JDW: India set to test Bofors SPG

[Badar]

Hi,<P>Rahul Bedi, for Janes Defence Weekly reports that India has invited seven overseas companies to submit bids to supply at least 3,000-4,000 155mm/52-calibre howitzers during the next two decades through direct purchase and licensed production. <P>Detail available at <a href="http://jdw.janes.com/sample/jdw4724.htm ... 24.html</a>.

[Badar]

Hi,<P>PS : Note the "army sources said Bhim was on "hold" as priorities had shifted".<BR>

[Rupak]

What is the advantage of a SPG over towed howitzers with shoot and scoot capability? Both are mobile, and both would require same type of roads to travel..<P>1. Don't have to be "dug in" like towed guns. So in and out of action much quicker.<P>2. The current Bofors FH is not truly mobile. The auxiliary power unit is adequate (in comabt situations) to allow limited movements<P>3. A towed gun requires a tractor, thereby lengthening the "unit" and restricting mobility. <P>4. Tracked chasis equals greater all terrain capability. Wheeled chasis is cheaper and easier to mantain.<P> Also how would a SPG differ from a tank except for the large cailbre gun?<P>1. Armoured protection.<BR>2. Ability to engage targets on the move.<BR>

[Rupak]

We would be wasting our money if we bought the Celcius or its GIAT equivalent because neither afford NBC protection to the crew.

[vram]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What is the advantage of a SPG over towed howitzers with shoot and scoot capability? Both are mobile, and both would require same type of roads to travel..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The shoot and scoot capability of the Bofors towed howitzer isn't very effective in mountanous areas like Kargil. The howitzer can "scoot" on its own power for a limited distance only and that too pretty slowly. Moreover, placing the howitzer in a "gun pit" effectively negates all scooting abilities ( and makes it a sitting target).<P>Towing the howitzer with a truck on steep and unprepared roads with potholes and rocks is a big challenge. <P>On the other hand:<BR>A self propelled howitzer would be sitting on a platform (tracked or wheeled) and can maneover much more effectively and easily. A SPH can also move faster.<P>Unlike a towed howitzer that requires the crew to be in the open to fire the gun and susceptible to counter-fire and shrapnel, a SPH offers protection to the crew sitting inside a tank or cab from shrapnel injuries.<P>A towed howitzer takes a much longer time to set-up to fire, not so with a SPH. <P>But most importantly, it allows for a more flexible and mobile artillery response.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Also how would a SPG differ from a tank except for the large cailbre gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>SPH has different tactical/operational role to play than a tank. The gun IS the significant difference-- SPH is used to fire at targets 30-40kms away, that's not something a tank can do with its gun.<P>I would imagine that SPH would be used to soften targets before tanks/infantry move in.<P>

[vram]

Actually, Bofors self-propelled version comes with NBC protection. Here's the relevant extract from R. Bedi' Asian Age article:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>They said the fully electronic weapon system could easily be operated by a two-man crew from the trucks cabin which could be rendered shrapnel and nuclear biological and chemical resistant. The trucks would give the howitzer greater mobility than the FH 77Bs auxiliary power unit which proved ineffective in hilly terrain during the Kargil conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Shirish]

Koshy<BR>u can find a picture of the tur-ruck mounted gun at the Bofors/Celsius home page

[vram]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>since the Bhim involves substantial domestic component with no scope for Baksheesh, its no wonder a powerful lobby would love the towed guns with all imported stuff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The domestic component of Bhim is only the chassis, the gun is S. African. The G6 gun itself costs $2.5 million, the cost of Arjun chassis is extra (another $2 million??). <P>Whereas, the complete self-propelled howitzer offered by Bofors is $2million. Also, the volvo truck on which the howitzer is mounted could be indegenously manufactured along with the gun in India.<P>The G6 is already 52 calb whereas the Bofors gun being offered is 40 calib to be later upgraded to 52. So that's the down-side to Bofors.<P>Having said all that, I think it is important to have both tracked (arjun chassis) and wheeled version of the SPH because each has different advantages based on the terrain it is deployed on. My only concern is that we should not have different manufacturers for the different versions. We either choose the S. African G6 or the Bofors howitzer and make a tracked and wheeled version indegenously.<P>IMHO, it would be a bad idea to buy the FH 77T self-propelled Bofors howitzers AND the G6 gun.<p>[This message has been edited by vram (edited 01-11-1999).]

