What's new

105mm/37cal Mounted Gun System Procurement

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,557
3
15,056
Country
China
Location
United States
@vi-va please put aside the theory of 155mm guns stopping armoured brigades and stuff . Where can PLA concentrate armour along the LAC , IB and McMahon ? Mainly six areas
1) Depsang Plains
2) Chushul Valley and Spanggur Gap
3) North Sikkim ( Yumthang Valley and areas north of Gurudongmar lake )
4) Eastern Sikkim ( Doklam Plateau )
5) North Bank of Pangong tso ( very limited scope for armoured maneuvering due to less width of the north bank )
6) bumla plateau ( limited space for maneuvering just like North Bank of Pangong tso , suicidal for any large tank formation to try and break through)
It's not like you can deploy all your armoured brigades anywhere you want to all along the Boundary
In all these areas IA has sufficent defences in the current scenario to deter PLA Heavy CABGs from making any sudden changes in status Quo .
There are anti tank ditches , minefields infested by magnetic influence mines and Crept in ATGM teams . It's not so easy to overcome these and that too when you have limited space to maneuver . So why would we need 155mm artillery in humungous quantity when we don't need it ? 1,200 pieces of 155mm artillery would be sufficent to equip 65 artillery regiments and currently we have 961 155mm pieces in our inventory . Indian artillery arm is undergoing a revolution this decade with the induction of ULHs , K9s and ATAGS . the existing 130mm artillery stocks numbering 750 guns are also expected to be converted to 155mm caliber by the end of this decade
Agreed. Heavy tracked armoured brigades are limited to only a few areas along LAC.

But Depsang is high plain, very flat. Depsang is the best place for China to deploy heavy tracked armoured brigades, including 155 mm artillery and main battle tank.

Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road is extreamly fragile, the RED area below is indefensible. I think India's occupation of Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) was a strategic mistake. China actually can cut Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road very easily.

Karakorum Pass India may lose.jpg
Karakorum Pass India may lose3.jpg
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,557
3
15,056
Country
China
Location
United States
So you feel the right mix is partly towed artillery for mountain and high-altitude areas with flimsier infrastructure, but they should be new. Then your entire wishes will be fulfilled by either the ATAGS or by the Dhanush, both of which meet your criteria. The M-777 also has an Indian equivalent, built on seeing the M-777 at close quarters, and finding out how they got it to be so light weight.

In the plains, you would like to see self-propelled artillery, to shoot and scoot, but are not aware, it seems, of the other use of self-propulsion, of keeping up with mobile columns. This might require a little more study on your part. As it is, weight is not really a criterion for SP artillery, and the weight of the K9 should not matter, as it is not being pushed into the high mountains. You must be aware of the availability of a vast number of T55 tanks that are being converted to carriers for 105 mm and 155 mm guns; those will provide the numbers, and even the lighter weight that seems to be so desirable.

When we get to these bores, the division between so-called self-propelled artillery and the sexier-sounding, but identical, tank destroyers blurs. Any gun mounted on a propulsion under-carriage will serve to be self-propelled artillery, and there is neither a shortage of carriers nor of gun barrels, given what is coming into production.


It seems that it is somehow very difficult for you to remember that 105 mm guns are intended for use against personnel, and accuracy is less important when shooting HE shells, compared to shooting SHAPE charges at tanks.
Thanks for your reply.
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,557
3
15,056
Country
China
Location
United States
Inferior in what way? In shooting shells at unarmoured human beings?


We have heard of counter-battery fire, and we have had some scientists working on radar for counter-battery fire. This kind of radar has been available with us for some decades now.

SP artillery is useful in keeping up with fast-moving armoured or mechanised infantry columns; their built-in propulsion is not needed for shifting position quite so much as it is used for keeping up. Shifting the position of towed artillery can be done almost as quickly as shifting SP artillery.

Hope that helps.


Who told you that?


This, incidentally, is also how the PA uses it.
Shifting the position of towed artillery can be done almost as quickly as shifting SP artillery.
Shifting position includes packing and redeployment. No, towed artillery is slower than SP.

