Desi Bofors better than original one

[Taygibay]

hence do not fall for single article that may be poorly written.

I didn't; you did!

So my answer stands, Tay.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@zebra7 @punit @Taygibay @ashok321 @#hydra#

 

[ashok321]

I didn't; you did!

So my answer stands, Tay.

Your pinpointing it, despite knowing that there are plenty such poorly written articles out there does not auger well for your specificity in this regards.

Why are you being particular on the said article, despite your following gem right here:

media outfits from the world over are just about equally bad.

Take it easy, it does not pay to be grouchy.

Have a good day.

 

[Taygibay]

Why are you being particular on the said article, despite your following gem right here:

media outfits from the world over are just about equally bad.

Because you posted it as the worthy basis of a new thread???

And I stand by that gem as you called it, Tay.

 

[Omega007]

yeah ! better than a 30 year old design ! Mighty achievements by the dodos of Babudom !

Why don't you just go fuckk yourself you son of bitchh!!

@zebra7 , don't listen to the random bs uttered by that stupid cunt named @punit !!That prick has a post count of over 4500 and yet he has never taken part in any discussion in a way that would be meaningful and productive or even relevant to the topic itself!!All he does here is either bashing the DRDO guys or the members who do not agree to his rubbish POVs!!
And as for your quarry, I think it has already been answered in detail by someone else.

 

[Taygibay]

Why don't you just go fuckk yourself you son of bitchh!!

Constructive post of the day fer sure!

I wonder if that tone over substance thinghie has anything to do with your neg. ratings count?

On a lighter note, as in Asterix, it seems the Indians don't need Pakistanis
to get heftily insulted anymore. Is it progress though, I dunno?

Just sayin', Tay.

 

[Omega007]

Constructive post of the day fer sure!

Oh and the one I quoted surely goes as the epitome of constructiveness in your book I guess??Why don't ya just mind your own damn business, huh matey??

I wonder if that tone over substance thinghie has anything to do with your neg. ratings count?

None of your damn business, is it now??

On a lighter note, as in Asterix, it seems the Indians don't need Pakistanis
to get heftily insulted anymore.

So let me get this one straight - according to you, one can not pay some disrespectful cunt in his (or her) own coin just because that cunt happens to share the same nationality??!!Is that what you mean??If that's how you think, then please feel free not to quote me from here on now.

Is it progress though, I dunno?

Progress or regress I do not know and I don't effing care!!But showing someone his right place regardless of his country definitely counts as the just thing in my book at least!!

Just sayin', Tay.

Obviously you were not "just sayin' ". Just saying, Omega.

 

[MilSpec]

It is an upgraded haubits fh77, if it wasn't better than the 30 yr old FH77 then ofb engineers should be fired (from the same gun)

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ashok mate, this post will complete Zebra's.
It is part of my relentless attack on poor mil journalism and thus
NOT directed at downplaying India because despite public opinion,
media outfits from the world over are just about equally bad.

I first jumped at your OP like Zebra did on account of this :


Pure stupidity at least in the use of language!
Several other systems? The first phrase in that sentence mentions range ...
and range is not a system so that "other systems" is a clear misnomer here.
Range is a feature, systems are systems so they don't make up a category.

My first thought was that the simplest way to add range was a better projectile ...
and lo and behold, that is what your additional source ended up revealing :

"The desi howitzer has been upgraded to 45-calibre from the 39-calibre of the original Bofors gun to extend its strike range
to 38 km with "extended range, full-bore" ammunition."​

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...uns-Swedish-original/articleshow/47076413.cms

Excellent idea BTW but not really a system.

Then,


That sounds suspiciously like an unpaid for copy! The good news being that
India then apparently caught on to the efficient Chinese reverse engineering?
No problem there, in mil matters, results count more than fairplay.
It still took almost 30 years for 6 prototypes(/LRIP units) though.

The article than jumps to the upcoming US machines ( actually BAe but fine ) and says :


LOL! 750$ ???? Must have had a crore rupee exchange rate problem.
The M777 is mostly made lighter thanks to the use of titanium, man!
I have a titanium mountain bike that costs upward of ten times as much!
If the USA sells them to you guys at 750 bucks a piece, forget MII, buy
those and kiss Washington's feet!
In fact, buy more and open a shop for resale!

And then, this part was truly incredible :


Really? And to think India spent money on M2000 jet fighters and the likes ...
when all that was required was lifting the ban on Bofors and a few more guns?*

Funny memory too of that ban lift and the first charges in the Bofors scandal
occurring the same year. Who says wars don't sell?

All in all, a shoddy piece of reporting, man! Your second attempt was much better.
So, remember, a bad source can ruin a good argument and destroy a reputation ...
yours as a forum member I mean, not the lost cause that is your pseudo-mil media.

Don't apply enthusiasm for your country first, mate! Read the piece critically and then,
if by some miracle it is not filled with patriotic teenage angst over tiny shreds of reality,
use it to further your point and all will be fine.

Have a great day, Tay.

* 410 bought, less than 200 in use, quite an attrition rate!
The Dhanush will be right on time.

P.S. Oh, and ... artillery has progressed a lot in those 3 decades. Just one example :
Caesar original :
View attachment 323966

Caesar 2016 at DSEI :
View attachment 323967

That change took all of 21 years : 1994 - 2015.

@Taygibay

Tay, just how did you get 'unpaid' copy from the reference to TOT documents being used to build these? Read the original contract; I don't have it in front of me, and I could be gloriously wrong, but IIRC the deal was with transfer of technology and freedom (not licensed manufacture) to build. The part of Bofors that used to make these has wound up, again, speaking from memory.

You are right, and artillery has progressed a lot in these decades, but if we make a good tubed gun that can be towed along to start with, re-engineering it to fit into an Arjuna tank is not a huge exercise. The Germans did it 80 years ago, for a different purpose, but building a self-propelled gun is not rocket science.

I agree about the careless journalism bit.

Incidentally the direct fire reference confused me. I'm not a gunner, and all that interested me in artillery was Lanchester diagrams, but isn't that exactly wrong?

 

[adil_minhas]

Everything India does is better.

Koi shaq brother?

 

[Omega007]

Everything India does is better.

Dude, the original one is almost 3 and half decade old, so it's a no-brainer that this new version would be better!!What's so surprising about it anyway??!!

 

[ashok321]

Because you posted it as the worthy basis of a new thread???

And I stand by that gem as you called it, Tay.

Yes I did post it, knowingly that its worthy article (minus the coma, grammar, syntax & full stops types), which I substantiated & corroborated in the later run up:

Trials a hit, desi Bofors outguns Swedish original - Times of India

You are not able to ascertain 100% that I can not separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Taygibay]

I agree about the careless journalism bit.

Which, along with why Ashok chose to use it nonetheless was my point.
Mightily glad you agree then although I had no doubts you would.

Tay, just how did you get 'unpaid' copy from the reference to TOT documents being used to build these? Read the original contract; I don't have it in front of me, and I could be gloriously wrong, but IIRC the deal was with transfer of technology and freedom (not licensed manufacture) to build. The part of Bofors that used to make these has wound up, again, speaking from memory.

Original contract yes, but that wasn't the one of 1999. Again, I'm not
blaming India but saying that that piece is imprecise. The only qualm
I have is that the article makes it confusing when informing is their job.
And that it allows *hum* say a subjective understanding of India's role.
Don't feed the trolls, that sort of things ...

Yes I did post it, knowingly that its worthy article

No it's not, sorry!

So let me get this one straight - according to you, one can not pay some disrespectful cunt in his (or her) own coin just because that cunt happens to share the same nationality??!!Is that what you mean??If that's how you think, then please feel free not to quote me from here on now.

Can't write without swears, kid? Here's a how to :
Punit voiced an opinion respectfully.
One answers I disagree with an explanation as to why.
Yes, it can be done without insulting almost 4 B women.

BTW, you seem to hold the same view as he did :

Dude, the original one is almost 3 and half decade old, so it's a no-brainer that this new version would be better!!What's so surprising about it anyway??!!

So much for logic on top of decency, huh?

As for not quoting you, the simplest way would be for you
not to disgrace yourself on a public forum but hey, at the
rate your going, I may not have another chance anyhow!

Just be happy it happened in the virtual world?

All the best to you and yours JoeS, Tay.

 

[ashok321]

Constructive post of the day fer sure!

I wonder if that tone over substance thinghie has anything to do with your neg. ratings count?

On a lighter note, as in Asterix, it seems the Indians don't need Pakistanis
to get heftily insulted anymore. Is it progress though, I dunno?

Just sayin', Tay.

No it's not, sorry!

Check your own English for a change.
Do not blame journalists to score points while giving cold shoulders to the actual substance - Which being the Desi Bofors, which is better.

 

[Omega007]

@Taygibay


Incidentally the direct fire reference confused me. I'm not a gunner, and all that interested me in artillery was Lanchester diagrams, but isn't that exactly wrong?

When it comes to tube artillery, there are two base methods of using it.

No 1. Direct fire - As the name suggests, it refers to the launching of a projectile directly at a target.This method is used at shorter ranges, where the target happens to be within clear line-of-sight and line-of-fire of the gun in question.You know, like the Germans, during WWII, used their 88 mm Flaks against allied tanks to devastating effects or as this article mentions, Indian Army did against the sanghars in Kargil.
Field guns are better suited for this method due to the higher velocity and flatter trajectories of their shells compared to howitzers.

No. 2 - Indirect fire - It's the complete opposite of the first method (as the name suggests).This is used at longer ranges, when there is no clear line of sight between the target and the gun or the target is behind some terrain features, the target coordinates are sent by specially trained fire control directors and the gunners calculate the target distance and elevation of the gun barrel by triangulation method.

I hope this helps.

Can't write without swears, kid? Here's a how to :
Punit voiced an opinion respectfully.
One answers I disagree with an explanation as to why.
Yes, it can be done without insulting almost 4 B women.

You are saying this because you do not know that man in question!!He never listens to any reason, never ever!!He's just way to opinionated and condescending to run a constructive debate with!!Trust me when I say this, I've tried it before a hundred times may be and it didn't work even for once!!No matter what logic you present, no matter how many evidence you give to him, proving him wrong, he would just continue with his rants and insults indefinitely.So I just figured out that I no more Mr nice guy, I would just talk to him in the same type of language and rants he uses all the time.
PS - what is this following sentence of yours is supposed to mean??

Yes, it can be done without insulting almost 4 B women.

BTW, you seem to hold the same view as he did :

So much for logic on top of decency, huh?

Just check out his other commenta as well.

As for not quoting you, the simplest way would be for you
not to disgrace yourself on a public forum but hey,

You probably didn't read the context against which I made that particular statement of mine, read it again, more carefully this time please.

at the rate your going, I may not have another chance anyhow!

We'll see 'bout that.Let's not start predicting the future here.

Just be happy it happened in the virtual world?

Is this supposed to be taken as some veiled threat or something??Next time, be a bit more direct.............. please.

All the best to you and yours JoeS, Tay.

Same to you.
Regards,
Omega.