I think IA should shelves the towed artillery gun induction programs altogether, or limitied to either BAE ULH or kalyani's proposed ULH. What we need is mobility coupled with fire power, MGS/truck mounted guns anf K9 gun should be our mainstay.
There's none of that infrastructure in operational areas. You are talking about depth areas.
You think a hydropower plant is 100m or even 1km from LAC?
An artillery gun is not only used from 30 or 40km away, but also from 100m away from the frontline in direct fire mode. Almost all operational areas connected to the frontline are supported by light trucks.
Here's an example.
I don't see a single heavy truck here. All look like 4x4s.
Heavier trucks are only used in areas where tanks are also operated, but those are not areas connected by light bridges, hence the use of tanks to protect them.
Those are required only in small numbers. 155mm/52cal will be our mainstay 'cause that level of firepower is necessary.
As i told you, i belong to those areas. Born & brought up there. Who told you there are no hydropower plants developed/under development near LAC?? The bridge you have shown in your post is capable of sustaining more than 25 tonnes of load. How do you think M4, Whap reaches those forward positions?? Have you even seen real deployment of artillery guns at LAC?? Rather than assumptions i know the real situations and witnessed all kinds of deployments near tibet border. Its not about bridges. We need to wait before making pointless perceptions.There's none of that infrastructure in operational areas. You are talking about depth areas.
You think a hydropower plant is 100m or even 1km from LAC?
An artillery gun is not only used from 30 or 40km away, but also from 100m away from the frontline in direct fire mode. Almost all operational areas connected to the frontline are supported by light trucks.
Here's an example.
I don't see a single heavy truck here. All look like 4x4s.
View attachment 30604
Heavier trucks are only used in areas where tanks are also operated, but those are not areas connected by bridges, hence the use of tanks to protect them.
These are the kinda bridges we have.
Only 1-way at a time, with insufficient width for armor. Only small trucks can pass through, 1 at a time. These are called Bailey bridges.
This is what happens when you screw around.
www.facebook.com
This bridge, as mentioned, is 65Km from LAC.
www.telegraphindia.com
Kharak Singh, a watchman who had been posted near the bridge, told reporters that the driver of the truck ignored his request not to ply on it with the excavator as together they weighed almost double the bridge’s permissible limit.
A senior officer of the Border Roads Organisation told The Telegraph on condition of anonymity that while the bridge had a capacity to withstand weights up to 18 tonnes, the truck and the excavator together weighed over 32 tonnes.
18T at 65Km. The closer you get to the LAC, the weaker the bridges become, by design. That's 15T max.
“As per guidelines, the excavator should have crossed the bridge separately before being reloaded onto the truck. The driver violated the norms and ignored warnings,” he said over phone.
Similarly, a towed gun must be decoupled from its truck and cross the bridge on its own power. The IA is willing to accept a punishment of 1 extra tonne though, ie, 16T, but not 18T. So, unless ATAGS goes down to 16T or below, it can't be used along the LAC.
Nope. You are obviously wrong.
Only some areas have stronger bridges, but most of the LAC is only covered by 15T bridges.
Only 1-way at a time, with insufficient width for armor. Only small trucks can pass through, 1 at a time. These are called Bailey bridges.
This is what happens when you screw around.
15 reactions | Bridge near LAC collapses into rivulet in Uttarakhand A Bailey bridge, about 65 kms away from the Line of Actual Control (LAC), collapsed into a rivulet... | By The North-Eastern Chronicle | Facebook
Bridge near LAC collapses into rivulet in Uttarakhand A Bailey bridge, about 65 kms away from the Line of Actual Control (LAC), collapsed into a rivulet...
www.facebook.com
This bridge, as mentioned, is 65Km from LAC.
Bridge near LAC crashes into river
Around 7,000 villagers depend solely on the 11-year-old structure for their daily provisions as the hilly waterway is not navigable
www.telegraphindia.com
A senior officer of the Border Roads Organisation told The Telegraph on condition of anonymity that while the bridge had a capacity to withstand weights up to 18 tonnes, the truck and the excavator together weighed over 32 tonnes.
18T at 65Km. The closer you get to the LAC, the weaker the bridges become, by design. That's 15T max.
“As per guidelines, the excavator should have crossed the bridge separately before being reloaded onto the truck. The driver violated the norms and ignored warnings,” he said over phone.
Similarly, a towed gun must be decoupled from its truck and cross the bridge on its own power. The IA is willing to accept a punishment of 1 extra tonne though, ie, 16T, but not 18T. So, unless ATAGS goes down to 16T or below, it can't be used along the LAC.
Nope. You are obviously wrong.
Only some areas have stronger bridges, but most of the LAC is only covered by 15T bridges.
Actual story, what matters
Army moves over Rs 6,500 cr deal to Defence Ministry for procurement of 400 howitzers from 'desi' firms
Army moves over Rs 6,500 cr deal to Defence Ministry for procurement of 400 howitzers from 'desi' firms
So you think watchman is technically qualified to tell bridge capacity?? Hilarious. Now what if tell you that i have been to that same exact place. This is classic case of misreporting. Bailey bridges comes for many class of loadings. They can also be upgraded easily. Moreover, how you think 30 tonne MGS will cross such bridge where 18 tonne towed gun wont go?? In the past also i told you not to argue on things you dont have a clue about.These are the kinda bridges we have.
View attachment 30605
View attachment 30606
Only 1-way at a time, with insufficient width for armor. Only small trucks can pass through, 1 at a time. These are called Bailey bridges.
This is what happens when you screw around.
15 reactions | Bridge near LAC collapses into rivulet in Uttarakhand A Bailey bridge, about 65 kms away from the Line of Actual Control (LAC), collapsed into a rivulet... | By The North-Eastern Chronicle | Facebook
Bridge near LAC collapses into rivulet in Uttarakhand A Bailey bridge, about 65 kms away from the Line of Actual Control (LAC), collapsed into a rivulet...
This bridge, as mentioned, is 65Km from LAC.
Kharak Singh, a watchman who had been posted near the bridge, told reporters that the driver of the truck ignored his request not to ply on it with the excavator as together they weighed almost double the bridge’s permissible limit.Bridge near LAC crashes into river
Around 7,000 villagers depend solely on the 11-year-old structure for their daily provisions as the hilly waterway is not navigable
A senior officer of the Border Roads Organisation told The Telegraph on condition of anonymity that while the bridge had a capacity to withstand weights up to 18 tonnes, the truck and the excavator together weighed over 32 tonnes.
18T at 65Km. The closer you get to the LAC, the weaker the bridges become, by design. That's 15T max.
“As per guidelines, the excavator should have crossed the bridge separately before being reloaded onto the truck. The driver violated the norms and ignored warnings,” he said over phone.
Similarly, a towed gun must be decoupled from its truck and cross the bridge on its own power. The IA is willing to accept a punishment of 1 extra tonne though, ie, 16T, but not 18T. So, unless ATAGS goes down to 16T or below, it can't be used along the LAC.
Nope. You are obviously wrong.
Only some areas have stronger bridges, but most of the LAC is only covered by 15T bridges.
No. IDDM brings ATHOS in. It's Make that replaces foreign systems. Basically 50% has to be Indian and the lead vendor is Indian, ie, 51% of the company is owned by an Indian. For example, DRAL is considered an Indian company. Their technology partner can be Indian or foreign. For example, DRDO + Tata and Elbit + Adani have the same weight.
So, as long as Adani is the majority shareholder and the indigenization percentage is 50% or above, ATHOS will be considered an Indian gun. And Elbit is promising 100% ToT.
Basically, IDDM is about indigenization, be it an Indian or a foreign system. Make is about self-reliance, about creating our own IP.
This tender is about buying a second gun, separate from an order of 300+ ATAGS.
How stupid are you? The article clearly mentions and quotes a BRO source, not a watchman. And this watchman clearly knows more than you anyway, so you are already beneath him, like the truck driver, figuratively and literally.
And why will they operate MGS there? It's for armor, not for infantry. There's a separate 8T MGS called Garuda 105 meant for infantry along the LAC.
You should take your own advice.
I dont think so, the ukrain war is telling towed howitzer is no longer a killing machine. The deadliest killing machine ever fielded by human being is no longer a killing machine now. Also china is fielding a lot of high mobile wheeled sph, and there is no logic in IA is procuring tiwed howitzer to deal with chinese. Buy ceaser or MGS or ATMOS (not athos).
Those are too heavy for the bridges. You seem to have missed the last few posts. The max weight for bridges is 15T for most of them in the border areas. So an MGS has to be below 15T, but it's closer to 30T instead, so that makes them unusable. Otoh, the plains will get more mounted systems, like K9 and MGS.
Plus our towed guns are self-propelled, it makes up for some of the deficiencies of the guns in Ukraine. They can be relocated after every fire mission on its own power. Towed guns also have longer ranges and have easier portability. For example, an MGS requires IL-76, whereas a towed gun only needs a C-130J. A towed gun can also be deployed faster in mountains and is much more easily repaired. It has a smaller overall footprint and is cheaper to buy and maintain. They are also easier to camoflauge and hide, especially in the mountains. Towed guns have too many terrain-specific advantages.
We made low capacity bridges, and later inducting mediocre weapins( as on tosay's standard ) to fight enemy. On the other hand, our enemy didn't put such intentionally created logistical restrictions and now they are inducting truck mounted sph in large numbers. And, the auxiliary power of towed guns are for repositioning the gun during action, not for fire & scoot operations.
What if china destroys our low mobile howitzer with counter battery strike? It is as good as not having howitzer at all. Tell me Who is mor logical now? IA or plaa?
We are in the mountains, they are on a plateau. Their terrain is different.
A lot of their unit compositions are wrong, it shows their lack of experience. They will learn that the hard way, just like Ukraine did in the counteroffensive.
Repositioning of the gun is shoot and scoot. The PLAGF artillery must be on vehicles 'cause they have less hiding places. But that's also why they will suffer later on, 'cause of the bridges. Where necessary, we will have MGS and K9 in the mountains as well, like Sikkim, Depsang and Chushul.
If your CB capability is so good that you can take out a self-propelled towed gun, then an MGS will not fare any better.
The IA has actual combat experience in the mountains, more than any other army in the world, so of course the IA is more logical. The US Army as well, their infantry and Stryker units only use light towed guns instead of tracked guns. Lighter actually means more mobile where it matters. The Chinese are yet to do anything involving pulling the trigger.
With all that said, there's something else people don't realize, Chinese guns are not fully automated, so their schoot and scoot capabilities are limited compared to something like the Archer.
Here are a couple of videos to show exactly how far ahead the West is.
PCL-181:
Archer:
So the current ATAGS MGS is slightly more automated than the PCL-181 'cause it won't manually load the round, only the charge. True automation of our own guns is still almost 10 years away. Or at least 7 years as per Kalyani's claims. So all these MGS are just a towed gun placed on top of a truck, unlike Archer, but need a crew outside the truck operating it like it's a regular towed gun, with some minor differences.
So things aren't all as they are cracked up to be.
Here are a couple of videos to show exactly how far ahead the West is.
PCL-181:
Archer:
So the current ATAGS MGS is slightly more automated than the PCL-181 'cause it won't manually load the round, only the charge. True automation of our own guns is still almost 10 years away. Or at least 7 years as per Kalyani's claims. So all these MGS are just a towed gun placed on top of a truck, unlike Archer, but need a crew outside the truck operating it like it's a regular towed gun, with some minor differences.
So things aren't all as they are cracked up to be.
So most MGS and tracked SPH systems are manually loaded by 1 or 2 loaders or is semi-automatic like ATAGS. But some of the latest designs are fully automatic.
Known tracked SPHs are Soko's K9A2, Russia's 2S35 and Iran's Raad-2.
Known MGS are Sweden's Archer (21 shells), and Serbia's MGS25 Aleksander (12 shells).
The Archer in particular is an MRSI champ, it can fire 6 shells, so all 6 can hit the ground at the same time. K9 only does 3 rounds. That's one of the main benefits of a fully automatic system.
Known tracked SPHs are Soko's K9A2, Russia's 2S35 and Iran's Raad-2.
Known MGS are Sweden's Archer (21 shells), and Serbia's MGS25 Aleksander (12 shells).
The Archer in particular is an MRSI champ, it can fire 6 shells, so all 6 can hit the ground at the same time. K9 only does 3 rounds. That's one of the main benefits of a fully automatic system.
THE STORM IN A TEA CUP ABOUT THE TOWED GUN SYSTEM (TGS)
#TGS #ARTILLERY #GUNSJoin this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_hqg81N9k0R6xna0aNGoPw/joinTHIS VIDEO IS AVAILABLE IN PODCAST...
www.youtube.com
But why? We want 15T bridges in the mountains because we do not want Chinese vehicles crossing it.
Arjun's problems are different, not just the bridges but the terrain as well. And it's not just our side, Arjun needs to be compatible with Pak bridges as well.