Old towed 155 mm howitzer packing took 10-15 minutes. Basically it's sitting dead duck, the anti-artillery radar will kill it in 3 minutes on the shooting position.

FH-77B has Volvo B20 auxiliary power unit, which help a lot on packing and redeployment. But it's 11,500 kg.

Modern SP has semi autoloader, automatic fire control system (AFCS). Following the operator's input of a target's azimuth data, the vehicle-mounted computer can calculate the trajectory of the artillery, and automatically lay the gun.

The old artillery lack of the system above.

China is replacing all towed artillery with SP. Towed artillery will retire completely soon.


Thank you for your kindly replies and many other members'.

I stop here.
 
Last edited:

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
26,758
162
43,966
Country
India
Location
India
Shifting position includes packing and redeployment. No, towed artillery is slower than SP.
Yes, no doubt about that. I did not mean to give the impression that it is identical.

Shifting position includes packing and redeployment. No, towed artillery is slower than SP.

Modern SP has semi autoloader, automatic fire control system (AFCS). Following the operator's input of a target's azimuth data, the vehicle-mounted computer can calculate the trajectory of the artillery, and automatically lay the gun.

The old artillery lack of the system above.

China is replacing all towed artillery with SP. Towed artillery will retire completely soon.


Thank you for your kindly replies and many other members'.

I stop here.
Please initiate other threads. It is stimulating to participate in your threads.
 

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
26,758
162
43,966
Country
India
Location
India
Both Pakistan Army, and PLA easily operate MBTs, and mechanised heavy force in Himalayas.
A very strange statement, since the Pakistan Army has not yet operated either MBTs or mechanised forces in the Himalayas.
If people start with a preconceived idea of proving that A, or B, or C is inherently inferior, it becomes the comical situation of the gentleman of Gallic extraction who was taken for a tour of New York City. To the mystification of his hosts, whatever they showed him, he stopped and exclaimed, in delight, "This reminds me of sex!" Finally, his hosts asked him, very hesitantly, if there was something wrong with the selection of spots they had taken him to. He looked at them with blank astonishment, and explained, "EVERYTHING reminds me of sex!"
I imagine if we discuss bath-tubs, we will hear from some of our rather obsessional friends that Pakistan and the People's Republic of China make the best bath-tubs, and it is such a pity that India is unable to do so.
Since the Chinese don't gratuitously include others in their analysis, one must come to the inevitable conclusion that we are speaking to yet another fan of the finest army in the world - the one headed by Admiral General Aladeen. Perhaps the Wadiya flag was not readily available.
 

Hellfire2006

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2022
396
0
345
Country
India
Location
India
The key difference is that 122 can credibly kill armour, and 105 will at most damage armoured cars, and lighter APCs.

Basically, 105 is there just to kill other lighter infantry forces, which are no in the region. Both Pakistan Army, and PLA easily operate MBTs, and mechanised heavy force in Himalayas.

It's rather a testament to Indian Army not being able to field heavy equipment in high mountains itself.
here , let me tell you something mate
1) out of pakistan army's fighting force of nearly 25 divisions , 18 are Infantry and 1 is a Light high altitude formation called FCNA . Only 2 are mechanised and 2 are armoured . So that means you'll not face swathes of mechanised infantry or amoured formations atleast along the western border
2) Sino Indian Border is characterised by High Altitude valleys , mountains , watersheds and ridgelines where deployment of armour is only possible Only in limited areas and that too with great difficulty due to lack of space for tanks to maneuver and limited depth for armoured/mechansied operations which simply means that requiremt for medium artillery stocks is limited
3) India currently has 961 stocks of 155mm artillery and 750 stocks of 130mm artillery . That makes up 1,711 stocks of medium artillery capable of killing any mechanised formation .
4) By the end of this decade the IA 155mm artillery stocks will enhance exponentionally with the induction of ATAGS , Dhanush , additonal K9s and conversion of existing 130mm stocks to 155mm . A realistic estimate would be that by 2030 Indian Army will have 1,859 Guns of 155mm caliber which wil include atleast :-
1) 400 ATAGS
2) 300 K9s
3) 900 sharang guns ( upgraded from 130mm to 155mm)
4)114 Dhanush Guns
5) 145 M777 ULH howitzers
 

Hellfire2006

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2022
396
0
345
Country
India
Location
India
Agreed. Heavy tracked armoured brigades are limited to only a few areas along LAC.

But Depsang is high plain, very flat. Depsang is the best place for China to deploy heavy tracked armoured brigades, including 155 mm artillery and main battle tank.

Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road is extreamly fragile, the RED area below is indefensible. I think India's occupation of Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) was a strategic mistake. China actually can cut Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road very easily.

View attachment 840352 View attachment 840353
Buddy we know that it is difficult to sustain SSN in a long war via only DS-DBO road. That is why we are building The leh Sasoma Saser La road to SSN which will serve as an Alternate route to DBO , the PLA will have a hard time trying to cut off the new road since it is being built along the reverse slope of a mountain range making it immune to artillery strikes and armoured incursions . This will make The defence of SSN ( Sub sector North ) tenable in the long run . And talking from a military perspective it's not easy to cut off your adversaries supply lines so easily even if they Are Vulnerable .
China actually can cut Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road very easily
If you think that it is easy to dislodge your enemy from higly defended communication lines then I'm sorry to say you don't know much about warfare
 
Last edited:

Hellfire2006

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2022
396
0
345
Country
India
Location
India
take a look at your map again and identify all the armoured thrust points along the DSDBO road . You'll realise that there aren't many . The area in red which you've marked in red as indefensible is unrealisitc , try to find where you've marked the areas wrong . You do it yourself . Take your own time to do the analysis and then tell me . some of the areas you've marked are correct .but the others need a relook . Let's say it is 30% correct and 70% wrong .
Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road is extreamly fragile, the RED area below is indefensible. I think India's occupation of Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) was a strategic mistake. China actually can cut Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road very easily.

View attachment 840352 View attachment 840353
 
Last edited:

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,557
3
15,056
Country
China
Location
United States
take a look at your map again and identify all the armoured thrust points along the DSDBO road . You'll realise that there aren't many . The area in red which you've marked in red as indefensible is unrealisitc , try to find where you've marked the areas wrong . You do it yourself . Take your own time to do the analysis and then tell me . some of the areas you've marked are correct .but the others need a relook . Let's say it is 30% correct and 70% wrong .
Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road is very fragile. If we are discussing the hypothetical confrontation between China and India, we simply have to take this into account.

The Red Area are within China artillery range. And it's on the other side of the watershed. The Red Area are actually Shyok valley.

If I was Nehru, I would have given up Shyok valley in 1959, or 1962. cause it's indefensible.

There is a small village called Durbuk. It's the junction of Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road and the road to Chushul.

Use artillery to cut the road between Lek and Durbuk is quite effective and easy.



1651575190922.png
 

Paul2

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 24, 2018
3,043
5
2,238
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Arab Emirates
No need to worry about the heavy equipment from IA in Himalayas. 10 regiments of K9 will be procured especially for that and another 40 regiments are planned to be procured as 155mm Mounted Gun Systems. Half of those 40 will be deployed in the mountains.

105mm Mounted Gun Systems are there to fill the gaps where 155mm cannot be deployed.

As for PA deployment in Himalayas with armour and mechanised units, you are showing yourself lacking the context being talked here.

A further 25 regiments of 155 ultra light towed guns are to be procured for mountains specifically. In addition to 145 M777s on order now.

I am taking my words back. Spoke without enough prior research, and made a joke of myself.

Yes, Pakistan army has no heavy armour stationed anywhere close to Kashmir. Though, AK2 was specifically made capable of high altitude operation.
 

Hellfire2006

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2022
396
0
345
Country
India
Location
India
Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road is very fragile. If we are discussing the hypothetical confrontation between China and India, we simply have to take this into account.

The Red Area are within China artillery range. And it's on the other side of the watershed. The Red Area are actually Shyok valley.

If I was Nehru, I would have given up Shyok valley in 1959, or 1962. cause it's indefensible.

There is a small village called Durbuk. It's the junction of Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road and the road to Chushul.

