Indian Army Artillery

[Vijyes]

Dhanush is not "Self propelled". It has an APU that allows it to move, but at impractical speeds on a flat surface. It is not for covering long distances. Its for use after the guns are on site. AFAIK, M777 has been deployed as the sole tube artillery for the 17 Mountain Strike Corps. I do not think that they are going to be used at only those places where towed Arty cannot be deployed. It will be used at all locations the Corps requires them. Sometimes it might be beneficial to transport them using helicopters or deploy them at inaccessible locations, but it would not be standard procedure.

Dhanush cannot meet that requirement. The only way forward, is to have our own in-house Ultra-Light Howitzer.

AFAIK, the arty is deployed out of range of enemy counter-battery fire (when possible) when deployed for fire-missions to support forward troops. However, when the guns have to deployed in a counter-battery role or when they are in the range and sights of enemy counter-battery units, the SOP is shoot-and-scoot (even in the era of Weapon Locating Radar). This can be done by a gun battery within minutes if it has been carried by road transport. However, for the missions where helicopters are used to carry the M-777 to otherwise inaccessible locations, shoot-and-scoot is not a favourable option due to the fact that vital aviation assets of the Corps are tied down as they are on standby for the entire mission. IMHO, the time to scoot after detection is much less for road transported guns than for helicopter transported ones.

Don't you think the two statements are contradictory? I am saying that Dhanush towed artillery is about 11-12 tons in weight and can be disassembled into 3 parts and carried by helicopters. I don't think the artilleries will be carried from Punjab all the way to Arunachal but just a few kilometres nearby by a quick airlift. So, quick assembling, disassembling can be done and dhanush can be transported. It is better to develop IMRH than pay for M777. Also, the IMRH helicopters will be useful in many other applications too and will serve multiple purpose.

The real use of artillery is to fire barrages of shells to prevent enemy forward movement and not to cause massive destruction. Real destructive power is with MRBL like Pinakas. Investing on M777 at such a high cost just to create salvos defeats the purpose of artillery.

M777 has a big defect in that it can fire for only 25-30km (non RAP or non-excalibur rounds) as its barrel is not strong enough to withstand more pressure. Dhanush can have a range of 38-43km and has a healthy 50% extra range which is significant. Dhanush has APUs to move them for short distance and that is actually enough for the limited battlefield mobility. One does not keep using the aerial assets to move artillery every now and then as aerial assets are needed elsewhere. The M777 lacks APU and its battlefield mobility will be slightly difficult as a result.

The only difference between the two is that Dhanush is heavier than M777 by a few tons if we exclude the fact that Dhanush has added weight of a few tons due to the APUs while M777 has none. So, effective difference in weight for "Dhanush excluding APU" and "M777" might be 6 tons - 4 tons. For all practical purpose, having a M777 artillery for the cost of 31 crore a unit instead of Dhanush at 14 crore a unit makes no sense. It is simply better to buy pinakas if cost is no bar or IMRH helicopters if cost matters. I also doubt the requirement for excessive numbers of lightweight artillery if the range is going to be so poor. It is better to deploy heavier Dhanush 10km back and fire instead of lightweight row range artillery

 

[Adioz]

Don't you think the two statements are contradictory? I am saying that Dhanush towed artillery is about 11-12 tons in weight and can be disassembled into 3 parts and carried by helicopters. I don't think the artilleries will be carried from Punjab all the way to Arunachal but just a few kilometres nearby by a quick airlift. So, quick assembling, disassembling can be done and dhanush can be transported. It is better to develop IMRH than pay for M777. Also, the IMRH helicopters will be useful in many other applications too and will serve multiple purpose.

The real use of artillery is to fire barrages of shells to prevent enemy forward movement and not to cause massive destruction. Real destructive power is with MRBL like Pinakas. Investing on M777 at such a high cost just to create salvos defeats the purpose of artillery.

M777 has a big defect in that it can fire for only 25-30km (non RAP or non-excalibur rounds) as its barrel is not strong enough to withstand more pressure. Dhanush can have a range of 38-43km and has a healthy 50% extra range which is significant. Dhanush has APUs to move them for short distance and that is actually enough for the limited battlefield mobility. One does not keep using the aerial assets to move artillery every now and then as aerial assets are needed elsewhere. The M777 lacks APU and its battlefield mobility will be slightly difficult as a result.

The only difference between the two is that Dhanush is heavier than M777 by a few tons if we exclude the fact that Dhanush has added weight of a few tons due to the APUs while M777 has none. So, effective difference in weight for "Dhanush excluding APU" and "M777" might be 6 tons - 4 tons. For all practical purpose, having a M777 artillery for the cost of 31 crore a unit instead of Dhanush at 14 crore a unit makes no sense. It is simply better to buy pinakas if cost is no bar or IMRH helicopters if cost matters.

As I have said before, I am all for an indigenous howitzer. If you think that the Dhanush without APU can meet the ULH requirement of the Army, then write to OFB. IMHO, even without APU, Dhanush does not meet this requirement. Also, I am not sure that the Dhanush has not been designed for quick dissassembly into air-transportable parts and then quick assembly. This is why I said this earlier:-

• We have the largest Mountain warfare force on the planet with 13 Mountain Divisions that need artillery support and we plan to have 2 more Artillery Divisions to support 2 new Mountain Strike Corps.
• Initially, the requirement for Ultra Light Howitzers (ULH) might be limited to 16 artillery regiments for the two Mountain Strike Corps, but gradually, we need to see an upgradation in the firepower of our defensive Mountain Divs as well.
• Given the number of ULH guns we are looking at, it is prudent to go for an indigenous design. There is ample time before the next Mountain Strike Corps is raised to allow us to come up with an indigenous tried and tested ULH , and the current orders for
• The current order of 145 M-777 will be enough to cater to the raising of the 43rd Artillery Division of the 17-Mountain Strike Corps. I do not see why we need more M-777.

I don't get how my statements are contradictory. All I said was that the Army requires a ULH that can be transported by a medium-lift heli (disassembled). This requirement is for the Mountain Strike Corps. (Although I conjecture that in the future, all mountain formations might raise the same requirement).
This does not mean that the ULH will always move by airlift. In most cases, they will be towed.

Although I have no idea about the APU of Dhanush, I know that the Haubits FH77 APU gives it a speed of about 7 km/h. This is not meant to traverse Gradients or even flat land. It is meant to position the gun once it has been towed in place. This is not good enough for limited mobility.

Artillery barrage is meant for a variety of purposes. I would never say that an artillery barrage does not wreck absolute havoc and cause massive damage to enemy. MRLS have their own place, but the sustained, accurate, heavy volume firepower that tube arty can dish-out is nothing to scoff at. At the correct range, even a battery of 180mm mortars is enough to wet the pants of most enemy soldiers.

However, I do concede that the Dhanush has a longer range than M-777. Maybe we need to try making that indigenous ULH in the 45 calibre as well.

 

[Chinmoy]

Don't you think the two statements are contradictory? I am saying that Dhanush towed artillery is about 11-12 tons in weight and can be disassembled into 3 parts and carried by helicopters. I don't think the artilleries will be carried from Punjab all the way to Arunachal but just a few kilometres nearby by a quick airlift. So, quick assembling, disassembling can be done and dhanush can be transported. It is better to develop IMRH than pay for M777. Also, the IMRH helicopters will be useful in many other applications too and will serve multiple purpose.

The real use of artillery is to fire barrages of shells to prevent enemy forward movement and not to cause massive destruction. Real destructive power is with MRBL like Pinakas. Investing on M777 at such a high cost just to create salvos defeats the purpose of artillery.

M777 has a big defect in that it can fire for only 25-30km (non RAP or non-excalibur rounds) as its barrel is not strong enough to withstand more pressure. Dhanush can have a range of 38-43km and has a healthy 50% extra range which is significant. Dhanush has APUs to move them for short distance and that is actually enough for the limited battlefield mobility. One does not keep using the aerial assets to move artillery every now and then as aerial assets are needed elsewhere. The M777 lacks APU and its battlefield mobility will be slightly difficult as a result.

The only difference between the two is that Dhanush is heavier than M777 by a few tons if we exclude the fact that Dhanush has added weight of a few tons due to the APUs while M777 has none. So, effective difference in weight for "Dhanush excluding APU" and "M777" might be 6 tons - 4 tons. For all practical purpose, having a M777 artillery for the cost of 31 crore a unit instead of Dhanush at 14 crore a unit makes no sense. It is simply better to buy pinakas if cost is no bar or IMRH helicopters if cost matters. I also doubt the requirement for excessive numbers of lightweight artillery if the range is going to be so poor. It is better to deploy heavier Dhanush 10km back and fire instead of lightweight row range artillery

Let me give you a simple glimpse of the sole purpose for which M777 has been ordered for Mountain strike corp especially for eastern theatre. Please do pay attention on this part, "Mountain Strike Corp". When you talk about Strike, it means fast mobility and deployment. Now taking apart a Dhanush or ATAGS and delivering it to front and then losing precious minutes or hours assembling it doesn't fit anywhere in Strike Corp formation. The main point of acquiring M777 is not for transporting it from one end of country to another, but transporting it in battle field during offensive. Towing a 11 ton howitzer for any truck in mountainous region too is no mean feat.

On other hand, the shorter firing range of M777 is because of its caliber, not a weak barrel. With Titanium alloy, it is one of the strongest cannon barrel around.

As far as investing in IMRH is concerned, it is totally different issue. You don't divide the investment of a gun with that of a carrier. IMRH is not simply for gun hauling purpose.

 

[Vijyes]

Let me give you a simple glimpse of the sole purpose for which M777 has been ordered for Mountain strike corp especially for eastern theatre. Please do pay attention on this part, "Mountain Strike Corp". When you talk about Strike, it means fast mobility and deployment. Now taking apart a Dhanush or ATAGS and delivering it to front and then losing precious minutes or hours assembling it doesn't fit anywhere in Strike Corp formation. The main point of acquiring M777 is not for transporting it from one end of country to another, but transporting it in battle field during offensive. Towing a 11 ton howitzer for any truck in mountainous region too is no mean feat.

On other hand, the shorter firing range of M777 is because of its caliber, not a weak barrel. With Titanium alloy, it is one of the strongest cannon barrel around.

As far as investing in IMRH is concerned, it is totally different issue. You don't divide the investment of a gun with that of a carrier. IMRH is not simply for gun hauling purpose.

Are you sure that M777 has the strongest barrel? The calibre is low most probably because it is incapable of firing higher calibre rounds due to weaker barrel. Titanium is not the strongest metal. It is a strong metal with low density. But it may have limits over its strength and in extremely high pressure scenarious like 45/52mm calibre rounds, may fail. I am not sure but just guessing as I believe if that wasn't the case, USA would have opted for better range

 

[Chinmoy]

Are you sure that M777 has the strongest barrel? The calibre is low most probably because it is incapable of firing higher calibre rounds due to weaker barrel. Titanium is not the strongest metal. It is a strong metal with low density. But it may have limits over its strength and in extremely high pressure scenarious like 45/52mm calibre rounds, may fail. I am not sure but just guessing as I believe if that wasn't the case, USA would have opted for better range

M777 fires standard NATO shells like M795. The same shell which are being fired by much heavier M198 gun. The M777 has been made from scratch with keeping weight in mind. That's the very reason why titanium alloy is used. So that it doesn't loose its strength while losing the weight.

 

[Vijyes]

M777 fires standard NATO shells like M795. The same shell which are being fired by much heavier M198 gun. The M777 has been made from scratch with keeping weight in mind. That's the very reason why titanium alloy is used. So that it doesn't loose its strength while losing the weight.

Why didn't USA make 45mm/52mm shell when many countries are using it? It also gives better range. Even the M198 weighed 7.3 tons and is most likely still a relatively lighter towed artillery compared to other artilleries. Also, USA doesn't have APU or other engine to move the artillery on its own power which reduced weight significantly. Even an ordinary car weighs 2 tons. Obviously, making an APU unit and chassis with wheels will weigh more

 

[Adioz]

Why didn't USA make 45mm/52mm shell when many countries are using it? It also gives better range. Even the M198 weighed 7.3 tons and is most likely still a relatively lighter towed artillery compared to other artilleries. Also, USA doesn't have APU or other engine to move the artillery on its own power which reduced weight significantly. Even an ordinary car weighs 2 tons. Obviously, making an APU unit and chassis with wheels will weigh more

There is a M-777ER that weighs just 450 kg more but has a 52 calibre round. Its unsolicited as of now. US has a lot more airlift assets than anyone else. It also requires its military to possess global mobility. All these mean that US requires a lighter gun than its legacy M198. I may be wrong since this is my personal observation but US military over relies on air support insomuch that its artillery, specifically towed artillery is neglected. One thing is for certain, the Americans rely much less on their artillery than we do.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

MI17V5 will be the main workhorse for carrying out artillery guns as whole or in parts ..

It presently moves IFG 105mm ..

 

[Chinmoy]

Why didn't USA make 45mm/52mm shell when many countries are using it? It also gives better range. Even the M198 weighed 7.3 tons and is most likely still a relatively lighter towed artillery compared to other artilleries. Also, USA doesn't have APU or other engine to move the artillery on its own power which reduced weight significantly. Even an ordinary car weighs 2 tons. Obviously, making an APU unit and chassis with wheels will weigh more

Unlike a rifle cartridge, shells fired from a Howitzer doesn't have integrated gun powder and primer to fire it. It does make use of independent charge.

So when you are talking about artillery shell, there is nothing like 52 cal shell or 39 caliber shell. The same shell which could be fired from a 52 cal gun could be fired from a 39 cal gun too. Only difference is the amount of charge used.

Moreover for US, mobility is more important as @Adioz said, then range. So they are into more medium range artillery.

 

[mayfair]

I don't think Dhanush is going to morph into a ULH anytime soon. Kalyani already has a ULH development programme and their prototype is expected to be ready this year. If all goes well, this desi ULH could the future of our light artillery.

 

[Guest]

Any source for above underlined info ?

Nuclear shell part was disclosed by an Ex Army officer who oversaw Army procurement from local suppliers- He mentioned It during a discussion on LokSabha TV- since he is credible person and LSTV is meant to educate MPs the source seems authentic enough- The discussion was on Strategic partnership model I think, you can search for video-

Recently Baba Kalyani also disclosed that ATAGS is the most advanced gun with electronic systems and maximum chamber volume of 27 liters which generates maximum chamber pressure- Normally 155mm guns world over are having 23 liter chamber volume Dhanush has 25 liter- He gave a lecture on this at Aero-India- His video is also available on you tube-

About auto loader part you can see that from the picture of the guns displayed on Republic day parade itself-

 

[airtel]

Trails of M-777
.

 

[bhramos]

Rare video of Kargil war

 

[tharun]

Rare video of Kargil war

We need to increase the automation in target acquiring and sending signals to guns.
The manpower is fantastic,but we can't waste manpower.

 

[Vijyes]

We need to increase the automation in target acquiring and sending signals to guns.
The manpower is fantastic,but we can't waste manpower.

towed artillery is like this. For more accuracy, pinaka is used. Fuel is a problematic thing. Even USA uses towed artillery and not SPG.

 

[tharun]

towed artillery is like this. For more accuracy, pinaka is used. Fuel is a problematic thing. Even USA uses towed artillery and not SPG.

Can you understand what i'm talking about?
Don't just give stupid replies.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I think tharun is talking about a single Gun platform as a complete fire support platform rather a battery of guns ..

towed artillery is like this. For more accuracy, pinaka is used. Fuel is a problematic thing. Even USA uses towed artillery and not SPG.

We need to increase the automation in target acquiring and sending signals to guns.
The manpower is fantastic,but we can't waste manpower.

Can you understand what i'm talking about?
Don't just give stupid replies.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@tharun , this may interest you ..

==============


These days the trend is towards lighter and more airmobile artillery (such as the French Caesar 155mm/52cal. SP gun), and away from the traditional heavy SP guns. That, of course, means lighter armor or no armor, making them nearly as vulnerable as towed artillery. The primary defense for artillery batteries has always been 'shoot and scoot'; remain undetected, fire a quick barrage, then change location before enemy counterbattery fire can destroy you.

The problem is that the threat to artillery batteries is evolving quickly. The reaction time for counter-battery fire is reduced. Counterbattery RADARs can see rising shells and calculate the origin point and pass targeting info to the counter-battery fire unit before the first shells even impact. Also, with the advent of drones and other technological advances in recon and surveillance technology, artillery units are much more likely to be discovered and attacked while in transit or setting up. And enemy airpower is always going to go after artillery batteries as targets of opportunity if it happens across them. In addition, smart weapons used for counterbattery fire (like, say, NLOS) can find and destroy mobile artillery in transit after it has left its recent firing position. And with the increased use of specops teams, artillery units could be a juicy soft target for enemy raiders. The threat to artillery batteries is definitely increasing.

This is obviously going to force a change in defensive tactics and equipment. The possibilities I see are:

- Low observables. The enemy has to find your artillery batteries to destroy them. If mobile artillery can be invisible until they shoot, that would greatly increase their chances of survival on a conventional battlefield. Low IR and RADAR signatures, camouflage, and even lower noise emissions will be required. This can be done both in SP gun vehicle design and improved camo netting. Also, frequency-hopping comms make RDF efforts more difficult.

- Air defense. I think all artillery batteries have at least some organic air defense assigned to them, even if it is just shoulder-fired SAMs. But with drones, stealthy attack aircraft and helos and smart missiles with loiter capability appearing on the battlefield, much more robust air defenses will be a must.

- Counter-counterbattery defense. Since Iron Dome has appeared, the ability to shoot down incoming enemy shells has become a reality. As this technology inevitably becomes cheaper, smaller and lighter, it will likely become an integrated part of the defenses of artillery units.

- Counter-surveillance. The enemy locates batteries using counterbattery RADARs. Giving artillery units an organic capability to jam enemy counterbattery RADAR would be quite useful. Also, since artillery units already operate drones to spot targets, it may be possible to arm some of those drones with anti-radiation missiles to attack enemy defensive and/or counterbattery RADARs the moment they begin emitting. They could even carry jamming pods to jam counterbattery RADARs and comms.

- Increased mobility. The trend towards lighter, cheaper truck-based SP artillery has the unfortunate effect of decreasing the mobility of SP artillery, especially in very heavy terrain. Where there a only a few roads through extreme terrain, wheeled artillery will be far easier for the enemy to find. This also obviously limits where SP artillery can be deployed. The enemy can also cut the few critical roads fairly easily, especially if there are a lot of vital bridges on those roads. Units that can traverse rougher terrain faster will have increased survivability and areas of operation. This does not automatically mean switching back to conventional heavy tracked SP guns. I suspect that other unconventional, cheaper and lighter solutions will appear.

- More sophisticated projectiles. We already have smart projectiles for artillery, but their capabilities are aimed at precision targeting. Imagine if you could fire shells off at an angle away from the target in a position masked by high terrain between you and enemy. The shell immediately changes course to head towards the target, which gives a curved trajectory that, once the shell appears on enemy counterbattery RADAR cannot be ballistically tracked back to the point of origin. And there is no reason we cannot eventually have low observables projectiles with a sabot to protect their anti-RADAR coating from barrel rifling. This kind of technology could make 'shoot and scoot' unnecessary in at least some cases.

- Increased security. Because of the threat of enemy specops teams, I expect to see more organic ground security in the org table of artillery units going forward. Some commandos with just light ATGMs and mortars would wreak havoc on an artillery emplacement. Even a civilian spy with a cellphone sneaking through the woods is a deadly threat. Countering that requires a strong defense perimeter, good local surveillance and aggressive patrolling. That means more resources and troops. Small security drones, terrain sensors and smart mines beingdeployed around the artillery emplacement,and even armed robot sentries may start being a standard part of an artillery unit.


I find the idea of future defensive measures for artillery to be fascinating. In our recent wars, artillerymen have mostly had the luxury of operating in relatively secure areas with little fear of being attacked, except by the occasional not-too-accurate rocket or mortar round. That may well not be the case next time. These are just some ideas I threw out to stimulate discussion of that. I will be interested to hear what experienced 'cannon cockers' have to say, along with everybody else who wishes to comment.

 

[Vijyes]

We need to increase the automation in target acquiring and sending signals to guns.
The manpower is fantastic,but we can't waste manpower.

Can you understand what i'm talking about?
Don't just give stupid replies.

Artillery isn't the 1st wave of attack but only for limited ground wars. Full scale wars need missile strike, aerial bombing and only later after ground invasion, artillery is used for consolidating one's hold and prevent enemy from advancing. Artillery is the weapon that is fired the most because it is cheap, not because they are extremely powerful weapons. Mao's motto: 'Quantity has a quality of its own' is the driving force behind artillery.

Artillery is not meant for accurate targeting. it is for laying huge barrage of fire to prevent enemy from advancing. Artillery s a cheap means of firing and is neither powerful nor accurate but a cheap shots at enemy position. Using automation will make it expensive & unreliable due to high chances of engine burnout, fuel supply problem in the middle of war and so on. With GPS/irnss, location acquiring is accurate to a good extent anyways. Manpower requirement of artillery is 4 but they keep 5 to cycle shift. Also, artillery needs 1 trained man while others can be ignoramus just obeying the experienced guy. Even this isn't a problem as artillery is a defensive weapon which needs an area to be clear first & hence require large troop presence anyways.

Considering the role it has, automation will cause serious issues in economy, issues in fuel supply and defeat the purpose of Artillery.

 

[tharun]

@Kunal Biswas @Vijyes Guys what i'm talking about is not about single gun or a battery or something else.
What i'm talking about is first target acquisition by laser ranger finder like press of a button the co-ordinates of the enemy position should be sent to near by artillery battery and they computer automatically calculates the angle of gun and charge to be loaded without the human intervention.