Indian Army Artillery

[arya]

Modernisation is a process in which no armed forces will be satisfied with what they have, they always look for the tomorrow in the name of state-of -the art technology.

But IA darely need some artillery for the backup process, it is very very badly got it.

artillery if i am not wrong last one was bofors and now our IA is half strength force that the fact we have shortage of officer and weapons

and we are talking about two front defencvie policy

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kunalji ... How many new artillery units does India need as present ?? Are we falling short in any way irrespective of the old systems ??

Cant say how many, but IA purchased 750 M46 during late 70s and early 80s, than in 2002 it was mentioned that it will replace 105mm/122mm by 130mm, yearly 200 m46 guns will be purchased..

If we are still buying than it should be 2000plus 130mmM46 guns..


Disadvantages of 130mm to 155mm..

1. Bigger the Cal bigger the damage.
2. longer range


Our both Friends are fielding 155mm on their border with us, IA cannot retaliate with M46 due to its range hence our arty and soldiers both are in range of their 155mm but they are not in range of our 130mm..

 

[nitesh]

corruption is a part of life here in India. Blacklisting firms is not a solution to it. we blacklisted HDW and see today our navy has no worthy submarines at all. we banned bofors and all the other artillery manufacturers and today we have no modern artillery. regarding the M777 it is still years away from being acquired.

Is this the best you can come up with? So your solution is close the eyes and let corruption continue and waste our hard earned money in to buying duds.

 

[Yusuf]

Boss this is your fantasy theory. I am asking of proof, the artillery acquisition is a sad story continuing, no doubt about that but it does not gives u levy to put unnecessary allegations.

PS: How the M 777 deal is approved then? I think that is also artillery.

The alternate explanation could be like this: Now a days our forces are looking towards joint doctrines where they will co ordinate there collective fire power towards enemy. Hence the concentration towards air borne assets.Those things are going on in brisk pace (Dhruv, Mi17, LCH, LUH, LOH) there is no restrictions being put there neither in terms of numbers or quality. Acquisition of MBRL is in brisk phase (Pinaka and Smerch). Until completely necessary like M777 deal which is approved in brisk phase the acquisition of guns have gone in to low priority. It does not means that these equipments are not required but it means these are not in priority list any more. Hence the emphasis is on home grown product.

Please correct me if I am wrong

I think you are right in your assessment nitesh and i too share the same view. MLRS is gaining increasing importance. May be that is the reason why IA is not going hammer and tongs after the MoD for artillery though it is a necessity.

An MLRS give more firepower per battery than a howitzer with latest rocket systems with different warheads inflicting severe damage. It is easier to transport on trucks as well. Combined that with acquisition of attack choppers, it is giving alternative battlefield firepower that the IA needs.

I dont think the preparedness of the IA against Pakistan is hindered in anyway by not having howitzers. Against china we have ordered for light guns as the terrain dictates it.

 

[Yusuf]

It would be better to have a comparison of the firepower of a howitzer to a modern MLRS.

This is what i have gathered WRT what the US marine corps is thinking and also a comparison to what an MLRS can do and a howitzer. Quoting a few excerpts below.

TITLE: "MLRS": A ROCKET SYSTEM FOR THE MARINE CORPS
I. Purpose: To establish the need for a Marine Corps
General Support Rocket System as well as a concept for
employment of the system after it is acquired.
II. Problem: Although the use of rocket launchers is not
new to the Marine Corps, at present there is no general
support rocket system in its inventory. Due to artillery
force reductiona1 the age of the present general support tube
systems, and the dynamics of the modern battlefield, the
MAGTF commanders are going to require surface-to-surface fire
support which will not be available without the acquisition
of a replacement general support weapon system.
III. Data: The Army presently possesses a Multiple Launch
Rocket System (MLRS) which has proven very versatile and both
operationally and strategically mobile. The massing and
shock firepower capabilities of this system are very
beneficial to the maneuver commander when considering that
most enemy forces the Marine Corps could face will be
equipped with rocket launchers and mechanized or armored
forces spread over great distances. The maneuver commander
requires a system to take advantage of new target acquisition
capabilities, to expand his area of influence, and to provide
counterfire and interdiction of enemy second echelon forces.
The Marine Corps MAGTF Master Plan establishes the
requirement for a general support weapon system with a range
of 40 kilometers. The currently fielded MLRS presently
approaches that range, and, with the advent of new
experimental munitions, will more than double it, thereby
allowing the maneuver commander to expand his area of
influence without total reliance on valuable air assets. The
MLRS provides the support required to prosecute Maneuver
Warfare.
IV. Conclusions: The Army MLRS is an "off-the-shelf,"
expeditionary system which meets the needs and requirements
of the Marine Corps extremely well. While there are some
significant disadvantages, not the least of which is cost,
there are many advantages which provide the maneuver
commander a strategically mobile system with more combat
power over a greater range than he has heretofore known. It
is a weapon ideally suited to expanding th. MAGTF commander's
area of influence and destroying enemy cohesion by applying
firepower at the proper place and time.
V. Recommendations: While the Marine Corps is presently
considering acquisition of the MLRS, the decision must be
finalized and the system purchased to replace the aging
203-mm howitzer on a one-for-one basis. The advantages of
the system and overall increase in firepower will far
outweigh the initial procurement cost.

Following developmental testing, the Army acquired the
MLRS in 1981 (10:1). Around the same time period Marine
interest was centered upon the Field Artillery Rocket System
(FARS), 5-inch Zuni rocket pods mounted on a trailer (5:59),
and the Hydra, a system incorporating pods of 2.75-inch
rockets (21:1 and 2). Although accused by individuals as
"misguided interest" (5:59), a real need for a mass
destruction weapon system was perceived in the Marine
Corps. Unfortunately, short range and lethality raised
questions that resulted in the Marines' decision to drop the
FARS and Hydra (21:1 and 2). In the mean time, the Army
culminated its efforts in the early `80's by awarding a
contract and acquiring the MLRS. The need for a rocket
system of this type was recognized by the Marine Corps at
this time, but remained unfulfilled (6:10 through 12).
Before continuing, a description of the system the Army
acquired is in order. The MLRS is a tracked,
self-propelled, all-weather, rocket system capable of
launching twelve 227 millimeter rockets in a single ripple
of approximately 60 seconds, or engaging targets
individually with a single rocket. The armored
Self-Propelled Loader-Launcher (SPLL) is operated by a crew
of three men and provides an automated positioning and
firing capability. Its on-board communications system and
fire-direction computer are digital, and provide a burst
transmission link to higher and adjacent headquarters. It
is produced by the LTV Corporation and is presently able to
deliver 644 (M77) anti-material/anti-personnel grenades
(Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) per rocket.
It is air transportable by both the C-141 and C-5A
aircraft. It is highly mobile and is designed to augment
cannon artillery in its suppression, counterfire and
interdiction roles. It may be used in the general support
(GS), general support-reinforcing (GSR), or reinforcing (R)
role as an indirect fire area artillery weapon system. The
inherent responsibilities of each of these missions are
similar to those for tube artillery (11:1-12). It will
provide additional firepower while freeing tube artillery
units for the direct support (DS) role (3:2-4 through
2-14). Its present range is 30+ kilometers (unclassified),
but with the advent of munitions currently undergoing
development, its range will increase to 100+ kilometers.
While this presents a brief summary of some of the system
characteristics, more will be presented as the paper
progresses and the system is discussed.
The Army is presently organized utilizing the MLRS
battalion (3 batteries of 9 launchers each) as a corps
asset, either independently deployed or attached to a field
artillery brigade within the corps. The battalion is
organized to provide rocket fires in support of the corps,
as well as to reinforce other corps artillery units. In
addition, an MLRS battery (9 launchers) is organic to the
divisional artillery (DIVARTY) of the Army's heavy divisions
(mechanized and armored). This provides general support
fires for the division. The batteries which are organic to
the DIVARTY are virtually identical to those within a Corps
MLRS battalion (13:2-1 through 2-5).
The concept for employment of the MLRS is GS and GSR at
the DIVARTY level while the battalion can be used in a R,
GSR, or GS role at the Corps level. It can be used not only
for the attack of deep, high payoff targets, but also to
augment tube artillery suppression of enemy air defense,
counterfire, and interdiction (13:4-0 through 4-1). Its
value in augmenting tube artillery by providing additional
firepower is made evident when considering that one rocket
with 644 submunitions equals 7.3 rounds of 155-mm (88
submunitions per round) or 3.5 rounds of 203-mm (182
submunitions per round) (3:13-5). This equates to a single
launcher with 12 rockets equalling or exceeding the massed
firepower (one round per tube) of 11 batteries of 155-mm
howitzers or 7 batteries of 203-mm howitzers. While the
overall concept is to augment the fires of tube artillery,
it must be noted here that the 203-mm howitzer is reaching
the end of its service life. It is the intent of the Army
to eventually replace all 203-mm howitzers with MLRS

Another point to consider is the current age of Marine
Corps general support weapons systems. While the 155-mm
self-propelled howitzer will probably remain in both the
Army and Marine Corps inventories for some years to come,
since it is the mainstay of artillery support for Army heavy
divisions and provides needed self-propelled support for the
Marine Corps, the same cannot be said for the 203-mm. The
Army has opted not to extend the service life of that system
and in the very near future the Marine Corps will find the
logistics base for it ceasing to exist. The logistics base
for the 155-mm will remain open through the Army, but the
Marine Corps cannot afford to develop its own logistics base
for the 203-mm by becoming the primary inventory control
agency for it. This indicates that the Marine Corps may run
into the same problem now faced with the 105-mm howitzer;
that is, trying to maintain it as a logistically supportable
weapon system. In light of the disappearance of one GS
battalion per regiment, as well as current tube artillery
reductions in the remaining GS battalions, the Marine Corps
cannot afford further reductions due to aging weapons
systems. A replacement must be considered now for the
203-mm howitzer. A bold and aggressive use of the artillery
available by means of flexible command and control and
organizations for combat will temporarily diminish the
problem, but long-term considerations for additional fire
support must be addressed. A possible solution to these
problems is the acquisition of the Army MLRS as a
replacement GS system.

While the disadvantages are significant and must be
considered in light of possible acquisition, there are many
advantages to the current MLRS fielded by the Army.
Foremost among these is mobility. The M270 MLRS is a
tracked vehicle, providing much greater cross-country
mobility, and speed in displacement for survivability than
current towed weapon systems. The M270 is lighter and
smaller than the present 155-mm or 203-mm self-propelled
tube systems (3:3-3), which contributes to its compatibility
with all present landing craft and the LCAC (Landing Craft,
Air Cushion). In addition, it is capable of being airlifted
by both the C-141 and C-5A aircraft, making its strategic
mobility a point of considerable interest. The ammunition
weight and cube are similar to that of the present 203-mm
howitzer (10:5) which keeps it compatible with the present
amphibious lift capability. In addition, the on-board fire
control computer and navigation system allow for individual
launcher employment or the massing of the fires of several
launchers.
The advantage of increased lethality available with the
MLRS has already been mentioned. This increased killing
power is due largely to the numerous and diverse types of
munitions available and under development for the system.
At present, the M77 rocket fired by the MLRS delivers DPICM
to a range of 32 kilometers. The MAGTF Master Plan (19:Sec
7:30) calls for increased capabilities for counterfire and
the development of a GS system with a range of 40
kilometers. The MLRS approaches this now. At present, tube
artillery is capable of ranging 30 kilometers, but maximum
charges fired to achieve this contribute heavily to tube
wear. Developmental warheads for the MLRS include
scatterable mines, terminally guided warheads, seek-and-
destroy armor (SADARM), and chemical munitions. However,
the most significant developmental munition is the Army
Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which would extend the
range to 100+ kilometers. While only two missiles per
launcher can be employed, literally no launcher modification
is required, and the capability of the system in terms of
depth of attack will be markedly increased.

Finally, there would be a significant manpower savings
with the adoption of the MLRS. In these days of tight
budgets and manpower reductions, this could provide some
welcome relief and allow the excess personnel to be assigned
elsewhere. The battery structure proposed by Major Mazzara
(5:58) calls for 5 officers and 71 enlisted (a crew of 3 is
required to operate the launcher). This is similar to the
Army internal launcher organization and is workable from a
Marine Corps standpoint. When compared to the present
203-mm battery of 5 officers and 105 enlisted, a significant
manpower reduction becomes evident. A one-for-one
replacement with the present 203-mm would result in the
significant decrease of 136 personnel in the overall
artillery force structure. Additional support personnel
would not be deemed necessary.
When looking at a numbers comparison only, the
advantages definitely outweigh the disadvantages. However,
if the MLRS were acquired, the Marine Corps must still
determine how it will be employed. Since the considerations
following acquisition are still in their infancy, a possible
method of employment for the Marine Corps requires
development.

more over here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/MCW.htm

 

[171K]

Artillery is the god of war - Stalin

God fights on the side with the best artillery - Napoleon

Artillery conquers and infantry occupies - J.F.C Fuller

In many situations that seemed desperate, the artillery has been the most vital factor - Gen Douglas MacArther

I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did - Gen Patton

The harder the fighting, the longer the war, the more the infantry, and infact all the arms, lean on their gunners - Field Marshal Montgomery

The World War demonstrated the importance of field artillery. The majority of casualities were inflicted by the arm - Gen. J J Pershing

Hell.....even India's current General....Gen Singh has said IF India wants to win wars we NEED artillery in big numbers !!! I hope your beloved leadership are listening!

 

[Yusuf]

MLRS is also artillery. .....

 

[171K]

MLRS is also artillery. .....

Yes it is, but India only has limited numbers in service, any plans to acquire new systems? Are u aware of Israeli LYNX? Any chance for India to acquire this system?

 

[Yusuf]

If you read the comparison i gave earlier, an MLRS is more effective than a howitzer. It is able to fire a variety of munitions. India has its own system called Pinaka and Russian Smerch.

 

[171K]

If you read the comparison i gave earlier, an MLRS is more effective than a howitzer. It is able to fire a variety of munitions. India has its own system called Pinaka and Russian Smerch.

Yes, read the comparison. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying at the present time for a million plus army, u got only limited numbers.


Any chance for India to get this? And any plans to buy more Smerch or Pinaka?

 

[171K]

 

[plugwater]

Yes, read the comparison. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying at the present time for a million plus army, u got only limited numbers.


Any chance for India to get this? And any plans to buy more Smerch or Pinaka?

There are no plans to import Smerch or any other system. DRDO is making a long range MBRL in the class of smerch .

 

[Agantrope]

Yes, read the comparison. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying at the present time for a million plus army, u got only limited numbers.


Any chance for India to get this? And any plans to buy more Smerch or Pinaka?

I think india already were in the process of getting the LORA missile from the Israel in 2008 (not sure), Also there were talks to procure the Iskander-E missiles

LORA (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[prateikf]

MLRS has its own importance so do howitzers. does anyone think that 80 pinakas and 64 smerch would be enough to fill the gap of 3600 155mm howitzers? the paki army also has the chinese copy of Smerch besides they have they more then 500 latest tracked and self propelled howitzers with a 50+km range. what do we have? only a blacklist of artillery manufacturers.
even bangladesh has acquired the Chinese PLZ-45 SPH.

 

[arya]

well how badly we will loss any future war i cant say in words without artillery our force is like lion without teeth

 

[prateikf]

'An Indian gun will bypass difficult trials'


Business Standard has reported (July 29, "155 mm gun purchase: DRDO enters the fray") that DRDO is joining hands with a private sector company to develop and manufacture an Indian gun. Now, DRDO Director General V K Saraswat has explained the rationale for the DRDO decision. He says that, amongst the foreign guns on offer, there is no clear winner. And given the cutthroat nature of competition for this Rs 8,000-crore contract for 1,580 guns, a drumbeat of corruption allegations will keep derailing any decision.

Saraswat told Business Standard, "The differences (between competing guns) are minuscule and people would like to exploit those minuscule differences"¦ and (the defence ministry's) life becomes more difficult. The (acquisition) process is today back to zero. This is not the first time it has come to zero; this has happened before"¦ So, it is better to develop your own system."

 

[Armand2REP]

Yes, read the comparison. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying at the present time for a million plus army, u got only limited numbers.


Any chance for India to get this?

Why would you want it? Doesn't look like it can hit the broadside of a barn at 5km.

 

[arya]

govt can increase MP salary more then 300% but they dont money for force

lacking officer in Indian force

retried offer asking for one rank one salary

shortage of artillery gun, fighter planes only half force is ready for war

god help this nation

 

[arya]

if i am not wrong we have just 3 self propelled artillery guns regiment while china and even Pakistan has more

 

[gogbot]

govt can increase MP salary more then 300% but they dont money for force

Believe it or not MP salary was long due for an increase.
While most of them are babu's who will bleed the nation dry.

There are a few who legitimately , have trouble managing on Rs-16,000 . Your have to pay your staff through your own pockets.

If ever want honest and proper politicians , we need to make it more accessible to more people then the wealthy.

This is a very small step towards that.

I am not naive , i know in the short term this bill was passed only so that Babu's can bleed more cash.
But there has also been a legitimate need for an increase in salary as well.

lacking officer in Indian force

What can be done , private sector is far more desirable then military positions.
There is too much demand and Air force is having trouble attracting enough people.

There are many causes for this , not just Air force pay and life style.
The Raw increase in demand for educated workforce.
Lack of interest in military service
Not enough people entering and exiting the education system

retried offer asking for one rank one salary

I don't even know what your trying to make here.
People are entitled to question or ask for such things. It is up to government to decide on them.

shortage of artillery gun, fighter planes only half force is ready for war

Corruption in Army and MOD , with bofors scandal hovering over everyone.
What can be done ?

At least not they are making our own gun.

Air force is getting Hundreds of new fighter aircraft,
Name me other nations that are acquiring so many aircraft in one decade.

god help this nation

We should help ourselves ,
rather then always asking for this to be done and this and that.