in his hand and he has line of sight of the thin armor on the top of my turret.

The Chinese used waves in the Korean War and our little border war and their little border war with Vietnam because they were badly equipped at that time, and the only thing they had was numbers, which they were very willing to expend. Today, their exorbitantly - by our standards - equipped PLA infantrymen aren't going to fight like that. They will use the best tactics that combined arms warfare makes feasible for them.

ashish raval wrote: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.
Last edited by Arun.prabhu on 22 Jun 2018 10:33, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2018 10:14

dinesh_kimar wrote:Per above tweet, pinaka fired 5000 rockets. Might not be true.

M-46 firing only 4000 shells is also hard to believe. Ammo was less expensive than Bofors, and gun is the backbone of Indian Army artillery.

If they fired more rounds from the 160 mm mortar than the 120 mm one, they must be indeed impressed with its performance. Wonder why they started phasing it out soon after Kargil, while the 120 mm one still continues.



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 216559.cms



By: SD Goswami, Defence Spokesperson (MOD)

UDHAMPUR: Major highlights of all the operations in "Operation Vijay" was comprehensive destruction of enemy defences and suppression of enemy artillery forcing them to vacate their defences, leaving behind a large cache of arms, ammunition, equipment and stores. The suppression of enemy small arms and artillery fire reduced own casualties considerably. The infantry battalion Commanding Officers, company commanders, plat ..

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/48216559.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2469
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 22 Jun 2018 10:17

Arun.Prabhu... if u had a chance of read Brig Dalvis book , u will see Chinese used good / standard infantry tactics in the 62 war. Can some local expert tell me what did the IA do in Kargil ..they also sent wave after wave of men up the slopes because there is no other way...what else could the chinese do if they have to capture rezang La as an example... offense in the mountains requires manpower, there is no other way. The chinese were well equipped by 1962 standard, this is also borne out by the Dalvis book. The wave after wave metaphor has been invented to hide our own shortcomings...always a tendency to exaggerate enemy numbers. IA was strung out in penny packets all across the Sino Indo border. there were only a few major battles..chinese fought offensive battles ..IA was defending and we tried to defend the whole border and failed. rest everywhere these small elements were routed without a fight by chinese who infiltrated behind the posts.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 22 Jun 2018 10:22

Ashish, we need to learn about the military art and while the good sources are few and far between on the internet. There are multiple printed articles and books on the subject that teach about the subject.

The other option is the read about various battles of the past full scale conflicts. To arrive at a common set of actions undertaken to achieve certain set of goals. Regardless of who was fighting whom.


Once you start doing so. You will understand the underlying wisdom of what Arun is saying.

With this the thread is well and truly derailed.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 22 Jun 2018 10:31

Well 9 to 1 is the accepted ratio for success in offensive mountain warfare. As to the rest, I bow to your superior wisdom. I'm not as well read on the war as I would like.

manjgu wrote:Arun.Prabhu... if u had a chance of read Brig Dalvis book , u will see Chinese used good / standard infantry tactics in the 62 war. Can some local expert tell me what did the IA do in Kargil ..they also sent wave after wave of men up the slopes because there is no other way...what else could the chinese do if they have to capture rezang La as an example... offense in the mountains requires manpower, there is no other way. The chinese were well equipped by 1962 standard, this is also borne out by the Dalvis book. The wave after wave metaphor has been invented to hide our own shortcomings...always a tendency to exaggerate enemy numbers. IA was strung out in penny packets all across the Sino Indo border. there were only a few major battles..chinese fought offensive battles ..IA was defending and we tried to defend the whole border and failed. rest everywhere these small elements were routed without a fight by chinese who infiltrated behind the posts.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 22 Jun 2018 11:34

Arun.prabhu wrote:Well 9 to 1 is the accepted ratio for success in offensive mountain warfare. As to the rest, I bow to your superior wisdom. I'm not as well read on the war as I would like.

manjgu wrote:Arun.Prabhu... if u had a chance of read Brig Dalvis book , u will see Chinese used good / standard infantry tactics in the 62 war. Can some local expert tell me what did the IA do in Kargil ..they also sent wave after wave of men up the slopes because there is no other way...what else could the chinese do if they have to capture rezang La as an example... offense in the mountains requires manpower, there is no other way. The chinese were well equipped by 1962 standard, this is also borne out by the Dalvis book. The wave after wave metaphor has been invented to hide our own shortcomings...always a tendency to exaggerate enemy numbers. IA was strung out in penny packets all across the Sino Indo border. there were only a few major battles..chinese fought offensive battles ..IA was defending and we tried to defend the whole border and failed. rest everywhere these small elements were routed without a fight by chinese who infiltrated behind the posts.


Thanks Arunji and manjguji. The information was quite enlightening. I had indeed misunderstood the point about concentrated batteries at one place thinking in context of North Korean artillery exercise videos.

@prayush, I will find books around in libraries here. I read few couple of decades back in teens like Hitler goes east etc but nothing after that.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 22 Jun 2018 12:48

Aditya_V wrote: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.


I would certainly recommend reading up - "The unfought war of 1962 The NEFA debacle" by Lt. Col. J.R Saigal. Chapter 5, Pg 62 - 71 would be instructive on this oft repeated story of Chinese being very large in number, better supplied, or better armed, etc. The entire book is a revelation.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12329
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Jun 2018 13:00

Will go through the book, but definitely the Chinese were prepared had more soldiers and did use human wave tactics and incurred lots of casualties at Walong and Rezang La. Our Men were not even familiar with Arunachal Pradesh (NEFA) at that time. It was a last minute rush to the border.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2469
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 22 Jun 2018 13:25

chinese concentrated their forces at few points ... so the impression of much greater numbers and so called human wave tactics ( which were actually standard tactics to assault well defended position at higher altitudes) ... the indians were also made to believe that the chinese is 7 ft tall !! the indians as i said were strung out all along the border trying to defend every inch as per JLN instruction without right gear, clothing, arms, ammo and most importantly acclimitization ... the chinese had v good intelligence ..even estimating the number of prisoners they would capture ( they built POW camps as per the intelligence estimates !!). What is well equipped or not is a very subjective matter... yes they were better equipped than IA ..but not as good as maybe US army of the 60's ... the chinese army was a well drilled force not a rag tag one. sorry for derailing the post...

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 22 Jun 2018 14:04

^^Well now that you have successfully derailed the thread, I would like to read more of your views in the 1962 war thread. Could you please do that?

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2469
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 22 Jun 2018 22:39

cant find the 1962 war thread.. my views are based on reading open source material plus a briefing in the ops room of the Balls of Fire Division based out of Tenga some years ago which cleared many of my doubts..

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7987
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 22 Jun 2018 22:55

Mod Note: Please take the military tactics discussion to the Tactics and Military Craft thread. No more here.
Here is the link: Tactics and Military Craft

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9535
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 06 Jul 2018 07:12

Video In Link Below:

https://twitter.com/majorgauravarya/sta ... 1048428544 ---> Join me as I take you to Devlali, home of Regiment of Artillery. They say Artillery is the GOD OF WAR. When a Bofors fires next to you, the ground shakes & for a second everything stops. Watch the big guns BOOM this weekend, only on #Patriot SARVATRA IZZAT O IQBAL.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5426
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 14 Jul 2018 13:31

when an arty fires next to you your heart skip a beat, ears go numb if careless the ground shakes with enough force to throw a 70kg human off his feet if careless.

all of the above applies those standing behind tje gun.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9535
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 26 Jul 2018 03:38

Indian Army to Test Fire US-Made Ultralight Howitzer This Month
https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/indian- ... his-month/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 26 Jul 2018 10:22

So what happened to the plan to fire instrumented shells from M777?
Idea was to get instruments used by US firms and install in OFB shell and fire them to see the differences between.OFB and US ammo.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby barath_s » 26 Jul 2018 16:51

Barrel burst while firing OFB ammo, after the fifth shell in firing sequence came out in 5 pieces. Said to be 3 incident of barrel damage in 4 months last. Initial news reports pointed at ofb ammo. Later there was talk of joint investigative team for deeper investigation. Testing apparently went on.


Not aware of any action since...Till link above

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/04 ... -guns.html



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 834503.cms

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-wh ... er-2545376

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 26 Jul 2018 21:23

Thanks. Sorry missed all these reports... :(


barath_s wrote:Barrel burst while firing OFB ammo, after the fifth shell in firing sequence came out in 5 pieces. Said to be 3 incident of barrel damage in 4 months last. Initial news reports pointed at ofb ammo. Later there was talk of joint investigative team for deeper investigation. Testing apparently went on.


Not aware of any action since...Till link above

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/04 ... -guns.html


...While in inquiry into a September 2017 barrel incident involving one of the M777s using local ammunition is still underway, Livefist learns that the gun has since resumed firing exercises for the Army’s range tables without a hitch, and will complete the committed requirement over the next five months....


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 834503.cms

"Thereafter further analysis of the lot will be conducted, which includes firing more rounds (from the lot) to check if they too are faulty. If it comes to this conclusion then the lot will be segregated and corrective measures will be taken," says another official.

Sources pointed out that the gun had already fired 1100 "defect free" OFB manufactured rounds before the mishap happened.

Furthermore, if the tests indicate that there is a fault in the gun, then certain "design changes .

Meanwhile, the firing of the Howitzers will resume next March, following the end of the probe. A total of 1200 rounds were to be fired in both the guns. The gun which was damaged had fired 1100 plus rounds, so now the other gun will fire the remaining 90 rounds.




So 1200 rounds were to be fired from both guns and one gun was used to fire 1164 rounds and the shell burst at the 1165th round..

Clearly caused the shell to ballot and exit in pieces!!!

Looks like the COI is releasing info in drips and pieces.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Jul 2018 20:37

ramana wrote:I found an internet reference to the M-777 barrel requirements.

The objective is 800 firings and the threshold is 900 firings.

The IA user trials had the ERFB round break up at 1164th round.
In other words 364 rounds over the objective and 264 rounds over the threshold for the M 777 barrel.

Make up your own mind.


And note how many rounds were fired from one M777 and surprise at "shell exit muzzle in several pieces"!

So why was team firing so many rounds from M777 despite mfg restrictions?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Jul 2018 20:48

Wonder what is the status of the ARDE PGK fuze is? By now at least bench top/bread board models would be ready.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nvishal » 28 Jul 2018 00:45

Looking at the way the IA is carrying out these tests, it seems that they are all too familiar with the many faults of the 155mm artillery.

Is the 1200 round test a standard test carried out by buyers around the world?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 28 Jul 2018 01:17

Not on one gun. Unless its development testing.

I think IA testing practice is based on British 105mm and 25 pdr low charge experience.
Modern high charges erode gun barrels. And can't have that many rounds fired without problems.

Maybe increase battery from 6 to 8 guns for high volume of fire.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 28 Jul 2018 08:06

is zsu-23-2 radar guided or laid manually(impossible against low flyers)

is zsu on tatra a new IAF AD regiment thing?

pic from Shatrujeet page
Image

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 28 Jul 2018 09:13

Singha wrote:is zsu-23-2 radar guided or laid manually(impossible against low flyers)

is zsu on tatra a new IAF AD regiment thing?

pic from Shatrujeet page
Image

When world moving toward 4x4 vehicle for zsu we using ultra expensive TATRA for zsu

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 28 Jul 2018 16:53

I have watched the Zsu being tried on the valiant Shaktiman, 4 ton, and the venerable Tata 7 ton as well.
The shock absorbers was what died the quickest death.
So you needed ground platforms on the side so you were not translating the recoil shock via the leaf springs or shock absorbers to the ground.

I think tatra either has the poles on the side or enough loha in it to stand up to the recoil.

The challenge was always sustaining the recoil.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby barath_s » 29 Jul 2018 11:02

ramana wrote:
So why was team firing so many rounds from M777 despite mfg restrictions?


Barrels can be changed. They can be refurbished. Calibration/qualification may need to go beyond the norms or there may be stress tests.
The manufacture failure mode for barrel life may be accuracy/precision (electronic fire control based) rather than actual failure.
I simply don't know the details;and so i prefer not to venture judgement. The intriguing thing is that it was deemed acceptable to complete trials by firing 90 from the other gun, which may limit the kinds of info possible.


I haven't heard much about the US initiative to chrome-line and retrofit existing guns. Looks interesting. Hope the indian army looks into it; and procurement agility is there to react and support if appropriate.

https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Displ ... d-barrels/

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Jul 2018 11:26

Syrians zsu gunners use it like playing tabla
Dont know how long the pickups last but they are cheap cots vehicles

We ahould trying getting 1000s of free hummers from boneyards for this use

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 29 Jul 2018 16:26

Singha wrote:Syrians zsu gunners use it like playing tabla
Dont know how long the pickups last but they are cheap cots vehicles

We ahould trying getting 1000s of free hummers from boneyards for this use



Our needs are met by Zsu being towed to their positions.
We don't have the need to keep them on the move like that.

For the SP stuff we use Shilka to keep up with the front line units.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 29 Jul 2018 19:50

Singha wrote:Syrians zsu gunners use it like playing tabla
Dont know how long the pickups last but they are cheap cots vehicles

We ahould trying getting 1000s of free hummers from boneyards for this use

Syrian use them for machine gun fire role mostly, most of videos suggest so, and We need them static for area defence, no quick movement is required and its wheels can add to movement if needed by Jeep

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 29 Jul 2018 20:33

Singha wrote:Syrians zsu gunners use it like playing tabla
Dont know how long the pickups last but they are cheap cots vehicles

We ahould trying getting 1000s of free hummers from boneyards for this use


Stability and Mobility is much better on TATRA then any 4x4 platform , I have seen those videos of Syria and the vehical shakes when they fire those 23 mm gun. Hope these guns are stabilized types on TATRA for better accuracy

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 29 Jul 2018 22:37

Why mount the zsu 23 on a Tatra. Why not use it as a towed system. With the Tatra acting as an ammo carrier.

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2114
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 31 Jul 2018 12:32

First Since Bofors, Indian Army’s New Field Artillery Unit Around The Corner - LIVEFIST

In ten months, the Indian Army will be ready to raise its first new field artillery regiment since the infamous Bofors Scandal. After a three-decade freeze on any new howitzer inductions despite expansive and rolling plans, Livefist can confirm that the Army will be all set to raise its first regiment of M777A2 ultra-light howitzers by summer 2019.

The guns are part of a $750 million deal signed by India in 2016 with U.S. government for 145 M777A2 guns, the first 25 of which would be supplied fully built by BAE Systems from the United Kingdom, while the remaining would be built at an Assembly, Integration & Test (AIT) facility formed as a partnership between BAE Systems and India’s Mahindra Defence.

While the first two guns arrived last May and have since been involved in the generation of range tables in the Pokhran desert, three more guns arrived in April this year and placed at the School of Artillery in Deolali, Maharashtra. A further 20 guns will be delivered by next May, giving the Army well over the 18 guns it needs for a single regiment. By June next year, the Mahindra facility on the outskirts of Delhi will begin delivering its first guns at a rate of five per month and complete deliveries by June 2021. Livefist can confirm that hardware for the first India-assembled guns will arrive next month, bringing the Indian production line to life.
...

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 31 Jul 2018 15:16

Pratyush wrote:Why mount the zsu 23 on a Tatra. Why not use it as a towed system. With the Tatra acting as an ammo carrier.


Too expensive to be towed by a tatra.
Why do you need over 300 hp to do the job of what can be achieved by 125+ hp.
Those 4X4 carry about the same.

Light AD have tons of trucks who are bringing up the stocks.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby darshhan » 31 Jul 2018 22:43

Khalsa wrote:I have watched the Zsu being tried on the valiant Shaktiman, 4 ton, and the venerable Tata 7 ton as well.
The shock absorbers was what died the quickest death.
So you needed ground platforms on the side so you were not translating the recoil shock via the leaf springs or shock absorbers to the ground.

I think tatra either has the poles on the side or enough loha in it to stand up to the recoil.

The challenge was always sustaining the recoil.


I think you are talking about outriggers

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 31 Jul 2018 23:31

I think they are just transporting it.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby dinesh_kimar » 01 Aug 2018 10:02

On AD artillery, 2 quick points.
1. Israel has a single AD command supporting both the IAF /IDF. Seems like good idea for savings on training, asset optimization, single entity dealing with all threats from the sky, less bureaucracy, faster response, etc.

2. For some reason, they apparently don't use AD guns any more (willing to be corrected on this). No threats worth the insufficient 1500-2500 m bubble provided.Their AD SAM network like spyder/derby/ hawk/arrow/patriot is however, especially effective. Gun based CIWS is being used, though, as last ditch defence, more for incoming cruise / other missiles rather than fixed wing aircraft.

If we follow the same doctrine, the mobile Tunguska type AD assets can be replaced by Strella / Akash batteries.

Old ZSU-23 / L-70 currently used can be redeployed on LOC.

As it is, One of our adversaries style themselves on the German Gebirgsjäger (mountain infantry) while coming uphill , and the Deutscher Skiverband ( Olympic Sking team) while going downhill. Well, the above mentioned AD gun works well both up hill and down hill.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 01 Aug 2018 11:18

Indranil wrote:I think they are just transporting it.

Most senseble comment on the zsu thing.

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

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 01 Aug 2018 15:24

darshhan wrote:
Khalsa wrote:I have watched the Zsu being tried on the valiant Shaktiman, 4 ton, and the venerable Tata 7 ton as well.
The shock absorbers was what died the quickest death.
So you needed ground platforms on the side so you were not translating the recoil shock via the leaf springs or shock absorbers to the ground.

I think tatra either has the poles on the side or enough loha in it to stand up to the recoil.

The challenge was always sustaining the recoil.


I think you are talking about outriggers

Yes I am, forgot the name momentarily


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests