Artillery Discussion Thread

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Jul 2010 02:49

Sirji, for your information, IA did operate a SP Arty system based on Russian M-46 130mm guns - it was called the catapult. A typical Indian jugaad, if you will - with 130mm guns mounted on Vijayanta Chassis. AFAIK, It has been withdrawn from service. You can read about it here:

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Arm ... India.html

And check the pic here:

http://www.fototime.com/photos/st/8635D ... 20Army.jpg

You see, the 130mm gun was getting long in the tooth and we need larger caliber gubs which can fire heavier shells that much farther. Not to forget the ability to integrate into C3I node - we've such a dedicated system called Shakti for managing Artillery assets (Artillery Combat Command and Control System) and modern technology allowing for longer range and more accuracy and higher automation.

As for light SP or Heavy SP...all depends on the platform and philosophy of the country. China for example, deploys 105mm SP Arty Guns but we don't and I haven't heard anyone else either. Although, we've operated a 105mm SP Arty called Abbot. You can check a rare photo of service with IA here:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1236333309

And read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV433_Abbot_SPG

Most of the time, the Gun is mounted on a tracked chassis of a Armored Vehicle already in service with the forces of that nation - ease of logistics. For example, we chose Arjun(although T-72 was first choice). An SP Arty will easy tip the scale above 30-35 tonnes.So weight per se, is not a problem.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 21 Jul 2010 04:54

Purely speculative and not taking into acct any khan vs vodka "sell-out" discussions :

I think it might be more of an acceptance by the jernail-babus of India to Rumsfeld's view that air power is more flexible and trumps artillery for the future battlefields of India (himalayan plateaus and maybe far-shore expeditions). Remember Rummy canceled the Crusader due to the reason that the original rationale, zero air support for a US Army/Marine ground thrust will not be relevant in a post-cold war environment where USAF is king? On the contrary PA's strike groups never has assured CAS from PAF, due to IAF's supremacy. Hence they are stocking up on mothballed SPs so they can operate under zero aircover.

If you look at the pattern, that BAe gun (useful in the hills and any airlifted mode) using FMS route was approved with lightning speed, but something as brain dead (to us, armchairists) as adopting the Bhim or Archer seem to take forever. Does not make sense other than that SP might have gone down the priority list. I mean, those stocking up by PA of khan's mothballed stuff should have caused concerns in New Delhi by now for sure. Instead we are going crazy after LongBows and Mi-28s, which incidentally, has arty as one of its main food group.

So I have kind of given up hope on seeing an Archer or a Bhim pointing its barrel accusingly at Islamabad's pretty grids and doing some righteous talking.....

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 21 Jul 2010 05:56

rohitvats
the photo of the Abbots on manuveres is a real treasure.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Jul 2010 12:05

hnair wrote: <SNIP> On the contrary PA's strike groups never has assured CAS from PAF, due to IAF's supremacy. Hence they are stocking up on mothballed SPs so they can operate under zero aircover.

If you look at the pattern, that BAe gun (useful in the hills and any airlifted mode) using FMS route was approved with lightning speed, but something as brain dead (to us, armchairists) as adopting the Bhim or Archer seem to take forever. Does not make sense other than that SP might have gone down the priority list. <SNIP>

hnair, I humbly disagree with above hypothesis. The Crusader example is applicable to a nation like US - they already have a good SP. The excuse for new and expensive system did not fly.

In our case, the strike potential of IA is sorely is reduced that much because of two critical shortfalls - (a) Lack of Mechanization of Infantry to support the Armor (b) Artillery.

This becomes still more important when we indent to implement something like Cold Start - where the essence is on speed and foirpower. Our Strike Corps are off balance in terms of mobility and IA is facing issues as a whole in terms of 155/52 Cal guns.

Those guns and mechanization of IA are the basic neccesities of IA. There cannot be compromise on them.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 21 Jul 2010 14:38

nrshahji,
Thank you for showing me the true path and err..the true 'facts'.

There are such things called 155 mm, 130 mm howitzers. There are also such things called BM 21's. Pls compare the volume and effectiveness of fire provided by them vis-a-vis IMG/IFGs and Pinaka.Maybe , we can have a discussion then.

While you are at it, pls find out why there was a delay in launching the assault on Batalik and Drass.

About being rude, no worries, the less facts we know, generally the more bluster we are!

All for Indian made, but lets be realistic....

Avik,

I think we are confused...I never said guns can replace MBRLs... Both have their niche area of operation which is not interchangeable beyond certain degree...

My remorse was with respect to the following statement:

Thanks God for small mercies! Else Kargil would be a Pakistani District while we went around blaming burst barrels and autofrettage.

I used Pinaka as an example to explain that DRDO (Indian Developed) products are not as bad as you have portrayed...

And I fully agree with you... All for Indian made, but lets us be realistic...

What it has to do with DRDO?

Pinaka is MBRLS, and has a different role to play than a standard artillery. I believe it is for area saturation and not precision strike. The Rockets in Pinaka atleast do not support any kind of precision targeting. Most of the time it is used for Area Saturation. Explained that, I believe it always had a limited role to play in Kargil, looking at the terrain and the way the offense was, in form of small cluster groups of terrorists, high up on the mountains, which required more precision than area saturation.

nukavarapu, I hope the above clears the confusion...

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 21 Jul 2010 17:58

Lack of IAs(and to some extent other services, degree varies of course) confidence in DRDO stems from some bitter experiences. Quoting an instance to give you an idea.

Around mid 90s there was a proposal to import AN-TPQ36 WLRs from unkil. Lo and behold - DRDO steps in and says we can make it in x number of years. IA was not convinced of the timelines due to complex nature of equipment. However, MOD overruled the IA and asked DRDO to go ahead and develop it. In 1999 Kargil happened and the thing we sorely missed were WLRs to checkmate paki arty.

Lack of realistic timelines or committing unrealistic timelines has been the bane of DRDO and one major reason for lack of confidence by end users. This is not to say that they have not delivered good products but, realistic timeline has been a completely different story.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 21 Jul 2010 18:52

Is the gun of the arjun Indian or a one made in norway?????

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Jul 2010 18:57

P Chitkara wrote:Lack of IAs(and to some extent other services, degree varies of course) confidence in DRDO stems from some bitter experiences. Quoting an instance to give you an idea.

Around mid 90s there was a proposal to import AN-TPQ36 WLRs from unkil. Lo and behold - DRDO steps in and says we can make it in x number of years. IA was not convinced of the timelines due to complex nature of equipment. However, MOD overruled the IA and asked DRDO to go ahead and develop it. In 1999 Kargil happened and the thing we sorely missed were WLRs to checkmate paki arty.

Lack of realistic timelines or committing unrealistic timelines has been the bane of DRDO and one major reason for lack of confidence by end users. This is not to say that they have not delivered good products but, realistic timeline has been a completely different story.

It is good they overruled. we have a better WLR than they have. besides, IN is taking mark 2 of sonars and some electronics from DRDO now a days.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 21 Jul 2010 19:08

chackojoseph wrote: It is good they overruled. we have a better WLR than they have. besides, IN is taking mark 2 of sonars and some electronics from DRDO now a days.

Are you talking about AN-TPQ37? With all due respect, fact is we did not have a decent WLR when we needed it the most.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Jul 2010 19:23

P Chitkara wrote:Are you talking about AN-TPQ37? With all due respect, fact is we did not have a decent WLR when we needed it the most.

You are right. We also did not have high altitude clothing in numbers during kargil, we won. We had best WLR during kargil, our soldiers lost lives. Navy had a lame duck A/C carrier in 1971, they performed. During 1971, Americans wondered if Indian pilots used computer for bombing?, we didn't have.

A WLR is needed anytime. Why did not Army go for developing it proactively. I can understand if it was something nt to be used in regularly or came as unforeseen.

vic · Post by **vic** » 21 Jul 2010 21:01

With the development of Arjun gun, we have mastered the basic technology required but Army shall only import!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Jul 2010 23:33

It is good they overruled. we have a better WLR than they have. besides, IN is taking mark 2 of sonars and some electronics from DRDO now a days.

chackojoseph wrote: You are right. We also did not have high altitude clothing in numbers during kargil, we won. We had best WLR during kargil, our soldiers lost lives. Navy had a lame duck A/C carrier in 1971, they performed. During 1971, Americans wondered if Indian pilots used computer for bombing?, we didn't have.

A WLR is needed anytime. Why did not Army go for developing it proactively. I can understand if it was something not to be used in regularly or came as unforeseen.

CJ,

These posts of yours are not only in bad taste but downright nonsense. So, not having proper clothing in sufficient numbers in Kargil or 1971 IN experience is an excuse for the work done (or not done in this case) by the DRDO and MOD? That the lives will be lost anyways -what if more were lost because WLR was not there. (BTW, can you please tell us which WLR India had during the Kargil conflict?)

When will you rise above this Services versus DRDO bias?

As per one report that I've read, 86% of IA casualties in Kargil were due to Pakistan Artillery. Go and give this argument to those who might have been saved (life and limb) if IA had WLR during Kargil and may be some of the PA guns could have been silenced. AN-TPQ 37 in IA Service today or a superior BEL version is no solace to them.

As for the seriousness of the IA, the IA requirement originated in 1989. It is the callous attitude of the MOD and then the overestimation of capability by the DRDO (in 1995) which never allowed these radars to be inducted in the initial required timeframe - plus the 1998 PK-II. It is the job of MOD to purchase it for IA or for DRDO to develop the same - don't go around blaming the IA for other people's faults.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2010 23:41

rohit, if memory serves right IA had already decided for AN/TPQ-37 much before kargil and DRDO was not even in the picture. the deal fell through post pokhran. I'm not sure how any of the deshi entities are to blame here, except may be MOD for going slow as usual.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Jul 2010 23:48

nukavarapu wrote:
Excellent post CJ !!!

P Chitkara -- When did the last time did Army took any initiative for projects being undertaken by DRDO for army? If DRDO said that it would provide something in X years and could not, we all blame DRDO and its scientists. How would IA justify the Artillery Circus? Its MoDs fault alright, so did we see IA bashing the MoD the same way it bashes DRDO?

IA can bash DRDO for WLRs coz DRDO could not provide when they needed it the most, how would they justify of accepting half cooked tank called T90 without even proper trials in desert conditions and which had lot of issues with indigenousness production and ToT?

<SNIP>

So, if IA fcuks up in case of Arjun, it has no right to blame DRDO for the WLR fiasco? Is that how you intend to argue this case?

The gentleman quoted one specific example - that of WLR. Why is necessary to bring in Arjun saga here? Does that somehow absolved DRDO for the **** up it did? And what is this balderdash about project management - how is WLR story a case of bad project management? It is simple case of scientific establishment overestimating it's capabilities and MOD playing God with a callous attitude - otherwise foreign WLRs may well have been in IA service by 1998.

As for the Artillery circus - can you please put a finger on where IA went wrong? In case you come up with the brilliant argument that IA should have foreseen the delays and gone native -well sir, no one in his right mind would have known that it will take bloody 20years for this fiasco. If I extend your argument - IAF should be blamed for the AJT delay - they should have asked for Indian AJT project, no?

Coming to the T-90 story - not even the strongest Arjun supporter (and that includes me) can argue that T-90 purchase in 1999-2000 was not required. Arjun came up to mark by June 2005...could have been inducted a year earlier, too.

Yes, there are issue in IA-DRDO interface and IA has it's share of blame - but that does not mean that evey action of DRDO can be whitewashed with this argument.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Jul 2010 23:51

Rahul M wrote:rohit, if memory serves right IA had already decided for AN/TPQ-37 much before kargil and DRDO was not even in the picture. the deal fell through post pokhran. I'm not sure how any of the deshi entities are to blame here, except may be MOD for going slow as usual.

No Sir, was not the case. From PSCD Report - 1999-2000:

35. The Ministry of Defence in reply to a question stated that in February, 1995, request for proposal was issued to five manufacturers for supply of four WLRs after conducting trials of the equipment offered by them. Only one manufacturer M/s Hughes of USA responded to the RFP and offered their equipment for trials. Trials were conducted in India during 1995-96. It was found that the WLR of M/s Hughes, USA did not meet the prescribed General Staff Quality Requirements (GSQR) parameters in full. When the matter was placed before Raksha Mantri for seeking his approval to the relaxation of GSQR, he observed that the GSQR parameters were unrealistic which had also resulted in reduction in competition. It was also decided that the Army should place indent on Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for indigenous development of WLR.

In September, 1998, taking into consideration the urgency expressed by the Army HQrs, import of tout WLRs was approved. Simultaneously, it was also decided that the indigenous development of WLR should be pursued. Meanwhile, in May, 1998, the Government of USA had imposed sanctions on India which precluded the possibility of import of WLR from USA. Accordingly, Request for Proposals (RFPs) were issued to M/s lskra of Ukraine and M/s Thomson CSF of France. While M/s lskra responded to the RFP, M/s Thomson CSF informed that they were not in a position to do so as they could not get authorisation from their partner countries. A delegation recommended procurement of WLR from Ukraine.

The deal with the Ukranians fell through in 2000 after CVC Report.

The same report also says that DRDO was not involved in WLR Programme (as per statement of Secretary, DR&D to PSCD) - but the fact remains that between 1995 and 1998, the deal got stuck because a domestic WLR was supposed to come up. Rest is history.

I quote from General Malik's book - "What we missed most were WLR, which would have enabled us to engage Pakistani artillery and mortars more effectivley. After long negotiations with a manufacturer, some of the radars were about to be purchase in 1997. At the last moment, DRDO casued the deal to be scuttled with a promise that it would develop and produce these radars in next two years; a promise that was never fulfilled."

I don't think one needs any further discussion on the role of DRDO in this case.

CJ,

I hope you remember General Malik's words and don't make such a callous post next time about the lives of the Indian Defence Personnnel.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Jul 2010 00:02

The Arty acquisition saga is purely on the shoulders of G.O.I(successive) and they are only interested in playing "Save my a$$" game rather than thinking about the country.Sad part is that people here ascribe chanakianess to this besharmi of successive G.O.I game or think that somehow they have all bases covered.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 00:39

Rohit which weapons platform has been absorbed in active service within 2 years of the decision to purchase it ? In 1999 it was the WLR in future it might be something else.

This is the urgency Babooze showed after KARGIL.

RAJYA SABHA

Twelve Weapon Locating Radars (WLR) were contracted with the US Government in 2002. Delivery of these WLRs will commence from September,2004. In addition,two WLRs were also contracted on lease basis and these two WLRs have already arrived in the country. Steps have also been taken to produce WLRs indigenously. A Letter of Intent for procurement of 28 WLRs and development of one prototype WLR by April, 2004 was placed on MIs. Bharat Electronics Ltd in January 2003.

This information was given by the Defence Minister Shri George Fernandes in a written reply to Shri Surendra Lath in Rajya Sabha today.

http://164.100.24.208/ls/committeeR/Defence/16.pdf

The Ministry of Defence informed that Request for Proposal has been issued to five known manufacturers on 4 January, 2002 for trials on Weapon Locating Radar (WLR) in India on 'No Cost No Commitment' basis. Responses received from vendors are being processed. US Government has offered to supply Weapon Locating Radars through their Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme. This offer is also being analysed. The price negotiations for WLR ex-M/s ISKARA, Ukraine, were suspended in July, 2000 and the case has been closed based on certain complaints and inquiry by CBI.

BEL WLR was in field trials in 2005 and absorbed in service in what 2008 ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 00:46

negi wrote:Rohit which weapons platform has been absorbed in active service within 1 year of the decision to purchase it ? In 1998 it was the WLR in future it might be something else.
<SNIP>

negi, the WLR acquisition story begins in 1995 - when MOD finally woke up to 1989 requirement projection by IA.

As for weapon system and absorption in service argument - those weapon systems did not represent anything which was so out of ordinary that IA would have required time to 'absorb' these systems. And Kargil was a war - even if IA was still 'absorbing' WLR in service, it could still have made use of the system (assuming that weapon would have arrived in 1999 - 2 years after finalizing the system)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2010 00:49

rohit, I can only say this, Gen Malik is not perhaps 100% correct when he says that. as it is his handling of kargil wasn't considered as good as it could have been, more so on hindsight and it seems he is doing some finger pointing to deflect the criticism. I don't wish to throw mud on him but if the WLR was fully entrusted to DRDO how did the US halt the sale of ANTPQ-37's sale post-pokhran ?

I would be happy to be proven wrong and apologise in advance in case I'm.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 00:51

Rohit you see even after Kargil the press release clearly shows it took more than two years from inking of the deal to delivery, what makes you think it would have been in service before May 1999 even if the deal was inked somewhere in 1997 (as per General Malik) ?

I agree with your point about not making this x vs y debate though. Let us just list the facts for now.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 01:06

Rahul M wrote:rohit, I can only say this, Gen Malik is not perhaps 100% correct when he says that. as it is his handling of kargil wasn't considered as good as it could have been, more so on hindsight and it seems he is doing some finger pointing to deflect the criticism. I don't wish to throw mud on him but if the WLR was fully entrusted to DRDO how did the US halt the sale of ANTPQ-37's sale post-pokhran ?

I would be happy to be proven wrong and apologise in advance in case I'm.

Rahul da, the conduct of General Malik as COAS during Kargil has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Even if did, I don't know how he as a COAS could be hauled up for casualties due to PA Artillery during Kargil - something he may be trying to cover up by finger pointing at DRDO.

As for the AN-TPQ-37 and PK-II, you only need to read through the PSCD Report exerpt I posted above. I repeat:

Trials were conducted in India during 1995-96. It was found that the WLR of M/s Hughes, USA did not meet the prescribed General Staff Quality Requirements (GSQR) parameters in full. When the matter was placed before Raksha Mantri for seeking his approval to the relaxation of GSQR, he observed that the GSQR parameters were unrealistic which had also resulted in reduction in competition. It was also decided that the Army should place indent on Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for indigenous development of WLR.

In September, 1998, taking into consideration the urgency expressed by the Army HQrs, import of tout WLRs was approved. Simultaneously, it was also decided that the indigenous development of WLR should be pursued. Meanwhile, in May, 1998, the Government of USA had imposed sanctions on India which precluded the possibility of import of WLR from USA.

- This is where the slip up of DRDO is evident and also the suspension of WLR by USA after PK-II.

While PSCD Reports clearly say that IA was asked to place indent on DRDO for WLR - it is completely silent on the developments between 1996-2000. The funding for domestic WLR derived from Rajendra Radar commenced, iirc in 2002. What happened after IA was asked to place indent on DRDO, is completely missing.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 01:11

negi wrote:Rohit you see even after Kargil the press release clearly shows it took more than two years from inking of the deal to delivery, what makes you think it would have been in service before May 1999 even if the deal was inked somewhere in 1997 (as per General Malik) ?

I agree with your point about not making this x vs y debate though. Let us just list the facts for now.

negi, equal possibility in that in case a deal was signed and something like Kargil happened, we could have loaned couple of systems from the vendor? The same report which you posted also says that we leased systems. Could have been done in that case also. Only issue is - in case the vendor was USA, PK-II would have ensured that no system could have come.

These points are non-entity as far the DRDO part is concerned.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2010 01:21

thanks rohit.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 01:22

rohitvats wrote: negi, equal possibility in that in case a deal was signed and something like Kargil happened, we could have loaned couple of systems from the vendor? .

There is no vendor who would have honored such a deal during Kargil as Unkil would have been on everyone's case unless there was something on offer from Israel. (CBI was already over the Ukranian vendor's case)

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 01:24

rohitvats wrote:
In September, 1998, taking into consideration the urgency expressed by the Army HQrs, import of tout WLRs was approved. Simultaneously, it was also decided that the indigenous development of WLR should be pursued. Meanwhile, in May, 1998, the Government of USA had imposed sanctions on India which precluded the possibility of import of WLR from USA.
- This is where the slip up of DRDO is evident and also the suspension of WLR by USA after PK-II.

Where is the slip up ?

Did they ever commit to deliver a system before May 1999 ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 01:43

rohitvats wrote:
In September, 1998, taking into consideration the urgency expressed by the Army HQrs, import of tout WLRs was approved. Simultaneously, it was also decided that the indigenous development of WLR should be pursued. Meanwhile, in May, 1998, the Government of USA had imposed sanctions on India which precluded the possibility of import of WLR from USA.
- This is where the slip up of DRDO is evident and also the suspension of WLR by USA after PK-II.

Where is the slip up ?

Did they ever commit to deliver a system before May 1999 ? And lets say even if they did did the usual suspects assume that delivered product will work like a charm on the first day of delivery , heck even if one factors in time required for user trials and training we are talking about at least 6 months followed by bulk orders and finally time for delivery (best case another 6 months while Raytheon took more than 2 years for first pieces) ? So for DRDO-BEL's WLR to be operational by Kargil it would have to be operational at least by beginning of 1998. So are we trying to say DRDO claimed they could design and have an operational Radar within a span of 1 year ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 01:44

negi, there are two statement about the domestic WLR Programme - the PSCD Report and General Malik's statement. While the PSCD Report says intend was placed and IA not allowed to relax GSQR so that a suitable vendor could be finalized, it is silent on the actual nature of intend placed on DRDO and nature of work involved - the PSCD Report even says (As per statement by Secretary DR&D) that DRDO was not involved.

General Malik clearly says that product was to be delivered in 2 years.

So, based on these statements and General Malik's work, I choose to believe that a product was promised and which was not delivered.

And BTW, the BEL WLR Programme was different.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 01:56

rohitvats wrote: And BTW, the BEL WLR Programme was different.

Can you substantiate ? Current WLR is LRDE(DRDO's lab)-BEL JV. I thought all radars are ultimately manufactured by BEL.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2010 02:25

General Malik is indeed wrong when he says DRDO scuttled the WLR procurement while we don't have any evidence around the 2 year delivery promise following excerpt from the PSCD shows that WLR procurement was still going at its usual pace as far as MoD is concerned .

indigenous development of WLR should be pursued. Meanwhile, in May, 1998, the Government of USA had imposed sanctions on India which precluded the possibility
of import of WLR from USA. Accordingly, Request for Proposals (RFPs) were issued to M/s lskra of Ukraine and M/s Thomson CSF of France. While M/s lskra responded to the RFP, M/s Thomson CSF informed that they were not in a position to do so as they could not get authorisation from their partner countries. A delegation recommended procurement of WLR from Ukraine.

37. In September 1999, M/s Daimler Chrysler gave apresentation on their Cobra WLR system which was witnessed by senior Ministry of Defence and Army Headquarter (AHQ) officials. It was decided to send a technical delegation to evaluate the Cobra WLR system. The delegation has visited France and Germany from 13 to 16 March, 2000. Though a formal Report from the delegation has still not been received, it is learnt that the delegation could not see dynamic demonstration of the system as France did not agree to it.

The WLR project was officially sanctioned in 2002 only.

--typos

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 07:28

rohitvats wrote: CJ,

I hope you remember General Malik's words and don't make such a callous post next time about the lives of the Indian Defence Personnnel.

I have no respect for whatever gen Malik writes on kargil. Hope fully some neutral write ups on Kargil war surface up and USI have new people who were in the field.

A WLR could have been used even in the wars before. Why wasn't it made? Why don't you answer the most important fact I mentioned that the regular nitpics you manage to kick up?

As far aw which WLR in kargil? They knew most positions of weapons in kargil. What best WRL we could get. If you think WLR has to be a ANXX-XX of should be of other names, I am sorry, its not my defination. As long as you know the locations, its WLR, figuratively.

As for DRDO vvs Service, you already know it. I regard Navy already very high. Higher than DRDO.

For rest of your accusation, I am bowing out.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2010 08:40

I would not discount the difficulty of making a tracked platform , the SP gun turret and the ammo storage and handling system to be reliable, safe for operators, well protected, easy to use and pump out high rates of fire. even making
a infantry rifle is deceptively 'easy' but a extremely difficult problem as the decades long cloning of AK47 shows....only a few designs achieve the optimum value in the N-dimensional matrix.

that is why goofing up and dicarding the proven Denel T-6 turret and the proven Arjun chassis was such a criminal case of dropping the ball. we had it in our hands to have something near about the Pzh2000 and we let it slip out - perhaps forever.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 10:29

I was on phone with an officer (now retd) on the WLR issue. He says it is all hog wash. Its untrue that we did not know the locations. Its more to do with not being to do anything to the located ones. We were not allowed to hit across the border and were not able to hit the precise location inside the border. He also said that in kargil WLR was not the issue. The issue was not acting on time by some quarters. The most appalling was the neglecting the intelligence inputs. WLR, intelligence failure, IAF failure, political failure etc have been cooked up fantasy stories. He said war was not a common occurrence. Army leadership was the one which is supposed to be ready for war. Others are not expected to understand the war to a lot of extent. Political leadership is for political related matters. Intelligence is mandated to collect, interpret and present and being "intelligence" it cannot be perfect, it varies from people to people, situation to situation. Its army which is supposed to be experts in it. He said we cannot blame any thing except the army leadership at that time. (just like almost every one I know tells me), If it was not for the youngsters, we would have faced different situation.

He also said, that there was enough inputs from recces. He even asks why was WLR needed at all in a controlled war like Kargil.

He also said that artillery did its job fine. there was no India-paki duel with artillery. we all knew where the fire was coming from. They had fired at the access points. The terrorist up there were covering the other flanks.

As for the seriousness of the IA, the IA requirement originated in 1989. It is the callous attitude of the MOD and then the overestimation of capability by the DRDO (in 1995) which never allowed these radars to be inducted in the initial required timeframe - plus the 1998 PK-II. It is the job of MOD to purchase it for IA or for DRDO to develop the same - don't go around blaming the IA for other people's faults.

I asked him about this. He says that its again some hog wash (the exact wards, and he keeps using it). He said that IA knows that weapons don't materialize in a short time. It has to go through various quarters and deliberations. (this is real interesting). He said, at all levels we knew that India has a payment crisis coming up. He said that you must be aware that in 1991, we pledged gold. India had not enough to import necessary item, let alone WLR. he said, that military did not get anything for almost 10 years. It has been around 1995 or so that we had money.

He asked me a reverse question. Is that it? Just because there was no WLR, we got our soldiers killed? He said, we had a lot of soldiers killed even before we started missing WLR.

About the DRDO. He said back in service, we had a different opinion. Coming to think of it now, we have lost a chance when we could have made attempts and we are at fault. Its because of us that soldiers loose lives. We could have accepted some equipment even if they were not perfect, besides, there is no perfect equipment. Every thing depends upon how you use it. He said, DRDO is just doing its job. It is mandated for developing indigenous systems. So, if MoD asks DRDO, they will say what is mandated. Whats wrong in it? I don't think MoD can give a open mandate to army to import everything it wants.

Another interesting stuff he said. he said, that even in US, they have not developed anything even if they have money. They identify researchers who have some potential applications. They make a workable equipment which nned not be economic and perfect. Then they improve it to make it economic and perfect. they evolve it.

Added later....

I have a joke to share with you guys. There was a comedy serial called Birds nest (i can't remember if it was India or abroad I saw it). It involves a (childrens?) dentist and his 2 daughters and his assistant.

So one day one lady walks in with her son. Doctor explains the problem to the mother. Then she tells the doctor it is not like this, its like that . The doctor asks her how does she know that. She tells him that she read it in an article. Doctors says wow,"here I am with 40 years of experience and you could tell it by just reading an article."

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Jul 2010 12:32

"As far aw which WLR in kargil? They knew most positions of weapons in kargil. What best WRL we could get."
"there was no India-paki duel with artillery. we all knew where the fire was coming from."

Sir, respectfully, what nonsense is this? Sounds like the days of yore, when if asked the direction towards a place, a farmer would say "Paschim mein chale jaao" or "Purab disha mein hoga"!!

I do not know how much people here know about artillery gun positions, but it is really a small patch over a huge area, akin to needle in a haystack! So, precision targetting is required and the closer the better, and a WLR helps surely. Otherwise, generalised firing , as you and your unnamed sources seem to suggest is wasteful..to say the least.

Kargil was an even more complicated geography, since most Paki gun positions were located in the lee of the mountains and dugouts were close to the slope, making targetting extremely difficult.

The reasons why the Pakis were able to inflict such casulaties on us were two fold: they had spotters, who fortuntaely were elminated by mid-June; but they continued to receive support from their WLRs.
So, WLRs would have made a difference; lets not belabour this point and prove our ignorance by making points like the one quoted on top.

"I was on phone with an officer (now retd) on the WLR issue. He also said, that there was enough inputs from recces. He even asks why was WLR needed at all in a controlled war like Kargil. "
" I have no respect for whatever gen Malik writes on kargil."

CJ Saab..again, whether you respect VP Malik, is entirely your prerogative and I agree that there are a lot of things that can be pinned on VPM.
But let us not buttress our weak arguments by sourcing fallacious logic from unnamed sources, whose credibility no one (barring you) is aware of. We dont even know whether the character you are quoting is/was an artillery officer or whether he was competent enough to make a statement. I recall it was you who once propounded on this very board, not too many months ago, that IA officers , serving and retd, love to sound their opinions, in general terms, while not being an expert in the subject at hand.
So, pls follow your prescription and dont subject us to ad-hominem quotes from unknown entities!!

Negi : While you have a point on the time taken for new equipment absorption, I would just point out that the IA has been using Cymbeline mortar locating radars for quite a while now. So, absorption of the tech. would not be as big an issue as you make it out to be. In any case, Arty School first trains personnel from the designated unit on new equipment (after they have been trained by the supplier, Indian or Foreign) and then the equipment is released onto the field. The IA has its own equivalents of IOC and FOC and therefore, by the time an eqpt. is on the ToE of a unit, there will be sufficient cadres to utilise it. After all, this is not a nuclear submarine being handed over to a Destroyer crew

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Jul 2010 12:35

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Jul 2010 12:59

Avik sahaab,

You think we all don't know all this. Initially, even i used to think that weapons win the war. Down the line, the people who fight have told me that its partially true. They say in war the best laid plans fail. All you can do is figure out how to take off the dammed gun or the bunker. Even in kargil, even with all the precision bombings, it was the people who actually climbed the mountains, fought hand to hand and got results. Once certain peaks were taken, then others fell.

Why is every body skirting this question and getting into

The primary point in the debate ,what you all are missing is "Why did the army not initiate a WLR making program?" Its needed anytime.

Fellows I know tell me that the WLR was not felt by the army. They saw pakis having it and then they wanted one too. The other side introduces something and then there is a knee jerk here.

Lets speak specific of kargil. I think you have not read the narration I wrote " there was a limited radii of action", "The locations were known" and "we couldn't do anything about it."

Kargil was an even more complicated geography, since most Paki gun positions were located in the lee of the mountains and dugouts were close to the slope, making targetting extremely difficult.

Sir, how else is it employed? if it was not in kargil, if it was in plains other tactics would have been employed. So, what difference does it make? On the contrary if it was employed the way you said, they had a limited window for shooting the shells and it would have been even easier to tell where it is coming from.

Can you show me where it is written that it was employed like that?

The reasons why the Pakis were able to inflict such casulaties on us were two fold: they had spotters, who fortuntaely were elminated by mid-June; but they continued to receive support from their WLRs.
So, WLRs would have made a difference; lets not belabour this point and prove our ignorance by making points like the one quoted on top.

right, our spotters, the recon planes, the inteligence were not existing. Only pakis had spotters. What kiddish? like you say respectfully.

This is the most astounding claim by you. anyway, its new theory added by you that, they had everything and fro our side only wlr could have helped.

CJ Saab..again, whether you respect VP Malik, is entirely your prerogative and I agree that there are a lot of things that can be pinned on VPM.
But let us not buttress our weak arguments by sourcing fallacious logic from unnamed sources, whose credibility no one (barring you) is aware of. We dont even know whether the character you are quoting is/was an artillery officer or whether he was competent enough to make a statement. I recall it was you who once propounded on this very board, not too many months ago, that IA officers , serving and retd, love to sound their opinions, in general terms, while not being an expert in the subject at hand.
So, pls follow your prescription and dont subject us to ad-hominem quotes from unknown entities!!

Which argument is weak of mine? Just because VPM write a book, it becomes non fallacious?

Unfortunately the person I am quoting cannot be named. It is because it gives away my contacts. its bad for my writing career. Secondly, even gen malik is retired.It is true that I have said that retd love to give opinions. Fine, for a moment, people stop quoting gen malik as he is retired and I stop quoting my source.

So we are at square one.

Prove it lack of WLR caused all the deaths.

My point is its not the WLR, it was the leadership that caused the deaths.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 22 Jul 2010 14:14

"You think we all don't know all this. Initially, even i used to think that weapons win the war. Down the line, the people who fight have told me that its partially true. They say in war the best laid plans fail. All you can do is figure out how to take off the dammed gun or the bunker. Even in kargil, even with all the precision bombings, it was the people who actually climbed the mountains, fought hand to hand and got results. Once certain peaks were taken, then others fell. "

CJ Sir: War is ultimately between people. This doesnt mean you send people to do kushti. If people have more effective tools, then they are more effective at combat. Otherwise, what is the point of having sights, UBGLs etc.; after all, as per your logic, it is a fight between individuals with rifles?
Tools that aid combat are necessary, whether they are WLRs for artillery or dozers for engineers.

If our troops had certain tools like WLR, casualties would have been minimised through counter-bombardment. The Bofors Guns had greater range than the Paki 105s and 130mms. But, we could not focus the counter-bombardment beacuse of lack of specific aiding tools like WLRs. Hence, we had to fire many more salvos to counter Paki bombardment than was necessary, if we had WLRs. These extra salvoes also, hence reduced, the fire support available for suppressing enemy positions; hence, our infantry had to take on more casualties to take over enemy position.
So, there is a direct co-relation between lack of WLRs and IA casualties, whether due to PA arty fire or due to longevity of Pak Infantry positions.

"Fellows I know tell me that the WLR was not felt by the army. They saw pakis having it and then they wanted one too. The other side introduces something and then there is a knee jerk here. "

Again , Sir ji, weapons are of two kinds. The first one like MBRLs, that IA introduced into South Asia were to prosecute a certain war aim. While others like WLR are to counter certain measures taken by the opposition, namely, PA had WLRs and was using them quite effectively.
About your point that the IA was not keen on the WLR- well, at any point, there are a number of hardware requirements and until the lack of WLR was felt with its full impact at Kargil, IA was ok to let other hardware needs be front-loaded, but given the devsatation of PA Arty fire in Kargil, WLR requirement was made acute. Had it been availalble, it would have been very effective.
BTW, all through the 90's, especially mid 90's onwards, during the daily arty exchange across LoC, PA units were often aided by their WLRs, especially the atry support for PA in Pallanwalla. So, IA had the requirement even then and had asked for WLRs even then , but as I mentioned earlier, other hardware was considered more critical.

right, our spotters, the recon planes, the inteligence were not existing. Only pakis had spotters. What kiddish? like you say respectfully.
This is the most astounding claim by you. anyway, its new theory added by you that, they had everything and fro our side only wlr could have helped.