Use artillery to cut the road between Lek and Durbuk is quite effective and easy.



View attachment 840425
Again , just because it is under the range of your artillery dosen't mean that it's indefensible . Should you abandon chumbi valley just because it is under the range of indian artillery and because it can be attacked by india from three sides ? Ofcourse not ! You'll be surprised to know that it is easier for india to intrude into chumbi valley than it is for china to intrude into eastern Ladakh simply because of relatively lower altitude , dense coniferous forest cover to conceal troop movement and numerous river valleys running down from the indian side and bhutanese sides which can be used as ingress routes . But that dosen't mean PLA will abandon chumbi valley , they will fight and defend it at all costs against indian attacks .

I've consulted actively serving Military officers about the feasability of defending Darbuk Shyok Axis and their views are different from yours , it is indeed possible , infact it is more than possible to defend DSDBO axis . You say that you'll cut off leh- durbuk axis , first Take a look at the road from durbuk to leh via google earth . Tell me how many hairpin bends you'll find . Is it possible to target a twisting and winding road with heavy artillery barrages ? Most of those barrages won't even hit the road , they'll fall on the sides of the hairpin bends , the only way you can effectively target that road is via PGMs . But again , how many PGMs will you be ready to use and how many you have is another question . Similarly how many ingress routes can PLA use to enter durbuk :-
1) Via the road which goes through the north Bank of pangong tso , it allows movement of mech columns but there is limited space to maneuver . This is one of the most heavily defended by IA and offensive elements are also available for this area
2) a light infantry thrust via gogra to shyok village and then reaching durbuk but it is a long route and well covered by IA
Do you think PLA can achieve a breakthrough either of these ? Can it

I am taking my words back. Spoke without enough prior research, and made a joke of myself.

Yes, Pakistan army has no heavy armour stationed anywhere close to Kashmir. Though, AK2 was specifically made capable of high altitude operation.
Himalayas are one of the most unpreferable locations in the world for amoured warfare . There is little space to maneuver , the infrastructure is inadequate to support armoured formations , the cold weather and thin air affects the starting of engines , the tanks capabilties degrade quite quickly . Therefore both india and pakistan haven't stationed any such tank formations at LoC . It is the current Circumstances that have compelled india to station tanks in Ladakh and Sikkim .
 

Paul2

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 24, 2018
3,043
5
2,238
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Arab Emirates
2) a light infantry thrust via gogra to shyok village and then reaching durbuk but it is a long route and well covered by IA
Do you think PLA can achieve a breakthrough either of these ? Can it

Any fighting with HImalayas with mountaineers is an idiocy. The whole idea of force pushing through HImalayas is an idiocy, and I will be glad it will be remaining that way.
  1. Only very limited foothold capture is possible by mountain forces on both sides. There are physically not enough of them on both sides.
  2. Even if any side was completely hellbent on crossing Himalaya, they will have to sacrifice pretty much all of their force capable operating high up to score that foothold, even if that force was few times larger. Mountain combat = high casualties. Google how it was for USSR, and Americans in Afghanistan.
  3. The rest of the force if completely unprepared to make use of any possibly tiny foothold to get across in time.
 

Paul2

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 24, 2018
3,043
5
2,238
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Arab Emirates
Himalayas are one of the most unpreferable locations in the world for amoured warfare . There is little space to maneuver , the infrastructure is inadequate to support armoured formations , the cold weather and thin air affects the starting of engines , the tanks capabilties degrade quite quickly . Therefore both india and pakistan haven't stationed any such tank formations at LoC . It is the current Circumstances that have compelled india to station tanks in Ladakh and Sikkim .

Tanks are not going to fight in the mountains. They are there to rush across them, and secure a bridgehead on the other side, on some plateau, or deny the enemy the same opportunity.

There is not much sense to fight for mountains themselves, it's barren terrain with no value on itself. Taking peaks is now is meaningless with advance of jet aviation which can drop a 1 ton bomb on an elevated fortification with ease. And air defence here is quite meaningless too, when jets can fly within the mountain valleys easily, and evade detection until the last moment.
 

Hellfire2006

FULL MEMBER
May 2, 2022
396
0
345
Country
India
Location
India
Tanks are not going to fight in the mountains. They are there to rush across them, and secure a bridgehead on the other side, on some plateau, or deny the enemy the same opportunity.
Isn't it obvious ? That's what tanks are meant to do .
There is not much sense to fight for mountains themselves, it's barren terrain with no value on itself. Taking peaks is now is meaningless with advance of jet aviation which can drop a 1 ton bomb on an elevated fortification with ease. And air defence here is quite meaningless too, when jets can fly within the mountain valleys easily, and evade detection until the last moment.
No one fights for bare peaks , everyone wants to fight for the chokepoints below or close to those peaks ,not for bare peaks . You'll only decide to take a peak if you can choke your enemies logistics routes that are vulnerable . If you can't do that then you are just adding a burdern for your army by taking barren land which need to be defended by additional troops with no impact on your enemy's war waging capability.

Any fighting with HImalayas with mountaineers is an idiocy. The whole idea of force pushing through HImalayas is an idiocy, and I will be glad it will be remaining that way.
  1. Only very limited foothold capture is possible by mountain forces on both sides. There are physically not enough of them on both sides.
  2. Even if any side was completely hellbent on crossing Himalaya, they will have to sacrifice pretty much all of their force capable operating high up to score that foothold, even if that force was few times larger. Mountain combat = high casualties. Google how it was for USSR, and Americans in Afghanistan.
  3. The rest of the force if completely unprepared to make use of any possibly tiny foothold to get across in time.
Correct , I agree with your first and second points , that's what I wanted @vi-va to understand.
@vi-va See why it isn't easy to take territory in the mountains , even if you do , it will come at a cost too high
Thanks @Paul2
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
6,557
3
15,056
Country
China
Location
United States
Again , just because it is under the range of your artillery dosen't mean that it's indefensible . Should you abandon chumbi valley just because it is under the range of indian artillery and because it can be attacked by india from three sides ? Ofcourse not ! You'll be surprised to know that it is easier for india to intrude into chumbi valley than it is for china to intrude into eastern Ladakh simply because of relatively lower altitude , dense coniferous forest cover to conceal troop movement and numerous river valleys running down from the indian side and bhutanese sides which can be used as ingress routes . But that dosen't mean PLA will abandon chumbi valley , they will fight and defend it at all costs against indian attacks .

I've consulted actively serving Military officers about the feasability of defending Darbuk Shyok Axis and their views are different from yours , it is indeed possible , infact it is more than possible to defend DSDBO axis . You say that you'll cut off leh- durbuk axis , first Take a look at the road from durbuk to leh via google earth . Tell me how many hairpin bends you'll find . Is it possible to target a twisting and winding road with heavy artillery barrages ? Most of those barrages won't even hit the road , they'll fall on the sides of the hairpin bends , the only way you can effectively target that road is via PGMs . But again , how many PGMs will you be ready to use and how many you have is another question . Similarly how many ingress routes can PLA use to enter durbuk :-
1) Via the road which goes through the north Bank of pangong tso , it allows movement of mech columns but there is limited space to maneuver . This is one of the most heavily defended by IA and offensive elements are also available for this area
2) a light infantry thrust via gogra to shyok village and then reaching durbuk but it is a long route and well covered by IA
Do you think PLA can achieve a breakthrough either of these ? Can it


Himalayas are one of the most unpreferable locations in the world for amoured warfare . There is little space to maneuver , the infrastructure is inadequate to support armoured formations , the cold weather and thin air affects the starting of engines , the tanks capabilties degrade quite quickly . Therefore both india and pakistan haven't stationed any such tank formations at LoC . It is the current Circumstances that have compelled india to station tanks in Ladakh and Sikkim .
Thanks for your replies.
But we are off top for a long time.

I will stick to my view:
China can't defend Arunachal Pradesh, which is part of Tibet traditionally, and culturally, ethnically. China gave up Arunachal Pradesh wisely.
India on the other hand try to keep DBO, which is indefensible I think.

Let's keep our view respectively, unless you would open a new thread and I would join it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom