# Indian Artillery meets Monty Python



## Colin Parkinson

I sense that we are losing the "drill gap"
http://www.military.com/video/guns/howitzers/indian-armys-new-155mm-howitzer/1737980611001/

I have to say I do like the APU driven gun


----------



## Edward Campbell

Neat gun, I like the power, too ... but the drill is "over the top!"


----------



## a_majoor

These guys would fit right in at the Wagah border ceremony. Add a little Artillery flair to the proceedings....


----------



## Old Sweat

Leaving aside the funny drill, we had looked at a Swedish 155mm howitzer, the FH77 if I recall correctly, in the mid-70s along with the US M198 and another contender - FH70 or something like that. In the end we bought more M109s. The advantage of the APU was that supposedly you could reduce the size of the gun detachment. 

The Indians bought 420 FH77s and are upgrading them with a longer barre, etc. It looks like the howitzer in the clip is the upgraded version which is supposed to enter service next year.

And for something really mind boggling, here is a link to the wiki story of the scandal over the wide scale bribes paid to Indian politicians, including the PM, to ensure the Swedish system was purchased. Truly Pythonesque!

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


----------



## cavalryman

Question for the gunners out there.  That loading system they have seems to allow them to pump out three rounds on target rather quickly.  Seeing as the last time I was close to a gun line was almost 25 years ago, I have absolutely no frame of reference as to whether this is an advantage over how we loaded the M109 (or load the  M777 nowadays for that matter) or is it simply more gadgetry to break.  Opinions from folks who know about this stuff?


----------



## Allgunzblazing

If I'm not mistaken, these guns were first introduced in the "Medium Regiments" of the Indian Army in the 80s. There was a huge scandal because there were allegations that Bofors AB had given bribes to some top ranking politicians (including the PM) for securing the deal. I was just a little kid at the time and knew nothing of the scandal. All I knew was that there was a brand new gun in the army and the medium regiment on base was given the first of these. The CO of the regiment was more than willing to oblige us kids and arranged for us to be given a demo, quite similar to what is shown in the video. Some of the kids were even allowed to tag along for a day when the unit went to the ranges for firing live rounds. 

EDIT: Old Sweat, I missed reading your reference to the Bofors Scandal before posting. LOL, Indian politicians are a unique breed in themselves. There might be some honest ones, but the majority of them are extremely corrupt. It beats me how someone can have billions upon billions of ill-gotten wealth and still be hungry for more.


----------



## Petard

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Question for the gunners out there.  That loading system they have seems to allow them to pump out three rounds on target rather quickly.  Seeing as the last time I was close to a gun line was almost 25 years ago, I have absolutely no frame of reference as to whether this is an advantage over how we loaded the M109 (or load the  M777 nowadays for that matter) or is it simply more gadgetry to break.  Opinions from folks who know about this stuff?



The gun, as old sweat has pointed out, is an old design, this load thingy doesn't seem to add much, except sustainment costs
From a practical point of view, it is useful to have something mechanical to aid loading for sustained fire, but there has got to be a better way to get that done without all that damned movement (and I'm not talking about all that ridiculous jumping and hopping around). 

The M109 had a relatively robust loading system, and could still work even if the hydraulics were down, but sustained fire was another thing. Anyone who served "back in the day" when there were fire plans with real rates of fire, know that it doesn't take long before it gets very tiring to keep that gun fed

The M198 is another story all together, a tray with the bullet held up to the breech by 2 gunners while two others rammed it in: hard to break the brute strength and endurance that would come out of doing that a lot, but you wouldn't want to be doing it a lot either

The M777 has the breech so far up that it does require some loading aid. The M777's breech operating and loading system looks a bit complicated too, but it certainly isn't as over engineered as this system seen on this "newer" version of the FH77. M777 system will still work if the hydraulics fail, something the FH77 looks like it would have a problem with

The idea of long sustained fire, or even rapid multiple round fire for that matter, is debatable anyway. With more accurate laying systems and precision guided munitions, the situations when sustained fire is needed are less likely. So the need for a complex loading system isn't as great. 
The reason FH77 is so big, is to support a long (45 cal) barrel and, from that, get longer range. But even there, all that carriage weight to support it and give stability is a somewhat outdated idea. Better gun and ammunition design fired out of a lighter shorter barrel is a relatively more effective solution to get that range.


----------



## GnyHwy

Figured I post here to see what kind of reaction it gets.  It's not doing to well on the Facebook posts.