[Bishwa]

As an aside the soviets found out the hard way in afghanistan that the most effective army weapon system in their armoury in the mountains was the low powered 70+ mm gun mounted on their BMPs. It could be swiveled anywhere and was more effective than the tanks or other systems. Something to think about...

[Badar]

Hi,<P>bishwa, the 152/155mm guns we are buying are for indirect, long range div/corps fire support. medium caliber infantry support "assault guns" are a different matter altogether.<BR>

[Bishwa]

Ramen,<BR> The reasons given for that was two fold namely the fact that the gun could be swiveled better and it was low powered. In other words it could be pointed at places where the tank gun could not be. Its low power also was considered to be an asset in many situations.<P> Another reason I think was important is that the tank guns came in a 40+ tonne package. The BMPs were lighter and thus more mobile and the lower range of their main gun could be compensated by this.<P>Badar,<BR> Dont fool your self. The army used the bofors in direct fire mode in kargil. They were not the first and they will not be the last to do that. Also they found even the bofors to be wanting in accuracy in some cases there. One of the reasons they would prefer a higher cal weapon.<p>[This message has been edited by bishwa (edited 01-11-1999).]

[Badar]

Hi,<P>biswas, one wonders if major artillery pieces will be employed as infantry support guns in any future conventional conflict. Or, perhaps the more properly, can we afford to do so?

[Bishwa]

> major artillery pieces will be employed as infantry support guns <P>We could afford to use even aircraft as infantry support weapons in Kargil. We have been using ZSUs in direct fire mode for sometime in kashmir/siachen. Gen Rommel used his good old 88MM as anti tank weapons in France. Sometimes these innovative uses of weapon systems saves the day.<BR>

[Sukumar]

<I>What is the advantage of a SPG over towed howitzers with shoot and scoot capability? Both are mobile, and both would require same type of roads to travel.</I><P>1. A tracked SPG is more mobile in cross country terrain and can keep up with armoured forces (tanks and APCs) when moving across rough terrain. So the firepower pretty much accompanies the armoured forces.<BR>2. The time to deploy to a firing position and fire the first shell is very less (compared to as high as 20 minutes+ for a towed system). So response times are very less.<BR>3. A single unit contains the gun, ammo, crew and transport.<BR>4. Armour protection for the crew.<P>The negative is that SP systems have lesser range than the towed systems.<P><I>Also how would a SPG differ from a tank except for the large cailbre gun?</I><P>Not much of a difference. The SP typically has a heavy gun with a high trajectory, while tanks have guns with a flatter, higher speed trajectory.<P>In WWII, many tank designs were the basis for assault guns and SP guns. In fact Hitler converted many tanks into assault guns.<P>Most modern SP guns are built on tracked (tank type) chassis. As mentioned above, this means that they can go wherever tanks go. However, there are a few SP systems like the South African G6 which are mounted on wheeled chassis. Such designs were chosen for lower cost and because the terrain (like the flat South African veldt) is not hostile to wheeled vehicles.<p>[This message has been edited by R Sukumar (edited 01-11-1999).]

[Rupak]

Vram<P>Thanks for drawing my attention to that piece about NBC protection. However, like the GIAT Ceaser the Bofors carries 18-20 ready rounds. Hardly adeqaute in combat situation. Also while the Ceaser requires a 6 man crew, Bofors (Celcius) claims that they can do with a 2 man crew. Somehow, there is more to this story.

[Sukumar]

Here is the truck mounted FH-77B version:<P><P>SP Artillery system being developed by Bofors and GIAT:<P>

[vram]

The SPA being developed by Bofors (pictured above) seems to be an awesome killing machine. It has arange of 50-100kms!! I had posted info on it long back, hope no harm done if i post it again: (From bofors website) <BR> <A HREF="http://www.bofors.se/weapon/bolagiserin ... /index.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bofors.se/weapon/bolagiserin ... dex.htm</A> <P><I><BR>The SPA system, now under development, will have the ability to knock out enemy combat control and supply resources, give close fire support and directly combat enemy artillery in depth with the first round. Besides its high rate of fire of 16 to 20 rounds per minute, the gun will be compatible with the Joint Ballistic Agreement for 155 mm guns. It will also have long range and an MRSI capability exceeding 10 impacts in one second.<P>Modular charges of various strengths will be automatically combined for each round, allowing the muzzle velocity to be varied from 450 m/s to more than 1000 m/s. With standard ammunition the range will exceed 50 km and with special ammunition the range will be out to 100 km.<P>Once fielded the SPA from Bofors and Giat Industries will be a smart, flexible artillery system that will solve the problems of the battlefield quicker and more effectively than any competitive gun or rocket artillery system.</I>

[Rupak]

Subra<P>Even in 1971 the artillery was forced to use its gun in the DF mode. Not only that, there are several instances of the guns engaging targets over open sights.

[Bishwa]

Rupak & LNS,<BR> I agree. Kargil was not the first time arty was used in DF mode and it will not be the last.

[Badar]

Hi,<P>biswas, I agree with the utility and need for DF support.<P>My original question was, can we afford to use high value items like a 152/155mm guns in a bunker busting role? By afford I dont mean $$$, but military sense. <P>Big guns can and will be used in DF roles, but that is more due to pressing circumstances than a result of precalculated doctrine.<P>Kargil was a "safe" environment for these guns - a future general conflict with full participation of the Pakistani armed forces will probably not allow such liberties.<P>BTW, What are the 105mm SPGs for?<BR> <p>[This message has been edited by Badar (edited 03-11-1999).]

[vram]

I thought the S. African anti-material gun we are purchasing is specifically meant for bunker-busting. It's cheaper to use than the Bofors and you can equip infantry with many more of these guns..

[Bishwa]

> can we afford to use high value items like a 152/155mm guns in a bunker busting role? <P>Depends on where the bunker is, how strategic the bunker is and what are the other alternatives to get rid of it.<P>> more due to pressing circumstances than a result of precalculated doctrine. <P>When Rommel used his 88s in an anti tank role it was due to lack of other alternatives. However it became part of german practice after that.<P>We used the ZSUs in a DF role initially because they were virtually useless in their primary role as a AD weapon. I understand it has become accepted practice now.<P>> Kargil was a "safe" environment for these guns <P>Can you elaborate ? Accepted that the Bofors used in DF mode was much more safer in kargil than the Bofors used in indirect mode because the paki direction finding radars could not get to them.<P>Apart from that how were they safe? The pakistani OPs were very well positioned and were able to finger them for their arty. The bofors aux power plant was useless in the mountains so it could not always shoot and scoot. Which made them sitting ducks. The twisting roads made mobility a problem.<P>They did not face air opposition but had a lot going aganist them to compensate for that.<P>> Pakistani armed forces will probably not allow such liberties. <P>Well as LNS and rupak pointed out, the Indian army took such liberties before too in 1971, kashmir and possibly 65. So why not in the future too?<BR>

[Rupak]

Badar<P>Kargil was a "safe" environment for these guns - a future general conflict with full participation of the Pakistani armed forces will probably not allow such liberties.<P>The guns are *more* likely to be used in the direct fire role during real conflicts. In both 1965 and 1971 artillery batteries have had to turn their guns on Pakistani infantry compaines that have either tried to cut Indian supply lines, or threaten gun emplacements themselves. <P>BTW, What are the 105mm SPGs for?<P>The Abbots (and Catapaults) were part of Corps artillery for the Strike formations. Both systems have now been mothballed.<BR>