Artillery: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6799
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 20 Jun 2018 19:28

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

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 20 Jun 2018 21:21

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

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

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 20 Jun 2018 23:35

On Pinaka Mk2 from DRDO 2017 Annual Report:

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

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 20 Jun 2018 23:39

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

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1212
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 21 Jun 2018 00:43

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

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

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

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2018 00:51

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

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

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


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

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 21 Jun 2018 03:28

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

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

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

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1300
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 21 Jun 2018 05:54

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

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Arun.prabhu » 21 Jun 2018 09:23

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

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

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

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


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

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1568
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 21 Jun 2018 12:10

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

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 22 Jun 2018 02:16

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

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

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

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



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

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ashish raval » 22 Jun 2018 02:22

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

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

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

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2908
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kashi » 22 Jun 2018 06:00

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


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

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

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1568
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 22 Jun 2018 07:27

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

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9740
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Jun 2018 08:52

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

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 22 Jun 2018 09:07

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

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

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

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

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

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
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 -Trainee
Posts: 86
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 -Trainee
Posts: 86
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: 50197
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
BRFite
Posts: 1568
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: 7817
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 -Trainee
Posts: 86
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: 1379
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: 115
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: 9740
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
BRFite
Posts: 1568
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: 2908
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
BRFite
Posts: 1568
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: 6210
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: 5570
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: 5388
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: 5570
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: 50197
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: 31
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: 50197
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: 50197
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: 50197
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: 735
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: 50197
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.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pattnayak and 42 guests