I think it's an interesting concept, but likely designed by a bunch of really smart engineers, and very few actual Artilleryman.

http://www.military.com/video/guns/howitzers/indian-armys-new-155mm-howitzer/1737980611001/


----------



## JorgSlice

Hahaha, I was more concentrated on the hilarious drill orchestration for the whole display! Funny stuff!

Now on the topic of the howitzer.... It looks very, well, dinky. It looks as if it would fall apart after the first 100 rounds in it's initial service. The auto-loading, "burst fire" system is pretty cool though, although I think our current M777 crews could probably load rounds faster and have them away to target than it would take their crew to use that ridiculous crane thing.


----------



## PMedMoe

Already here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106746.0.html


----------



## Journeyman

JorgSlice said:
			
		

> Now on the topic of the howitzer.... It looks very, well, dinky. It looks as if it would fall apart after the first 100 rounds in it's initial service. The auto-loading, "burst fire" system is pretty cool though, although I think our current M777 crews could probably load rounds faster and have them away to target than it would take their crew to use that ridiculous crane thing.


Which begs the question, is your opinion based on extensive experience as a Gunner or in weapons' engineering?

I ask only because there was a recent thread in which you derailed the discussion by demonstrating a flawed grasp of Paramedic pay scales. Nothing learned?    :not-again:


Once again, _informed_ opinions add much value to this site....


----------



## JorgSlice

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Which begs the question, is your opinion based on extensive experience as a Gunner or in weapons' engineering?
> 
> I ask only because there was a recent thread in which you derailed the discussion by demonstrating a flawed grasp of Paramedic pay scales. Nothing learned?    :not-again:
> 
> 
> Once again, _informed_ opinions add much value to this site....



I did say "I think..." and "...could..." based on my observations. Is it so wrong, for someone to just go along with the discussion without tearing one apart? I have a never-ending desire to learn as much as I can, is it so hard and a taboo as (former) members of the CF, some of which are mentors, instructors and such (including of this site) to just say "Well, as a matter of fact here's the numbers as to how quickly our crews of X number of members can deploy Y number of round on target Z - compared to the system displayed above"  ??? I'm not trying to alter time and space and the operations of the site, I was (despite lack of a question mark) actually asking a question in a way.

Now, after reading the other link and learning that the system is indeed an old one and has been put to the test, I retract my above post and will simply sit back and laugh at their funny drill. 

Cheers.


----------



## Journeyman

My post _was_ mentoring. 

Would it not have been more beneficial, and less traumatic, for you to have read the other thread and done any other research, so that you could provide an _informed_ opinion in the first place?

Does it not seem as though there would be less "tearing posts apart" if people thought before posting, and [radical idea follows] if it's outside of their lane, perhaps reading quietly along and learn rather than post merely for the sake of upping their MilPoint total?

:dunno:


I assure you, it's not personal.


----------



## JorgSlice

Journeyman said:
			
		

> My post _was_ mentoring.
> 
> Would it not have been more beneficial, and less traumatic, for you to have read the other thread and done any other research, so that you could provide an _informed_ opinion in the first place?
> 
> Does it not seem as though there would be less "tearing posts apart" if people thought before posting, and [radical idea follows] if it's outside of their lane, perhaps reading quietly along and learn rather than post merely for the sake of upping their MilPoint total?
> 
> :dunno:
> 
> 
> I assure you, it's not personal.


Noted.


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ............if it's outside of their lane, perhaps reading quietly along and learn rather than post merely for the sake of upping their MilPoint total?




Might also read up on what it means to be "inside/outside your lanes" and what "within your arcs" means as well.


----------



## Journeyman

Agreed George.

But I guess the point I was trying to get across is, there are some sections that I know several of us try to ignore -- primarily Recruiting and Cadets. As well, stuff in Radio Chatter has fewer parameters. But if someone is going to wade into the specific arms, specific operations, or (in most cases : ) politics/international relations and post unsubstantiated fluff, there's an increased likelihood that they're going to get called on it.

Asking for informed posts is part of the effort to keep the site's quality a little bit higher.

Like the online gambling sites say, "know your limits and play within them."


----------



## R031button

Question for the Gunners actually. What is the practical application of smaller gun crews? I mean in trades that are so attached to the weapon system ( Armd and Arty, Mech Inf as well I suppose) does that really provide any benefit when doctrine states x guns per troop x troops per battery? Just a question of idle curiosity.


----------



## Old Sweat

I am not current by any stretch of the imagination, but when we looked at this howitzer back in the 1970s one of its "advantages" was the smaller gun detachment. That makes it attractive to the bean counters and those who have to fit too few people into too many slots. However and there always is an however, the auxillary power unit cannot replace gun numbers when there is ammunition to be humped, or maintenance to be done or sentry posts to be manned or holes in the organization caused by HLTA to be filled. Simply, there is no magic solution that exists anywhere except in brochures.

Mods, this could usefully be merged with the other thread where Petard has posted an excellent discussion of issued related to this howitzer.


----------



## Petard

About 2008 a sales show for the Swedish Archer came to the Artillery School, extolling how far ahead they were with their all automated approach
One of their big selling points was the minimal crew (3)

During the Q & A the audience of gunners basically dog piled the sales reps about the same issues Old Sweat has mentioned, as well as the lack of any manual back ups. It was almost becoming a feeding frenzy when the CIG did an intervention and summed it up 

Reducing the gun detachment, by automating the gun more, might seem like it would free up those soldiers for other tasks, but as was alluded to, its highly unlikely those PY's would remain with the gun Bty or even the artillery

Some automation is ok, so long as there is enough redundancy in the design to keep the gun working when all that fancy smancy stuff breaks; that's why you need more than just 2 or 3 to deal with that situation as well. There's also the question of how to sustain Ops and maintains this thing 24/7, weeks on end, when you have only 2 or 3 soldiers with it

There is a need for depth of troops around even a very automated gun. 
Something that was never quite sorted out with the XM1203 NLOS-C either


----------



## GnyHwy

I certainly concur with OS and Petard.  

Since we are talking about manning, I will add that, I see this just like the Armd manning Inf turrets.  Armd troops manning Inf turrets, and Inf troops manning Arty local defences seem logical to me; the best man for the job.  I understand that sounds much like the OBG (which I don't think will work because of training and/or career progression), but if it could be done would be beneficial for all.

Small gun dets can only work if you have complete freedom of movement, which cannot be guaranteed, at least in any environment that we can expect.  If pers are injured, fatigued, or displaced for whatever reason, a small gun det will fail.

Taking pieces and ideas from a script I read somewhere else... "if the guns are silent, you had better have won, because if you haven't, you have lost".

OS, maybe you can help me with where I got that from.


----------



## Old Sweat

This is the first time I have seen the quotation, but it falls into the "I wish I had written that" category.

Now, to get back to the gun detachment issue, the voice on the PA on the clip mentioned an eight man detachment. That seems pretty well to negate the huge savings from the use of an APU argument. Eight is still none too many, especially if we put it in the Canadian context with an austere gun position with a troop responsible for its own defence and providing direct support. (You probably raise the eight to ten by using the drivers of the gun tractor and the TLAV that carried most of the detachment.) Let's send one gunner on leave and have one sick and one or two on sentry and we are talking a six or seven member detachment for 24/7/365 operations. Duties in action (we identify gun numbers by number, which  . . circular argument): 1 commands the detachment; 2 operates the breech and fires the howitzer; 3 sets the sights and lays the howitzer; 4 and 5 put the projectile on the tray and ram it; 6 loads the propelling charge; and 7 along with 4-6 prepare ammunition.

Put that in the context of a quick fire plan to support a company attack with two or three serials including both smoke and proximity fuzed rounds along with basic HE impact fuzes. There's an awful lot of scrambling before the fire plan starts to prepare and lay out the rounds and propelling charges for each target on the fire plan and then the detachment has to maintain the ordered rate and exact duration of fire for each target. Tell me how an APU really adds anything to this equation. Better yet, try it with three gun numbers even with automatic loading.


----------



## George Wallace

As well, when that APU breaks down at the worse of all moments (Murphy's Law), how much extra weight do the Gun Members now have to contend with?


----------



## fraserdw

The equipment is old and dates from a time when M114 was king of the towed 155s.  As noted by others the APU can actually be disadvantage even if a manual back up system is employed the weight of the APU has to be considered when using the manual system.  An APU is also one more infernal (yes I mean infernal) combustion engine for the battery to maintain.  Big, maintainence intensive and expensive, but back then a leap forward for towed equipment.  Give me an SP, indeed Pz H 2000 please, it's the 21st century!


----------



## Old Sweat

The extra weight is probably immaterial in most circumstances. If the howitzer has to be realigned towards a target outside the on-carriage traverse, the detachment has to perform a procedure called "take post to lay." Without getting too technical, it involves manhandling the spades out of the pits they have dug themselves in by firing and shifting the trails to point the barrel at the new target. A trick that makes it easier - which is an oxymoron as it is never easy - is to have a gun number hang on the front of the barrel. By basic physics this takes a lot of weight off the trails and Bob's your uncle.

With an APU, it would first pull the spades out of their pits, the detachment would then lift the trails and lower the auxillary wheels and the operator would move the barrel to the new alignment. Up go the wheels and the detachment then lowers the trails. Does this really justify an APU? More important, how do you do this with a two or three man/woman detachment?


----------



## fraserdw

Yes, I got some arty time myself.  What I am staying is that if the APU broke, the extra weight of the APU is going to make it near impossible for a reduced det, even with 2 members playing monkey on the end of the barrel, to manually move the piece.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The extra weight is probably immaterial in most circumstances. If the howitzer has to be realigned towards a target outside the on-carriage traverse, the detachment has to perform a procedure called "take post to lay." Without getting too technical, it involves manhandling the spades out of the pits they have dug themselves in by firing and shifting the trails to point the barrel at the new target. A trick that makes it easier - which is an oxymoron as it is never easy - is to have a gun number hang on the front of the barrel. By basic physics this takes a lot of weight off the trails and Bob's your uncle.
> 
> With an APU, it would first pull the spades out of their pits, the detachment would then lift the trails and lower the auxillary wheels and the operator would move the barrel to the new alignment. Up go the wheels and the detachment then lowers the trails. Does this really justify an APU? More important, how do you do this with a two or three man/woman detachment?



Would hanging off the barrel not affect the ways?


----------



## George Wallace

When I was a Gunner, Hanging off the Queen's Colours meant several laps of the parade Square holding the Hand Spike above our heads.     >


----------



## Old Sweat

We're talking about when moving the gun in action, aka manhandling. I first encountered this as a recruit in the RCA Depot. Our detachment was manhandling a 105 C1 over a field and we came to a difficult patch. It was hard going on the soft prairie soil and the AIG drapped himself over the muzzle end of the barrel. This application of basic leverage took almost all the weight off the trails and the No 1 was able to get us through the patch by having 2 and 3 alternate applying the brake to each wheel while the rest of us pushed the opposite trail.

Believe me. It is legal and it works. It also probably dates back to the black powder days.

And George, you are correct that anybody who would sit on or lean on the Colours in garrison would be shat on from high.


----------



## fraserdw

The gun in question is almost 3 times the weight of the C1.  Regardless, towed artillery is doctrinally obsolete unless you are fight illiterates with AKs OR you have 100% air superiority 100% of the time and the other side has no modern counter-battery detection ability.  Pz H 2000 please!


----------



## George Wallace

The C1 was a very good design with a "center of gravity" that allowed for it to be manhandled easily. 

I would assume (there is that word) that the majority of towed artillery are as well designed.

As for towed artillery being obsolete, I would debate that.  Yes I would love to see us have SPGs, but we have an excellent gun in the M777.  One advantage of towed arty, is that when the prime mover is not functioning (mechanical breakdown, battle damage, whatever), another prime mover can replace it and the gun can be moved and put into action somewhere else.  With a SPG, although maneuverable, if its engine, transmission or suspension are out of action, so is the gun for the most part.


----------



## GnyHwy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When I was a Gunner, Hanging off the Queen's Colours meant several laps of the parade Square holding the Hand Spike above our heads.     >



Or the duck walk with the handspike above your head.  Come to think of it, that may look good along side that crazy drill their doing.


----------



## Old Sweat

fraserdw said:
			
		

> The gun in question is almost 3 times the weight of the C1.  Regardless, towed artillery is doctrinally obsolete unless you are fight illiterates with AKs OR you have 100% air superiority 100% of the time and the other side has no modern counter-battery detection ability.  Pz H 2000 please!



Indeed it is, as was the 155mm towed howitzer that served in the RCA for ten years. As an officer cadet I was a member of a gun detachment on several occasions and it is brutally hard work, but it can be done. (I also was put in charge of bringing the M109s in the RCSA Shilo into service in 1968 and then trained several hundred people ranging from full colonel to "TQ 3 gunners" on it, and can get misty eyed about SPs if you plie me with strong or even weak drink.

As for your other argument re the threat, could you come up with a scenario that fits your paramaters? Anything is possible, I guess, but current projections suggest that your possible threat is unlikely.

And last, I had a long interview with the gentleman who was the BSM E Battery on TF 3-06 (and picked up a MSM and a MiD) on the tour. He had experience with the Pz H 2000 as a platoon of Dutch SPs was attached to his battery during Medusa. According to him, there were some serviceability difficulties with these howizers during the operation - no slur intended towards our Dutch allies - as these were equipment related. 

