Not actually. IA released an RFI last year for procuring 105mm MGS. I think this is related to that. There was also another RFI for 814 MGS(155mm).
There was a RFI for 105/37 mm mounted gun systems. It's in connection with the same.
To be honest, I don't know the significance of India resuming the development of this forward firing gun. It's probably because the Americans gave too much kickback. This type of gun has low accuracy and short range because of the interference it received from its barrel. China developed it in the 1970s, but later abandoned it
There has been news of purchasing the second batch of K9 since 2019, but it has not been confirmed yet
Overall, India is still tinkering with various traction guns that use auxiliary power, and the technology level of China's PLL01 gun is similar. The Russo Ukrainian war has proven the obsolescence of this technology
Can you explain in detail why truck guns have lower survivability than towed guns? And how did you conclude that the use of M777 in Indian SBCT and IBCT is correct? Does India have countless CH47? India does not have the world's most combat rich mountain troops. Their combat experience is limited to the Kargil conflict, as well as fighting against Muslim guerrillas with only rifles in Kashmir
Your theory that towed artillery can use APU to pass through a simple bridge is even more ridiculous. Anyone who has made military common sense knows that this can cause chaos and crowding at any bridge edge, becoming a target for others.
Last edited:
Garuda V2 uses a brand new gun design.
Hawkeye 105 mm Self-Propelled Howitzer | MilitaryToday.com
The Hawkeye is one of the lightest self-propelled howitzers in the world today. This system consists of a standard US Army's 105 mm howitzer, mounted on a HMMWV chassis.
www.militarytoday.com
I don't know if this website can include GIF, this technology is called soft backseat technology in China. The barrel first moves forward under the action of hydraulic and buffering systems. During this process, the artillery suddenly fired. In this way, the forward movement of the barrel can be counteracted by the recoil of the gun. The drawbacks of this are very obvious. To ensure the accuracy of the artillery, the forward movement force of the artillery needs to be stable with the recoil force of the artillery.
It is basically impossible in the actual process. Of course, you can control it through a computer. But in the harsh conditions of the battlefield. All of this is too ideal. So countries abandoned this technology early on. Only India is developing this technology with kickbacks from the United States.
Our terrain is different. Plus we use bridges that can carry weights of just 15-18T. This prevents the PLA from entering India using heavy vehicles. Such artillery guns can cross bridges on their own power. It's the same idea behind the 8T Garuda or 4T M777. Mobility can be achieved in various ways, including air-lifting.
Overall, we have plans of operating about 1400-1500 self-propelled guns, like K9 and the Swedish Archer, apart from towed guns.
Anyway, such guns are not obsolete, it just depends on the terrain. For flat terrain, like Tibet, you need mobility. We will simply drive our guns in holes behind mountains. You forget that only India has proper mountain fighting experience, especially artillery.
In Ukraine as well, the Ukrainians are still fighting with the same guns. What makes you think PLA can fight against a much more experienced enemy in greater numbers than Ukraine in a much more tougher environment? Especially when Chinese soldiers don't already live in the mountains like the Indian soldiers and have no combat experience?
'Cause our experience is still unmatched. At least China doesn't have equivalent experience. And yes, the Kargil experience mattered a lot, the IA learned a lot of ways to use artillery in the mountains that's not taught in the West, never mind in China. Fighting Muslim guerrillas is also experience.
Only a few guns are moved at a time, when they are sent back for repairs mostly, so that's just 1 or 2 guns. And most bridges are not easily targetable. You have to fly past the bridges to target them, basically inside Indian territory. Or you would destroy the bridges in the first place. Even our forward areas are self-sufficient. The idea is to prevent PLA from advancing into Indian territory.
Also, its not likely for PLAAF to use air power against such minor targets.
First, achieving 15 tons of towed artillery is already a failure. China's AH4 howitzer is only 4.5 tons, your theory is very naive. Simply put, you see that India has built many simple bridges along its borders. Then you think these bridges can be crossed by Indian towed artillery during wartime. Chinese truck guns cannot pass through, first of all, you have overlooked a very basic factor. Tractive artillery also requires trucks.The artillery tractor commonly used in India is Tatra 815-7. Its weight has exceeded 17 tons. The simple bridge you mentioned cannot be crossed by him at all.Secondly, in your scenario, you need to unload the artillery from the truck. Then use APU to cross the bridge, which is purely your fantasy. Have you ever considered how long it takes to pass through a 100 meter simple bridge like this? At this time, a large number of artillery and trucks gathered at both ends of the bridge. This is simply a live target! Moreover, the total mass of towed trucks and artillery is far greater than that of ordinary truck guns, so India's development of such towed artillery is purely outdated.
I don't know why you think it won't work in the battlefield.
The IA will extensively test it before induction.
I didn't say it wasn't working, I just said its stability and accuracy were too low
Do you mean that most Indian artillery will become fixed during wartime? That's also great. Azerbaijan can easily destroy them, and how do you know that bridges are not easily destroyed. This is too simple for most modern artillery. For this type of artillery located deep within India. A large number of MRLS in China will play their due role. This is also used on the Ukrainian battlefield. The Ukrainian army extensively used the hippocampus to destroy Russian artillery.
To be honest, I have a very detailed understanding of the Kajir conflict. I believe that the vast majority of experience here can be consolidated and improved through training and exercises. And how useful is the experience from 25 years ago for modern warfare? What truly enhances the military should be high-level training and military exercises. As for combat experience. We see that Russia's combat experience in Ukraine in 2014 caused a huge disaster in the Russo Ukrainian conflict. Not to mention the combat experience in 1999.
He can certainly pass the test, as long as he gives enough kickbacks to the officers or allows their children to skip the Ivy League exam, which is not uncommon in Indian military history.
You are confusing different classes. The lightest self-propelled towed gun in the world today is the Israeli ATHOS and it weighs 12-13 tons.
AH4's equivalent is M777 or the Indian MAG-ER (8 tons steel) and ULH (4 tons titanium), which are mountain guns. The class of guns I'm referring to:
These types of guns can quickly fire and reposition fast enough to avoid CB fire.
Tatra 815-7 is 13 tons.
Look at the second video and tell me how long it will take.
What matters is the PCL-181/SH-15 cannot cross the bridges.
Second point is, most of our army is already forward located, so the guns have already crossed the bridges. It's a problem for the PLA, when they reach the bridge and cannot cross it.
'Cause most of the bridges are behind mountains. You can't have constant surveillance of those regions.
And we use pre-fab bridges, which are easy to repair or rebuild once destroyed.
Ukraine is fighting in the plains, the common sense of the plains cannot be used in the mountains.
The data you found online for 13 tons is actually 4 × 4
And the artillery tractor in India is usually 8 × 8
Adding shells and gasoline and other items, it is normal for the curb weight of the entire vehicle to reach 17 tons.
Your logic is very chaotic. What you mean is that during the war, these cannons had already passed through bridges. During the war, they didn't need to use these bridges for maneuvering and transfer, but the Chinese couldn't pass through them. Shouldn't these bridges be located behind India? Why do Chinese people go through them?
They cannot escape the local firepower on the Ukrainian battlefield. The FH70 artillery was basically the earliest batch to be eliminated.
How did you determine that the Chinese cannot continuously monitor these bridges within 50-100 kilometers behind India? Your behavior is like an ostrich in the desert. Dip your head into the sand to avoid danger.