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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

............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.