Let's not turn this into a dick measuring contest and agree to disagree.


----------



## fraserdw

You mistake the level of interest I have in the issue.  I have no need to measure anything.  I am stating current Artillery doctrinal discussions nothing more.  As to Pz H 2000 in the sandbox, yeah I bet, like AH64 in Gulf War 1 they are designed for NW Europe.  The sandbox is probably very hard on them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry, my question about the ways was serious. I had to move two guns off a flat bed one time, after asking the Arty innumerable times over a number of days, by slinging it. I put the strap under the ways and trails, having some idea how the gun worked. The trailer was costing us about $500.00 a day for sitting there with the guns on it.

I was accosted by an Arty Sgt for doing so and received a lengthy lecture on the delicacy of said ways. 

When all was said and done, it would seem that I had unloaded it exactly the way they (the Arty) would have done it.

I know we used to shyte all over any crew member that decided to hang off the end of our tank gun.

I'm just trying to understand why this would be different while shifting a POA on an arty piece, by hanging off of the barrel.

But, I guess if an AIG does it, then it's OK.


----------



## Old Sweat

I am not sure what you mean when referring to "ways" but when rigging for a helicopter move, as far as I can remember, we used three points - one on each trail and one somehwere forward of the shields (I can't remember whether it was on the tube or the carriage) - to attach the sling. If you did something similar, I can't see what the beef was about.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A trick that makes it easier - which is an oxymoron as it is never easy - is to have a gun number hang on the front of the barrel. By basic physics this takes a lot of weight off the trails and Bob's your uncle.



We do that all the time when moving our guns (C2/C3's) in and out of the barn........ Wonder if it is the same with the LG-1's?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I am not sure what you mean when referring to "ways" but when rigging for a helicopter move, as far as I can remember, we used three points - one on each trail and one somehwere forward of the shields (I can't remember whether it was on the tube or the carriage) - to attach the sling. If you did something similar, I can't see what the beef was about.



The ways are the rails on the carriage that the gun slides back and forth on. Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology for guns. On machines they're called ways.


----------



## Old Sweat

recceguy said:
			
		

> The ways are the rails on the carriage that the gun slides back and forth on. Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology for guns. On machines they're called ways.



We call them slides, I believe. They and the equivalent parts of the recoiling mass are made of dissimilar metals, if this will help confirm we are talking about the same bits.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We call them slides, I believe. They and the equivalent parts of the recoiling mass are made of dissimilar metals, if this will help confirm we are talking about the same bits.



Thanks OS, that sounds like them.


----------



## Petard

Recce Guy, I can understand the gunners apprehension for someone trying to sling a gun without checking how its supposed to be done. In 2007 I seen an M777 damaged and put out of action for months, at the worst possible time, all because somebody didn't bother to check how the gun should be properly secured to a low bed   
The old C3's are particularly vulnerable to tension/compression failure about the slides, or ways, as was recently seen in Gagetown

As for them letting it sit there that long before getting off their duff's, well, I dunno

Back to subject gun in the video; given the mass of that thing, it would be a beast to manhandle, even with the APU working, and watching all that prancing around doesn't make it look any better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hP9-qnAxk


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Indeed it is, as was the 155mm towed howitzer that served in the RCA for ten years. As an officer cadet I was a member of a gun detachment on several occasions and it is brutally hard work, but it can be done. (I also was put in charge of bringing the M109s in the RCSA Shilo into service in 1968 and then trained several hundred people ranging from full colonel to "TQ 3 gunners" on it, and can get misty eyed about SPs if you plie me with strong or even weak drink.
> 
> As for your other argument re the threat, could you come up with a scenario that fits your paramaters? Anything is possible, I guess, but current projections suggest that your possible threat is unlikely.
> 
> And last, I had a long interview with the gentleman who was the BSM E Battery on TF 3-06 (and picked up a MSM and a MiD) on the tour. He had experience with the Pz H 2000 as a platoon of Dutch SPs was attached to his battery during Medusa. According to him, there were some serviceability difficulties with these howizers during the operation - no slur intended towards our Dutch allies - as these were equipment related.
> 
> Let's not turn this into a dick measuring contest and agree to disagree.



I seen those in person with my old WO, who muttered something about a "Pig". the old C1 was fairly easy to handle and we used to have contests to see which gun detachment could walk their gun over rough terrain the quickest (and safely).


----------