Sir: We did not have spotters in the initial days, simply because the Pakis occupied the heights. Hence, any spotter venturing up was shot down. Pls look up the KIA list in the initial days of the war. there are a large number of 2'nd Lts and Lts, many of whom were in the spotter role and were killed by Paki fire simply beacuse the Pakis were on top. So, we did not have the spotters, while Pakis did. Hence, WLRs would have helped.
Aircraft Recce: You do remember the Stinger in the AN-32/ Canberra that went up, dont you?
Intelligence: The less said the better. But even if we had this, it would have been general , like your initial post, about it coming from 10 Kms due west. That is not enough!

Hence, WLRs would have definitely helped. So, again, dear sir, let us not belabour the point about the utility of WLRs.

Army leadership was the one which is supposed to be ready for war. Others are not expected to understand the war to a lot of extent. Political leadership is for political related matters. Intelligence is mandated to collect, interpret and present and being "intelligence" it cannot be perfect, it varies from people to people, situation to situation. Its army which is supposed to be experts in it. He said we cannot blame any thing except the army leadership at that time.

The broad thrust of your agreement is, that it is the Chowkidaar who should be blamed for the theft in the house and not the house-owner, mohalla thulla or the Resident Welfare Assoc. Chief.
Well, I do recall a certain saying by a certain notable who knew a few things about war

"War is too important to be left to Generals alone"

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 14:19

negi wrote:General Malik is indeed wrong when he says DRDO scuttled the WLR procurement while we don't have any evidence around the 2 year delivery promise following excerpt from the PSCD shows that WLR procurement was still going at its usual pace as far as MoD is concerned .

<SNIP>

The WLR project was officially sanctioned in 2002 only.

--typos

negi, you're reading only one section of the report while completely overlooking others. The report also says this -

When the matter was placed before Raksha Mantri for seeking his approval to the relaxation of GSQR, he observed that the GSQR parameters were unrealistic which had also resulted in reduction in competition. It was also decided that the Army should place indent on Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for indigenous development of WLR.

The above was after the 1995-96 failure of vendors to meet the GSQR. That the IA was asked to place indent on DRDO for domestic WLR is also clear.

As for the business as usual wrt foreign acquisition - this is again what the same report says:

In September, 1998, taking into consideration the urgency expressed by the Army HQrs, import of tout WLRs was approved. Simultaneously, it was also decided that the indigenous development of WLR should be pursued.

So, the push for foreign purchase came after IA raised 'urgent request'.

The mystery is what happened to the indent placed with DRDO. I think there is CAG Report which discussed this - I'll dig that up and post here.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 14:31

chackojoseph wrote:
I have no respect for whatever gen Malik writes on kargil. Hope fully some neutral write ups on Kargil war surface up and USI have new people who were in the field.

I'm sure you have your reasons to not respect the former COAS but that does not mean that you can call him a liar. If you have proof to the contrary, please place it on record or take your BS some where else. And please, don't give the silly argument again of confidential sources.

A WLR could have been used even in the wars before. Why wasn't it made? Why don't you answer the most important fact I mentioned that the regular nitpics you manage to kick up?

Which earlier wars are we referring to? 1971? 1965? As to why the IA did not initiate the programme for WLR earlier, well, you forget that request was raised in 1989. MOD initiated first round in 1995 and DRDO promptly jumped in. What happened after that? So, in your dsperate attempt to somehow malign the IA, please don't use nonsensical arguments.

As far aw which WLR in kargil? They knew most positions of weapons in kargil. What best WRL we could get. If you think WLR has to be a ANXX-XX of should be of other names, I am sorry, its not my defination. As long as you know the locations, its WLR, figuratively.

And I'm sure you've arrived at the above conclusion after years of experience in the Regiment of Artillery and managing and directing fire units. And please, do regale us with your experience in directing artilley fire in the mountains as FOO.

For rest of your accusation, I am bowing out.

This is your problem - if some one challenges your assertions, they become accusations. Please don't expect people on this forum, at least not me, to accept whatever you say as gospel truth.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Jul 2010 14:38

chackojoseph wrote:I was on phone with an officer (now retd) on the WLR issue. He says it is all hog wash. Its untrue that we did not know the locations. Its more to do with not being to do anything to the located ones.........<SNIP>

Aha!!!, the famous anonymous source, who we are expected to believe because you say that he says so. Right? And of course, you cannot name him or share his credentials but he must be right ( assuming he even exists) because CJ has posted the stuff on BRF.

And never mind that discussion was about role of DRDO in WLR saga - it is all IA leadership fault onlee...

Let me know when you something worth while to add to discussion.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 22 Jul 2010 14:49

In September, 1998, taking into consideration the urgency expressed by the Army HQrs, import of tout WLRs was approved. Simultaneously, it was also decided that the indigenous development of WLR should be pursued.

Hi Rohit,

I have been following this discussion and its getting confusing. My deductions are not based on any sources but tellme,how would the highlighted word convey that the acquisition was stopped because of the indigenous program?The word Simultaneously suggests both were independent or do i have to read some other statement in the same report because other statements seems to be of a different timeframe.